CAS is more harmful to children than physical discipline by parents

Melanie_ · November 19, 2009

1.1) If a parent abuse a child not hard, it cause one person has some harm. It is not good, if there is wound, it will cure very soon.

1.2) If CAS abuse a family, 3 family members (father, mother, and the kid) will be harmed for years. If kid be take away, the problem will go to other families and bring more people involved. And tax payer will start to pay $87 a day. At least 5 people's normal life will be harmed or affected strongly plus extra cost wasted that can contribute to the cost level of production in Canada. (Ontario CAS cost more than 1.4 billion a year, not include related court cost, police cost, jail cost, lawyer cost, and others)

I'm not even going to address the issue of residential schools, as that is for another thread.

Maybe the solution is that if the family doesn't want CAS to "abuse" them, they shouldn't abuse their child in the first place.

bjre · November 19, 2009

How are you defining abuse?

If a child is filthy, starved, crawling with vermin, is that better than being in the care of CAS?

I think it is OK if it has not cause child often catch illness. That can be one of the education method or philosophy. It is a choice of the family.

If a child is beaten daily with whatever object their parent finds at hand, is that better than being in the care of CAS? If a child is starved, shot at with a BB gun, pushed down the stairs, dragged by their hair, is that better than being in the care of CAS? If a child is raped, or forced to perform oral sex on their parent, is that better than being in the care of CAS? If a child is drugged and used to make child pornography, is that better than being in the care of CAS?

Those are crimes, should be handled by police. It is better still put the kids home when another parent is available. If need to take away, it is better not handled by CAS, because CAS is corporation with no accountability and has caused many kids suicide and accidental death each year and with records of abuse and sex-abuse in their care.

Melanie_ · November 19, 2009

I think it is OK if it has not cause child often catch illness. That can be one of the education method or philosophy. It is a choice of the family.

Those are crimes, should be handled by police. It is better still put the kids home when another parent is available. If need to take away, it is better not handled by CAS, because CAS is corporation with no accountability and has caused many kids suicide and accidental death each year and with records of abuse and sex-abuse in their care.

You think it is ok for a child to be starved? Denying a child food is just a parenting philosophy? I don't know how you can live with yourself with an attitude like that.

So, if the police handle the crimes, what then? You don't want CAS to be involved in taking the children away, even if they need to be taken away... so what happens to them then? What is your solution?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Melanie_

bjre · November 19, 2009

You think it is ok for a child to be starved? Denying a child food is just a parenting philosophy? I don't know how you can live with yourself with an attitude like that.

One meal starve every week will not cause any harm to anyone.

So, if the police handle the crimes, what then? You don't want CAS to be involved in taking the children away, even if they need to be taken away... so what happens to them then? What is your solution?

It should be handled by an organization that the number of the children in their care will not affect their income. In that caee, they will have no motivation to attack innocent families.

Melanie_ · November 19, 2009

One meal starve every week will not cause any harm to anyone.

It should be handled by an organization that the number of the children in their care will not affect their income. In that caee, they will have no motivation to attack innocent families.

You really don't understand, do you? Or are you being deliberately obtuse? I'm not talking about one meal a week, I'm talking about children being denied food on an ongoing basis. I'm trying to show you that there is real abuse that happens to children, and you keep trying to minimize it, rather than admit that there are parents out there who are not fit to parent, and that there is a role for CAS in protecting children from them.

Ok, so you want an organization that has steady funding, and will be able to function regardless of the numbers of children in their care. Your real issue, then, is the funding, not the fact that children are being taken from families when they need protection. So if CAS had stable funding, would you still object to them?

bjre · November 19, 2009

Ok, so you want an organization that has steady funding, and will be able to function regardless of the numbers of children in their care. Your real issue, then, is the funding, not the fact that children are being taken from families when they need protection. So if CAS had stable funding, would you still object to them?

If 1. CAS has steady funding and the number of the children in their care will not affect their income.

and 2. Ontario Ombudsman is allowed to investigate CAS and the managers, supervisors, intake workers, the child protection workers and police involved.

and 3. There are people in CAS be charged who has made false allegations that cause innocent parents been jailed or imprisoned or innocent children been adopted or placed in foster care.

then I will not object them.

Edited November 19, 2009 by bjre

Melanie_ · November 19, 2009

I agree.

bjre · November 19, 2009

If 1. CAS has steady funding and the number of the children in their care will not affect their income.

and 2. Ontario Ombudsman is allowed to investigate CAS and the managers, supervisors, intake workers, the child protection workers and police involved.

and 3. There are people in CAS be charged who has made false allegations that cause innocent parents been jailed or imprisoned or innocent children been adopted or placed in foster care or children be abused in their care.

then I will not object them.

bjre · November 19, 2009

The task should be “how to minimize family violence with minimum cost”.

Zero tolerance should not be the answer. Zero crime rate should be the goal.

Zero tolerance means only the inability of politicians that they are not able to find a peaceful solution.

Tolerance should be a good manor for everyone, parents tolerate their kids, kids tolerate their parents, society tolerate families and tolerate people with unfavorable behaviors. This is a kind of respect that would make our environment more peaceful.

To do this, universities should study what is the deep social reason behind unfavorable behaviors and how to solve those problems and remove the problem behavior from those people with kindly and peaceful methods instead of simply and roughly using one crime to deal with another crime according to the happening of an unfavorable behavior just like what criminals do.

Human right should not mean punishing people that have problems, it should be making those people model citizens.

Edited November 19, 2009 by bjre

bjre · November 20, 2009

If a child is beaten daily with whatever object their parent finds at hand, is that better than being in the care of CAS? If a child is starved, shot at with a BB gun, pushed down the stairs, dragged by their hair, is that better than being in the care of CAS? If a child is raped, or forced to perform oral sex on their parent, is that better than being in the care of CAS? If a child is drugged and used to make child pornography, is that better than being in the care of CAS?

How many such cases happen in a year? If there are such cases, it will be on news. We have not heard too many of this kind of news each year. I think it is less than 10 cases a year in Canada.

But only in Ontario, there are 30k kids "in care" that cost more than 1.5 billion each year only for CAS. that is 1 kid in each 100 children in the province. Are all those 30k kids beaten daily with whatever object their parents find in hand? Why they just don't allow Ombudsman to investigate? What they fear of?

I guess it may take more than 10 billion each year waste by CAS in Canada. If we use this money to stimulus economy, lots of workers can have job again.

The main purpose of CAS is money, they use extreme examples for raising more money from tax payers, the make money from children's tears, they are evils.

Edited November 20, 2009 by bjre

November 20, 2009

How many such cases happen in a year? If there are such cases, it will be on news. We have not heard too many of this kind of news each year. I think it is less than 10 cases a year in Canada.

But only in Ontario, there are 30k kids "in care" that cost more than 1.5 billion each year only for CAS. that is 1 kid in each 100 children in the province. Are all those 30k kids beaten daily with whatever object their parents find in hand? Why they just don't allow Ombudsman to investigate? What they fear of?

I guess it may take more than 10 billion each year waste by CAS in Canada. If we use this money to stimulus economy, lots of workers can have job again.

The main purpose of CAS is money, they use extreme examples for raising more money from tax payers, the make money from children's tears, they are evils.

I feel like I should edit your post for proper grammar.

Melanie_ · November 20, 2009

How many such cases happen in a year? If there are such cases, it will be on news. We have not heard too many of this kind of news each year. I think it is less than 10 cases a year in Canada.

I posted that information way back in post # 53 on this thread, but in case you missed it, here it is again...

In Canada, outside of Quebec, in 2003, there were over 25,000 cases of substantiated physical abuse; there were almost 3000 cases of substantiated sexual abuse; there were over 30,000 cases of substantiated neglect; there were over 15,000 cases of substantiated emotional abuse; and there were almost 30,000 cases of substantiated exposure to family violence (which has been linked to PTSD in children). There’s a breakdown according to the age and sex of the children involved. How can you say you want to abandon these kids?

bjre · November 21, 2009

I posted that information way back in post # 53 on this thread, but in case you missed it, here it is again...

In Canada, outside of Quebec, in 2003, there were over 25,000 cases of substantiated physical abuse; there were almost 3000 cases of substantiated sexual abuse; there were over 30,000 cases of substantiated neglect; there were over 15,000 cases of substantiated emotional abuse; and there were almost 30,000 cases of substantiated exposure to family violence (which has been linked to PTSD in children). There’s a breakdown according to the age and sex of the children involved. How can you say you want to abandon these kids?

1. According to the original document you mentioned http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cm-vee/csca-ecve/pdf/childabuse_final_e.pdf (2003):

• A case is considered substantiated if the balance of evidence indicates that abuse or neglect has occurred.

It is not the case as you said "If a child is beaten daily with whatever object their parent finds at hand," in post #100 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=13562&view=findpost&p=483639

And what is the definition of sex-abuse? A father help his infant daughter to take a bath?

2. The data is collected from CAS cases, a corporation with no accountability and does not allow Ombudsman to investigate, how much creditability it has?

3. After this document released, I guess CAS had make full use of it to take kids cruelly for money that lead to Ontario Bill 88 (2006) ( ask for allowing the Ontario Ombudsman to investigate the Children's Aid Societies (C.A.S.))

Edited November 21, 2009 by bjre

Melanie_ · November 21, 2009

1. According to the original document you mentioned http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cm-vee/csca-ecve/pdf/childabuse_final_e.pdf (2003): It is not the case as you said "If a child is beaten daily with whatever object their parent finds at hand," in post #100 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=13562&view=findpost&p=483639

And what is the definition of sex-abuse? A father help his infant daughter to take a bath?

2. The data is collected from CAS cases, a corporation with no accountability and does not allow Ombudsman to investigate, how much creditability it has?

3. After this document released, I guess CAS had make full use of it to take kids cruelly for money that lead to Ontario Bill 88 (2006) ( ask for allowing the Ontario Ombudsman to investigate the Children's Aid Societies (C.A.S.))

How much of this did you read? The answers are there, including how many substantiated cases of children being hit with objects (5983), among other forms of abuse. Refer to chapter 3 for full numbers, and a breakdown of exactly what each case involved. The definition of sexual abuse is clear, and it doesn't involve a father helping his child in the bath; the numbers are there for penetration, attempted penetration, oral sex, and several other forms of sexual abuse. I've given you the information twice, its up to you to actually read it.

As for the credibility of the document, you can read Chapter 2 to find out the methods of collecting data, the instruments of data collection, the ethics procedures followed...

As I said before, if you don't want to have CAS get involved with your family, don't beat your kids. They aren't going to interfere if you give them an occasional swat on the bum, but when there are bruises or other injuries, CAS has an obligation to protect them from their parents.

bjre · December 25, 2009

Merry Christmas to the children that lost mom and/or daddy due to CAS.

Merry Christmas to the parents that lost their children due to CAS.

Merry Christmas to those who suffered a lot from CAS.

Merry Christmas to those whose life become a mess because of CAS.

Merry Christmas to those whose lost too much because of CAS in Canada, the United States, United Kingdom, and wherever there are similar kind of organizations.

Specially Merry Christmas to bluelove's husband, once he had a happy family, and his wife suicide 8 months ago because of CAS.

Wish you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Hope at least Canadians can get rid of CAS and have a little while peaceful life in the holiday season.

Edited December 25, 2009 by bjre

William Ashley · December 25, 2009

CAS is more harmful to children than physical discipline by parents

Physical punishment is a popular method widely used by parents for thousands of years everywhere in the world. Some of the people cite the disadvantage of it. So the study comes. Politicians find the topic can bring them vote, Crown find it can bring more easy cases to justice system. CAS (Children’s care) find it can bring them a industry level income. So the legislation comes after media wide reported a few cases to grant CAS to watch people and search for case. Now there are nearly 30,000 kids are in care by CAS in Ontario, one out of 100 kids. This brings CAS more than $1.2 billion a year, that is $100 from everybody every year through tax. Many kids are separated from their parents by CAS. Many families were run out of their money during the court process, many families were destroyed, may kids become without parents or with single parent.

A recent report shows 90 kids were die in the care of CAS in Ontario. The death rate is one out of every 300 kids die yearly in care of CAS include high rate of suicide, homicide, and accidental death.

http://www.thestar.com/article/591523

A report from BC shows kids in care of CAS has only 24% can graduate from high school, while 36% end up in correction system.

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/publications_f...blic-forum.html

From the statistics, we can see it is very clear CAS does not make child grow well.

Why children are taken into care by CAS, it is very often because parents want to physical discipline kids. Parents were educating kids. Let’s suppose the physical discipline is not good, what can be the solution, ask help from CAS? If kids get a small wound from discipline, they will get a lifetime great hurt from CAS.

Is the physical discipline real evil? There are studies on that:

“Nonabusive Physical Punishment and Child Behavior among African-American Children: A Systematic Review” http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender...mp;blobtype=pdf

“UC Berkeley study finds no lasting harm among adolescents from moderate spanking earlier in childhood” http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/release...8/24_spank.html

However these serious studies were strongly argued by others who can take money from the industry such as CAS or who can get benefit from that or who did not make serious study based on real statistics. Actually there are many such studies in 1970s. However, we cannot find most of them from internet because the internet is not popular at that time.

Inadequate use of physical punishment is not correct and may lead to harm, however, this method should not be ban because of a few real abuse cases. Just like when we heard there are traffic accident on the road, shall we ban all the express way, all the highway and all the road, or shall we ban all the cars, airplanes? We know electricity can be dangerous to people, shall we ban it? So the correct manor is study how to use physical discipline and in which case it is harmful and educate parents instead of bully on them and use punishment to parents first.

Parents do physical discipline is with their best hope to children, with love, and with responsibility, while CAS does their business with a standard procedure like robot with no love, no consideration of children’s well being, and children’s future.

The truth is CAS is the real evil to children, not the physical discipline.

I think that ultimately if the children are there, they are there for a reason, but hopefully some of these situations could be bridged, as well as orphanages, and adoption of "Canadian Children, by Canadians".

The 1 in 100 number is startling. Clearly this shows a sign that the expectations of parents need to be taken into account. About 1 in 10 Canadians have a criminal record, yet 1 in 50 have had their children taken, while less than 1% of Canadians are currently in jail (perhaps around 0.2%)

The real issue is that parents arn't given alternatives to parenting before CAS steps in. We need to insure a total solution, such as supervised care, or joint custody care. So that parents stay active in their own childrens lives.

Sometimes parents arn't able but I think the sorry state the family unit has been driven to over the last 100 years is part of that issue. We need to shape society to be inclusive and cooperative, rather than competitive and divisive.

Clearly there are alternatives and the system is costing too much money to tax payers, when there are alternatives, that shouldn't cost the tax payers money. Such as community care, as a volunteer base, which has the community support its children rather than the burdon falling on the whole of the tax payers provincially.

Child and Spousal abuse though, is domestic assualt and should not be tolerated. There are alternatives to physical abuse to get results. While growing up being attacked by my parents physically only had me respect them less, and caused rebellion - which lead to deteriorationof my life in general, it was not effective in management, but rather only destroyed my life, rather than helped grow it.

Edited December 25, 2009 by William Ashley

ToadBrother · December 25, 2009

To do this, universities should study what is the deep social reason behind unfavorable behaviors...

Yeah, nobody thought about doing that before you came around...

bjre · January 6, 2010

Smacked children hit their straps in teens

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/smacked-children-hit-their-straps-in-teens/story-e6frf7jo-1225816065473

CHILDREN smacked by their parents may become more successful as teens than those who weren't, according to recent US research.

The Christian Calvin College in Michigan quizzed 2600 teens and found the 75 per cent who were smacked at ages 2-6 performed better on measures such as academic and volunteer work, college aspirations, hope and confidence than those who weren't.

The effect was somewhat negated if the spanking continued beyond 12.

Smacking isn't banned in Victoria but parents risk being reported to police for abuse.

bjre · January 6, 2010

Spare the rod and spoil the child? Well, it’s not that simple anymore

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/stephen-king/spare-the-rod-and-spoil-the-child-well-its-not-that-simple-anymore-109052.html#ixzz0bnJhr6oX

Twenty or 30 years ago few would have blinked an eye: walloping kids was "normal". Nowadays, though, smacking in the interests of discipline and good behaviour is a practice many parents would defend but fewer and fewer actually practice, least of all in a busy supermarket. In some European countries that mother could have been up on an assault charge. Even those Irish parents who do still smack admit to feeling guilty afterwards.

But a new study, published last week, has found that youngsters smacked up to the age of six actually do better at school and are more optimistic about their lives than those never hit by their parents. They are also more likely to undertake voluntary work and are keener to attend university, experts discovered.

This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Wednesday, January 06, 2010

bjre · January 6, 2010

Spare the rod and spoil the child? Well, it's not that simple anymore

Irish Examiner, 1 hour 33 minutes ago / HE WAS only little – about two, I would say – and a bit scruffy, his feet barely touching the floor as he was dragged along the Tesco aisle by his mother who was carrying a shopping basket and also pushing a buggy containing a younger brother or sister.

Is spanking children OK? Calvin College professor's research shows adults who remember being spanked are more well-adjusted

Kalamazoo Gazette - Kalamazoo MI, 8 hours 5 minutes ago / Spanking children has fallen out of favor for many parents.

Is spanking children OK? Calvin College professor's research shows adults who remember being spanked are more well-adjusted

Muskegon Chronicle - Muskegon MI, 13 hours 43 minutes ago / Spanking children has fallen out of favor for many parents.

Smacked children more successful later in life, study finds

Irish Newspaper, 15 hours 7 minutes ago / Children who are smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those spared physical discipline, research suggests.

Study: Spanking may not be all bad for children

ABC - WZZM 13 - Grand Rapids MI, 15 hours 38 minutes ago / Many experts advise against physical discipline, but Calvin College Psychology professor Marjorie Gunnoe says her research shows spanking may not be all bad.

“Smacking” Your Kids Leads To Better Discipline

Say Anything, 23 hours 43 minutes ago / It found that children who are smacked before the age of six perform better at school when they are teenagers.

Latest News : A smacked child ‘is a successful child’

Tehran Times - Iran, Jan 04, 2010 / Young children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

Science: Actually, you can beat sense into your kids

Hot Air, Jan 04, 2010 / It found that children who are smacked before the age of six perform better at school when they are teenagers.

Spare the Rod -- By: Jonah Goldberg

The Corner on National Review Online, Jan 04, 2010 / Young children spanked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

Smacked children 'more successful'

Ruby Room, Jan 04, 2010 / These days, smacking children is very much frowned upon.

Smacking guarantees child's success: Study

PressTV, Jan 04, 2010 / A new study finds that despite the general belief, smacking can be beneficial for young children, helping them to grow into happier and more successful adults.

Latest Smacking Research Shows Benefits

New Zealand News, Jan 04, 2010 / Family First NZ is welcoming the latest research showing that light and reasonable smacking is beneficial to children in their development, and despite claims by government funded groups, kids aren't damaged by its occasional use.

Study: Spanked Kids May Grow Up to Be Happier, Successful

FOX - KDSM 17 - Des Moines IA, Jan 04, 2010 / Young children spanked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

Join the online debate.

The Advertiser, Jan 04, 2010 / SMACKING is good for children new research has found, and the practice has overwhelming support from AdelaideNow readers.

Smacked children hit their straps

Herald Sun, Jan 04, 2010 / The Christian Calvin College in Michigan quizzed 2600 teens and found the 75 per cent who were smacked at ages 2-6 performed better on measures such as academic and volunteer work, college aspirations, hope and confidence than those who weren't.

DEBATE: Can smacking be good for your children

Express.co.uk, Jan 04, 2010 / Researchers have discovered that youngsters who were physically disciplined by their parents grew up with better prospects than others.

Young children who are smacked 'go on to be more successful'

Daily Mail - London - UK, Jan 04, 2010 / Young children who are smacked by their parents grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, research shows.

Family First: Latest Smacking Research Shows Benefits

New Zealand City, Jan 03, 2010 / Family First NZ is welcoming the latest research showing that light and reasonable smacking is beneficial to children in their development, and despite claims by government funded groups, kids aren't damaged by its occasional use.

Smacked children hit their straps

The Daily Telegraph - Australia, Jan 03, 2010 / YOUNG children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

Smacked children hit their straps

The Australian, Jan 03, 2010 / YOUNG children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

Smacked kids more successful

The West Australian, Jan 03, 2010 / Children who are smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those spared physical discipline, US research suggests.

Smacking 'is good for your child'

Daily Express - London - UK, Jan 03, 2010 / Researchers have discovered that youngsters who were physically disciplined by their parents grew up with better prospects than others.

Study Finds Children That Are Spanked Become More Successful Than Non-Spanked Peers

ThisIs50.com, Jan 03, 2010 / Here's a shocker: Young kids who are smacked by their parents grow up to be more successful than children who're never spanked at all, claims a new study.

Do smacked kids grow up happier?

Sydney News, Jan 03, 2010 / According to the research, children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

Smacking 'is good for your child'

Express.co.uk, Jan 03, 2010 / Researchers have discovered that youngsters who were physically disciplined by their parents grew up with better prospects than others.

Spank your children

Tinkerty Tonk, Jan 03, 2010 / Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than those who have not, research has found.

Do smacked kids grow up happier?

The Daily Telegraph - Australia, Jan 03, 2010 / According to the research, children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

A smacked child 'is a successful child'

Vietnam Tribune, Jan 03, 2010 / According to the research, children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

A smacked child 'is a successful child'

PerthNow - Australia, Jan 03, 2010 / According to the research, children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.