Family Services says racists can't raise kids

[bjre]

Who says there's no way to cure it?

Putting a child in the hands of more capable parents gives the child a chance of succeeding.

Is this one of the way to put a child's hands in a more capable parents?

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-29-2006-106943.asp

Foster Care Horror: Toddler Killed, Incinerated by Foster Parents

...

Lifeway officials refuse to answer media inquiries about any of their placements or the Carrolls' role as foster parents. But former employees have told reporters that Lifeway gets paid for the number of children it places, and the money is all the organization cares about, placing children as quickly as possible with whoever will take them. One former caseworker said she was given 76 clients in her first month on her job. State officials also are now investigating Lifeway's handling of Marcus' placement with the Carrolls—but it’s too late for little Marcus.

[bjre]

Who says there's no way to cure it?

Putting a child in the hands of more capable parents gives the child a chance of succeeding.

How about this foster family:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2...ter.html?cat=25

Three Year Old Boy Killed by Foster Mother's Teenage Son

[bjre]

Who says there's no way to cure it?

Putting a child in the hands of more capable parents gives the child a chance of succeeding.

Alberta mother prays for baby son injured in foster care

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/200...ster-child.html

[bjre]

Who says there's no way to cure it?

Putting a child in the hands of more capable parents gives the child a chance of succeeding.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_25387.aspx

Katelynn Sampson, 7, Is City's Latest Murder Victim

Sunday August 3, 2008

CityNews.ca Staff

A shocking twist in the murder of young Katelynn Sampson: The woman accused of killing her has four other children.

The suspect is not the girl's birth mother, but was granted custody of the child in January.

[bjre]

Leaving a child in a deplorable situation is unconscionable.

http://www.faascotland.co.uk/Elusive%20inn...Dean%20Tong.htm

Elusive Innocence: Survival Guide for the Falsely Accused (Paperback)

With the rise in divorce and child custody battles, child abuse charges have become a weapon of choice, often times false, and it is these accusations that are tearing apart lives, affecting all involved. The Child Welfare system supposedly designed to help children is actually helping children to destroy their lives. This book affords those falsely accused and their defence attorneys, who often find themselves in a 3-ring circus...juvenile, family and/or criminal courts, a vehicle for countering and defeating abuse allegations. The book is a life jacket for the falsely accused parent and inexperienced attorney. Dean Tong is an internationally known forensic consultant on related child abuse, domestic violence and child custody cases.

[kimmy]

Wow, you managed to find a handful of cases where foster parents have harmed children in their care.

And you've found some people claiming that kids are sometimes taken away unfairly. Congratulations.

None of that disputes the fact that there are children who need to be rescued from incompetent or abusive parents.

-k

[bjre]

Wow, you managed to find a handful of cases where foster parents have harmed children in their care.

And you've found some people claiming that kids are sometimes taken away unfairly. Congratulations.

Thanks, I can post more if you like.

None of that disputes the fact that there are children who need to be rescued from incompetent or abusive parents.

-k

Did you see post #25, which says 57% of young offenders in Canada has connection to the child welfare system?

Is the fact there are children who need to be rescue means most other kids's life need to be destroyed?

Should rescue means let a evil take away kids and harm them further?

Edited May 31, 2009 by bjre

[Oleg Bach]

Thanks, I can post more if you like.

Did you see post #25, which says 57% of young offenders in Canada has connection to the child welfare system?

Is the fact there are children who need to be rescue means most other kids's life need to be destroyed?

Should rescue means let a evil take away kids and harm them further?

Under the family service act - the true and original agenda was to protect and preserve the family - the whole family - The mother - the children AND the father - These people consider a family - a woman and a child - the father is not welcome into their fold or granted any protection what so ever - because he is a husband - and they feel that the state should husband the female and that a mother is supposed to take on the role of bride to the state - meanwhile - the term father does not mean slavish and compliant provider of goods and services - the term Papa - or Pope - or Patron - or father actually means protector - If a father attempts to protect his own children that spawn from his own body - he is pushed aside by the child protection people - because they have socially engineered their way into HIS role..

The racist father and mother in question here - need to be curbed and balanced to a degree - If they want to teach there children that within some races there are people who are not out for their best interests - or that they are harmful to their common good - then - the parents have every right to instruct their children on how to survive - BUT - in the alternative - if there is a person from the white race - the black - brown or asian race that is a good and fine person - It is a dis-service to the children to teach them to detest those that are actually good and enhance healthy survival - These parents should be told that you have no right to teach children hard core foolish racism. BECAUSE it breaks and destroys any opportunity though human contact that might exist for their children within other races..The should teach their children to judge and discriminate between good and bad - strickly by what the individual is - not the race. Child protection people want to teach children that all people are good - and not to discriminate or judge - this is un-realistic and dangerous.

What I see in this couple in Winnipeg is FEAR -- they should teach their children to be brave - now - the kids will learn one thing about Child protection service personal that are white - that whites can be ass holes also.

[charter.rights]

Really.....there is no difference in my view than parents who raise their kids in Forest Hill in Toronto teaching their kids to be afraid of minorities who live in Jane and Finch. If we suggest that one couple openly teach their fears of minorities from a Nazi-skinhead point of view and the other teaches their kids to fear minorities from an economic point / superior of view, they are both equally abusive.

Maybe the CAS should start taking away the children from Forest Hill parents and see what kind of reaction they will get. Of course people in Forest can fight back because they have money, while the other couple cannot buy justice....or favouratism in the courts....

[M.Dancer]

There was nothing in any of the writeups I read which would have even drawn a visit from social services, let alone gotten the kids taken away - aside from the parents' racist views.

If you know of something else I suggest you post it.

The G&M article suggested alcohol and drugs were a facter

[Argus]

Really.....there is no difference in my view than parents who raise their kids in Forest Hill in Toronto teaching their kids to be afraid of minorities who live in Jane and Finch.

Everyone is afraid of the minorities who live in Jane and Finch area.

[Sir Bandelot]

"The children were seized last year by Manitoba Child and Family Services after the girl showed up at her elementary school with racist writings on her skin.

One Internet posting allegedly made by the mother under an assumed name said that Jews controlled the government in Canada and what people are allowed to say. The father is alleged to have written under an assumed name that the world would be better off without Jews and that defending the white race requires violence."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

This is such a difficult one to know how to deal with. While I'm sure many people find white supremacists repugnant, the question should be asked, are we going too far in using the law to control speech or ideas. Even if those ideas are ugly. My view is that its better to take the ideas on directly in debating them and showing them to be wrong, than it is to arrest people for saying things like this. It only justifies to them in their mind that they are right, that the system fears and hates them. Then they can turn to their children and say "See what happens, because we told the truth, the system silences us".

But what can you really do? The racists will teach their children what they personally believe. This is a battle for the minds of the next generation.

I wonder if the parents would have been arrested under the same circumstances in the United States. We often hear about there being big gangs of white supremacists in the southern states, but are shocked when we find out that its here too.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bjre]

It is not about freedom, it is about a lawyer threat a speaker on TV to show public their bully ability.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I wonder if the parents would have been arrested under the same circumstances in the United States. We often hear about there being big gangs of white supremacists in the southern states, but are shocked when we find out that its here too.

There are "white supremacists" in many US states, "big gangs" or not. The KKK flourished in Canada as well. Nobody should really be shocked.

Here is a long answer to your specific question:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1207-DC-Youth-Is...-racist-parents

Edited June 23, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

It is not about freedom, it is about a lawyer threat a speaker on TV to show public their bully ability.

Whoa yeah, that video sure says it all. Man those guys were great...

So after seeing that and reading some of the facts its obvious that this whole anti-hate crime and the moves made by family services has gotten out of hand. They have no right to take away the kids, unless some sort of laws are broken. Without any other evidence of harm to the kids, I support the return of these children.

Wait, theres a knock on my door...

---

Ok. Just a paint salesman.

[Sir Bandelot]

There are "white supremacists" in many US states, "big gangs" or not. The KKK flourished in Canada as well. Nobody should really be shocked.

Here is a long answer to your specific question:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1207-DC-Youth-Is...-racist-parents

I knew if I said "United States" it would get you to come out of your cave... thanks for the info.

From what I get out of that, the answer is "No", they wouldn't be arrested. But there are some people who think that they should. In this case including such observations as, they often use physical violence and sexual abuse to control their kids. But thats a whole different thing, and clearly illegal. This issue of teaching racist views is not so clear. Such a difficult issue.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

....From what I get out of that, the answer is "No", they wouldn't be arrested..... Such a difficult issue.

Correct....the answer is no. "Racist" thought and speech are not illegal in the United States...and are in fact protected. However, a school can refuse entry or suspend students sporting such speech on school grounds or at school related functions.

[Oleg Bach]

So who owns your kids--you or the agents of the state? I wonder if some jerk made a call that sounded like this " They are Nazis - punish the bastards - take what they love most...and get back to me when you are done" - no no no ---- I should be able to tell my kid about Santa Clause - and if I tell my kids about the a hole Hitler - I had better get my history straight and give the kid are real in depth education on history - not some half baked notion base in stupidity. They are teaching their kids to be pawns --- just like the Nazis did - better to let the new facist politically correct state - make your kids pawns - gotta keep up with the times..

[xul]

My father was a racist. Some of the things he said about other ethnicities would make your hair stand on edge. I have six siblings and I don't consider any one of us racist. For sure, none of us would perpetrate a hate crime against anyone.

I have more positive confidence on you dad than youself. I bet he never forced you to wear a Nazi swastika or any racist symbol to school unless wearing such things was some kind fashion in somewhere at the time. I gusee he even never asked you or encourage you to insult or abuse anybody who he disliked publicly in school. That makes him different from the mother in this case.

I remember years ago, there was an Arabian girl in Toronto who was killed by her father for her refusal of hooding her face. But if she survived, obviously she would be taken away from her family. Could such action be considered as "Family Services says Arabian can't raise kids"?

It does not matter of the parents's belief. It just matter that the parents have not right to enforce their beliefs to their children unless we want conservatives's kids will always be conservative, Liberals's kids will always be Liberal......

In any case, the mother has expressed regret on her activity. If there are evidence that she will recognize the principle that she can not enforce her beliefs on her children or force her children breaking school rules, the children should be returned to her because it is nature that children live with parents so it is supposed to be better than other ways generally.

Edited June 24, 2009 by xul

[Oleg Bach]

Take those smart ass parents aside and have them study history in super great detail so they can understand how things got put together and who was responsible for what and who was not...These supposed racists are just plain lazy and really don't want to do the work of being truely informed - their crime is the passing down to their children this now inherited easy way of thinking - it's just lazy..To say blacks this and jews that is cowardly...maybe the father and mother should take a look at the savagery and cruely that is the anglo tribe..they have a history of stupified violence that pales in comparrison to others.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Take those smart ass parents aside and have them study history in super great detail so they can understand how things got put together and who was responsible for what and who was not...These supposed racists are just plain lazy and really don't want to do the work of being truely informed - their crime is the passing down to their children this now inherited easy way of thinking - it's just lazy..To say blacks this and jews that is cowardly...maybe the father and mother should take a look at the savagery and cruely that is the anglo tribe..they have a history of stupified violence that pales in comparrison to others.

I have stayed out of this thread until now. I have mixed feelings on the issue, but I can now say that I have taken a stand against the actions of the government. I don't think the government should be allowed to remove the children of parents for any reason short of imminent danger. Should the children be in harms way due to the illegal actions of parents, then I will suggest the government should act in the safest interests of children. Safety is the only cause in my mind that would justify such an action as having the state remove the children.

[JB Globe]

For me, the line between parents having the freedom to instill their (sometimes bigoted) beliefs in their children, and child abuse got crossed when this child developed the idea that all non-white people are evil and should be killed.

That's basically programming a kid to either commit or support murder. And I think we can all agree that parents teaching their kids that it's okay to kill people who aren't white is promoting violence against a group of people, which isn't covered under free speech laws.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

For me, the line between parents having the freedom to instill their (sometimes bigoted) beliefs in their children, and child abuse got crossed when this child developed the idea that all non-white people are evil and should be killed.

That's basically programming a kid to either commit or support murder. And I think we can all agree that parents teaching their kids that it's okay to kill people who aren't white is promoting violence against a group of people, which isn't covered under free speech laws.

True enough. On the other hand, citizens should be free to act of their own accord. The time for the state to step in would be in the case of an actual violation of the law. In my mind that did not occur. The promotion of hatred must be a public act in order for it to ring a bell.

[Argus]

For me, the line between parents having the freedom to instill their (sometimes bigoted) beliefs in their children, and child abuse got crossed when this child developed the idea that all non-white people are evil and should be killed.

That's basically programming a kid to either commit or support murder. And I think we can all agree that parents teaching their kids that it's okay to kill people who aren't white is promoting violence against a group of people, which isn't covered under free speech laws.

So you're suggesting the state seize about what, three, four hundred thousand Muslim kids? And do what with them?

[Bonam]

So you're suggesting the state seize about what, three, four hundred thousand Muslim kids? And do what with them?

You forget, only white people can be "racist". For people of other cultures, if they hate those of others races/religions, it is just "part of their culture", which we must happily embrace.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Bonam