Family Services says racists can't raise kids

[Argus]

No one has brought this up yet but in Winnipeg, the Family Services people are in court this week trying to have the children of a racist couple taken away permanently.

While the parents sound like a couple of real white trash losers the idea that the state can take their kids away because of their beliefs comes with a lot of troubling questions.

I have little doubt the two kids would be better off in a nice, normal family environment than being raised by these two.

I have little doubt kids born to any members of the Christian Scientists, or the Scientologists, or any other wierdo cult would be better off with others too. For that matter, kids born to loser criminals and welfare lifers would be better off with others, as well. Mom's a stripper? Take the kid away! Dad is a drunk! Take the kid away! Where exactly do we stop with this sort of thing? No one is suggesting the kids were beaten or molested, just that the parents aren't especially good parents.

Oh, and they're racists. Okay. But if you can take kids away from racists because that environment isn't especially good for the kids, then what other environments can you take kids out of? Hmm, should someone look at taking away the Khadr's kids? What about the kids of criminals? Should we take them away? What if your parents are dedicated Communists? Does that count? If your parents support Hezbollah and have a picture of Osama bin Laden on their wall can we take their kids away?

CBC

[Smallc]

There were other problems besides the racism. It was not a safe environment for the children, period.

[Argus]

There were other problems besides the racism. It was not a safe environment for the children, period.

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.

[CANADIEN]

No one has brought this up yet but in Winnipeg, the Family Services people are in court this week trying to have the children of a racist couple taken away permanently.

While the parents sound like a couple of real white trash losers the idea that the state can take their kids away because of their beliefs comes with a lot of troubling questions.

I have little doubt the two kids would be better off in a nice, normal family environment than being raised by these two.

I have little doubt kids born to any members of the Christian Scientists, or the Scientologists, or any other wierdo cult would be better off with others too. For that matter, kids born to loser criminals and welfare lifers would be better off with others, as well. Mom's a stripper? Take the kid away! Dad is a drunk! Take the kid away! Where exactly do we stop with this sort of thing? No one is suggesting the kids were beaten or molested, just that the parents aren't especially good parents.

Oh, and they're racists. Okay. But if you can take kids away from racists because that environment isn't especially good for the kids, then what other environments can you take kids out of? Hmm, should someone look at taking away the Khadr's kids? What about the kids of criminals? Should we take them away? What if your parents are dedicated Communists? Does that count? If your parents support Hezbollah and have a picture of Osama bin Laden on their wall can we take their kids away?

CBC

Guess what, you manage something extremely rare. For once you are right.

Removing the children from their family because of their parent's ideology would be wrong.

That being said, social workers had reported comments by the kids that, if they really said those things, are pretty troubling. Such as expressing the opinion that Blacks should be killed.

If the parents teach that kind of things to their children, and if the cjildren go to commit hate crimes, the parents should be charged as well.

Edited May 30, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Smallc]

It was on CBC radio one morning. There were other problems in the house. No matter what, it is not thought that the parents were providing a safe environment for the children. The things that the child is alleged to have said are disturbing. The child has now been damaged and possible for the rest of her life. Parents do not have the right to destroy the lives of their child. The children have a right to be brought up in a safe environment.

[Argus]

It was on CBC radio one morning. There were other problems in the house. No matter what, it is not thought that the parents were providing a safe environment for the children. The things that the child is alleged to have said are disturbing. The child has now been damaged and possible for the rest of her life. Parents do not have the right to destroy the lives of their child. The children have a right to be brought up in a safe environment.

In other words you don't actually know what you're talking about. But the fact the parents are racists is good enough reason for you to want their kids removed by the state.

Thanks for being so clear about that.

[Smallc]

In other words you don't actually know what you're talking about.

I don't remember all of the details, but the CFS workers are saying that there are other issues other than the racism that lead to an overall belief that the environment isn't safe. And anyway, racism on the level that is alleged is damaging to the children. Of course you probably think that it's perfectly OK.

[capricorn]

My first question is. Does empirical data exist that shows that a child raised in racist households will automatically become racist? 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.

Another thing. What about kids that are racist and not the parents. I'm sure this exists. Should those kids also be taken away from parents? Somehow I think family services would conclude those parents unfit in that they allowed their kids to develop racist tendencies. Would they not also see this as harmful for the children and in need of rehabilitation?

I suppose it's a matter of degree. If all that is at play are racist words, heck how many children would have to be taken into foster care? And yes, I'm certain many racist words are uttered in the privacy of many, many homes. Until words are turned into deeds I think it best to leave the family unit intact.

But you know, overzealous family services establishments flourish if they are left to their own devices. There's this expression known as empire building....

[Smallc]

If the allegations of an unsafe environment are true, I suppose we will find out at the end of the trial. What has been brought forward so far is very disturbing, but it will be up to the judge to decide if things were done right. The amount of hatred that the child had towards others and that fact that she claimed to have learned them from her mother and step father is very disturbing.

[Visionseeker]

If this case was simply a matter of taking away kids because their parents are racist, it would most certainly raise some interesting ethical questions. But it is my understanding that the state's case here has more to do with issues surrounding neglect and profound mental abuse.

For instance, testimony has alleged that the daughter has been functionally abandoned on at least two prolonged occasions (i.e. months). The toddler son has spent entire days wearing the same soiled diaper and exhibits serious communication deficiencies for a child his age. In one year, the daughter missed more than a month worth of school because the parents were sleeping in to recover from drug and drink binges. Even the maternal grandmother had serious concerns about the children’s circumstances.

Grandmother of kids in Manitoba custody dispute says they were living in squalor

The media sensationalizing of the racism angle is a manifestation of their need to titillate in order to draw readers/viewers. But the real story here is one that is unfortunately altogether too common: a fragile woman's need for conjugal affection has outstripped her capacity or want to satisfy the needs of her children. That, my friends, represents the bulk of the caseloads for social service agencies across this country.

Sure, the "I hate certain people so much I believe they should be denied life let alone any constitutional rights" types are now pathetically crying "my rights! my rights!" in this case as a new cause celebre. But it’s not about them now is it? It's about two kids with extremely messed-up parents.

[Smallc]

That can't be true. Argus says I don't know what I'm talking about.

[kimmy]

In other words you don't actually know what you're talking about. But the fact the parents are racists is good enough reason for you to want their kids removed by the state.

Thanks for being so clear about that.

I heard the same discussion, or a similar one, on CBC.

Among the things mentioned was that the girl had missed over 30 days of school, that there was domestic violence in the house, and that there was substance abuse.

However, it is debatable whether any of that on its own would be cause for removing a child from her parents. And it seems unlikely that this action would have happened had the girl not drawn attention to herself by wearing a Swastika to school.

And like you, Argus, my first thought was also "well, it's always easy to pick on White Supremacists. But who else could have their kids taken away were this policy applied elsewhere?"

My thoughts also went to that family who raised their kids to believe Canadians are drug-addicts and homosexuals. And to parents who took their children to that mosque where the Imam taught that Jews are swine.

-k

[Visionseeker]

That can't be true. Argus says I don't know what I'm talking about.

I imagine he came to that opinion because you cited that no good CBC as your source.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Visionseeker

[bjre]

If social worker said any kid has risk, it would be true. Because the kid will have 44% possibility of go to jail after in CAS's care.

Kid's basic human right is in care of their parents, no one can replace love from their parents.

CAS has already victimized 1% Ontario children.

CAS has kidnapped too many first nation children and many of them were abused and die.

In Ontario, kids in CAS's care have a very high die rate include high rate of suicide, accidental death.

CAS has only one purpose, kidnap kids and ask money from tax payer, they ask for $87 dollars a day for each kid in their "care", actually they just send kid to anywhere unknown and no time to CARE if the kid will be abused or ignored.

This is Canada, even kids have no human right to receive the love from their parents.

[bjre]

Racists? They are first human being.

Even wolf, tiger have right to have their kid.

And the mother has already regret for that.

[Visionseeker]

If social worker said any kid has risk, it would be true. Because the kid will have 44% possibility of go to jail after in CAS's care.

Kid's basic human right is in care of their parents, no one can replace love from their parents.

CAS has already victimized 1% Ontario children.

CAS has kidnapped too many first nation children and many of them were abused and die.

In Ontario, kids in CAS's care have a very high die rate include high rate of suicide, accidental death.

CAS has only one purpose, kidnap kids and ask money from tax payer, they ask for $87 dollars a day for each kid in their "care", actually they just send kid to anywhere unknown and no time to CARE if the kid will be abused or ignored.

This is Canada, even kids have no human right to receive the love from their parents.

Hum, have you ever considered that the suicide and incarceration rates of CAS wards stems from the damage they suffered before CAS intervened? I have seen how the system failed to undo such harm and wept. But I have also seen as many cases where such failure seemed assured, yet they succeeded.

They aren't without fault, but CASs are to be applauded for their efforts.

[kimmy]

Kid's basic human right is in care of their parents, no one can replace love from their parents.

...

CAS has only one purpose, kidnap kids and ask money from tax payer, they ask for $87 dollars a day for each kid in their "care", actually they just send kid to anywhere unknown and no time to CARE if the kid will be abused or ignored.

There are some appalling people who simply are not capable of caring for children. There has to be some means of intervening in such cases. We might all have different ideas of at what point the state has to intervene, but I think all of us agree that the state does need to be able to intervene in some circumstances.

While the bad outcomes often make the news, I bet that more often than not, the outcome is for the best.

-k

[Oleg Bach]

My sister in law - who was a delluded French Roman Catholic once married to a Jewish con-artist - Saw me gardening one time dressed in an old pair of riding boots - and a long red sailing jacket - She was looking to turn a profit - and ran to the Jewish Family And Child Services (meanwhile no one is Jewish) - she reported to them that I was standing on a rock at the back of the house making Hitler speeches - The lunitics came and took his two infant sons - It took seven months to get them back....We had to sue them and take the matter all the way to the Surpreme Court - all because she lied -------------all though most of the process - we heard form a lawyer - that rumors were being spread that my brother and I were "white supremists" - anti-semites" - "belonged to some sort of para-military group - and we did not have a proper screen in front of the fire place -and the children were in need of protection - because they were about to tumble into the flames...

No lawyer would go near us because we were so slandered that we became untouchables...The point being - we were not anti-semites - or any of those other things - my brother was a common hard working red neck twit.and they simply did not like his culture -----Now - we had to rescue - the boys - who they were destroying - and we rescued the mother who they had duped - and betrayed - the family is in tact now and happy - no one dares go near them - Because all fear for their jobs and looseing 600 thousand dollars in a defence money _ we did not win - but we made them bleed - money----and in the end it was about money - not children ------This family service that took the Winnipeg kids - needs to dance in court...They are not protecting children - they are power mongering bureacrates that are punishing the parents BY USING THE CHILDREN AS WEAPONS.

[capricorn]

I have little doubt kids born to any members of the Christian Scientists, or the Scientologists, or any other wierdo cult would be better off with others too. For that matter, kids born to loser criminals and welfare lifers would be better off with others, as well. Mom's a stripper? Take the kid away! Dad is a drunk! Take the kid away! Where exactly do we stop with this sort of thing? No one is suggesting the kids were beaten or molested, just that the parents aren't especially good parents.

This article addresses some of the issues Argus raises.

"The question is: What's the threshold?" asks Prof. Arthur Schafer, director of the University of Manitoba's Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics. "The threshold is relatively high. We're reluctant to step in for emotional abuse."

Schafer feels there are a number of elements at work in this case.

"We start from the default position that parents know best," Schafer says. "These people are pathetic fail­ures. But you don't take away their children for being pathetic failures.

"I can certainly see how you could make your children a walking time bomb. This is a good test case because it's hard to conceive a more loathsome set of circumstances by a more loathsome set of parents."

But Schafer feels we wander into dangerous territory when we decide one set of taught beliefs is more of­fensive than another.

"Millions of Canadian children are brought up to hate homosexuals," he says. "Children go to school telling their classmates they'll burn in hell because they haven't been baptized.

You'd have to seize the children of every devout Christian, Muslim, Jew if you don't want children be­ing taught things that other people might find offensive.

"Crikey, there are families where you're not allowed to show emotion.

Do you take those kids, too? Where do we put all these kids?"

---

But let's face it: If the mother hadn't stupidly sent the kid to school with her arms and legs defaced, CFS likely wouldn't have come near this family. The kids were well-fed and clothed, showed no signs of physical or sexual abuse, were not left un­attended by their parents and had an extended family network.

Their apartment was a pigsty but that isn't unique.

I wouldn't want my child going to school with a skinhead in the mak­ing, nor do I do anything but despair for a child inculcated with hatred.

The alleged behaviour and leanings of the parents is nauseating.

But is it child abuse?

And if it is, what else do we roll down the slippery slope in order to save children from the beliefs of their parents?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Abu...h-46542257.html

It looks like there are two aspects the court must address to decide if family services should take charge of the children. First, whether exposing the children to their twisted beliefs would cause irreparable emotional harm. Second, whether the degree to which the parents were negligent in the physical care of the children amounts to child abuse.

IMHO, when it is proven that children are physically neglected to the point of endangering their health, then they should be made wards of the state. Exposing children to a set of twisted beliefs should not be cause to remove children from parents.

[Argus]

For instance, testimony has alleged that the daughter has been functionally abandoned on at least two prolonged occasions (i.e. months).

You mean left with someone else to care for? That happens tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of times a year to kids all across this country. As long as she was left with a responsible adult the state has no complaint.

The toddler son has spent entire days wearing the same soiled diaper

Ever been to a native reservation? To a public housing project?

and exhibits serious communication deficiencies for a child his age. In one year, the daughter missed more than a month worth of school because the parents were sleeping in to recover from drug and drink binges. Even the maternal grandmother had serious concerns about the children’s circumstances.

I used to miss a ton of school myself, and many children have communication deficiencies.

The media sensationalizing of the racism angle is a manifestation of their need to titillate in order to draw readers/viewers

.

Or perhaps they're focusing on the actual reason why the social workers want to take these kids away. Because while this is indisputably a trashy pair, there are probably a million more just as bad scattered across this country. Do we take all their kids away?

[bjre]

Hum, have you ever considered that the suicide and incarceration rates of CAS wards stems from the damage they suffered before CAS intervened? I have seen how the system failed to undo such harm and wept. But I have also seen as many cases where such failure seemed assured, yet they succeeded.

They aren't without fault, but CASs are to be applauded for their efforts.

So you think send 44% kids in their care to jail and only 24% in their care can graduate from high school is a success?

If CAS cannot change the situation, why need tax payer in Ontario spend more than $1.42 billion annually to pay for CAS. ( http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...ildrensaid.html )

Is “the kids were mistreated before CAS intervened” the reason the kids can be mistreated in CAS care? Is “there is murder in Canada” the reason that you can kill others? If CAS is not better than children’s own parents, why CAS can do such harm to kids without been punished? Is children’s parents racist the reason kids need to lost their parents? Is that the humanity politicians talk about?

The ugliest thing is the no-supporting-based assuming said without CAS intervention the kids will suffer the same problem. Can a murder said “If I don’t kill him, someone else will kill him” for excuse?

Edited May 30, 2009 by bjre

[bjre]

There are some appalling people who simply are not capable of caring for children. There has to be some means of intervening in such cases. We might all have different ideas of at what point the state has to intervene, but I think all of us agree that the state does need to be able to intervene in some circumstances.

If a patient has a ill doctor can have no way to cure, should the doctor give him some medicine randomly?

While the bad outcomes often make the news, I bet that more often than not, the outcome is for the best.

-k

The fact is there 44% are kids in CAS care facing charge and only 24% finish high school:

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...36-85962a55e571

That is the statistics. That is the fact, that is the truth. CAS use laws to hide more truths.

Canadian people are miserable, they have no way to protect their own rights, the Laws are often used by organizations like CAS and hospital to protect their interest, and people and kids were helplessly bullied by the system.

Edited May 30, 2009 by bjre

[bjre]

This article addresses some of the issues Argus raises.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Abu...h-46542257.html

It looks like there are two aspects the court must address to decide if family services should take charge of the children. First, whether exposing the children to their twisted beliefs would cause irreparable emotional harm. Second, whether the degree to which the parents were negligent in the physical care of the children amounts to child abuse.

IMHO, when it is proven that children are physically neglected to the point of endangering their health, then they should be made wards of the state. Exposing children to a set of twisted beliefs should not be cause to remove children from parents.

They did changed them, 44% of them changed into jails in BC. And 90 die each year in Ontario.

And there is NO PROOF so called the child "exposing the children to their twisted beliefs" or "the parents were negligent in the physical care of the children", will have the same risk to kids.

[kimmy]

If a patient has a ill doctor can have no way to cure, should the doctor give him some medicine randomly?

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.

Leaving a child in a deplorable situation is unconscionable.

The fact is there 44% are kids in CAS care facing charge and only 24% finish high school:

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...36-85962a55e571

Can you provide me comparable statistics for situations where kids are left in homes with unfit, abusive, negligent parents?

The kid mentioned who missed 30 days of school because her parents were too drunk to take her to school?

What do you think her chances of graduating from high school are if she stays with those parents? Probably lower than 24%.

The argument you're making is so misleading: you point to the poor success rate for children where Child Services has intervened, but you have no way of knowing how the same kids would have done if they were left in the dismal situations they were taken from.

By the time Child Services gets involved, the children are already in a deep hole. If a child is so visibly messed up that a teacher feels compelled to contact the government, it is very likely that the child is already on the road to ruin.

-k

[bjre]

Leaving a child in a deplorable situation is unconscionable.

Leaving whom? look at the following story:

How a father is turned into a criminal http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2009/01/26/...nto-a-criminal/

The Family Court has made me a criminal for telling our children the truth, for parenting the way I see fit and not the way the government sees fit, and thus the government now has the power to judge and rule over nearly every aspect of my life. On February 2, 2009, the Family Court is getting the opportunity to label me a criminal again for having the audacity to exercise my freedom of speech. This is the worst thing about Family Court, it can summarily turn you into a criminal while affording you none of the rights an accused criminal has in Criminal Court. In Family Court, many men are routinely sent immediately to jail for violation of Court Orders for which they have no means to comply. Should the Court Order me in contempt of court, and I’m unable to pay the money requested - which I’m not, jail is likely my next address - an address I’ve been prophetically predicting for some time now.

From the Book: Stephen Baskerville, “Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family”. ( http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-F...e/dp/1581825943 )

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

Can you provide me comparable statistics for situations where kids are left in homes with unfit, abusive, negligent parents?

CAS should provide that.

The kid mentioned who missed 30 days of school because her parents were too drunk to take her to school?

What do you think her chances of graduating from high school are if she stays with those parents? Probably lower than 24%.

Make one or two story on media and try to make new law and try to justify themselves is always the way CAS make money.

The argument you're making is so misleading: you point to the poor success rate for children where Child Services has intervened, but you have no way of knowing how the same kids would have done if they were left in the dismal situations they were taken from.

By the time Child Services gets involved, the children are already in a deep hole. If a child is so visibly messed up that a teacher feels compelled to contact the government, it is very likely that the child is already on the road to ruin.

-k

CAS never stop misleading.

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.

In whose hand? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...aid-070307.html

Ontario is not the only province that needs to fix the system, Finlay's report says.

A sampling of facilities across Canada found that 57 per cent of young offenders had a connection to the child welfare system, the report said. In British Columbia, a recent study put that number at 73 per cent.

Is this misleading?

Edited May 31, 2009 by bjre