Does Ontario's CAS Show Signs of Confirmation Bias?

The CAS counsel's comment was made innocently enough and indeed was intended to be complimentary. But still I was shocked (but probably should not have been). Why was I so shocked?

Our written material seemed to have persuaded the judge. He instructed the lawyers to prepare a consent endorsement along the lines that we were seeking (which of course included an immediate return of the children to parental care). As we were returning to the courtroom after preparing the consent, the experienced and respected CAS counsel turned to me and my clients and remarked: "This is the third time your lawyer has beaten me."

I had a recent experience with CAS counsel at court when representing a family unjustly caught up in the system. Our office had prepared a very persuasive and comprehensive response to the Society's Application. We attended at the mandated five day hearing that follows apprehensions from parental care. The CAS certainly had not expected such forcefulness; normally parents are so overwhelmed at this early stage that they are unable to mount an effective defence. Generally, the court will rubber stamp the CAS requests. We did not agree to just stand idly by at the first appearance and CAS counsel was surprised by our aggressive (yet fair) approach.

It should not be a matter of "win" or "lose" when it comes to Ontario child welfare law. Ontario's Child and Family Services Act tells us that the paramount purpose is to "promote the best interests, protection and well being of children." One might note the glaring lack of any reference to family. In fact, there is a paucity of references to family throughout the entire CFSA even though many judges recognize the importance of maintaining family whenever possible.

Avoiding confirmation bias is an important part of rationalism. The scientific method, itself, was developed to remove biases. In science, it is achieved by setting up problems so that you must find ways of disproving your hypothesis (falsifiability: A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is falsifiable ) if it can be proven false by contradicting it with a basic statement or observation.)

Technically, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias, which seeks data that confirm the hypothesis under study.

The brain's job is to make sense of the world, and it does so — easily, rapidly and generally accurately — like finding connections between things like $80 million dollars on training and over $1..5 billion dollars in yearly government funding.

Subjective testing, confirmation bias and the innocent being judged on a prima facie basis along with the guilty?

Sounds like a child protection investigation..

How reliable are the society's investigations (fishing trips), standards, tests and assessments for parenting and are they any less subjective?

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.

Although not a formal logical fallacy, confirmation bias is simply the tendency for individuals to favor information or data that support their beliefs. It is also the tendency for people to only seek out information that supports their a priori, or pre-existing, conclusions, and subsequently ignores evidence that might refute that pre-existing conclusion.

Technically, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias, which seeks data that confirm the hypothesis under study.

Avoiding confirmation bias is an important part of rationalism. The scientific method, itself, was developed to remove biases. In science, it is achieved by setting up problems so that you must find ways of disproving your hypothesis (falsifiability: A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is falsifiable) if it can be proven false by contradicting it with a basic statement or observation.)

Example

Anti-vaxxer: There is an article by Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones that states that confirms that Andrew Wakefield was right about vaccines and autism.

Pro-science/pro-vaxxer: But there are hundreds of articles from research across the world published in respected journals that say autism is absolutely unrelated to vaccines.

Anti-vaxxer: Not relevant, only the article by Smith and Jones is useful.

What do you think, does the CAS display signs of "myside" bias?

Signs confirmation bias is becoming a problem.

"If the same problems were identified in criminal court, there would be a huge public outcry."

TAMMY LAW.

Procedural protections for parents have been eroded in favor of (ALLEGED) efficiency, at the expense of fairness. (That means you can tell just be looking at them they are bad parents)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/motherisk-child-protection-1.4559905

Tammy Law's excuses, justifications and rationalizations for using Motherisk to justify circumventing the Constitutions and Charter of Rights and denying Fundamental Justice (due process) to impoverished Canadians - FOR THE SAKE OF EXPEDIENCY.

Fallacy

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.

http://www.tammylaw.ca/2018/02/27/report-of-the-motherisk-commission/

As a reminder confirmation bias is the tendency to like or seek out information that confirms what you believe. The reason confirmation bias is so dangerous in trading is that it can cause you to lose twice. By the time price or loss has proven your belief as wrong, it may force your belief into the other direction. Posted on September 26, 2011.

http://traderhabits.com/signs-confirmation-bias-becoming-problem/

The Trap of Confirmation Bias.

Thomas Gilovich, a professor of psychology at Cornell University, is the author, with Lee Ross, of "The Wisest One in the Room: How You Can Benefit from Social Psychology's Most Powerful Insights."

UPDATED DECEMBER 22, 2015, 3:21 AM

To say “Jody is a Libra” is to state an implicit hypothesis that Jody has the traits of a Libra. The mind will then automatically examine that hypothesis by looking for evidence that it’s true — by finding links between the characteristics of Jody and the traits thought to characterize Libras. Again, because there is a lot that can be said about both Jody and Libras, overlapping characteristics are rarely hard to find.

Sometimes, of course, people actively want to believe astrological claims and therefore look extra hard to find these links. In those cases, the confirmation bias is especially pronounced.

But this bias rears its head even when a person has no motivational stake in whether astrology is valid or not. Suppose someone gives you some primroses for your garden and says, “I think they need a lot of watering, but you should test that out.” How would you do so? Chances are you would water them a lot and see how they do. What you probably wouldn’t do is give half of them a lot of water and the other half much less in order to examine evidence both consistent and inconsistent with the hypothesis.

Critical thinking is all about conducting these more balanced inquiries. Without them, we believe in all sorts of things that aren’t true.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/22/what-is-the-appeal-of-a...

THEORIES COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Confirmation Bias

We interpret facts to confirm our beliefs. By Kendra Cherry. Updated May 23, 2018.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-confirmation-bias-2795024

Where do your beliefs and opinions come from? If you are like most people, you probably like to think that your beliefs are the result of years of experience and objective analysis of the information you have available. The reality is that all of us are susceptible to a tricky problem known as a confirmation bias.

While we like to imagine that our beliefs are rational, logical, and objective, the fact is that our ideas are often based on paying attention to the information that upholds our ideas. At the same time, we tend to ignore the information that challenges our existing beliefs.

Understanding Confirmation Bias

A confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information which confirms previously existing beliefs or biases.

For example, imagine that a person holds a belief that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. Whenever this person encounters a person that is both left-handed and creative, they place greater importance on this "evidence" that supports what they already believe. This individual might even seek "proof" that further backs up this belief while discounting examples that do not support the idea.

Confirmation biases impact how people gather information, but they also influence how we interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support it, they will also interpret news stories in a way that upholds their existing ideas. They will also remember things in a way that reinforces these attitudes.

Confirmation Biases in Action

Consider the debate over gun control. Sally, for example, is in support of gun control. She seeks out news stories and opinion pieces that reaffirm the need for limitations on gun ownership. When she hears stories about shootings in the media, she interprets them in a way that supports her existing beliefs.

Henry, on the other hand, is adamantly opposed to gun control. He seeks out news sources that are aligned with his position. When he comes across news stories about shootings, he interprets them in a way that supports his current point of view.

These two people have very different opinions on the same subject and their interpretations are based on that. Even if they read the same story, their bias tends to shape the way they perceive it because it confirms their beliefs.

The Impact of Confirmation Biases

In the 1960s, cognitive psychologist Peter Cathcart Wason conducted a number of experiments known as Wason's rule discovery task. He demonstrated that people have a tendency to seek information that confirms their existing beliefs. Unfortunately, this type of bias can prevent us from looking at situations objectively. It can also influence the decisions we make and can lead to poor or faulty choices.

During an election season, for example, people tend to seek positive information that paints their favored candidates in a good light. They will also look for information that casts the opposing candidate in a negative light.

By not seeking out objective facts, interpreting information in a way that only supports their existing beliefs, and only remembering details that uphold these beliefs, they often miss important information. These details and facts might have otherwise influenced their decision on which candidate to support.

Observations by Psychologists

In his book, "Research in Psychology: Methods and Design," C. James Goodwin gives a great example of confirmation bias as it applies to extrasensory perception.

"Persons believing in extrasensory perception (ESP) will keep close track of instances when they were 'thinking about Mom, and then the phone rang and it was her!' Yet they ignore the far more numerous times when (a) they were thinking about Mom and she didn't call and (b) they weren't thinking about Mom and she did call. They also fail to recognize that if they talk to Mom about every two weeks, their frequency of "thinking about Mom" will increase near the end of the two-week-interval, thereby increasing the frequency of a 'hit.'"

As Catherine A. Sanderson points out in her book, "Social Psychology," confirmation bias also helps form and re-confirm stereotypes we have about people.

"We also ignore information that disputes our expectations. We are more likely to remember (and repeat) stereotype-consistent information and to forget or ignore stereotype-inconsistent information, which is one-way stereotypes are maintained even in the face of disconfirming evidence. If you learn that your new Canadian friend hates hockey, loves sailing and that your new Mexican friend hates spicy foods and loves rap music, you are less likely to remember this new stereotype-inconsistent information."

Confirmation bias is not only found in our personal beliefs, it can affect our professional endeavors as well. In the book, "Psychology," Peter O. Gray offers this example of how it may affect a doctor's diagnosis.

"Groopman (2007) points out that the confirmation bias can couple with the availability bias in producing misdiagnosis in a doctor's office. A doctor who had jumped to a particular hypothesis as to what disease a patient has may then ask questions and look for evidence that tends to confirm that diagnosis while overlooking evidence that would tend to disconfirm it. Groopman suggests that medical training should include a course in inductive reasoning that would make new doctors aware of such biases. Awareness, he things, would lead to fewer diagnostic errors. A good diagnostician will test his or her initial hypothesis by searching for evidence against that hypothesis."

A Word From Verywell

Unfortunately, we all have confirmation bias. Even if you believe you are very open-minded and only observe the facts before coming to conclusions, it's very likely that some bias will shape your opinion in the end. It is difficult to combat this natural tendency.

Yet, if we know about confirmation bias and accept the fact that it does exist, we can make attempts to recognize it. That may help us see things from another perspective, though it's never a guarantee.

Consider how many lives are ruined by “fishing trips” and “social branding” of innocent parents/grandparents are born out of acting and investigating on a “mere suspicion” or “rumor mill”.

The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdUu3u9Web4

Duty to report: Authority figure. The Ontario association of children's aid societies.

It is not necessary to be certain that a child is or may be in need of protection to make a report to a children’s aid society. “Reasonable grounds” refers to the information that an average person and not a complete scumbag, using normal and honest judgment, would need in order to decide to report. This standard has been recognized by courts in Ontario as establishing a lower threshold for reporting that's very convenient for complete scumbags to abuse.

It's not necessary to be certain child abuse or neglect has occurred but it is necessary to have reasonable grounds for suspicions on especially when those suspicions are wrong causing permanent harm and you can be sued should the society choose to open a file and investigate and investigate your unreasonable suspicions.

"Daycare operator sued for calling the CAS"

“It’s not my job to be 100 per cent sure that a child is abused or in neglect, or that it has taken place. That is the job of the Children’s Aid Society,” Larabie said.

TAMMY DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR SUSPICION AND UNREASONABLE SO WHEN THE LEGISLATION REFERS TO THE AVERAGE PERSON -> TAMMY IS THE AVERAGE PERSON. TOTALLY FUCKING CLUELESS!

HAD THE CAS SHOWED THIS TO A JUDGE TAMMY NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN SUED.. THAT SOUNDS FAIR DOESN'T?

https://globalnews.ca/news/1903846/daycare-operator-successfully-sued-af...

After reading the Motherisk Report it takes the village idiot to believe the society's good intentions and false advertising..

http://www.oacas.org/childrens-aid-child-protection/duty-to-report/

Many, many people have suffered marriage break-ups, a “no return” to a happy marriage reconciliation when a JUDGE DENIES PARENTS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND ALLOWS a non-credited government funded multi-million dollar private corporation AND THEIR UNREGISTERED WORKERS to roam at will through their lives and now after Motherisk can't be returned home because there is no home to return to in many cases.

Remember the Peel Memo Leak - back in 2013 after going over budget in what the society called a province wide funding shortfall of 67 million dollars the society (behind closed doors) decided the best way to deal with that problem was to violate their mandate, act in bad faith and defraud the an all to willing government out of the tax payers money by adding as many cases to ongoing services (COURT) as they could, up to 1000 if possible in what amounts to poaching children.

Poaching has traditionally been defined as the illegal hunting or capturing of wild animals. See: Poacher. 1 : one that trespasses or steals. 2 : one who kills or takes wild animals (such as game or fish) illegally. The Ontario children's aid society takes this concept to a horrifying new level.

“It’s hard to get people to report said Mary Birdsell, executive director of Justice for Children and Youth. ....

Between 2011 and 2013 the 46 separate societies opened a combined total of 42 000 files or about 14 000 investigations per year, in 2014 - after the memo leak scandal and launching a new government funded advertising campaign the societies reopened 20 000 previously closed files and investigated a combined total of over 82 000 families in one year as reported by the Toronto Star. Is it any wonder the workers are complaining about being overworked and all it took was one little government funded advertising campaign to send Ontario's social trolls and less intelligent do-gooders into a family bashing frenzy.

Good for the society's funding goals , bad for Ontario's underprivileged families.

When Deborah Goodman, a professor at the University of Toronto’s faculty of social work and a senior official with the Ontario Children’s Aid Society of Toronto said, "these families struggle to put food on the table, they struggle to keep a roof over their heads and the reason children’s aid is in their lives is because they’re under a lot of stress that affects their parenting."

Does she really think using police to enforce warrant-less fishing trips, then threatening to apprehend children if parents don't sign consents forms, submit to various forms of testing and then dragging them through a secret court system that's been stacked against them for decades is helping children and families?

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/08/15/report-shines-light-on-p...

A short video:

https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/504782689731500/

What happens when you call the CAS?

Calls are answered by trained unregistered child protection social workers.

These ‘front-line’ workers are part customer service rep, part counselor, part funding coordinator and their role is to listen carefully to help meet the agency's funding goals. There are several teams who work together to provide services 24/7 in your communities.

When you call, you will be asked questions to help us determine how much support a family may need. Sometimes we can provide assistance over the phone. Other times, we will recommend that one of our workers set up a time to visit with a family to see if there are any other ways we can help or an induction worker may visit a family right away based on the nature and severity of the concern without a warrant with police assistance to intimidate parents and bully their way in to conduct a surprise search of the home while threatening to remove any children if the parents fail to cooperate and sign consent forms, service agreements and submit to various forms testing. Asking for a second opinion is asking to be taken to the Ontario family courts.

Motherisk Commission calls for sweeping changes to child protection system.

I want to be clear about what I think some of the fundamental problems are and how I think we can start to change this system. Because first and foremost my thoughts naturally focus on the children and families destroyed in this mess. My thoughts are summarized as follows:

#1.

FIND SOMEONE ELSE (WHOSE FUNDING DOESN'T DEPEND ON FINDING REASONABLE GROUNDS) TO EVALUATE REPORTS AND REFER REPORTS THAT MEET REASONABLE GROUND TO WHOEVER TAKES OVER THE CHILD WELFARE ROLE.

#2.

THE RIGHT TO PRESENT DOCUMENTATION THAT CONTRADICTS THE WORKERS POSITION AND THEIR MANUFACTURED CONCERNS, SOUND BITES, CATCH PHRASES AND SWORN AFFIDAVITS. (LIKE IT'S DONE IN A REAL COURT OF LAW)

#3.

ALL WORKERS MUST BE REGISTERED WITH THE COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORK AND MUST BE TRAINED, LICENSED, AND ACCOUNTABLE TO THE INVESTIGATIVE CODE OF CONDUCT TO PERFORM LAWFUL INVESTIGATIONS IN ONTARIO.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/motherisk-child-protection-1.4559905

Motherisk hair test rejected by judge — 22 years before scandal blew up. A Motherisk expert testified for the defense in a Colorado murder case. The judge mocked the lab’s processes. But the case remained virtually unknown in Ontario until now.

By Rachel Mendleson

A Toronto Star/CBC investigation October 19, 2017.

http://projects.thestar.com/motherisk/part-2/

Motherisk hair testing ‘unfair and harmful’ to the poorest and most vulnerable Ontario families.Flawed testing at a once-trusted lab relied upon in child protection cases.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8154968-motherisk-hair-testing-unfair...

MANDEL: Victims of bad science at Motherisk want their kids back

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-victims-of-bad-science-at-...

Harmful Impacts:

The Reliance on Hair Testing in Child Protection

Report of the Motherisk Commission

http://motheriskcommission.ca/wp-content/uploads/Report-of-the-Motherisk...

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/motherisk/

Discredited Motherisk hair-testing program harmed vulnerable families: report

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/discredited-motherisk-hair...

Motherisk hair testing scandal timeline:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/blog/motherisk-hair-testing-scandal-timeline

Consider how many lives are ruined by “fishing trips” and “social branding” of innocent parents/grandparents are born out of acting and investigating on a “mere suspicion” or “rumor mill”. Many, many people have suffered marriage break-ups, a “no return” to a happy marriage reconciliation when a non-credited agency is allowed to roam at will through their lives and homes.

FOR YEARS THE CAS HAS CLAIMED JUDGES PROVIDED IMPORTANT OVERSIGHT OF THE CHILD PROTECTION PROCESS IN ONTARIO.

https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/712354072307693/

SO, WHAT KIND OF OVERSIGHT HAVE THE ONTARIO FAMILY COURT JUDGES REALLY BEEN PROVIDING FOR DECADES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS?

WELL AS IT TURNS OUT EVEN IF THE MOTHERISK TEST WASN'T FULL OF SHIT AND THE SAMPLES HAD BEEN PROPERLY COLLECTED, IN AN EFFORT TO DO GOOD (AND NOT BECAUSE CAS WORKERS INVESTIGATIONS AMOUNT TO NOTHING MORE THAN MALICIOUS FISHING TRIPS,) FRONT-LINE CAS STAFF AND LAWYERS WORKED COOPERATIVELY WITH LEGAL AID LAWYERS TO DENY THEIR CLIENTS DUE PROCESS -> AND THE JUDGES TURNED A BLIND EYE TO ALL OF IT.

The Motherisk saga is a symptom of a larger problem in child protection work. Denying Canadians due process behind closed doors.

Procedural protections for parents have been eroded in favor of (ALLEGED) efficiency, at the expense of fairness. (That means you can tell just be looking at them they are bad parents)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/motherisk-child-protection-1.4559905

Tammy Law's excuses, justifications and rationalizations for using Motherisk to justify circumventing the Constitutions and Charter of Rights and denying Fundamental Justice (due process) to impoverished Canadians in the family courts - FOR THE SAKE OF EXPEDIENCY.

Fallacy

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.

http://www.tammylaw.ca/2018/02/27/report-of-the-motherisk-commission/

Since it began operations in 2000, the OCSWSSW has worked steadily to address the issue of child protection workers. Unfortunately, many CASs have been circumventing professional regulation of their staff by requiring that staff have social work education yet discouraging those same staff from registering with the OCSWSSW.

NOT ALL SOCIAL WORKERS ARE CREATED EQUAL.

The new regulation was updated to only require Local Directors of Children’s Aid Societies to be registered with the College so it's up to all of us now to encourage the employees of the children's aid societies that enter family homes, schools and hospitals to be registered and their credentials checked before they are allowed to enter said places.

The majority of local directors, supervisors, child protection workers and adoption workers have social work or social service work education, yet fewer than 10% are registered with the OCSWSSW.

If you have any practice questions or concerns related to the new CYFSA, please contact the Professional Practice Department at 416-972-9882 or 1-877-828-9380 or email practice@ocswssw.org.

Submission-re-Proposed-Regulations-under-the-CYFSA-January-25-2018. OCSWSSW May 1, 2018

https://www.ocswssw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/OCSWSSW-Submission-re...

WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED ACCORDING TO CUPE??

The report, Towards regulation: Child protection and professional regulation in the province of Ontario, notes that the CAS workforce has expanded beyond social workers since 2000 to include child and youth workers and those with general degrees and diplomas. A 2013 OACAS survey found that only 70% of relevant job classifications would qualify for registration with the College of Social Workers. CUPE members working as child protection workers could suddenly without any kind of warning be deemed unqualified if they could not register with the College of Social Workers.

Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, SO 1998 ... - Ontario.ca

IMPACT ON STAFF:

It is unfair and unjust that staff who are currently deemed qualified by the society to do their work, some of whom have decades of on-the-ground experience ruining lives, would suddenly and arbitrarily be deemed unqualified.

The report also notes that the “clearest path forward” would be for the provincial government to legislate the necessity of professional regulation, which would be an appallingly heavy-handed move.

AND DRAGGING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES THROUGH THE FAMILY COURTS WASN'T HEAVY-HANDED?

Ontarians have a right to assume that, when they receive services that are provided by someone who is required to have a social work degree (or a social service work diploma) — whether those services are direct (such as those provided by a child protection worker or adoption worker) or indirect (such as those provided by a local director or supervisor) — that person is registered with, and accountable to, the OCSWSSW.

The ministry sidestepped a question emailed by the Toronto Star on whether it would impose the requirement to register their 5000 plus employees with the College of Social Work, stating instead that it is funding the authorization process and leaving the society to police themselves with secret internal processes.

TOP 3 WAY CAS USE POLICE TO DENY FAMILIES THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS TO BULLY FAMILIES INTO SUBMISSION.

#1) “Do you have something to hide?”

(social workers, social trolls and police officers all try this)

Children's aid workers often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrant-less search of your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed some form of abuse or neglect against your child, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the social worker puts the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.

#2) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”

(social workers and your very own legal aid lawyers will both try this one to get you sign consents and service agreement)

The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to keep a file open or apprehend your children, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.” In my family's experience the director of service for FCSLLG claimed the not so veiled threats were nothing more than attempt to be transparent that my wife and I failed to interpret correctly, well on video it certainly was transparent.

#3) “We’ll just get a court order.”

(social workers)

Children's aid social workers may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a court order if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the children's aid society by requiring them to go through the process of getting a court order will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything and is one very good reason to record and document for legal purposes everything they say and do.

WHY IS THE MOTHERISK REPORT SO IMPORTANT?

WELL BECAUSE IT ESSENTIALLY SAYS THE CAS, JUDGES, LAWYERS FOR THE PROSECUTION (CAS) ALONG WITH LEGAL AID LAWYERS USED THE MOTHERISK TEST TO JUSTIFY DENYING PARENTS THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WHICH IS BY NO MEANS FAIR AND IMPARTIAL OR EVER JUSTIFIABLE.. ASK YOURSELF IS IT EVER IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ANY CHILD TO UNDERMINE THE STRENGTH OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND CHARTER OF RIGHTS?

AND THE IMPACTS WEREN'T JUST HARMFUL, THEY WERE MORE OFTEN FATAL FOR THE SIMPLE FACT DENIED THE FAMILY HERITAGE MOST CHILDREN WON'T BE RETURNED TO THEIR RIGHTFUL FAMILIES.

THE AUTHORS OF THEIR OWN MISFORTUNES AND SO MANY OTHERS:

http://motheriskcommission.ca/wp-content/uploads/Report-of-the-Motherisk...