Press one of the expand buttons to see the full text of an article. Later press collapse to revert to the original form. The buttons below expand or collapse all articles.
June 15, 2006 permalink
Removal of babies from their mothers at birth sounds like a science-fiction horror story. In this real-life case Anne Marsden reports on an unnamed mother-to-be who anticipates that her baby will be seized at birth. We have encountered two other mothers, neither close to being dysfunctional, who gave birth to three babies at home to avoid baby seizure in the delivery room.
The Canadian Family Watchdog
#308 – 1425 Ghent Avenue, Burlington, Ontario, L7S 1X5
Tel. 905-639-5684 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
By Anne Marsden
Expecting a baby is supposed to be a time of anticipated joy and usually is for most mothers and fathers- to-be.. However, for a mom-to-be in Brantford the anticipated joy has been put on the back burner because she is afraid that the joy that comes after the inevitable pain of giving birth will, in her case, be very quickly replaced by the pain of grief as she watches her baby whisked away to give another the joy she cannot allow herself to anticipate. She is allowing herself to anticipate the privilege of spending just one hour with her baby, scheduled to be delivered at the Brantford General, but nothing more. I can well understand the questions from readers that will follow reading the first three sentences of this publication given the mandate of the Childrens Aid Society of Brant is to ensure the best interests of children and many believe there is no smoke without fire when it comes to involvement of child protection agencies. However, there is an issue that should concern us all associated with the concerns (to put it mildly) presently facing mom-to-be at a time when contemplating this type of scenario with its associated fear and anxiety is not in the best interests of her health or that of her baby.
We are hearing a lot about security certificates lately and how they allow for the subject of such a certificate not to be informed of the case against them. This Brantford mom-to-be, believes, and we would agree, that according to rule of law she is entitled to know the case that Childrens Aid Society of Brant has against her that would precipitate plans for her child’s apprehension she understands to be in place. There has been much effort on her part to determine the case against her and, plenty of time for papers to be served and a child protection hearing to be held before a judge, the only person according to our legislation who can make the decision that this newborn is a “child in need of protection” and order the legislated means to protect the child’s best interests to be put in place.
CAS of Brant Executive Director, Andrew Koster refuses to respond to any requests from mom-to-be for due process regarding any concerns CAS of Brant may have so she can do her best to ensure no such concerns are valid. The Criminal Code of Canada depicts those who take a child under 14 years of age from the supervision of a parent without lawful cause as abductors. Brantford police and its Police Services Board recently refused to deal with the consequences of what the evidence, including an affidavit of the CAS of Brantford, shows is police involvement in the taking of a three year old Brantford child (the circumstances are set out in our retrospective audit report Shining a Light) out of the court ordered custody of her mother without lawful cause. Deputy Chief of Police Jeff Kellner was very much involved in the retrospective audit and the lack of consequences and has been kept up to date on this new concern. It will be interesting to see whose “best interests” are considered as he and Brantford Police in general carry out their duties after mom gives birth. A June 14, 2006 Auditors Publication.