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.
March 8, 2013 permalink
One of the hazards of child protection is that anyone with a grudge can sic CAS on a personal enemy. Today's example comes from Thorold Ontario where Chris York had a dispute with his landlord. On February 28 he prevailed over his landlord at the landlord and tenant tribunal. The next day, March 1, children's aid received a complaint about the care of children in the York home and on March 6 they came to his home to investigate. According to other reports, the landlord is blocked by law from raising Mr York's rent, but could get more for the property by renting to new tenants.
Chris York Landlord call CAS stating my children were at risk due to condition of my home. I asked if they were here to apprehend a child under section 40 to which they replied they were NOT here to do an apprehension. I immediately advised them to leave or be arrested for trespassing under the trespass to property act. She advised she would call police. I encouraged her to do so as she had to do her job but even with police present she would still not be permitted on the property. Police arrived (officer that we knew in Niagara quite well and we consider a friend) advised them that he would not force his way in because they stated they were not here to apprehend. I again asked on recording why they were here. She stated they were here to address a concern about us facing eviction. this was different from the first excuse as you will see now. I advised this is not a child protection concern as we were NOT in fact evicted yet AND it is still not a concern until we became homeless even if they DID in fact win which they did not. She admitted I was correct. They got the call on March first... conveniently one day after the tribunal hearing. We advised the landlord lost and he was pissed and this was malicious and provided them with a copy of the tribunal decision. Police officer asked if I would allow him to see the home instead to which I did allow it and recorded and asked him on camera if he had any concerns to which he replied he did not. After going outside the CAS worker discussed his findings and asked if they could do it on camera (yes I'm as shocked as you are she asked us to record the conversation) she asked police if he had any concerns to which he replied he did not see anything that would warrant a child in need of protection nor did he see any fire hazard. They offered services for us to find a bigger home to which I replied I was not volunteering for any of there services at any time nor do I ever want there help. I offered to provide a letter from my doctor stating they have no concerns for the care of my children which I would provide to them but was not signing any consents for them to speak to my doctor. At that time the presence of the worker concluded and she left advising she would call to follow up in a week as I would not permit her on the property. Kim Shook-Advocate was present the entire time. Ty Kim for your help today it was much appreciated. Videos and audio will be posted later this evening for your viewing pleasure to see how you should address the situation with CAS workers when they come to your door as an educational tool.
Source: Facebook, Stop CAS ...