Sleight of Hand Magic Trick: How to Make Reasonable Grounds Disappear
What are "Reasonable Grounds" to suspect child abuse or neglect according to the ministry?
#1 "It is not necessary for you to be certain a child is or may be in need of protection to make a report to a CAS."
Refers to the suspicion and what that suspicion is based on and - not - whether or not the child is actual being abused/neglected.
#2 "Reasonable grounds" refers to the information that an average person, using normal and honest judgment, would need in order to decide to report."
"Reasonable grounds" refers to the information that an average person, using normal and honest judgment, would need in order to decide if the suspicions were based on something factual, something real to have caused the suspicion to exist in the first place.
As you can see the ministry under Kathleen Wynne's liberals are clearly downplaying the importance of reasonable grounds in a free society and almost makes the legal requirement for reasonable grounds sound silly, opening the doors wide for the children's aid society and society's worst to harass, badger and molest underprivileged families to meet the society's funding goals. Funding goals exceeding 1.5 billion dollars yearly hasn't been in the best interest of any of Ontario's children. Follow the money and you find the root of all evil in Ontario.
In his decision Superior Court judge Lewis Richardson ruled Tammy Larabie’s call to the CAS was “unreasonable” and there “was nothing to suggest that (the baby) was in any danger.”
Tammy Larabie claimed she became concerned about the baby’s health because she "felt" (or in other words - it was Tammy's uneducated opinion) he (the baby) slept too much and wasn’t meeting developmental benchmarks but Judge Richardson found these concerns were not shared by the child’s pediatrician.
Tammy Larabie went on "Google" and formed her own unsubstantiated medical opinion and made the report without any consideration for the family and has since shown absolutely no remorse for her actions or the file (that unlike our permanent school records) will follow that family forever. The report will be used against the family if the society ever gets another report justified or not in the form of a risk assessment scheme that doesn't differentiate between false reports and a justified one. To err on the side of caution is to err on the side of more funding and the truth is corruption exists anywhere it's allowed to.
In a court transcript obtained by the Star, Richardson found the parents “to be competent, caring and capable” who “properly looked after the interests of their son.”
“There was no basis whatsoever to report them to the Children’s Aid,” he said. “(Larabie) acted selfishly and to protect her own interest, not for the benefit of the child.”
Asked about the case, Premier Kathleen Wynne said Wednesday that her office would look at the judgment.
It's not necessary to be certain child abuse or neglect has occurred but it is necessary to have reasonable grounds to base any suspicions on especially when those suspicions are wrong causing permanent injury.
“We want to make sure that the laws that are in place are the right balance to ensure that people report when they see that there’s abuse, and that they feel free to report, but that they understand what it is that they are looking at,” she told Global News.
Is "It's your duty to report any suspicion" really The right balance?
The society is protected from accountability for their actions and police themselves, the informants are protected from accountability for their actions, but what has Wynne done to ensure that children that don't need to be in care aren't being placed in care?
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 “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.
The government set us up like bowling pins for the liberal's children's aid society to knocks us over with government funded advertising campaigns.
The effect of provincial policies on struggling families was especially apparent in the late 1990s, when the Conservative government slashed welfare payments and social service funding while at the same time, it introduced in child protection the notion of maltreatment by “omission,” including not having enough food in the home and this after giving the society what amounted to an unlimited funding scheme. The number of children taken into care spiked as did the society's funding.
"It's not your responsibility to decide if your suspicions od child abuse or neglect are true, it's the society's responsibility." The ministry's words paralleling the words and techniques used in the Milgram Experiment. and the number of investigations conducted by the society skyrocketed in 2014.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.
It's our responsibility, not yours...
A better question is why are so many people willing cooperate with authority when it allows to them to persecute, punish and shame others into silence?
Could the The Stanford Prison Experiment have just as easily used child protection social workers and families in the privacy of their own homes?
Published on Sep 24, 2011.
The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted from August 14 to 20,1971 by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. It was funded by a grant from the U.S. Office of Naval Research and was of interest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps in order to determine the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners.
Twenty-four students were selected out of 75 to play the prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Roles were assigned randomly. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond what even Zimbardo himself expected, leading the "officers" to display authoritarian measures and ultimately to subject some of the prisoners to torture. In turn, many of the prisoners developed passive attitudes and accepted physical abuse, and, at the request of the guards, readily inflicted punishment on other prisoners who attempted to stop it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his capacity as "Prison Superintendent", lost sight of his role as psychologist and permitted the abuse to continue as though it were a real prison. Five of the prisoners were upset enough by the process to quit the experiment early, and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. The experimental process and the results remain controversial. The entire experiment was filmed, with excerpts made publicly available.