LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum

LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1)
...

 FAQFAQ   RechercherRechercher   MembresMembres   GroupesGroupes   S’enregistrerS’enregistrer 
 ProfilProfil   Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés   ConnexionConnexion 

ENCADREMENT SÉCURITAIRE - (PARTIE 2)
Aller à la page: <  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum -> PROJET FUTUR POUR LES ENFANTS -> ENCADREMENT SÉCURITAIRE (PARTIE 2)
Sujet précédent :: Sujet suivant  
Auteur Message
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Dim 5 Mar - 05:47 (2017)    Sujet du message: YOUR CHILD’S BEEN SENT TO JAIL. AND THEN COMES THE BILL. Répondre en citant

YOUR CHILD’S BEEN SENT TO JAIL. AND THEN COMES THE BILL.

By Eli Hager March 2

In dozens of one-on-one meetings every week, a lawyer retained by the city of Philadelphia summons parents whose children have just been jailed, pulls out his calculator and hands them more bad news: a bill for their kids’ incarceration.

Even if a child is later proved innocent, the parents still must pay a nightly rate for the detention. Bills run up to $1,000 a month, and many of the parents of Philadelphia’s roughly 730 detained children are so poor they can afford monthly installments of only $5.

The lawyer, Steven Kaplan — who according to his city contract is paid up to $316,000 a year in salary and bonuses, more than any city employee, including the mayor — is one agent of a deeply entrenched social policy that took root across the country in the 1970s and ’80s. The guiding principle was simple: States, counties and cities believed that parents were shedding responsibility for their delinquent children and expecting the government to pick up the tab.

If parents shared the financial cost of incarceration, this thinking went, they would be more involved in keeping their children out of trouble.

“I mean, do we think the taxpayers should be supporting these bad kids?” Kaplan said in an interview.

Today, mothers and fathers are billed for their children’s incarceration — in jails, detention centers, court-ordered treatment facilities, training schools or disciplinary camps — by 19 state juvenile-justice agencies, while in at least 28 other states, individual counties can legally do the same, a survey by the Marshall Project shows.

Groups of law students, juvenile defense lawyers and others have begun to challenge this payment system, arguing that it is akin to taxing parents for their child’s loss of liberty — and punishing them with debt. In Philadelphia, the City Council is meeting Friday to consider abolishing the practice. In California — which incarcerates more children than any other state, at a typical cost to parents of $30 a night — activists have succeeded in getting the practice banned in three counties. Two senators have introduced a bill to ban it statewide.

[After Post article, Philadelphia says it won’t bill parents for children’s detentions]
 
“Aside from all the emotional stuff — holding my son together, holding myself together — now they’re going to say, ‘By the way, you owe us cash for this?’ ” said Tamisha Walker, one of the mothers who fought, successfully, for a moratorium in California’s Contra Costa County.

Because these parents are so often from poor communities, even the most aggressive efforts to bill them seldom bring in meaningful revenue. Philadelphia netted $551,261 from parents of delinquent children in fiscal 2016, a small fraction of the $81,148,521 the city spent on all delinquent placements, according to city records.

A similar pattern emerges in financial data gathered from all 50 states — significant operating budgets for collections officers and mailing out invoices but low amounts of money actually collected from the families.

Many juvenile-corrections administrators say the payment system is a way of keeping parents engaged with their children, whose food, clothing and medical expenses they would be paying for anyway.

“It increases buy-in. It keeps the parents’ skin in the game,” said James Bueche, who heads Louisiana’s Office of Juvenile Justice, adding that in a state with severe budget problems, his department needs all the funding it can get.

Bueche and others also said the agencies are constrained by state laws, frequently outdated, that hold parents financially responsible for their children’s transgressions, ranging from truancy and curfew violations to shoplifting to murder.

“It was a very different time, when too many parents frequently wanted to essentially ‘dump’ their adolescent children on juvenile courts when they found them unruly, ungovernable, uncontrollable,” Linda O’Neal, executive director of the Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, said of the era decades ago when the laws were implemented.

“This was put into the statute so courts could say . . . ‘Okay, but you will have to pay the costs of detention,’ ” O’Neal said. “The experience was then parents would suddenly decide, maybe they could manage their children after all rather than pay.”

Until recently, that logic had gone mostly unexamined, in part because juvenile defenders advocate for children, not parents, whose separate problems often go overlooked when a child is accused of a crime.

But family advocates have increasingly taken the position that detention payments introduce new obstacles for young people already struggling to succeed — and run counter to the juvenile-justice system’s century-old mission to improve children’s outcomes by helping them learn from their mistakes.

“Here’s a family that needs support, and what we’re going to do instead is put a whole lot of economic pressure on them?” said Jessica Feierman, associate director of Juvenile Law Center, a national advocacy group based in Philadelphia. “Parents don’t choose for their kids to go to jail. They just don’t.”

States’ practices vary

How juvenile-justice agencies go about charging mothers and fathers for their children’s incarceration varies widely by state, but the basics are the same: a monthly bill, frequently in the low hundreds of dollars, that covers some but not all of the actual costs of the child’s imprisonment.



Florida’s brochure on its “Cost of Care” program depicts the intertwined hands of an adult and a child, with a caption reading: “A joint effort between the parents and the State improves the quality of life for our children. Together we can reduce juvenile crime.”

To calculate the amounts owed, at least a dozen states make use of an existing metric: standard child-support guidelines.

Other states operate a “parental reimbursement unit” that charges the parents a flat sum. The ones that detain youths in privately operated facilities tend to charge the highest rates.

When parents fail to pay on time, the state can send collection agencies after them, tack on interest, garnish 50 percent of their wages, seize their bank accounts, intercept their tax refunds, suspend their driver’s licenses or charge them with contempt of court. Virginia, for instance, uses several of those methods to try to collect from parents, state officials and parents told the Marshall Project.

An ability-to-pay process, by which parents can provide pay stubs and documentation of their expenses to get the charges lowered, is usually offered. But it often entails navigating a maze of paperwork and rarely takes place before a judge or neutral third party. In many cases, it is no more than a correspondence or meeting between the parent and a representative of the state agency, like Kaplan.

Not all states take action to be reimbursed. Maryland seeks child support from parents only in certain circumstances, such as to defray costs from placement in a for-profit medical facility. The District does not collect any fees.

Anders Jacobson, director of the Colorado Division of Youth Corrections, which does not bill parents, said that any well-functioning juvenile-justice system depends on youths returning home to a stable environment. Thrusting parents into debt, he said, undercuts their ability to keep the lights on and the refrigerator stocked. Such households already are dealing with additional costs from the juvenile’s crime, parents point out, including steep rates for phone calls, gas for long-distance visits, and thousands of dollars in restitution and public-defender fees.

As significantly, parents and advocates say, the goal of incarceration is not to address problems in the family the way a child-support order can do. They argue that detention facilities should exist for the larger societal purpose of public safety and getting young offenders back on the right track, for which all taxpayers ought to be responsible.

“I pay taxes every single year — isn’t that supposed to be what pays for the justice system?” said Alison Devine, the parent of a formerly delinquent child in Philadelphia.


Mariana Cuevas poses at her home in Antioch. The state of California had tried to collect nearly $10,000 for her child’s imprisonment. (Biz Herman for The Washington Post)

‘Little financial gain’

When Mariana Cuevas’s son was released from a California jail, after being locked up in a juvenile hall for more than 300 days for a homicide he did not commit, the boy’s public defender, Jeffrey Landau, thought his work was done. The case had been dismissed; his client was free.

But at a celebratory dinner afterward, Cuevas, a Bay Area home cleaner, pulled out a plastic bag full of bills and showed Landau that the state had tried to collect nearly $10,000 for her child’s imprisonment. She had been able to pay back only about $50 a month.

“Sure, your son was stolen from you for a year,” said Landau, stunned, “but here’s what it cost.”

Animated by stories such as Cuevas’s, juvenile defenders at the East Bay Community Law Center in Berkeley teamed up with students at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law to begin gathering county-level data to determine whether the payment requirement, so long ignored, was cost-effective.

It hardly was, they found. In fiscal 2014-2015, Alameda County, which contains Oakland, spent $250,938 collecting $419,830 from parents. An internal county report called that “little financial gain.” By last March, in the wake of the group’s findings, county officials had placed a moratorium on the practice. They later banned it outright, forgiving the debt of almost 3,000 families.

“From a macro level we weren’t even aware this existed, but it hurt so many vulnerable people,” said Richard Valle, a member of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. “The parents deserve the credit — they came to the podium and spoke up.” Valle also said there has been zero loss of services for children in juvenile hall, despite the lost revenue.

Then, in October, the Berkeley-based campaign won another moratorium in neighboring Contra Costa County, and later Cuevas’s debt was frozen. Officials there are considering reparations for some of the parents who had already paid the detention fees.

In August, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit weighed in forcefully on the side of Maria Rivera, a parent who sold her house and went bankrupt to pay Orange County more than $9,500 for her son’s incarceration.

“Not only does such a policy unfairly conscript the poorest members of society to bear the costs of public institutions, operating ‘as a regressive tax,’ ” Reinhardt wrote, “but it takes advantage of people when they are at their most vulnerable, essentially imposing ‘a tax upon distress.’ ”

In Philadelphia last year, juvenile defenders learned about the city’s collection practices from the parents of clients. They alerted a group of law students at Temple University, who then brought the issue to the attention of aides in the office of Mayor Jim Kenney (D).

Heather Keafer, a spokeswoman for Philadelphia’s Department of Human Services, said that the students made a “compelling argument” and that the department has asked the state of Pennsylvania for a legal review as to whether abandoning the practice would be allowable under existing state and federal regulations. “This has just been the way it works for so long that it has kind of proceeded as a matter of course,” Keafer said.

Kathaleen Gillis, a spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Human Services, said the matter is still under review, in part because a decision must be made not just for Philadelphia but for all counties, and practices vary widely.

Since the state’s decision may take months, Philadelphia City Councilman Kenyatta Johnson called for Friday’s hearing. “This whole thing reminded me of Ferguson,” said Johnson, drawing a straight line between the parental-billing practices and the debate around allegedly predatory fines and fees in the larger criminal-justice system — a controversial issue in Ferguson, Mo., even before the killing of an unarmed African American teen by a white officer there in 2014 brought tensions between police and the community to a head.

‘What did I just pay for?’

Steve Kaplan, who is 62 and has lived in Philadelphia for his entire life, calls himself the “most experienced child-support attorney in America.” He began collecting from the mothers and fathers of incarcerated children in 1998, when a friend of his — then-Philadelphia mayor and future Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell (D) — instructed him to do so. Rendell did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the practice.

Kaplan is likely to be replaced by a collection agency when his contract expires March 31, Keafer said via email Thursday. The lawyer, who currently gets bonuses of up to $160,000 based on the amounts he can collect from the parents, would not comment late Thursday.

One of those parents was Jonelle Mills, a single mother and janitor whose teenage daughter has been in and out of juvenile facilities for over two years. Mills said Kaplan billed her nearly $3,000 for those stays and now the city is garnishing her paycheck. She also said her child returned home “institutionalized” and physically aggressive.

“What did I just pay for exactly?” she said. “It clearly didn’t buy any kind of rehabilitation.”

To Kaplan, that was still the wrong question. For 18 years, he said in the earlier interview, parents are obligated to pay for whatever housing their children are in — even if it’s a jail.

“Child support is child support is child support,” he said. “It really doesn’t matter if the kid lives with Mom, Dad, Aunt Betsy, or with me — Uncle Steve — in detention.”

This investigation was written for the Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization that covers the U.S. criminal-justice system.


A photo of Mariana Cuevas's sons, Brandon, left, and Carlos Garcia. (Biz Herman for The Washington Post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/your-childs-been-sent-to-jail-and-t…


Revenir en haut
Publicité






MessagePosté le: Dim 5 Mar - 05:47 (2017)    Sujet du message: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 6 Mar - 02:56 (2017)    Sujet du message: ASH WEDNESDAY Répondre en citant

  ASH WEDNESDAY

Hello and welcome,

This week it was announced that Marie Collins has resigned from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. This represents a great loss for our commission because Marie was a very eloquent advocate for child protection. However, I am very pleased that, despite her decision to step away from the commission, she is still very willing to work with us in the formation programs that the commission will be conducting for Church leadership, members of the
Curia and bishops conferences.



The commission has as its primary function to advise the Holy Father, but also to work for prevention of child abuse and to do this through educational programs and promoting best practices. In this last year, Marie has helped me on a number of these occasions and her contributions have always been invaluable. She speaks of her own experience as a survivor of clergy sexual abuse and is an extraordinary advocate for this cause.

In the last decade, the Church in Europe and North America has developed very strong protocols and practices for child protection, but in many parts of the world this topic is just being breached for the very first time. So, our commission, which includes members from Africa, South America and Asia, has been charged with a very important responsibility of promoting child protection in those countries. Marie has been an extraordinary help in that process and we pray that the Lord will continue to bless her and her family, and we do look forward to working with her on the educational projects of the commission.

– – –

http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 13 Mar - 00:12 (2017)    Sujet du message: HORRIFYING LEAKED VIDEO SHOWS YOUTH CORRECTIONS COPS TORTURING CHILDREN,WE R IN A NAZI POLICE STATE Répondre en citant

HORRIFYING LEAKED VIDEO SHOWS YOUTH CORRECTIONS COPS TORTURING CHILDREN,WE R IN A NAZI POLICE STATE



VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHefhQhAglE


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 13 Mar - 00:17 (2017)    Sujet du message: EXCLUSIVE & URGENT - A MESSAGE FROM CLAIRE - PART OF OUR SERIES ON CPS OVERREACH AND CORRUPTION Répondre en citant

EXCLUSIVE & URGENT - A MESSAGE FROM CLAIRE - PART OF OUR SERIES ON CPS OVERREACH AND CORRUPTION



VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q6Q31AeNyU

Ajoutée le 5 mars 2017

A MSG FROM CLAIRE'S MOTHER - Thank you so much for reaching out. You have my permission to post my
daughter, Claire Cooper's, video on any website that could possibly help
us. We need help as we are victims of DCFS abuse. The social worker came
by last Friday night and told me I tested positive for meth back in
December and that "the department" could be taking my children from me at
any time. First of all, there is no possible way in any shape or form that
I could have tested positive as I am not nor was I in December taking any
drugs of any kind. They are lying and that is that. We are a happy, loving
family and this information is terrorizing us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO5q1...





Épinglé par Victurus Libertas VL

Victurus Libertas VLil y a 6 jours

We just got off the phone with the Mom, 2 1/2 hours.. There's a lot to tell here. Interview scheduled for Wed 7pm centrral. Should have it uploaded Thursday morning. This has a potential to be a 3 or 4 part seg @ 30 minutes each.


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Jeu 30 Mar - 01:47 (2017)    Sujet du message: OHIO PARENTS DISAGREE WITH SCHOOL OVER ADHD DIAGNOSIS – LOSE 7 YEAR OLD SON TO CPS Répondre en citant

OHIO PARENTS DISAGREE WITH SCHOOL OVER ADHD DIAGNOSIS – LOSE 7 YEAR OLD SON TO CPS

Join the Discussion


Camden Maple – a creative boy whose family loves him and wants him back home. Source: Maple family.

by Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com Staff

His parents say that he is just a normal, imaginative little boy; his school says that he needs mental health help. After Christian Maple was called to pick up his 7 year old son Camden from school following an incident, Christian and his wife Katie had a long talk with their son to find out what exactly was going on. As parents, they know their son better than anyone, and they addressed the situation at home. They thought the matter was settled.

It should have been over.

But it wasn’t. It got much worse.

The next morning, staff at Bowman Primary School in Lebanon, Ohio, demanded to know the content of the Maples’ conversation with their son. Christian did not believe that was their business to know the details, and he and Katie chose to reject the primary school’s opinion that they needed to have Camden evaluated and treated by psychologists.

The school reported the Maples to Child Protective Services. Eight police officers later surrounded the family’s house and took 7 year old Camden away from his home and his family.

Instead of the state respecting the Maples’ fundamental right to parent their child and make medical decisions for him, CPS has seized custody of Camden and accused his parents of neglecting his mental health. The Maples are still reeling in shock, and are now fighting to get him back home.

Typical American Boy Next Door

Camden likes Star Wars and Pokemon. He likes to play football with his brothers, and to play with Legos. He enjoys video games like Mario and Sonic. He creates stories and draws his own comic strips. He has tested a full grade level above his grade level. Katie describes her stepson:
Citation:


Camden is very imaginative and creative. He’s a typical kid.



Camden with his dad, who loves his son’s imagination. Source: Maple family.

He grew up as the only child of his father until Christian met Katie, mother of 4. Much like the Brady Bunch, two families blended into one. Camden went overnight from being an only child to having 2 older and 2 younger siblings. Since the arrival of his baby sister, he is now one of 6 children – 3 boys and 3 girls. According to their parents, the children have all adjusted “very well,” but it has still been an adjustment.

They are a pretty typical family, complete with mini-van, living in a nice house in a nice neighborhood. They try to eat healthy, but not necessarily organic. They vaccinate their children, but prefer to space out the vaccines instead of giving many at once. Katie says:
Citation:


There’s really nothing out of the ordinary about us.




All American family. Camden is seated on the left. Source: Maple family.

The exception to that might be that they exercise their right to make medical decisions for their children and don’t always do what the school recommends. According to Christian and Katie:
Citation:


The school thinks he is ADHD, we as parents disagree. We believe that it stems mostly from boredom and not being challenged in the classroom. The school has tried on several occasions to get us to have him diagnosed, so that he can be medicated.

We as parents do not have the problems the school claims to have with him, at home. We know how to deal with a rambunctious 7 year old, but the school is content with making him believe that he is a bad child, we disagree.



He often finishes his school work before most of his classmates, so he doodles to fill the time. His parents report that he has gotten into trouble for that. They say that he gets bored at school, and that they have made suggestions to his teacher about how to handle him, but the school has ignored all of their suggestions.
Citation:


They just want him diagnosed and medicated.


Camden Sent to the Office at School

One day in late February, Camden got sent to the office for being disruptive in his class. He had to sit down with the school counselor. He told the counselor that he was “upset because he felt that he was bad and wanted to erase himself from the earth.”

Where many counselors would focus the questioning at that point on trying to learn why he thought he was bad and who told him that he was bad, the counselor at Bowman Primary School reportedly instead asked how he would accomplish erasing himself from the earth. Faced with that kind of question, the little boy who makes up stories for his own comic strips came up with the idea that he would stab himself in the eye with a knife. This response prompted a call to his parents.

Christian immediately drove to the school and picked up his son. He and Katie had “a long conversation” with him to find out what was going on.
Citation:


Camden said that he did not want to hurt himself and just said that because he was upset and wanted to see what the counselor would say. The school thought we should have taken him to the hospital emergency room for a mental health evaluation, but upon assessing the situation and speaking to him at home, it was clear to us that he posed no threat to himself and just said it to get a rise out of the counselor. He has never said anything about harming himself prior to this incident or after. This was one time, one day…most likely repeating something he heard somewhere.





Camden as a little guy with imagination, not mental illness. Source: Maple family.

Both parents told Health Impact News that, if they had thought that he was truly suicidal, they certainly would have taken action:
Citation:


If we really believed that he would have really hurt himself, then we would have taken him to be assessed. They’ve blown this way out of proportion.



There were no other signs of depression or of any intention to hurt himself, or anyone else. This was a one time thing. They want to know if this is really about the school wanting to get the funding for having him diagnosed as a special needs child.

School Calls CPS When Parents Don’t Do What They Demand

The school phoned them the next morning to ask if they had taken him to the hospital. When they explained that they had had a long conversation with him and “addressed the situation,” the school demanded to know how they addressed it and what the content of their conversation was. When the parents told them that the details of the conversation was a private family matter, the school officials bristled and called CPS, claiming “neglect.”

Social workers called the Maples to investigate. They wanted to come into the home and talk with the children. Christian explained the situation and told them that Camden is fine. He also told them that an investigation would impose on their right to privacy and their “fundamental right of child rearing and medical decision making on behalf of [their] child, all of which have already been written into case law.” He also cited the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and told them that they would need a warrant before they would be allowed to enter his home or talk to the other children.


Katie (2nd from left) with the children, Camden on the right. Source: Maple family.

Christian told Health Impact News that he never actually said that they were not providing services for Camden, as the school and social workers accuse, but he simply said it was none of their business.

Two weeks after all this, on March 3, Christian received a phone call that there was an “Emergency Shelter Care” hearing later that day. At court, the Maples learned for the first time that the school had called CPS on 4 other occasions during the past year. Katie says that all of the allegations were false and “obviously completely made up.”
Citation:


CPS never contacted us about these phone calls because they themselves admit that the calls were unsubstantiated.



Yet, social worker Katie Pyle reportedly presented those phone calls to Magistrate Jennifer Coatney as evidence that Camden was in need of CPS care. According to the court report:
Citation:


…this child is at risk by virtue of multiple reports to Warren County Children Services and Father preventing the agency from investigating the situation [by exercising his 4th Amendment right to demand a court order or warrant before allowing CPS into his home]. The minor child has made threats of suicide and Father has not provided the children with proper mental health treatment.




The school counselor and social worker have apparently made a diagnosis of a mental health disorder, although the law says that only a doctor can diagnose such. The family asserts that there is “zero proof of any such condition and zero proof of any parental wrongdoing, but yet the court ordered him removed.”


Magistrate Jennifer Coatney in Warren County Juvenile Court. Image source courtesy Dayton Daily News.

Magistrate Jennifer Coatney reportedly told Katie in court:
Citation:


You see what happens? This is what will happen to your other children if you do not cooperate.



Later that day, social workers showed up at the Maple home with 8 armed police officers and every intention of taking Camden into state custody. The Maples felt that they had no choice but to comply. CPS seized Camden and placed him with a relative.
Citation:


“How can this be?” Katie asks. “How can CPS get away with ripping children from loving homes without just cause? … CPS should not have this much unchecked power!”



The court has ordered that Christian and Katie complete a psychological evaluation and a drug and alcohol evaluation. They are also to be randomly drug tested. Neither has any history, or so much as an allegation, of any drug or alcohol abuse or mental health issue. They have completed the evaluations, which all came back clean. They said that their psychological evaluator was “thoroughly confused” as to why they were even there.

Camden has also been subjected to both a physical and a mental health evaluation. From what the family has gathered, there are no concerns with the results, and no services have been ordered for Camden based on the results. However, social worker Katie Pyle reportedly stated to the Maples that she would like to see Camden do counseling at the school “just to make sure that he doesn’t have thoughts of harming himself.”

Their son is still not home. His siblings miss him and want to know when he is coming home.

CPS has separated Camden from all his siblings, including his new baby sister. Source: Maple family.

“Why Doesn’t CPS Focus on Real Abuse?”
The Maples say that they haven’t done anything wrong. They could understand all this if they had abused their son, but they haven’t. Christian told Health Impact News:
Citation:


If someone is abusing their child, that is a crime. We have police in place for people who commit crimes. That is what the police department is for – to arrest people committing crimes. CPS is a duplicate police agency. If no crime is being committed, why do we need a government agency to come in to investigate families and remove children?



Katie Maple made a statement that almost every family that has ever contacted Medical Kidnap has said to us:
Citation:


They [CPS] harass people who take care of their kids when they could be using their time more wisely and going after the people who actually DO abuse their children.



Christian Maple is a big believer in the Constitution and individual rights, but says that when he asserted them, “they took them away.”

How You Can Help

Former Presidential candidate John Kasich is the governor of Ohio. He may be reached at (614) 466-3555 or contacted here.

Senator Steve Wilson serves the Maples’ district. He may be reached at (614) 466-9737, or contacted here.

Representative Paul Zeltwanger is the House Representative for their district. He may be reached at (614) 644-6027, or contacted here.

The family has a pre-trial hearing scheduled for Thursday, March 23, and an adjudication hearing on April 20. They have hired an attorney who has filed motions to have Camden returned home.
Citation:


There is nothing to stop this from happening to anyone.



See story of another Ohio family torn apart by CPS. This family has still not been reunited:
Ohio CPS Destroys Family of 5 Children – Parents Acquitted of Any Wrong Doing
 
  Support the cause against Medical Kidnapping by purchasing our book!

If you know people who are skeptical and cannot believe that medical kidnapping happens in the U.S. today, this is the book for them! Backed with solid references and real life examples, they will not be able to deny the plain evidence before them, and will become better educated on this topic that is destroying the American family.



1 Book - 228 pages

Retail: $24.99
FREE Shipping Available!

Now: $9.99
Order here!

http://medicalkidnap.com/2017/03/21/ohio-parents-disagree-with-school-over-adhd-diagnosis-lose-7-year-old-son-to-cps/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mer 5 Avr - 02:03 (2017)    Sujet du message: MEETING WITH OUR RECENTRLY ORDAINED PRIESTS Répondre en citant



MEETING WITH OUR RECENTRLY ORDAINED PRIESTS
 
March 31, 2017

Hello and welcome,
 
As you may remember, last week I was in Rome for a conference on child protection in Catholic education at the Gregorian University, which was held on Thursday.


  
 

Following the conference, I remained in Rome for our plenary assembly of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, which ran from Friday until Sunday.
 
Among the many issues we discussed was, of course, the resignation of commission member Marie Collins, as this was our first plenary gathering since she decided to step down.

We are so grateful that Marie is willing to continue to assist us in our ongoing education efforts and the commission discussed a number of ways to ensure that the experiences of clergy abuse victims continue to inform and shape our work. Rolling Eyes
 
We also discussed the ongoing issue of the Holy See providing prompt and appropriate responses to correspondence from clergy abuse victims. Rolling Eyes While we understand that there may be some challenges to accomplishing this, nevertheless we remain committed to solving this problem. The commission is considering several ideas that we will submit to the Holy Father for his approval.
 
– – –
 
Thursday evening, we were invited to have dinner with the Irish Ambassador to the Holy See, Emma Madigan, and her husband Laurence. (Ironically enough, the ambassador’s residence is a palazzo built by Cardinal Wolsey, the Prime Minister of Henry VIII.)


Msgr. Oliver and myself with Ambassador Madigan and her husband, Laurence
 

  
I was very gratified that the ambassador had come to our conference on Catholic education. Of course, in Ireland, many of the schools are Catholic schools, so it was a topic of great concern to her and her country.

– – –
 
The meetings of the commission were held at the Paolo VI Residence in Rome, and right next-door is the Church of St. Luigi di Francia (perhaps better known by most as St. Louis de France), which I had a chance to visit during our midday break on Saturday.
 
The church is just stunning.

 

It is noted particularly for the three paintings by Caravaggio that hang there, all of which deal with the life of St. Matthew, including the “The Calling of St. Matthew,” which so inspired Pope Francis.


In it we see Christ pointing at St. Matthew as he sits at the tax collector’s table clutching his money, calling Matthew to get up and follow him. Matthew, as a tax collector for the Romans, would have been considered the very worst kind of person, a traitor to his own people. As we know, St. Matthew listened to the call, left the table and became an Apostle. = Is Rome not in control of the finance of the world?

 

The Holy Father has said he would often contemplate this image of one who is a sinner but who is looked at with mercy by Christ, and it led him to pick as his episcopal motto, and then papal motto, “Miserando atque Eligendo,” (Having mercy and choosing him).

– – –
 
Whenever I’m in Rome, I always like to gather for dinner with our Boston seminarians who are studying there. So, we got together with them Sunday night at a local restaurant, where we were also joined by Msgr. Paul McInerney. It was very good to see them all.



– – –
 
Wednesday, I was back in Boston and we had one of our regular gatherings with the Major Superiors of Men Religious in the archdiocese. It’s always a wonderful opportunity to be able to be together with them, hear about some of the recent activities of the different orders, and share ideas and common concerns.
 

During these meetings, we often invite someone to speak to us on a current topic. This time, we invited Father Bryan Hehir to address us on some of the major themes of Pope Francis’ pontificate.

 

We are so grateful to Sister Marian Batho for organizing these gatherings and for all that she does in her important work as our Delegate for Religious.

 


– – –
 
Then, Tuesday evening, George and Mary Ryan joined us for dinner at the Cathedral.

 

George, who is a World War II veteran, had for many years served in the leadership of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre as Northeast Lieutenant and then on the Grand Magisterium, the central administration of the Order, in Rome. Also with us was their daughter, ‘the other’ Mary Ryan, who serves on the archdiocesan finance council and her husband Joe Rizzo.

We had a lovely chat and George and Mary reminded me that they are celebrating their 72th wedding anniversary this year! We also discussed a book about the Pirate Queen O’Malley, which I discovered Mary didn’t enjoy as much as I did!
– – –
Thursday, I also gathered with our recently ordained priests at the Pastoral Center. We began with lunch followed by a time of discussion and we also heard an address by Father Hehir on the topic of immigration.

 

As we always do, we concluded our gathering with a Holy Hour in Bethany Chapel.

 


– – –
 
Finally, I want to conclude this week inviting all of you to join us for the Mass of Thanksgiving for Those Serving in Child Protection Ministries, which will be celebrated by Bishop Mark O’Connell Saturday, April 1 at 6 p.m. at Our Lady Help of Christians Church in Newton.
 
April is National Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Month and we are holding this Mass as a way to thank and celebrate all those in the archdiocese — in our schools, parishes, agencies and Central Ministries — who assist us in some way in implementing our child protection programs.
 
Over the last 15 years, the archdiocese has educated more than 190,000 people on child protection. Rolling Eyes We know that this has played a great part in making not only our churches and schools, but also our communities, safer places for children and we are so grateful to all those who played a part in it.
 
Until next week

Cardinal Seán

http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/

-----

Article : ADDRESSING CHILD PROTECTION

...
As I left off my post last Friday, I had just concluded celebrating the St. Patrick’s Day Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. Continuing the St. Patrick’s Day celebrations, that evening I attended the Charitable Irish Society’s 280th Anniversary Dinner.

As I left off my post last Friday, I had just concluded celebrating the St. Patrick’s Day Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross.
Continuing the St. Patrick’s Day celebrations, that evening I attended the Charitable Irish Society’s 280th Anniversary Dinner.

http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/2017/03/24/addressing-child-protection/

-----

The Real Story of St. Patrick
http://www.persecutionblog.com/2014/03/the-real-story-of-st-patrick.html


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mer 5 Avr - 02:08 (2017)    Sujet du message: PEDOPHILIE DANS L'EGLISE : LE POIDS DU SILENCE - CASH INVESTIGATION (INTEGRALE) / #PEDOGATE - CATHOLIC DIOCESE IN MONTANA SEEKS BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION IN SEX ABUSE CLAIMS Répondre en citant

PEDOPHILIE DANS L'EGLISE : LE POIDS DU SILENCE - CASH INVESTIGATION (INTEGRALE)



VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-YvIB63nHU


#PEDOGATE - CATHOLIC DIOCESE IN MONTANA SEEKS BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION IN SEX ABUSE CLAIMS



VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPDladOGMLg

Ajoutée le 4 avr. 2017

A Roman Catholic diocese in Montana has filed for bankruptcy protection, months before facing its first trial of a civil lawsuit stemming from child sex abuse claims against its clergy, church officials and the plaintiffs' lawyers said on Friday.

The Diocese of Great Falls-Billings filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in Montana federal court as part of a negotiated settlement of dozens of "credible" sex abuse cases that date from 1950s through the 1990s, lawyers for 72 victims and the diocese said in separate statements.


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Jeu 13 Avr - 03:36 (2017)    Sujet du message: L'UNICEF ET LE HCR SE FELICITENT DE LA DIRECTIVE DE L'UE VISANT A PROTEGER LES ENFANTS MIGRANTS ET REFUGIES Répondre en citant

L'UNICEF ET LE HCR SE FELICITENT DE LA DIRECTIVE DE L'UE VISANT A PROTEGER LES ENFANTS MIGRANTS ET REFUGIES

Ces enfants arrivent, débarquent en terre étrangère et ensuite, on n'en entend plus parler. Ils sont pris en charge par les services sociaux et organisations humanitaires. Combien deviendront les esclaves de ces pervers sexuels et/ou qui finiront en nourriture pour ces satanistes et aliens?


Attendant de quitter en ferry Lesbos, une famille de réfugiés syriens est transférée dans un camp à Larissa, dans le cadre des efforts déployés par le HCR pour transférer les demandeurs d’asile vulnérables des îles vers la Grèce continentale, où les conditions de vie sont meilleures (archives). Photo HCR/Achilleas Zavallis

12 avril 2017 – Le Fonds des Nations Unies pour l'enfance (UNICEF) et le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés (HCR) se sont félicités mercredi de la nouvelle directive politique de la Commission européenne concernant la protection des enfants migrants et réfugiés.

« C'est la première directive politique de l'UE à aborder la situation et les droits de tous les enfants dans le cadre des migrations - les enfants réfugiés et migrants, les enfants seuls et avec leurs familles -, faisant un lien entre les migrations, l'asile et la protection de l'enfance », a déclaré la Directrice du Bureau de l'UNICEF à Bruxelles, Noala Skinner.

« Cette directive importante aidera les États de l'UE à mieux répondre aux besoins des réfugiés et des enfants migrants. Nous espérons vivement que cette directive contribuera, de manière très concrète, à la protection des nombreux enfants qui arrivent en Europe après avoir été forcés de fuir leurs maisons en raison de la violence, de la guerre et des conflits. Beaucoup ont énormément souffert pendant leur voyage et après », a dit la Directrice adjointe du Bureau du HCR pour l'Europe, Diane Goodman.

Les principales actions concrètes comprennent le recrutement de tuteurs pour les enfants, l'amélioration de la protection de l'enfance à tous les niveaux ainsi que dans les points chauds, une meilleure collecte des données afin de s'assurer que les enfants soient correctement suivis, ainsi qu'un meilleur suivi et une meilleure coopération entre les États.

Le HCR et l'UNICEF ont déclaré que l'appel lancé par la Commission européenne aux États Membres pour qu'ils fassent tout leur possible afin que des alternatives à la détention soient disponibles et accessibles aux enfants et aux familles est encourageant.

Les deux agences onusiennes ont souligné que la détention n'est jamais dans le meilleur intérêt des enfants et est extrêmement préjudiciable à leur santé et à leur bien-être.

L'UNICEF et le HCR estiment que la protection des enfants doit commencer par aborder les principaux moteurs de la migration des enfants, y compris la violence et les conflits prolongés, les déplacements forcés, la pauvreté et les privations.

Les deux agences onusiennes ont déclaré attendre avec intérêt que les États membres et l'UE mettent en oeuvre cette nouvelle directive politique.



News Tracker: autres dépêches sur la question
Méditerranée : l'UNICEF appelle les gouvernements et l'UE à protéger les enfants réfugiés et migrants

http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=39302


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 21 Avr - 05:11 (2017)    Sujet du message: KIDNAPPED HOMESCHOOL CHILDREN TO BE RELEASED FROM STATE CUSTODY Répondre en citant

KIDNAPPED HOMESCHOOL CHILDREN TO BE RELEASED FROM STATE CUSTODY


Brittany Hunter Monday, April 17, 2017
 
Outrage spread across the nation in February, after a mother in Buffalo, New York was stripped of her parental rights over her decision to homeschool her children. But now, after months of separation, a local court has finally restored Kiarre Harris’ custodial rights, and her children will soon be coming home.

Kidnapped by the State

After feeling that the local school district had failed her children, Harris, a single mother of two, made the decision to pull her kids out of the public school system and homeschool instead.

On Wednesday, a judge granted parental custody back to Harris.

Harris complied with all the local regulations governing how children are “legally” allowed to be withdrawn from public school in favor of homeschooling, but a failure on the school district’s end resulted in unwarranted government intervention.

Unfortunately, the district’s mistake resulted in Harris’ two children being forcibly removed from her care and placed in state custody, where the mother was only allowed supervised visits.

On Wednesday, after a hearing at the Erie County Family Court, a judge granted parental custody back to Harris. But in an odd turn of events, Harris was arrested again while attempting to leave the courthouse.

Adding Insult to Injury

The absurdity of the case and the severity of the state’s decision to yank the two children out of the comfort of their home helped Harris to draw an outpouring of support as her story quickly spread.

However, this flood of support is what ultimately led to Harris being charged with obstruction of government administration.

A group of Harris supporters had gathered outside the courthouse in support of the family during the hearing. Among these supporters was Demone Henderson, who was passing out t-shirts that read, “Hands off Harris Children.”

Harris' attorney is confident that this new charge will not impact the custody of her kids.

While it is unclear how it was discovered, police officers stationed at the courthouse were alerted to an outstanding warrant Henderson had with the Family Court and proceeded to arrest him. When he resisted, he was pepper-sprayed.

Unfortunately, this was just as Harris was coming out of the courthouse and upon seeing her friend in a scuffle with law enforcement ran over to and placed her hand on the back of one of the arresting officers—the offense that resulted in her newest criminal charge.

Harris’ attorney, Matt Alberts said of the matter:
Citation:

"I guess they were saying she put her hand out to stop another officer from jumping in and beating up her friend, that's the most of what she could have possibly done in that instance.”



Luckily, Alberts is confident that this new charge will not impact the judge’s decision to give Harris back her children.

However, while the imminent return of her children should be enough of a reason to give Harris cause for celebration, she will soon have to return to court to answer for the new charge, further demonstrating that no matter how hard you try, you can’t fight city hall.

  https://fee.org/articles/kidnapped-homeschool-children-to-be-released-from-…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mar 30 Mai - 10:08 (2017)    Sujet du message: AFRICANS RISE UP IN THEIR THOUSANDS AGAINST BILL GATES Répondre en citant

AFRICANS RISE UP IN THEIR THOUSANDS AGAINST BILL GATES

May 20, 2017 manurishi 

(Neon Nettle) Africans Rise Up In Their Thousands Against Bill Gates :

Africans are now rising up against billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates and insisting closure of schools funded by him. The billionaire has been ignoring the laws of the land and putting thousands of children’s lives at risk.

YNW reports: Uganda’s high court investigated the for-profit schools and immediately ordered them to close down.

The schools were described as “unsanitary and unqualified” in court documents, and have been ordered to close their doors in December because they failed national standards.

South Koreans are rising up in their millions and demanding the overthrow of a covert shadow government running their country.

Millions of South Koreans Rise Up Against Shadow Government

BThe Director of Education Standards for the Ministry, Huzaifa Mutazindwa, said that the nursery and primary schools were not licensed, the teachers weren’t qualified, and there was no record of its curriculum being approved.

“The Ministry does not know what is being taught in these schools which is a point of concern to the government,” Mutazindwa said, explaining that the Microsoft founder-turned-icon of Third World “humanitarianism” has been told to take his business elsewhere.

A private institution ‘profiting from the poor’

President of the Global Campaign for Education (GCE), Camilla Croso, said that the quality of the Bill Gates funded schools in Africa are “totally inadequate and unacceptable.”

“They are profit making enormously,” she said. “It’s very indecent because they are looking at poor people as a profitable market. It really is incompatible to have human rights and profit making because you are motivated and act in completely different ways.”

Salima Namusobya, the Executive Director for the Initiative for Society and Economic Rights (ISER), also agreed with the closure and claims that BIA’s intentions were insincere.

“BIA has come into the country and not discussed with the regulators and set up a massive project,” she said, adding that the activities of the schools violated human rights principles — and they are targeting the poorest members of society.

“I think there’s some level of arrogance that comes with this and I really think they’re for the profit and not to assist the children.”

What was going on in those schools?

This is not the first time Bill Gates has faced controversy in Africa. In July this year, doctors in Kenya accused UNICEF, the World Health Organization and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation of secretly trying to sterilise millions of women in Africa via a tetanus vaccine program.

According to LifeSiteNews, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association say that doctors have uncovered evidence of a mass sterilisation program sponsored by the Kenyan government and funded by Bill Gates.

Early this year Bill Gates openly admitted that vaccinations are designed so that governments can depopulate the world. The billionaire “humanitarian” said that in order to successfully depopulate an “overcrowded world” at least 350,000 must be killed each day, and he says this can be done via vaccine programs.

Source : (Neon Nettle)

http://www.antinews.in/africans-rise-thousands-bill-gates/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Sam 3 Juin - 07:00 (2017)    Sujet du message: CANADA : ONTARIO PASSES ‘TOTALITARIAN ’ BILL ALLOWING GOV'T TO TAKE KIDS FROM CHRISTIAN HOMES Répondre en citant



ONE WORLD ORDER UNDER SATANIC LEADERSHIP - CHILD RAPE


CANADA : ONTARIO PASSES  ‘TOTALITARIAN ’ BILL ALLOWING GOV'T TO TAKE KIDS FROM CHRISTIAN HOMES 


bill 89 , gender ideology , kathleen wynne , lgbtq+ , liberals , parental rights
SIGN THE PETITION: END transgender tyranny, Ontario MUST repeal radical LGBT law​

TORONTO, June 1, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne Liberals have passed what critics describe as “totalitarian” Bill 89 by a vote of 63 to 23 on the last day before Queen’s Park adjourns for the summer.

Pro-family advocates warn Bill 89 http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=4479 gives the state more power to seize children from families that oppose the LGBTQI and gender ideology agenda, and allows government agencies to effectively ban couples who disagree with that agenda from fostering or adopting children.

Bill 89, or the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, repeals and replaces the former Child and Family Services Act that governs child protection services, and adoption and foster care services.

It adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” as factors to be considered “in the best interests of the child.”

At the same time, it deletes the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child as a factor to be considered, and mandates child protection services consider only the child’s own “creed” or “religion” when assessing the best interests of the child.

“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history,” says Jack Fonseca, senior political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition.

“Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”

“Disappointed as I am with this result, I am not surprised,” commented Tanya Granic Allen, president of Parents As First Educators (PAFE). “The Kathleen Wynne Liberals have for years been pursuing their anti-parent and anti-family agenda and Bill 89 is the latest installment.”

Conservative MPPs present at Queen’s Park for the vote opposed the bill, which was in stark contrast to their position at second reading in March, when 83 of Ontario’s 107 MPPs passed Bill 89 unanimously.

The Conservatives who voted June 1 against Bill 89 included Monte McNaughton, Jeff Yurek, Bob Bailey, Gila Martow, Todd Smith, Michael Harris, and Steve Clark.

PC leader Patrick Brown was not in the house for the vote.

Trillium Party MPP Jack MacLaren also voted against the bill.

A source present at a Tory caucus meeting two weeks ago told LifeSiteNews the Conservative members were swayed by “three or four” MPPs who said they could not in conscience vote for what the source described as a bill that is “fundamentally and morally wrong.”

The PC caucus, now at 28 members, thereupon decided to vote as a block against Bill 89, according to the source.

Fonseca lauded those PC MPPs who “came to their senses, stopped listening to that propagandist for Kathleen Wynne’s policies, and I do mean Patrick Brown, and chose to finally vote against tyranny.”

“And thank God they did, because it serves as a symbol of resistance,” he said.

“CLC had been directly lobbying MPPs to oppose the bill, and we believe that may have been a factor in why the PCs ended up voting en masse against it.”

Parents As First Educators and the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) have also been at the forefront of relentless lobbying against the bill.

But despite these efforts, no Liberal broke ranks to vote on behalf of concerned parents, and a number of New Democratic Party MPPs voted for the bill as well.

Bill 89 retains the provision in current law that a child who is suffering or “at risk of suffering” mental or emotional harm and whose parents do not provide “treatment or access to treatment” is in need of protection under the law.

But while the former law said the Children’s Aid Society should take the “least disruptive course of action,” Bill 89 adds “including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and community support services," according to an ARPA analysis.

“The implication is that intervention should not be presumed to be more disruptive than non-intervention,” the ARPA report adds.

Statements by Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau clearly signaled the pro-LGBTQ, gender ideology Liberal agenda, critics warned.

Coteau, who introduced the bill, told QP Briefing he sees questioning teenagers’ self-identification as LGBTQI or telling them to change as abuse.

“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently,” he said.

“If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”

Children’s Aid agencies now have “a type of police power to bust down your door, and seize your biological children if you are known to oppose LGBT ideology and the fraudulent theory of ‘gender identity', if for instance, some claim is made that your child may be same-sex attracted or confused about their ‘gender,’” according to Fonseca.

“We already see similar tyranny happening in other jurisdictions, such as Norway, where the main child protection service there, Barnevernet, has been involved in numerous high profile seizures of children from traditionally-principled families,” he added.

Fonseca pointed out the Liberal bill gives legal cover for government workers to discriminate against Christians who want to adopt or foster children.

“Even before Bill 89 was passed, but immediately after its introduction in December,  I learned of several Christian couples who were turned down for adoption on account of their deeply held religious beliefs about traditional marriage and human sexuality,” he told LifeSiteNews.

This reveals the “stunning hypocrisy and anti-Christian bigotry” of the left, Fonseca said.

The Ontario court in 1995 ruled “for the first time in Canadian history that it was ‘discriminatory’ of the Child and Family Services Act to not allow homosexual couples to bring a joint application for adoption.”

But the “same activists who cried discrimination in 1995 [are] now actively legislating the same discrimination upon Bible-believing Christians, by banning them from having children through adoption,” Fonseca said.

“Will the left never feel ashamed of its hypocrisy?”

Fonseca also issued a plea to Christian leaders, particularly the Catholic bishops.

“Why has the most powerful spiritual body in this province, the Catholic hierarchy, not lifted a finger nor raised a voice to oppose this tyranny against Christian families, and those from other faiths?” Fonseca questioned
.

The lack of spiritual leadership is killing us. Every single time that Liberals, either federally or provincially, roll out the LGBT juggernaut to take away our rights, or to demonize us as bigots, we hear nothing but silence from the Church. This has to stop.”

MPPs who voted against Bill 89:

PC Party: Ted Arnott; Bob Bailey; Toby Barrett; Steve Clark; Lorne Coe; Vic Fedeli; Ernie Hardeman; Michael Harris; Lisa MacLeod; Gila Martow; Jim McDonell; Monte McNaughton; Julia Munro; Rick Nicholls; Sam Oosterhoff; Randy Pettapiece; Todd Smith; Lisa Thompson; Bill Walker; Jim Wilson; John Yakabuski; Jeff Yurek.
Trillium Party: Jack MacLaren
PC MPPs absent for vote:
Patrick Brown, Raymond Cho, Randy Hillier; Sylvia Jones; Norm Miller; Laurie Scott.

MPPs who voted for Bill 89:

Liberal Party: Laura Albanese; Granville Anderson; Yvan Baker; Chris Ballard; Lorenzo Berardinetti; James Bradley; Michael Chan; Bob Chiarelli; Mike Colle; Michael Coteau; Grant Crack; Steven Del Duca; Bob Delaney; Nathalie Des Rosiers; Vic Dhillon; Joe Dickson; Han Dong; Brad Duguid; Kevin Daniel Flynn; John Fraser; Jennifer French; Ann Hoggarth; Eric Hoskins; Mitzie Hunter; Helena Jaczek; Sophie Kiwala; Marie-France Lalonde; Jeff Leal; Tracy MacCharles; Harinder Malhi; Amrit Mangat; Cristina Martins; Deborah Matthews; Bill Mauro; Kathryn McGarry; Eleanor McMahon; Ted McMeekin; Peter Milczyn; Reza Moridi; Glen Murray; Indira Naidoo-Harris; Yasir Naqvi; Arthur Potts; Shafiq Qaadri; Lou Rinaldi; Liz Sandals; Charles Sousa; Harinder Takhar; Glenn Thibeault; Daiene Vernile; Soo Wong; Kathleen Wynne; David Zimmer.
ND Party: Gilles Bisson; Sarah Campbell; Catherine Fife; France Gélinas; Percy Hatfield; Paul Miller; Peggy Sattler; Peter Tabuns; Monique Taylor; John Vanthof.
 
RELATED

Conservatives to oppose bill allowing gov’t to take kids from parents who reject transgenderism: source
‘Totalitarian’: Ontario gov’t bill makes it easier to seize children from Christian homes, say critics
Liberal bill empowers gvmt to take kids from Ontario parents who don’t accept gender ideology: legal experts

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-ontario-passes-totalitarian-bill…


Dernière édition par maria le Sam 3 Juin - 07:25 (2017); édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Sam 3 Juin - 07:23 (2017)    Sujet du message: BILL 89, SUPPORTING CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES ACT, 2017 Répondre en citant



 

BILL 89, SUPPORTING CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES ACT, 2017


Coteau, Hon Michael Minister of Children and Youth Services

Current Status: Royal Assent received Chapter Number: S.O. 2017 C.14

Select previous versions of the bill

Viewing: Royal Assent (current version) pdf


Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017

This Explanatory Note was written as a reader’s aid to Bill 89 and does not form part of the law.
Bill 89 has been enacted as Chapter 14 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2017.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The Bill is divided into four Schedules.
Schedule 1 repeals the Child and Family Services Act and enacts the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 in its place.
Schedule 2 amends the Child and Family Services Act while it is still in force, that is, before its repeal by Schedule 1.
Schedule 3 amends the new Act, the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
Schedule 4 contains related and other amendments to 36 other Acts.
schedule 1

Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017


The current Act refers throughout to Indian and native children, and gives certain rights of notice and participation to a representative chosen by the child’s band or native community. The new Act refers to First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and young persons, and gives rights of notice and participation to a representative chosen by each of the child’s or young person’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities.  All references to a child’s or young person’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities in the new Act include any band of which the child or young person is a member, any band with which the child or young person identifies, any First Nations, Inuit or Métis community that is listed in a regulation and of which the child or young person is a member, and any First Nations, Inuit or Métis community that is listed in a regulation and with which the child or young person identifies.

Significant changes are made to terminology. The terms society ward and Crown ward are no longer used.  Instead, the new Act refers to children who are in interim society care or extended society care, respectively. The new Act does not refer to children being abandoned or to runaways.  And the new Act speaks of bringing children to a place of safety, instead of being apprehended, and of dealing with matters, not dealing with children.

The new Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is, like the current Child and Family Services Act, divided into Parts.  Following is an explanation of each Part and, in particular, how each differs from the current Act.

Part I Purpose and Interpretation

The paramount purpose of the Act — to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children — remains unchanged from the current Act.

The additional purposes of the Act are expanded to include the following:
       
 To recognize that services to children and young persons should be provided in a manner that respects regional differences wherever possible and takes into account,
                physical, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children and young persons;
                a child’s or young person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression; and
                a child’s or young person’s cultural and linguistic needs.
        
To recognize that services to children and young persons and their families should be provided in a manner that builds on the strengths of the families wherever possible.
One of the additional purposes in the current Act is to recognize that services to Indian and native children and families should be provided in a manner that recognizes their culture, heritage and traditions, and the concept of the extended family.  This is amended to refer to First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and young persons and families and to their cultures, heritages and traditions and is expanded to also recognize connection to their communities.

There is no longer specific reference to a child’s or young person’s religion in the additional purposes of the Act.  However, a child’s or young person’s creed is listed as one of several factors to be considered throughout the new Act. “Creed” is defined to include religion.

Part II Children’s and Young Persons’ Rights

This consolidates the rights of children and young persons found in section 2 and Parts I and V of the current Act.

New provisions are added as follows: restricting service providers and foster parents from using physical restraint on children and young persons except as authorized by the regulations, and from using mechanical restraints on children and young persons except as permitted by Parts VI (Youth Justice) and VII (Extraordinary Measures) and the regulations.  The provision in the current Act prohibiting service providers from detaining a child in locked premises except as authorized under the Youth Justice and Extraordinary Measures parts of that Act is maintained; it now expressly applies to foster parents as well as service providers and in respect of young persons as well as children.

In addition, a new statement of rights of children and young persons is added at the outset of the Part, including their right to express their own views freely and safely, to be engaged through honest and respectful dialogue, to have their views given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity and to be informed, in language suitable to their understanding, of their rights and of the existence and role of, and how to contact, the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth. The procedures in the current Act for making complaints against service providers regarding alleged violations of the rights of children also applies under the new Act to complaints regarding limitations or conditions imposed on visitors and visits.  A child or other person may make a complaint as an individual or as part of a group.

Part III Funding and Accountability

This Part replaces Part I of the current Act.  There are several additions as follows.

The Minister may designate entities as lead agencies, which must perform the functions assigned to the lead agency’s category by the regulations.  The Minister may issue binding directives to certain service providers and lead agencies.  A program supervisor may issue compliance orders to certain service providers and lead agencies for failure to comply with, among other things, the Act, the regulations or the directives.

The functions of children’s aid societies are set out in this Part and remain essentially the same.  One change is that societies are now responsible for investigating allegations that a child is in need of protection and for protecting children in their care, for all children up to the age of 18; in the current Act, these responsibilities are limited to children younger than 16 and to 16 and 17 year olds who are subject to protection orders.

This Part now includes a requirement that every society enter into an accountability agreement with the Minister as a condition of receiving funding; this is currently a requirement in the regulations under the Act, and is being made a statutory requirement in the new Act.

The Minister may issue binding directives to societies.  A Director may issue compliance orders to societies for failure to comply with, among other things, the Act, the regulations, an accountability agreement or the directives.

If a society fails to comply with a compliance order, or if the Minister considers it to be in the public interest, the Minister may make a variety of different orders, including ordering a society to take corrective action, suspending, amending or revoking the society’s designation, appointing or replacing members of the society’s board of directors, designating or replacing a chair of the board, or appointing a supervisor to operate and manage the society.  Unless certain conditions exist, the Minister must notify the society of the intention to make such an order, and the society has a right to make a written response.

This Part sets out rules for two or more societies that are proposing to amalgamate and to continue as one society.  The Minister may order that a society amalgamate with one or more other societies, or undertake other types of restructuring, if the Minister considers it to be in the public interest.  The Minister must notify the society of the intention to make such an order and the society has a right to make a written response to the directions contained in the order, but not to the requirement to amalgamate.  In certain circumstances, the Minister may also appoint a supervisor to implement or facilitate the implementation of such an order. A society that receives notice of a proposed order to amalgamate or otherwise restructure must give a copy of the notice to affected employees and their bargaining agents, and on receipt of a final order to amalgamate or otherwise restructure, the society must give notice of the order to affected employees and their bargaining agents and other persons or entities whose contracts are affected by the order, and must make the order available to the public.

The rules for allowing a program supervisor to enter and inspect certain premises to determine compliance with the Act and the regulations are expanded.  This Part now sets out rules for such inspections without and with a warrant.

Provisions governing residential placement advisory committees have been moved from Part II (Voluntary Access to Services) in the current Act to this Part in the new Act with the following changes:  the current Act lists persons to be included in the committees, while the new Act provides that the committees may include the listed persons; the new Act requires the committees to report to the Minister on their activities annually and on request; the right to object to a residential placement and to ask the Child and Family Services Review Board to review a committee’s decision in respect of a residential placement is no longer limited to children 12 or older.


Part IV First Nations, Inuit and Métis Child and Family Services

This Part replaces Part X of the current Act.

Under the current Act, the Minister may designate native communities for the purposes of the Act.  Under this Part, the Minister may make regulations establishing lists of First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities for the purposes of the Act, with the consent of the community’s representatives.

Another change is that, under the current Act, a band or native community may designate a body as an Indian or native child and family service authority.  Under this Part, a band or First Nations, Inuit or Métis community may designate a body as a First Nations, Inuit or Métis child and family service authority.

Part V Child Protection

This Part replaces Part III of the current Act with the following changes.

The age of protection is increased to include 16 and 17 year olds.  Under the new Act, 16 and 17 year olds may be found to be in need of protection and additional circumstances or conditions applicable only to 16 and 17 year olds may be prescribed to make that determination.  However, 16 and 17 year olds may not be brought to a place of safety without their consent.  Societies are newly authorized to enter into agreements with 16 and 17 year olds in need of protection and to bring applications to court.

The matters to be considered in determining the best interests of a child are changed. The child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained, and in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, the importance of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community must be taken into consideration.  In addition, any other circumstances that are considered relevant, including a list of 11 circumstances similar to those listed in the current Act, are to be considered. Differences include: the current Act includes the child’s cultural background in this list while the new Act includes the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage; the current Act includes the religious faith in which the child is being raised while the new Act includes the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

The authority for societies to enter into voluntary agreements with persons unable to temporarily care for their children and with young persons is moved from Part II (Voluntary Access to Services) of the current Act to Part V of the new Act.  Temporary care agreements may be entered into with respect to children of any age and are no longer restricted to children younger than 16.  The authority to enter into special needs agreements is not included in the new Act.

Under the current Act, persons older than 18 may receive extended care and maintenance from a society if they were subject to a custody order or Crown wardship order that expired on their turning 18 or marrying, if they were eligible to receive support services as a 16 or 17 year old, whether or not they actually received those services or, in the case of Indian or native persons, if they were cared for under customary care immediately before their 18th birthday.  The comparable section under the new Act makes the provision of continued care and support mandatory in the circumstances listed in the current Act, adds an additional circumstance when it is to be provided , i.e., when a person entered into an agreement with the society as a 16 or 17 year old and the agreement expires on the person’s 18th birthday, and uses the updated terminology of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people and of children who are in extended society care.

Societies are required to make all reasonable efforts to pursue a plan for customary care for a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child if the child is in need of protection, cannot remain in the care of or be returned to the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention by the society or the person entitled to custody of the child and is a member of or identifies with a band or a First Nations, Inuit or Métis community.  Customary care is defined as the care and supervision of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child by a person who is not the child’s parent, according to the custom of the child’s band or First Nations, Inuit or Métis community.

An equivalent to section 86 of the current Act, which prohibits Roman Catholic children from being placed in the care of a Protestant society, institution or family and Protestant children from being placed with a Roman Catholic society, institution or family, is not included in the new Act.  Instead, a society is to choose a residential placement that, where possible, respects the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and cultural and linguistic heritage.  In the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, priority is to be given to placing the child with a First Nations, Inuit or Métis family, respectively.

The duty that all persons have to report suspicions that a child is in need of protection applies only in respect of children younger than 16.  However, a person may make a report in respect of a child who is 16 or 17.


Part VI Youth Justice

This Part incorporates Part IV of the current Act with the following changes.

This Part adds that a person in charge of a place of open custody, of secure custody or of temporary detention may authorize certain types of searches in accordance with the regulations, and provides that any contraband found during a search may be seized and disposed of in accordance with the regulations.

This Part also places limits on the use of mechanical restraints in places of secure custody or of secure temporary detention.

Part VII Extraordinary Measures


This Part replaces Part VI of the current Act, with the following changes.

A section is added setting out limits on the use of mechanical restraints in secure treatment programs.

The current Act allows children and young persons to be placed in secure isolation rooms; in the new Act, this is changed to allow for placing children and young persons in secure de-escalation rooms.

Under the current Act, service providers are required to comply with standards prescribed by regulation respecting the period of time a young person 16 or older who is in a place of secure custody or secure temporary detention may spend in a secure isolation room and regarding the observation of the young person. In the new Act, the time periods and observation standards for those young persons who are placed in secure de-escalation rooms are set out in the Act itself.

Part VIII Adoption and Adoption Licensing

This Part builds on Part VII of the current Act.

The matters to be considered in determining the best interests of a child are changed.  The changes are the same as those described above under Part V Child Protection.

A new two stage process is added for a licensee to bring a child who is not a resident of Canada into Ontario to be placed for adoption.  First, the licensee must obtain a Director’s approval of the person with whom the child is to be placed as eligible and suitable to adopt based on a homestudy.  Second, the licensee must obtain a Director’s approval of the proposed placement.

The current Act provides an exception to certain requirements if a child is placed for adoption with the child’s relative, the child’s parent or a spouse of the child’s parent.  In the new Act, the exception is limited to circumstances in which the child is a resident of Canada and the placement is within Ontario.  The current Act also provides an exception to the same requirements if a child is sent out of Ontario for adoption by the child’s relative, the child’s parent or a spouse of the child’s parent.  In the new Act, the exception is now limited to circumstances in which the placement is within Canada.

There is a new requirement on societies that begin planning for the adoption of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child to consider the importance of developing or maintaining the child’s connection to the child’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities.

The ability of a court to make an openness order in respect of a child for the purposes of facilitating communication or maintaining a relationship between the child and certain persons remains.  A new type of openness order is added where a society intends to place a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child who is in extended society care for adoption.  In such circumstances, the child, the society, or a representative chosen by each of the child’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities may apply for an openness order.  The court may make this type of openness order if it is satisfied that the order is in the child’s best interests, that the order would help the child to develop or maintain a connection with the child’s First Nations, Inuit or Métis cultures, heritages and traditions and to preserve the child’s cultural identity and connection to community and, if the child is 12 or older, if the child consents.

In the various provisions regarding applications for and proceedings with respect  to openness orders, the method of giving notice to a child requires that notice must be given to the Children’s Lawyer, the child’s lawyer, if any, and the child if the child is 12 or older.  The child is entitled to participate in the proceeding as if they were a party.

There is a new requirement on societies to make all reasonable efforts to assist a child to maintain relationships with persons that are beneficial and meaningful to the child where the child was placed for adoption but the society decides not to finalize the adoption or where a child returns to the care of a society after an adoption order was made.
The adoption licensing rules that were in Part IX of the old Act are now in this Part and remain substantially the same.

Part IX Residential Licensing

This Part replaces Part IX of the current Act.  Current Part IX addresses both residential licensing and adoption licensing.  Under the new Act, adoption licensing has been moved into Part VIII.

As under the current Act, a licence is required to operate a children’s residence or to provide residential care in specified circumstances.  This Part now provides for regulations to prescribe any other residence as a children’s residence.

Other additions to this Part include the following.  The Minister may issue binding directives to licensees.  The Minister may publish certain information with respect to licences and applications for licences.  Licences are to be issued or renewed for a specified term.  A Director may assign a class to a licence.  On issuing or renewing a licence, a Director may include the maximum number of children for whom residential care may be provided by the licensee.  A licensee must charge the amount set out in or determined in accordance with the regulations for the provision of residential care, unless the regulations exempt the licensee.

The rules respecting the right to request a hearing by the Licence Appeal Tribunal, and to appeal the Tribunal’s findings, remain essentially unchanged.

The powers of a program supervisor to conduct residential licensing inspections under the current Act are replaced by powers of an inspector to conduct such inspections for the purposes of determining compliance with the Act, the regulations and the directives.  This Part now sets out rules for such inspections without and with a warrant.

Part X Personal Information


This Part replaces the very limited Part VIII in the current Act, and is essentially a new Part.  It is modelled on provisions in the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004.

This Part sets out extensive rules for the following:  the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by the Minister and by service providers; the determination of whether an individual has the capacity to give, withhold or withdraw consent to the collection, use or disclosure of their personal information; the authorization of a substitute decision-maker to give, withhold or withdraw consent on behalf of an individual; the maintenance and protection of personal information by service providers; individuals’ rights of access to service providers’ records containing their personal information and to require service providers to correct that information; individuals’ rights to make a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner in respect of any contraventions of this Part; the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s powers and duties under this Part.

Part XI Miscellaneous Matters


This Part incorporates Part XII of the current Act with the following changes.

New in this Part is the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to require, by regulation, certain persons, including those who provide or receive services under the Act, to provide police record checks to another person or body.  Also, a society may, in the prescribed circumstances or for a prescribed purpose, ask the police for police record checks or other prescribed information.

Under the current Act, the Minister must periodically conduct a review of the Act or of those provisions specified by the Minister; the review must include a review of provisions imposing obligations on societies when providing services to an Indian or native person. In Part XI of the new Act, the review must address the following matters: the rights of children and young persons; the provisions imposing obligations on societies when providing services to a First Nations, Inuk or Métis person; and the additional purpose of the Act related to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, with a view to evaluating the progress that has been made to achieve that purpose.  It also requires the Minister to consult with children and young persons when conducting a review.

Part XII Regulations


As in the current Act, the power to make regulations for each Part of the Act is set out in its own section.  In addition, section 339 authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Minister to make regulations for the purposes of the Act as a whole, including regulations to govern transitional matters that may arise from the enactment of the new Act and the repeal of the current Act.

schedule 2

Amendments to the child and family services act


This Schedule amends the current Child and Family ServicesAct as follows.

It anticipates the increase in the age of protection from 16 to 18 that is in the new Act in Schedule 1 in the following amendments:  clauses 15 (3) (a) and (b) of the Act are re-enacted so that societies’ functions to investigate allegations that a child may be in need of protection and to protect children in their care are no longer restricted to children younger than 16 or already subject to a protection order; section 27 of the Act is amended to specify that a service provider requires a court order or the consent of a person who is 16 or older before providing the person with a service; subsection 29 (2) of the Act is re-enacted to allow temporary care agreements to be entered into in respect of children who are 16 or older; the definition of “child” in subsection 37 (1) of the Act, which excludes children who are apparently or actually 16 or older for the purposes of Part III (Child Protection), is repealed, so that child in Part III means a person younger than 18; subsection 37 (2) of the Act is amended to provide that regulations may be made setting out additional circumstances or conditions under which a 16 or 17 year old may be found to be in need of protection; section 40 is amended and new sections 40.1 and 46.1 provide that a society may bring a 16 or 17 year old who is subject to a supervision order to a place of safety only with their consent and the society must, as soon as possible and at the latest within five days of bringing the 16 or 17 year old to a place of safety, bring the matter to court or return the child to the person entitled to custody.

New section 37.1 authorizes 16 and 17 year olds to enter into agreements with societies for the provision of services and supports to them where the society determines that they are or may be in need of protection and is satisfied that no less disruptive course of action is available and the child wants to enter into the agreement.

Section 57 of the Act is amended to provide that a court shall make no order under that section in respect of a child who withdrew from parental control before or after intervention under Part III, where the court is not satisfied that a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future even though the child is found to be in need of protection.

Section 71.1 of the Act is amended to allow a person 18 or older to receive care and maintenance from a society if the person entered into an agreement for services from the society as a 16 or 17 year old and that agreement expired on the person’s 18th birthday.

The duty under section 72 to report suspicions that a child is in need of protection is amended to allow, though not require, such reports in respect of children who are 16 or 17.

All the amendments discussed above anticipate provisions in the new Act.  However, these amendments to the current Act are intended to come into force before the new Act does.

schedule 3

Amendments to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017


This Schedule amends the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 as follows.

Sections 133 and 134 of the Act, which provide for the maintenance of a child abuse register, are repealed.  Consequential amendments are made to other sections to delete all references to sections 133 and 134.

Subsection 206 (1) of the Act allows a court to change an adopted person’s surname or given name.  This is re-enacted to permit the court to change an adopted person’s surname, forename, both surname and forename or single name.  The court may also change the person’s single name to a name with at least one forename and surname or the person’s forename and surname to a single name.  Single names are to be determined in accordance with the traditional culture of the adopted person or the applicant or applicants.

References to the Corporations Act are replaced with references to the as yet unproclaimed Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010.

schedule 4

Amendments to other Acts


This Schedule contains amendments to 36 other Acts, most of which are consequential to the repeal of the Child and Family Services Act and the enactment of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.  Most of these amendments simply update references to the current Act and terminology from the current Act to refer to the new Act and the new terminology.

A few Acts are amended more extensively as follows.

The Intercountry Adoption Act, 1998 is amended to bring that Act into closer alliance with the adoption and adoption licensing requirements of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.  In particular, amendments are made to require police record checks, to give the Director under that Act additional authority to refuse to issue or renew or to revoke a licence to facilitate intercountry adoptions, to clarify the inspection powers with respect to licensees and to amend the penalty provisions.

The Jewish Family and Child Service of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1980 is amended to provide that the society established under that Act is deemed to be a children’s aid society designated under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and that it may only exercise its powers to bring children to a place of safety within the City of Toronto.  The governance provisions in the special Act are repealed, leaving the society subject to the governance provisions in the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 is amended to apply automatically upon the amalgamation of two or more children’s aid societies.

The only amendments in this Schedule that are unrelated to the repeal of the Child and Family Services Act and the enactment of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 are to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.  Subsections 65 (8) and 67 (2) of that Act are amended to correct references to other Acts.


Read more : http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=4479


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Dim 2 Juil - 08:58 (2017)    Sujet du message: THEY WILL TAKE YOUR CHILDREN JUN 28 2017 Répondre en citant



THEY WILL TAKE YOUR CHILDREN JUN 28 2017




VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz1ISvHLl_g&spfreload=10


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 27 300
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 14 Juil - 23:54 (2017)    Sujet du message: TRENDY MOMS NOW ASKING BABIES FOR THEIR PERMISSION TO PICK THEM UP Répondre en citant

TRENDY MOMS NOW ASKING BABIES FOR THEIR PERMISSION TO PICK THEM UP



VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdRa7QSBeu8&feature=share


Revenir en haut
Contenu Sponsorisé






MessagePosté le: Aujourd’hui à 22:34 (2017)    Sujet du message: ENCADREMENT SÉCURITAIRE - (PARTIE 2)

Revenir en haut
Montrer les messages depuis:   
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum -> PROJET FUTUR POUR LES ENFANTS -> ENCADREMENT SÉCURITAIRE (PARTIE 2) Toutes les heures sont au format GMT + 2 Heures
Aller à la page: <  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 sur 4

 
Sauter vers:  

Index | Creer un forum | Forum gratuit d’entraide | Annuaire des forums gratuits | Signaler une violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Traduction par : phpBB-fr.com