The mother is an industrious woman who has worked for a dozen years as a bar tender. Yet, every new job she applies for or is hired for seems sabotaged as mysterious phone calls inform the bar owners of her controversial situation and she is fired. Seemingly the only ones who know of her new employment opportunities  is MFS to whom she must report her current employment status.

 

Two weeks ago, the mother of the kidnapped children met with Jayleen Schroeder, a psychiatric nurse, for an assessment prior to further hearings. Perhaps, Miss Schroeder's assessment wasn't sufficiently hostile. Manitoba Family Services wanted yet another assessment [and time delay.]

 

"It seems," the mother/victim [whom, of course, we cannot name]  said, "MFS is putting all its eggs in the new psychiatrist's basket.. If he comes back, on April 20 [the next hearing date] and says I'm okay, the children will be coming back to me."

 

What sort of questions is the young mother asked? "I was asked about my bowel movements," she told CAFE incredulously.

 

This week, the young mother was told she had to come back to answer another question. This was naked harassment. She had to take two buses, spent an hour and a half travelling each way, and out of her impoverished purse part with $4.50 on public transit. Her time and money were spent to answer the following query which might have been posed over the telephone. "If a person of another race gives you a wink or a nudge, how would you respond?"

 

"Simple," she replied, ' the same as if a White person had done this. I'm not interested."

 

Recently as part of the effort to grind this mother into submission, she was denied further visits to her children BECAUSE she told MFS to address further communications to her through her lawyer.

 

She is being punished for the effrontery of wanting to exercize her right to have legal representation.

 

CAFE has supported this young mother in her efforts to get her kidnapped children back and has helped her with publicity and fundraising. I've informed free speech audiences across the country of this trsavesty of police state politically correct persecution of dissidents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FfAttn:

Wayne Harder,

Eastman Region Child and Family Services,

Winnipeg, MB

 

Dear sir,

I am writing in regards to your revocation of my 2 hour weekly visitations with my children [8 year old girl] and [3 year old boy].* I am formally requesting written documentation as to why this has occurred.

Also I would request that you take a second to think about how this affects my children and their emotional well being. Having been removed from their mother (me) has been very traumatic for them, and I feel that this action your office has taken will only make it worse.

 

Please think about the psychological damages that your office has imposed on my children.

According to your act:
“Best interests

2(1) The best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration of the director, an authority, the children's advocate, an agency and a court in all proceedings under this Act affecting a child, other than proceedings to determine whether a child is in need of protection, and in determining best interests the child's safety and security shall be the primary considerations. After that, all other relevant matters shall be considered, including
(a) the child's opportunity to have a parent-child relationship as a wanted and needed member within a family structure;
(b) the mental, emotional, physical and educational needs of the child and the appropriate care or treatment, or both, to meet such needs;
(c) the child's mental, emotional and physical stage of development;
(d) the child's sense of continuity and need for permanency with the least possible disruption;
(e) the merits and the risks of any plan proposed by the agency that would be caring for the child compared with the merits and the risks of the child returning to or remaining within the family;
(f) the views and preferences of the child where they can reasonably be ascertained;
(g) the effect upon the child of any delay in the final disposition of the proceedings; and
(h) the child's cultural, linguistic, racial and religious heritage. “
In regards to each definiton of “the best interests of the child(ren)”

A) My children are being denied the opportunity to have a relationship with myself; as a result of your office’s actions

B) My children’s needs were met on every parameter while in my custody, but as a result of your office’s recent actions their emotional well being is being greatly neglected.

C) My boy* was 2 years old at the time your office kidnapped him, at his stage of development your office’s actions have proven to be detrimental to his sense of security, he has been deprived of his strong bond with his mother (myself) and in turn has regressed in many stages of development both mentally and emotionally.

D) Your office’s actions have caused more disruption then can even be put into the queens English to describe properly to ALL members of not only the immediate family but extended family as well.

E) Your office has had 11 months to come up with a valid “merit” to prove in any way shape or form that there is any risk in returning my children.

F) Has anyone even spoken with either child? No.

G) The delay of proceedings has clearly had an effect on both children any further delays will result in some intense councilling which will be paid for by your office.

H) We come from a family with strong Scottish and English roots, having them attend any church that isn’t Anglican is a refusal to acknowledge their religious and cultural rights, my family is strongly opposed to the practice of Christian Science as we feel it is unsafe to trust only the hand of God.

According to the “child and family services act” your office has shown no consideration to the best interests of my children.

Please respond via letter mail only.

Thank-you

Sincerely,


Mother of Kidnapped Children*