Well, maybe the title is not actually accurate, but a Hamilton Ont. couple with two foster children children (aged 3 and 4) had the children removed because the child protection authorities says “Canadian values” require believing that SC and EB were real and the parents had a no lying policy. The parents said they would neither confirm nor deny SC and EB, but that wasn’t good enough for the authorities. They were members of something called the Reform Presbyterian Church of North America.
Link, please?
Nitpicking, but it’s the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. But, yes, they’re pretty hard core. No lying, no alcohol, no music, the church is run by male elders, members aren’t allowed to go to any other religious services, and they reject all non-Christian government (which by their standards is all of them). I believe they’ve officially lightened up a little bit but I imagine some of the more traditional members still abide by the old rules.
“So the fired foster parents, Derek and Frances Baars, have just launched a court action against the Hamilton Children’s Aid Society alleging their Charter rights to freedom of conscience and religion were violated by the agency’s insistence that they tell their foster children that the Easter Bunny is a “real entity.””
The key word may be “alleging”.
There is no right to be a foster parent. Children’s Services can generally move foster kids whenever the Service itself determines it’s in the best interest of the children.
Do you think lying to the children is in their best interests?
I guess this means that atheists and Jews cannot foster children in Ontario.
It depends on the lie. But it’s not my decision where to put the foster children.
Suing Children’s Services will not help anybody. Even if everything the foster parents allege is true, it’s still Children’s Services responsibility and discretion to place the children where they think best.
I found (I think) the actual court filing from the 11th of April 2017 https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Applicants-Application-Record-Baar.pdf
Note: It’s from the Justice Centre for Constituional Freedoms whcih I guess is representing the Baars family.
The actions seems to be tied back to the possible impact the closure of their foster home could/does have on their ability to foster again. Honestly, it reads as if the new CAS agent elected to not get along with the Baars and then extended their unwillingness to make active statements about the EB or SC (ha!) to their unwillingness to deal with same sex adoptive couples. A situation that apparently hadn’t even come up.
That actually may be true. It varies by province. At one time recently (not sure if its still true), Newfoundland required that adoptive parents be the same
Christian denomination as the newborn babies they were adopting. A Presbyterian family could not adopt an Anglican baby. I wonder if there were arguments in the hospital nursery incubators between atheist and agnostic babies about what those terms meant.
Be careful that you are not confusing foster family with adoption family. In some cases the former becomes the latter, but in this instance the Baars were fostering for the biological parents, with which the children visited.
Yup. I’m willing to bet that we are hearing one side of this particular story, and that the other side may have a very different tale to tell.
One complete guess: the relationship between the biological parents and the foster parents broke down over a bunch of stuff, some petty and absurd and some not, and the agency eventually said ‘enough of this’ and removed the kids; the foster parents picked and chose the stuff that makes the agency look absurd, and put in in their lawsuit and went to the press with it; the agency can’t or won’t respond in the press. So we get one side.
If their policy is stupid, it’s helpful to sue them. That’s one way policies get changed.
If the biological parents ‘believe’ in SC and the EB, then it would be confusing to the children to have the presumably temporary foster parents telling them that they don’t exist.
That seems a reasonable reason to move the children.
They should have refused to give up the kids until the police had to come and drag the kids kicking and screaming out of the house. Then they could have placed the video on the Internet, garnered massive world-wide support, and sued for a lot of money. That’s another way policies get changed.
Possibly, though it would not seem appropriate to close their foster home.
And you can just fuhgeddabout letting them Moose-lims have foster children!
You mean,to defend them from exposure to the idea that some notions are in conflict with others (and might be “confusing”)? Yes, protect the children at all cost from harmful, permanently crippling challenges to comforting bullshit.
The children in question are 3 and 4. The 4 YO is probably five years max from figuring it on her own.
I hardly think these are the ages where it is necessary or even desirable to present challenges to children. Comfort at that age is actually pretty important.
Based on the description of the church itself, I can see a lot of other reasons why Child Protective Services might not feel comfortable leaving the children in their care. We might be hearing the Easter Bunny stuff, but I’m guessing a lot of families don’t celebrate with the Easter Bunny. I would imagine the removal is based on other things altogether. I agree that we’re hearing only one side of the story here, and it doesn’t seem to be a plausible one.
You should read exhibit F (Hamilton CAS) and G (Baars’ reply) in the linked court filing. I can dream up several possible reasons for the weirdness but until the Hamilton CAS chime in, this is all we have to go with.