I disagree. There is no call to make the poor kids suffer for the stupidity of the authorities.
It’s also a great way to traumatize the kids, who have probably been through a lot all ready. :dubious:
I read them.
To my mind, the CAS letter sounds like they are claiming they had multiple issues with this foster family and their relationship with the biological family.
Given that the foster family is evidently from some strict Christian sect, there are lots of possible reasons why the CAS may have found this foster family lacking in “…flexibility and compromise and a focus on the child’s needs first and foremost”, to quote the CAS letter.
The response from the foster family, obviously, denied that they had been “inflexible” and suggested that they had gone far out of their way to accommodate the biological parents - including being willing to “… bathe them [the children] every other evening …”, which is presented, oddly, as an example of how they had acted in good faith “…regardless of cost or convenience to ourselves.”
It strikes me, from a casual reading of these documents, that the dispute was about a lot more than the belief in the Easter Bunny. But as you say, we can’t know for sure until the CAS files their materials.
There are many stupid rules for fostering and adopting children.
In my neck of the woods, parents cannot foster children if the children will sleep on a different level of the house than the adults. Children also cannot sleep in the basement.
Anywhere from one-third to two-thirds of my children’s friends sleep in the basement while the parents are on the main floor.
This isn’t directed at you, jtur88, but I have a problem with the term “the same Christian denomination as the newborn babies they were adopting.” Newborn babies don’t have a religion, although their parents may well do. Similarly there is no such thing as “an Anglican baby,” although there certainly are babies of Anglican parents.
I wonder how Newfoundland would have dealt with a baby who had one Anglican parent and one Roman Catholic parent.
That was exactly my point, and you missed the sarcasm (not your fault).The fact is, at that time, Newfoundland “public” schools were all administered by religious bodies, who were reimbursed for the expense of schooling by the government. People who chose to declare no affiliation faced certain difficulties in trying to get their children into a school, and would probably have also found themselves ineligible to adopt a child.
Also, Quebec schools were all administered under either the Protestant or the Roman Catholic school board, and might still lbe.
Since 1997 Quebec school boards have been linguistically rather than religiously divided.
I don’t understand what that has to do with it. They think they are in the right, therefore they should defy all orders from the authorities until they are forced, kicking and screaming, to surrender to the law. After which, they become Internet famous, and get a lot of money and promote changes to the institution that wronged them. I learned about that in another thread.
They were supposed to mumble something about the wisdom of King Solomon and then fire up a table saw.
I don’t know the reasoning for requiring same-level sleeping, but it’s a fairly standard building code to not allow bedrooms in a basement. Fire, floods, earthquakes, etc tend to trap people who are below ground. There’re ways to mitigate the risks, but it’s simpler from a Children’s agency perspective to simply disallow it, rather than have building code inspectors regularly recertifying a bedroom.
It might not be that simple.
I don’t know how the respective laws work in Canada/Ontario, but in the US, there’s no right to shop at a given store. But if the store-owner bans people of a particular religion/race/etc., that’s still actionable. There is a right not to be discriminated against based on a certain characteristic.
So, just because there’s no right to be a foster parent doesn’t necessarily mean that Children’s Services can determine who gets foster children using any criteria. If, as the foster parents allege, the children are being replaced due to their religious beliefs, they may well have a case.
I obviously don’t have all the facts here, but if refusing to lie to children about non-existent mythical beings is even part of the evidence against this foster parents, that strikes me as an absurd and Kafkaesque state of affairs.
Actually, International Code Council (ICC) requirements, which are followed by the vast majority of US communities, require only that a basement with habitable area(s) must have at least direct way to get out in an emergency:
I don’t know, but presume, that Canadian communities follow the same standards.
National building code in Canada says bedrooms must have a window you can fit through.
In some provinces a basement bedroom doesn’t even need a window: all you need is a door to outside somewhere near the bedroom.
But like I said earlier, basement bedrooms are very common where I live.
Your post is correct, I just want to clarify one thing: public schools in Quebec were deconfessionalized in 2000. The story leading up to this is pretty complicated, so I’ll spare you. As a note, I am a retired teacher from Quebec, and I experienced this firsthand.
And an update: Edmonton couple who refused to tell foster kids Easter Bunny is real feels vindicated, ready to adopt.
Charter rights violated for couple who refused to tell foster kids Easter Bunny is real:
That seems like a good outcome. I’m no fan of wacky beliefs, religious or not, but it is clear that not believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa is not harmful in any way shape or form. Many children grow up with neither of those beliefs and indeed, no religious or fairytale-based beliefs at all and don’t suffer the slightest ill-effect from it.
I find this phrase unintentionally hilarious. 
The main thing I remember finding out about this was that they specifically offered to allow the kids to go somewhere else for the holidays, so they could have their Santa and Easter Bunny. And they had their own parties where they refused to say either way. They would redirect any questions that came up, without saying one way or the other. They were being as accommodating as they could be while still sticking to their religion’s belief that lying about these things was wrong.
I also just find the Easter Bunny part to be odd. I never grew up thinking the Easter Bunny was real. He was just a guy in a suit. We got baskets from our parents, and then our grandparents, parents, and older kids hid eggs for us to find. These same grandparents were whole hog in on Santa. I never knew the Easter Bunny was even important to anyone.