Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001


Senator Anne C. Cools: on false abuse allegations

Transcript of the last hour of the Rutherford Show on WIC Radio, Feb., 28, 2000, 11 a.m. to 12 a. m.

The guest in that portion of the show was the Honourable Senator Anne C. Cools.  (SC)

The host was David Rutherford. (DR)

The topic of the discussion was “False Abuse Allegations and Senate Bill S-9, (sponsored by Sen. Cools)

DR: Welcome back to Dave Rutherford, welcome back to this portion of the program.
    My guest will be a Canadian senator, and I know that this is a hard-working senator who may defend other senators -- I don’t know -- but none the less, some senators do a lot of hard work.  My next guest, despite the fact that she was appointed by a Liberal government -- which I will hold above her head forever more -- Senator Anne Cools is a hard-working senator.  Welcome Senator Cools.

SC: Hello, there.  How are you today?  (mutual laughter)

DR: In fine fettle today, Senator.

SC: Excellent, I didn’t hear that.  (more mutual laughter)

DR: Senator Cools has been working very hard on a bill -- don’t worry about the number necessarily, or forget it, but it’s S-9 -- which would change the criminal code to punish those who use false accusations primarily in matters of custody and domestic dispute, false allegations against the other spouse, usually of sexual interference with children, which is a horrible damning allegation, and the Senator described it even this way in the pre-amble to her most recent debate, in which she said:

I have studied a terrible and pernicious heart of darkness that has developed in our court system, being the use of false accusations in civil justice.

My very good pro-senator, “a pernicious heart of darkness”; what would this Bill do, Senator, that perjury laws cannot?

SC: O.K., first of all let me thank you for sounding so poetic. (laughs)

DR: I’m just reading, I’m reading what is

SC: I know (laughs)

DR: from the page.  It leaks from the page, as if alive.

SC: Absolutely.

DR: Oh yes.

SC: Very well.  My Bill, essentially, looks at the, as you just said a few minutes ago, this terrible heart of darkness, and I sincerely believe that it is.  And my Bill S-9 is an amendment to the criminal code to augment those sections in the criminal code which speak to what we call the administration of law and justice.  In other words, it will create, a new offence 

DR: Yeah

SC: against the administration of law and justice, making it an offence to mislead justice by willfully and deliberately utilizing false accusations within judicial proceedings. 
    Now, your question relates to the question of perjury, and perjury, as you know, is deliberate and willful falsehood, with an item misleading justice

DR: Yes.

SC: again by within sworn documents

DR: Yes.

SC: The unfortunate fact of it is that within judicial proceedings many of these accusations and allegations are articulated outside of sworn statements and outside of sworn proceedings, so they’re not captured, so to speak

DR: Yes.

SC: by the perjury provisions, like for example, if such allegations are raised in what lawyers call pleadings, for example, statements of defence, statements of claim, notices of motion, the perjury provisions do not kick in so clearly.  So, my Bill is attempting to speak to that lacunae.

DR: This inhuman, aggressive hurling of false accusations is the weapon of choice, you suggest in your debate.  You obviously, and I know that you have, documented many, many of these cases.  How often do you see this occurring?

SC: Well, hmm, the particular expression you just used, weapon of choice, I was citing and quoting a particular judge, in a very famous case her in Ontario, the Reverend Baxter case, where these terrible allegations, of this particular individual abusing his own children, were made, and he was exonerated.
    The fact of the matter is that in my speech last week, I put on the record 49 cases where judges had found such allegations to be false.  So I have not put on the record instances where allegations have been alleged, or where these accusations have been articulated.  What I’ve been trying to do is to build up the record of determination, within the judicial system, and I think 49 is -- to my mind -- speaks to a serious crisis, if [not] an epidemic.

DR: All right, and I was generous in my introduction because I suggested that this was in custody and access disputes, I’m gonna cut through the generosity, you suggest that most of these, if not the vast majority -- maybe all -- are, are mothers against fathers.  Is that right?

SC: The majority of them are clearly by mothers.   Mothers are the accusers, or the allegers, rather,

DR: Right.

SC: against fathers, although that we have some cases where it’s the women who’ve been accused: the particular case I cited at the end, the case of Pails Chart-Mill, who now works for the Parental Alienation Foundation,

DR: Right.

SC: in Washington, and the majority of them are about child sexual abuse, but some are about, about physical abuse.  But, remember what we are talking about here is false accusations.

DR: Right.

SC: not genuine accusations -- false.

DR: The court system is made up of many facets.  Of course, lawyers are a part of it, even in these disputes involving matrimony and custody.  You suggest that lawyers often encourage this inflammatory allegation, right? [Original emphasis in the voice of Dave Rutherford]

SC: What I have said, my Bill speaks to the role of, of lawyers in it, and in this [?false?] activity.  My Bill essentially says, every person is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment, etc., etc., who as counsel in any judicial proceedings institutes or prosecutes proceedings that he or she knows are brought by primarily for the purpose of intimidating or injuring another person.
    What my Bill does is that is that it looks to the practice of the law and it says, when a lawyer or a counsel acts in the way as described in the Bill, that that, that individual shall be liable for criminal prosecution.

DR: In the transcript of the Debate on the 17th of the month, that line is in there, “Lawyers often allow or encourage sometimes the most inflammatory of allegations to be included in affidavits.”  That comes from Dr. Brian Hindmarsh, who is a psychologist, is that correct?

SC: That is exactly correct.  What you are citing is his testimony before the Joint Committee on Custody and Access, and Dr. Hindmarsh, as you know, is a psychologist from your part of the world.

DR: Hmm, so we have this rampant and it seems to me, based even on the evidence you gave, often at least, if not rampant, occurring allegation.

SC: Yeah,

DR: Why, and I’m glad you’re doing something now, but why so long?

SC: Well, just let me finish off the Dr. Hindmarsh statement, he said, and I quote it again for you, he says, “Parents continue to raise what are often the most preposterous of sexual abuse allegations against their ex-spouses in sworn affidavits and with the support of their solicitors.”  Those were the words of Dr. Hindmarsh, very profound words, I would think.

DR: Yes.

SC: You would say, “Why so long?”  It is a very difficult questions, now I’ve had this Bill -- it is now in it’s what I would call its third incarnation -- and on the previous occasions that I’ve raised, that I brought forward this bill, the Bill has died on the Order Paper because Parliament has been dissolved or has been paroled, but one of the reasons -- I think -- that makes this issue so difficult and so delicate is that, for the most part, people steer a wide berth around lawyers, because we all have believed that lawyers, as officers of the court, have such a high obligation to truth an integrity, that we have been disinclined to think otherwise.

DR: But do they not, though?

SC: [Laughs heartily] What I would say, what I would say,

DR: Right?

SC: Ah, what I would say to you, Mr. Rutherford, is this, that the criminal code always speaks to those who break the law, and to those who violate justice, you see?  So, the criminal code speaks to those people who will be deviant.
    The criminal code is about the outstanding majority of citizens who are, who are fine citizens.  The criminal; code always speaks to those who are being deviant.

DR: I want to make clear, too, what this Bill covers.  I asked about perjury.  This Bill covers unsworn court documents, as you’ve itemized; pleadings, you said; statements of claim; defence statements; notices of motion, those kinds of documents -- but, do they not require some, some swearing of truth by the person filling it out at some point, Senator?

SC: Well, most of those documents are, are specially specialized legal documents, and they are largely written by lawyers, you know?  I would submit to you that the average citizens of this land doesn’t have the ability to script a notice of motion or a statement of defence, or statement of claim.  Most of these documents are actually written by the lawyers themselves.  And what the entire system has relied on is honour, so to speak., and the belief that because a person is an officer of the court, that individual has a high obligation to honour.

DR: And even though there is a, obviously the lesser, the lesser burden of proof, when you put that into a document, nobody is asking you to swear against that[1], it goes into the court documents, the judge reading it, I assume, understands this could be inflammatory, this is not the truth, and although the lawyers might read it that this is not the truth, however, it is a document that is in the court, publicly available, that says: “Mr. XYZ is accused of sexually abusing his children.” Right?

SC: Yes.

DR: It’s there for everybody to see!

SC: Yes, and what one has to be very mindful of, and that is why I use the word “pernicious,” that these kinds of false allegations, just by the nature of being raised at all, 

DR: Right.

SC: immediately deliver a lot of damage.

DR: Yes.

SC: I mean, you have to, I mean, visualize for example that individual, that poor father, who, who is tyrannized by these accusations.  I mean, for any parent, any father, but particularly any parent, to be accused of something so terrible, and so repugnant to them is soul-destroying -- [pause] -- soul-destroying. [2]

DR: Senator stand by.  We will come back.
    Senator Anne Cools is my guest, speaking for Bill S-9, and I quote it from some debate in the Senate of the 17th of February, from the Senator, the most recent.  We find out from the Senator where the Bill is and where it will end up -- and of course you phone calls to Senator Anne Cools, right after this.

[Commercial break [3]]

DR: Hi, welcome back.  I’m Dave Rutherford, speaking with Senator Anne Cools about a piece of legislation before the Senate, which the Senator hope would punish those who make false allegations in some of these unsworn documents -- hurling these abusive, horribly abusive allegations against the other spouse, usually from the mother, usually custodial parent to the non-custodial, which is usually the father.
    So, Senator, the ramifications then of this, what would the Bill do to proof that the allegations are false.  What’s the burden of proof for the Bill, and what would the punishment be?

SC: Well, the burden of proof would be the criminal standard, because while the problem with these kinds of allegations is that they are frequently made within civil proceedings, being, ah, you know, custody and access proceedings and so on, and quite often many of these allegations are even avoided, strenuously avoided being subjected to the higher burden of proof, the higher standard of proof of a criminal court proceeding, so what this Bill will do is create a new offence, where previously there was none, and essentially say that any counsel who willfully deceives or knowingly participates in deceiving the tribunal --O.K.? -- or, if that counsel willfully presents or knowingly relies on upon a false, deceptive, exaggerated or inflammatory document -- whether or not under oath -- that counsel will be subject to a criminal prosecution that carries a prison term not exceeding two years. [4]

DR: So, it is not then to punish the person making the allegations, it’s to punish the purveyor of it, the lawyer.

SC: Oh yes.  My Bill speaks to the, to the question of sharp practice.

DR: [minor guffaw] O. K., so, two years...

SC: In other words, my Bill speaks to the offence of employment of judicial proceedings and the abusive process itself....What I’m saying, it is an abuse of the process.

DR: Lawyers or officers of the court, right?

SC: Precisely, and they have a very high, a very high responsibility.  Now at the same time, as I said before in my speech, I recognize that there is no new standard being created here for any counsel to adhere to. 

DR: Right,

SC: These are the standards that are currently, that currently exist.  As a matter of fact, all I’m doing, I’m taking that standard and giving it the force of law.  I’m also mindful that this bill will not touch the majority of lawyers.  The majority of lawyers are outstanding professionals.  This will speak to those who will violate the principles,

DR: O.K., is there not, are you duplicating what might be in place in various provincial regulators that regulate lawyers?  Do they not have codes of conduct, codes of ethics, rules of professional conduct in law societies?

SC: They have, ah, rules of conduct.  This, however, is raising those rules to a higher standard.

DR: You say, the ancient standard of honour, integrity and ethics.

SC: That’s right, but this is raising the standard much higher and to such a high level that we have created or are attempting to create a criminal offence, so, its violation, its proven violation could result in a criminal conviction.

DR: How do you prove it, Senator?

SC: Well, How do I prove it? 

DR: Is the burden of proof on the lawyer to disprove or to...

SC: I would submit to you that the mere fact that the standard of the burden of proof will be a criminal one will be no simple matter, but all I’m trying to say is that I’m moving it from a question of just, of a professional duty to a space where its violation is a criminal offence.

DR: So, would in fact the burden of proof though, is it reversed though, that a lawyer have to prove it is true, or is the burden on the State to prove otherwise?

SC: No.  This, in any criminal, in any criminal procedure, the system would kick in a standard way.

DR: O.K.

SC: So, you know, the presumption would be a standard of innocence.

SC: So, what I’m proposing though is an amendment to the criminal code.

DR: Right.

SC: So all these standards and the very high principles and the high burden of proof that we have will automatically kick in.

DR: Senator, stand by for phone calls from our audience.  Joanne go ahead:

Joanne: Yes, I was wondering.  If I called the police and said I was being held up for incidents and they found I hadn’t, I could be charged with mischief.  Why could they not have, why do we need another law?

DR: O.K., why not mischief?

SC: Because there are already in existence provisions which deal to the question of mischief.
    What my amendment is doing is to augment those provision, because, you see, whenever a proceeding goes forward within the court, the documents operate under what we call privilege, so, quite often many of those documents are sheltered from liabilities. 

DR: So you are saying that because there is a privilege involved, we couldn’t, that we couldn’t apply mischief provisions, as Joanne says, against these documents?

SC: Well, sometimes it can’t.  Sometimes, if the documents are absolutely privileged, it’s hard to get at them.  What I’m trying to say to you is that there is a gap in the system.  It is very difficult to get at these, at these statements, even to prove that they are false, because many of them are not even adjudicated.

Joanne: But I also understand that the 

SC: But you see, you are, you are

Joanne: [unintelligible] thing behind it, because, in a way, because I was a foster parent to three little children

SC: Oh yeah.

Joanne: who were taken out of their home, and it took six months  to prove that that they has not been abused.

DR: Yes.

SC: Oh well, you have experience.  You have experience first-hand.

Joanne: That’s right.

SC: Yes and well then you know the tragedy, and, well, a terrible tragedy it is,

Joanne: Oh it is, and hardest on the children.

DR: Joanne, thank you for that.

SC: Because, O.K., if I could just add to that, Mr. Rutherford, many, quite often, too, if we were to look at some of the psychology and the trauma of this condition, many of those children who are the, who are the object and the subjects of these accusations, you will find quite often that these poor little children are dragged after from one examination after the other, you know, and these poor children go through just a terrible, terrible time.

DR: Thanks Joanne.  How many, how many cases do you know Senator, that are correct, that are true?  Do we know?[7]

SC: Oh, I, as I said before, I know countless, hundreds of cases, where accusations have been made, but last week on the floor of the Chamber I was able to name and itemize, one by one, 49 cases, where the accusations were found to be false.

DR: But do we know of any that have been found to be true?[7]

SC: Well, I have not, but I’m not concerned with that.  My question here is the abusive process.

DR: Yes.

SC: O.K., so where these accusations are being employed, the abusive process.

DR: But O.K., let’s look then at a scenario, just briefly.  If, in fact, the lawyers does put forward in an affidavit, in a document, in a statement of claim of some kind that there is an allegation of abuse, and then somebody is called on it and you are questioned, somebody has to prove it to be true. 

SC: Yes, and as far I’m concerned, you know, if anybody believes that such a terrible thing is going on, I think that person should call the police, that person should call the child welfare agencies [5] and begin an investigation forthwith, because as far as I’m concerned, we have to protect children absolutely, absolutely.

    Oh, my bill is not concerned with credible or real cases of accusations.  My Bill is speaking to the abuse.

DR: Of process.

SC: Of process.

DR: Brian, go ahead.

Brian: Ah yeah, I just wanted to, ah, ask a couple of questions here.  Why hasn’t this been thought of sooner?  I’m sure this problem has been going on.

DR: Well, we sort of addressed that earlier, the Senator doesn’t know why, but here we are.
    I think there’s a new climate though.  There is a new awareness of everybody in these disputes, Brian, that in fact there’s an imbalance, that the system. has been so skewed against men, skewed against non-custodial parents, which primarily are men.  I think there’s more and more awareness of that, and finally I sense, with the Senator’s help, because she believes this too, there’s finally a bit of a weight on the other end of the teeter totter.  I sense that’s happening.

Brian: Good.

DR: Yeah, you’re right it’s good, but it’s taken a long time to get there.

SC: Yes, I think, Mr. Rutherford, you are absolutely correct.  Women have been assumed to be towers of truth in every circumstance, and of course, men are assumed to be liars.

DR: And [women are] assumed to be the best parent, too.

SC: Oh, that too, that too, but, you know, part of my position, and I’m sure you know this, is that we must have balance, and we must have fairness, and we must an administration of justice wherein men and women are treated equally.  In other words, we cannot have systems that operate on the premise, for example, that women are morally superior to men, or that women are more virtuous than men -- you know, all virtue is women and all vice is men.  So I think, as Mr. Rutherford says, you know the pendulum, while we’ve been pushing it back, but the pendulum has been swinging, and you’ll be seeing, I’m convinced, that within the next many years, much more equilibrium much more balance.

DR: Brian, go ahead with your next question.

Brian: Ah, I’m just going to make a statement here, man or woman, once these statement are made about someone. you can’t just turn your pencil around and erase it.

DR: Oh no.  Oh we all know.  The sting of that, Brian, is within the community -- for a long, long time.[6]

Brian: That’s right.  [Unintelligible] people are still gonna look down on you: this guy is a sex offender, you know, this guy has assaulted his kid.

DR: Unless the allegation is proven to be false, publicly and visibly, and if in fact the perpetrator of this, if it’s a lawyers or whatever, is clearly and openly and publicly admonished,, and punished, then Brian you can say: “I didn’t do it!”[6]

Brian: That’s right.

DR: You know, when the Court says, I didn’t do it,  and If you haven’t got that  you’re just tilting at windmills out there.  Brian, thanks for that  Enough of my soap box, Senator, I know you‘ve got your own to worry about.

SC: [Laughs] Well, I think you are pretty good on yours.

DR: All right, Senator, stand by.  I’ll take another break here.
    Senator Anne Cools is my guest.  We are talking about a Bill she has before the Senate, that is making its way through the Senate, to punish people who make false allegations, especially in matters of custody and access.  She participated in a Joint Committee discussion on that, and some very good legislation has come from her earlier work on that.  She is now concentrating on this effort.

We’ll come back with your phone calls, right after this.

[Break for commercials, news and weather]

Note: I'll be transcribing and posting the rest of the program when I have more time. —WHS

1) That may well be most often the case, but there are at least some lawyers who ask their clients to swear before a Commissioner of Oath (legal firms often have their own) that any statement of theirs that makes it into an affidavit is the truth and nothing but the truth.

2) So much so that many fathers commit suicide in the aftermath of the allegations, or worse.

3) One of the commercials was to raise funds for battered women’s shelters, through the White Ribbon Campaign “As I see it, there are two kinds of men, those who commit violence against women and those who wanna stop it.  If you’re like me, you wanna stop it...” 

    Nothing was said in the commercial about the fact that men and women commit violence at about equal rates against one another, nor was anything said about the fact that the largest single group of domestic violence victims is comprised of children who became victims at the hands of their biological mothers.  Most of all, nothing was said about the fact that although there are about 40 shelters for battered women in Alberta, there isn’t a single one for battered men.  The only shelters available to battered men are the local jails.

    Alberta's battered women’s shelters currently receive close to $9 million dollars annually in funding from the provincial government.  There is no funding for battered men’s shelters.  Why should there be funding for what doesn’t exist, right?

4) As far as I know, that is the current maximum term for perjury of any other kind.

5) Yes, most certainly, and many people do, anonymously.  They don’t have to give their name to the accused.  Nevertheless, Social Services have such extra-ordinary powers that they’ll move immediately to take the children out of the allegedly “abusive” home -- without due process of the law, and without any involvement by any lawyers at all.  Let’s hope that the children will be placed into foster homes with loving and caring foster parents like Joanne at least, but in 40 percent of the cases the children will never see their birth parents again.  A fight to regain the children can well and easily exhaust far more than the family assets.  It’s exactly the kind of fight that Reverend Dorian Baxter had to face.  It cost him, his relatives and friends more than $300,000 and took many years.
   How will somebody who’s not a Reverend or extremely wealthy weather a fight like that?  Such a man has virtually no chance.

6) More accurately, within the files of Social Services.  Once a man is listed with them as an offender of any kind, chances are that he’ll be listed with them until well after his death.  It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Reverend Dorian Baxter were still listed with Child Welfare in Ontario.  To boot, only a tiny fraction of his legal costs were reimbursed to him.  He still has to cope with another $300,000, unless another appeal will be launched against him, then it’ll cost him more yet.

7)  A partial answer to the question Dave Rutherford was seeking by repeatedly asking what proportion of abuse allegations is in fact false is given to some extent in a TV program that was aired February 17, 2000, by WCVB TV (Massachusetts).  In that program, it was stated:


Mary 2.9.59-11  You see this in your own practice?


I see it in my practice constantly. I see lawyers who'll come to me and say 'Look! If you give me the financial deal I'm looking for, we will vacate the restraining order.'
Mary 2.10.23-28 So it's almost a form of blackmail?
Sheara Yeah. It's extortion. I think it's extortion.


More Evidence of Abuse of Restraining Orders

More Evidence of Abuse of Restraining Orders

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 12:25:50
From: Bradford R Ingram <mbacon5@juno.com>

In Virginia last year there were almost 30,000 divorces granted.  The Supreme Court says that there were almost 130,000 Protective orders filed for.  The net result is that filing for a Protective order in Va. is now considered to be the way to initiate a suit for divorce. (J/K)

Brad Ingram

-----Original Message-----

Here is a perfect example of the abuse of restraining orders. While searching the net this morning, I found these two posts on a message board from http://divorcetransitions.com/

Wanting the house
http://divorcetransitions.com/_disc1/0000003d.htm [Sorry, but the link to that article no longer functions, and the page was not archived in the Internet Archive.]

"I am wanting to get a divorce. I have 3 children, 7, 4, and 2. I want to keep living in the house while the kids and I are in school. Does anyone know if this could happen? Also, he will not leave the house. How can I make him leave? I will not leave. I have no where to go with 3 children. Please help me!!"

Re: Wanting the house 
http://divorcetransitions.com/_disc1/0000003f.htm [Sorry, but the link to that article no longer functions, and the page was not archived in the Internet Archive.]

"I live in Texas and recently filed for divorce. My attorney simply drew up papers that were delivered by a constable that put a temporary restraining order on my husband for a period of time and forbid him from returning to the house until notified by the court. In a situation with three children, I would bet you can easily remain in the house until the divorce is final.  You and your husband will have to come to some legal arrangement about the house following the divorce. I don't know if you have employed an attorney or not, but the papers removing my husband for the house seemed very standardized. Perhaps you could call your local courthouse and inquire about filing such papers yourself? Best of luck to you."

See also:

  • DVStats.org a search engine, aggregating research that examines the impact and extent of domestic violence upon male victims. (Off-site)

    This search facility equates domestic violence to intimate partner violence between men and women in relationships.  It does not provide information on violence between homosexuals, siblings or violence against family members other than heterosexual partners and spouses, such as infanticide, child abuse or violence against elderly in families.

    The primary purpose of the site is to shift public perceptions of such violence away from political ideology, and instead toward objectively verifiable scientific research.
  • Feminism For Male College Students A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry (Off-Site)
  • The page on false abuse allegations 

  • Senator Anne C. Cools, a champion in the fight for the truth and against family violence


  • "Out of Order?"  is a transcript of a TV program by "Chronicle" WCVB TV (Massachusetts), aired February 17, 2000.  This was a program about false abuse allegations, allegations by women who use the process of 209a restraining orders to gain strategic advantages in divorce and custody battles.  The program looked at the abuse of 209a restraining orders from the viewpoint of fathers who become abused by the legal process — legally, but unjustly.  The call-ins that followed the show were 3:1 in favour of the TV program.

  • Seizing children — a tactic for the destruction of the family and to attain state-control of the population

    Throughout history, rampant child apprehensions and state-ownership of children went hand-in-hand with totalitarian regimes and tyrannies.

  • Antiquity — The apprehension of children – boys – in antiquity

  • 20th Century — Evolution of the Hitler Youth

...in a series of coldly and shrewdly calculated moves, radical extremists usurped the youth movement that was very much splintered along political and religious ideological lines and consolidated it into a unified and rigorously controlled sector of the German population.  The slogan that motivated the Nazi leaders was an adaptation of a slogan attributed to Napoleon "Who controls the youths controls the future!"  (Wer die Jugend hat, hat die Zukunft), although its origins go back to Socrates (whom Plato, in Republic, has offer this advice to philosopher kings: "Take all the children from their parents and rid the city of adults."), and, as the history of Ancient Greece shows with respect to Sparta, even farther back in antiquity.

"President Obama is committed to helping states develop seamless, comprehensive, and coordinated 'Zero to Five' systems to improve developmental outcomes and early learning for all children....it will be the goal of this Administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education -- from the day they are born to the day they begin a career."

(Fact Sheet: Expanding the Promise of Education in America, Mar 10, 2009
see also:
Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery Address to Joint Session of Congress, Tuesday, February 24th, 2009)

First they came for the fathers, then for the mothers, and now for   both parents in intact families.  In the end all children will be in the care, custody and control of the State.

An epidemic of state-sponsored kidnapping feeds a tyrannical system hungry for revenues.  Child Protective Services and Children's Aid Societies systematically and increasingly often rob children from their parents.  Kafkaesque chicaneries that the targeted families find impossible to comply with are the tools used to keep the revenues rolling in.  Many families don't survive the ordeals that they are being subjected to by any given CPS or CAS. 
(Full Story)

Posted 2000 02 29
2000 03 03, to add Note 7) and related information.
2001 01 29 (format changes)
2002 06 06 (added link to Sen. Cools' Washington Speech, 2002 05 27)
2002 11 08 (added links to Seizing Children)