Stories

Stop that good parenting!

Brian Hutchinson
September 20, 2017
Vancouver father Adrian Crook believes self-reliance is one of the most important lessons a parent can teach their children. So he taught his four young kids how to take the bus to school. Some anonymous busybody felt they were too young and complained to B.C. child welfare authorities. They investigated and ordered him to desist, even though he hadn’t broken any law. It turns out they picked the wrong dad to try to bully, writes Brian Hutchinson, and now Crook is trying to teach the nanny state a lesson.
Stories

Stop that good parenting!

Brian Hutchinson
September 20, 2017
Vancouver father Adrian Crook believes self-reliance is one of the most important lessons a parent can teach their children. So he taught his four young kids how to take the bus to school. Some anonymous busybody felt they were too young and complained to B.C. child welfare authorities. They investigated and ordered him to desist, even though he hadn’t broken any law. It turns out they picked the wrong dad to try to bully, writes Brian Hutchinson, and now Crook is trying to teach the nanny state a lesson.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Self-employed video game design consultant Adrian Crook is a Vancouver divorcé who shares parenting of his five young children with his ex-partner. In his spare time Crook blogs proudly and candidly about raising his “brood” from a smallish – as most are – condominium near the city’s downtown core. Until this summer he’d been doing it for years without incident, although some of his readers have posted critical comments, usually along the lines that in his zeal to teach his kids self-reliance, he’s “forcing” them to live too modestly.

Then someone anonymously complained to the British Columbia Ministry of Child and Family Development about his parenting methods. The MFCD launched an investigation and started making demands, the most intrusive among them an order that the oldest four of his kids – aged 7, 8, 9, and 11 – stop using public transit without direct adult supervision. Overnight, Crook became a champion for parental rights and a symbol of resistance against the nanny state.

“Living a more sustainable, minimalist, urban lifestyle is something I force on my kids because I know in the long run, the skills and awareness they acquire now will make them better people,” Crook blogged in March 2017, after a panelist on a CTV daytime gabfest took aim at his family living arrangements. Slow news day, apparently. “Usually I get a smattering of negativity in the comments section of any online article and someone invariably accuses me of forcing my kids into this life,” he added. “But this was the first time someone in the media had attempted to advance it.”

Soon after, MCFD bureaucrats received the anonymous complaint, “from someone concerned about my kids taking the bus on their own.”

His four children, Crook explains, were carefully trained over a two-year period to take public transit to their school in North Vancouver, a straightforward, 45-minute trip from their home. Before letting them make the journey without him, Crook contacted Translink, the public transit provider, and asked if there are any age restrictions on riding its buses and trains. No, there are not, he was told.

And so the four youngsters began making the journey, all on their own. They even earned praise from a fellow bus traveller, for their good manners. All good, right? Wrong. So, so wrong.

The anonymous complaint to MCFD triggered a “weeks-long” investigation by ministry officials, says Crook, culminating in a meeting inside a bureaucrat’s office, where Crook was told his children must immediately stop using city transit on their own, because, well, just because.

The province’s directive, and Crook’s pointed retort, ignited a week of national and international headlines. The nanny state had reached too far, most pundits and parents agreed.

The story seemed to awaken Canadians to the fact that social workers and other bureaucrats have unfettered powers, including the right to deny the freedoms of sensibly-raised and competent, polite children and, moreover, to penalize parents who have done nothing wrong. All based on arbitrary and subjective bureaucratic decision-making, unsanctioned by any legislative direction or prescribed law.

The extra-legal overreach makes Crook’s counter-punch all the more powerful. He’s not some angry, stressed-out dad taking shots at a meddling ministry for wasting his time and causing some inconvenience: Crook is drawing attention to a flawed system, in which Canadian lawmakers and judges have abdicated important areas of decision-making to unaccountable government drones who bully citizens for imaginary transgressions based on their feelings and assumptions. And then claim they are working within the rules.

Crook says MCFD officials told him their people had “checked with their lawyers ‘across the country’ and the Attorney General, and determined that children under 10 years old could not be unsupervised in or outside the home, for any amount of time.”

The problem – perhaps the worst in this matter – is that the ministry’s claim is false. Few provinces have laws restricting the age at which children can be left unsupervised by an adult. Manitoba and New Brunswick do require parents to provide children aged 12 and under with “adequate supervision.” Ontario has a similar law with the age threshold set at 16 years.

But B.C. has no such requirement. There is some case law, notably a 2015 B.C. Supreme Court decision upholding a lower court ruling in a matter that involved a mother and her eight-year-old son. She wished to leave him at home, alone, for two hours every weekday after school. The woman objected to an MCFD order that she stop the practice because it was not based on legislation, arguing that the ministry was “usurping the function of the legislature of this province by adopting a policy that children under the age of 10 should not be left unsupervised.” The court rejected the argument, noting that, “while the legislature may have chosen not to set such an age, …that does not mean that trained social workers cannot, based on reasoned principles, set such an age limit themselves.”

There it is: in B.C., social workers can set age limits in circumstances that warrant their intervention, but they’re not enshrined in any law. Apparently, someone at MCFD tried to mislead Crook into thinking he was breaking a law, in their attempt to justify a baseless, unnecessary order. He was not fooled.

“Our family’s freedom of mobility has been dramatically restricted for little reason beyond the complaint of an anonymous person,” Crook writes. “The freedoms my kids enjoyed for years were removed. Even simple trips like several kids crossing the street to the corner store, or walking to school on their own when they’re at their mom’s place were ruled out – effectively made illegal to our children, but not to every other [as yet unreported] family.”

Many parents might have capitulated, but not Crook. He is challenging the ministry’s order and raising money via crowdfunding for a legal appeal. By mid-September, he had raised more than $37,000, well above his original ask of $15,000. If there’s a silver lining in this sorry story, it’s that many other Canadians aren’t being fooled into submission, either.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

The Hands-On Future: Skilled Trades, Data Centres and Canada’s Big AI Opportunity

Whether Canadians fear or favour artificial intelligence, they can’t stop it. AI’s transformative power in making so many things faster and easier will doubtless cause pain, says veteran Canadian business leader Gwyn Morgan, but it will also provide generational opportunities Canada must seize. The Prairie region, especially, has the abundant land and energy needed to build the massive AI data centres that will power the future. Some workers are at risk, Morgan concedes, but AI will create opportunities as well, particularly in the skilled trades. AI might just transform our labour force into one where more workers do real things for real people.

The Day After: How Ottawa’s Clarity Act Could Destroy the Federation It Was Meant to Protect

With Alberta headed for a vote on having a vote on independence, many Canadians may think the threat of separation has evaporated. Or that it’s a long way off. Or that, in any case, Ottawa’s Clarity Act will shut it down and protect the federation. But in the concluding instalment of their series (read Part I here and Part II here), George Koch and Jim Mason explode that delusion. The Act is more likely to increase the “Yes” vote which, they predict, will trigger more political wrangling, more bad faith and bitterness, possible civil unrest and even the province’s annexation by the U.S. The consequences, in other words, are dire no matter which side you’re on.

Too Clever by Half: Why Ottawa’s Clarity Act Helps Neither Side in Alberta’s Separation Debate

The House of Commons once had an effective law in front of it that laid out clear steps to assure that any provincial referendum on independence would be democratic and any negotiations after a “Yes” vote would be fair. But it wasn’t the current Clarity Act – it was a bill put forward by the Opposition Reform Party in 1996, and the Liberal government chose to ignore it. Instead, it passed its own legislation designed to crush support for any subsequent secession movement. In Part II of their series on what the Clarity Act means to today’s debate over Alberta’s future, George Koch and Jim Mason delve into the Act’s origin story and explain why it’s so blatantly stacked in favour of Ottawa – and how that could inflame separatist sentiment and undermine the federalist cause.

More from this author

Banned from the Band

Being a member of a Canadian First Nation has its privileges, such as a house on the reserve, tax exempt status, free post-secondary education, and the right to vote in band elections. But these benefits are by no means guaranteed, because band chiefs and councils decide who gets band membership and the associated entitlements. Their decisions are often arbitrary, ad hoc, discriminatory, and beyond the reach of Canadian law. Brian Hutchinson reports on the rising incidence of racial and gender discrimination on the hundreds of self-governing reserves across Canada.