Researchers Do it for Money, not for Findings of Fact.
Nojustice.info| Research | Researchers Do it for Money, not for Findings of Fact
Dr Nico Trocmé, the pricipal author of the Ontario (OIS 1993 and 1998) and Canadian (CIS) incidence studies of reported child abuse and neglect, has emerged as one of the foremost government funded researchers on child abuse and neglect. It is no wonder, considering that he religiously follows the gender based analysis directives as designed by the few dozen “gender analysis specialists” at the Department of Justice Canada, under the leadership of the Status of Women Canada. Though the correct name of the UN headed program is "Gender Based Analysis" (GBA), the Department of Justice Canada, and other such feminist agencies, incorrectly call it under the loaded name "Gender Equality (or Equity) Analysis.
In Canada , the government is in [censored] control of all research. The policies are made and enforced by the Status of Women Canada whose vision of a femocracy, ruled by state feminists, became close to completion on Dec. 12, 2003 when Paul Martin, the newly appointed Prime Minister, chose Anne McLellan as the new super-minister of “Public Security” [see also my "Collecting Information for Propaganda is not Research"]
Accordingly, the prime requirement for anyone wishing to land one of the lucrative government contracts is that the researcher will conduct the study under careful government scrutiny and with a predetermined outcome in mind, namely that men are, and have always been, a danger to women and children.
The Department of Justice Canada asks:
Why does gender equality analysis focus on women?
Given the historical and continuing reality of women's inequality, gender equality analysis is primarily aimed at illuminating and addressing the barriers that women continue to face in our society.
In its “Gender Equality Analysis in Research: Step by Step”, the Department instructs those who apply for funding:
Researchers have an important role in framing and reframing program or policy objectives to allow an assessment of potential impacts on women, i.e. environmental scanning. The task includes acknowledging that men and women have different realities, and that different groups of women also have differing realities … Researchers can use the results/findings of their research to encourage policy development in a particular direction
It is important to keep in mind that there is a difference between the outcomes of the research, which support policy development, and the outcomes of the policy itself. In posing the question "How will the outcomes of this research positively benefit or negatively impact on women?", the researcher can make sure the question is raised, but it is the formulation of the policy that will determine the impact.
Research Contracting Procedures: The Gender Equality Initiative aims to have all professional service contracts for policy and policy-related research and evaluation contracts contain gender specific language and service requirements. For details of contracting procedures, refer to the Department of Justice manual Contracting for Services – Guidelines and Procedures. The following is to be read in conjunction with the manual.
CONTRACTING: When we have identified potential differential impacts on women or particular groups of women in the evaluation framework stage, any contractors we retain for subsequent evaluation activities should have experience in gender equality [read "based"] analysis.
Finally, the contractors are told to ask themselves:
What are the impacts (negative or positive) on women or a group of women of a particular policy or program?
In short, contractors have to promise to abandon their code of professional ethics in order to serve the ideological state feminist propaganda. In the words of Status of Women Canada, the sole purpose of the state feminsts is to usher in the new era of Canadian Femocracy. The only way this can be achieved is to rewrite the democratic constitution and replace it with the feminist manifesto. [see: "Women's Representation in the House of Commons: vox populis, Ottawa, ON, October 31, 2003" Centre for Research on Women and Politics at femocracy @ femocracy .ca and "Women's Movements and State Feminism: Integrating Diversity into Public Policy"]
Accordingly, in order to serve the state feminists, who now are in full command in every government department, and to create ideologically motivated perceptions rather than disseminate facts, Dr. Trocmé uses the confusing new-speak phrase “child investigations” though his statistics refer to investigated incidents. In spite of the contradiction, he gives his ratios as “per 1,000 children”. That, of course, is an impossibility as we do not know how many children have been investigated. Thus, he conforms to the expected “gender based analysis” principles and is a good candidate for funding, as are Peter Jaffe, David Wolfe, etc. Ironically, though billions are wasted in propaganda in order to herald in the new era, the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, has whipped up a political storm about the squandering of mere hundred million in advertising.
Every ideologue knows that in order to gain power one has to begin with the indoctrination of children. In his keynote address, called The importance of process in developing outcome measures to the National Outcomes Symposium (Ottawa, February 20-21, 2003), Dr. Trocmé, speaking on behalf of the Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare, which is yet another blatantly anti-father, anti-family agency, admitted that his research is designed according to the outcome that the funders anticipate:
The development of an outcome-based approach has been further complicated by the fact that service providers are keenly aware that funding will be determined by the types of outcome that are measured. Service providers, from front-line staff to senior managers, worry that the measures that are selected will not document the impact of the services they provide. The principle of “what gets measured gets done” can be interpreted to mean “what gets measured gets funded” (Grasso, 1988; Traglia et al., 1996).
Though this particular paper is concerned about the removal of the child from the family, it is equally applicable to all research, especially if we consider that it is in accordance with the Dept. of Justice directives:
Research approach: make a careful choice about which indicators are going to be applied, because you want the indicators to reflect the gendered approach you are developing. [in : Diversity and Justice: Gender Perspectives IV. Gender Equality Analysis in Research and Statistics]
A good sample of Dr. Trocmé’s own work is the following comment that he used in both OIS editions as well as in the CIS:
The over-representation of biological mothers in … should be interpreted with caution, given that 43 per cent of investigations involved female-parent families (see Table 7-1) 1998 Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (OIS 1998)
One is at a loss to understand why that should be interpreted with caution. The fact that most investigations involved female-parent families is due to the fact that most abuse is happening in female-parent families. What follows is difficult to decipher, as he also issues the following cautions:
“Some caution is required in interpreting OIS findings. Ratings provided by investigating workers could not be independently confirmed, specifically for types and level of maltreatment. These are not observable events, rather judgments made by the worker at the end of the investigation period. The 1993 and 1998 OIS document incidents that were reported to a child welfare authority. Child maltreatment not reported, reported only to the police or made about cases already being served by a child welfare agency are not included in the data.” [Source: Responding to changes in reported child maltreatment: Federal program and policy implications (OIS 1993/1998)]
In Chapter 3, p. 37 of the 1993 edition of OIS Dr. Trocmé says:
A case is considered substantiated if it is the worker's professional opinion that there is sufficient evidence that abuse or neglect probably has occured (i.e., prepared to testify in court as an expert witness, even though worker may be uncertain whether the evidence meets all legal evidentiary requirements)
In chapter 4, p. 64: "Characteristics of Maltreatment" he doubts the validity of some results:
Twenty five percent of substantiated cases involved observable harm, 18 percent were considered to involve non-observable but probable harm and an additional 24 percent involved situations where a child had been at substantial risk of harm. Nevertheless, 23 percent of substantiated cases were classified as involving no harm or risk of harm, and in an additional 9 percent of cases, the severity of harm was unknown. This relatively large number of substantiated cases with no evidence of harm or risk of harm is difficult to explain . The guidelines set by Section 37 of the CFSA clearly require evidence of harm or substantial risk of harm before court-ordered intervention is allowed.
One is almost tempted to read between the lines and interpret the comments to mean that he might be trying to send the message that one should read carefully and take what he says with a pinch of salt.
Alleged Perpetrators Most child investigations involved allegations against parents: biological mothers (an estimated 38,228 child investigations), biological fathers (an estimated 24,617 child investigations), stepfathers/common-law partners (an estimated 6,498 child investigations), or stepmothers/commonlaw partners (an estimated 1,172 child investigations (see Figure 5). It should be noted many nonfamilial allegations of abuse are investigated by the police, not by children’s aid societies. Furthermore, there is a significant overlap between alleged perpetrator classifications, as multiple perpetrators were identified for the primary category of maltreatment in 22 per cent of child investigations. Other than parents, relatives were the most frequently suspected perpetrators (an estimated 3,395 child investigations).
Substantiation rates for alleged perpetrators ranged from 27 per cent for acquaintances to 51 per cent for other relatives and 58 per cent for stepmothers. [see below where it states that 58% for stepmothers were unsubstantiated. Both the tables correlate this]
As shown in Table 4-4(a), most investigations involved allegations against parents: biological mothers (59 per cent), biological fathers (38 per cent), tepfathers/common-law partners (ten per cent), or stepmothers/common-law partners (two per cent). … One or both parents were alleged perpetrators in 88 per cent of maltreatment investigations (see Appendix H, Table 4).
The last sentence is further proof of an intentional attempt to mislead the reader as he writes on p. 60 [see below]:
Biological mothers were investigated in 88 per cent of neglect cases ...
Another curious aspect is that he gives the whole numbers and the percentages in separate paragraphs. For certain data he only gives the percentages or whole numbers of investigations without mentioning the substantiation rate, at times he includes biological parents and stepparents in one category, at other times he treats them as separate entities.
Thirty-four per cent of investigations identifying biological mothers as the alleged perpetrator were substantiated, while 23 per cent remained suspected, and 43 per cent were unsubstantiated. Similarly, cases involving biological fathers were substantiated in 39 per cent of the investigations, with 21 per cent remaining as suspected, and 40 per cent unsubstantiated. Thirty-nine per cent of investigations involving stepfathers as the alleged perpetrator were substantiated, 25 per cent remained suspected, and 36 per cent were unsubstantiated. Investigations identifying stepmothers as the alleged perpetrator for the primary category of maltreatment were most [should read least?] likely to be substantiated (25 per cent), while 17 per cent remained suspected, and 58 per cent were unsubstantiated.
The above, once more, can be seen to be an intentionally misleading statistic when taken out of context without divulging the actual numbers to which these percentages refer. The intent obviously is to create the perception than fewer incidents involving mothers than fathers were eventually substantiated. The estimated number of investigated mothers was 38,228 and the estimated number of investigated fathers was 24,617. Thus, the inescapable fact is that far more mothers than fathers perpetrate child abuse, no matter what Dr. Trocmé’s funders would want him to conclude. His use of whole numbers, percentages or ratios, either in combination or alone, is an obvious attempt to blur the real data.
Physical Abuse : Cases of physical abuse were fairly evenly split between mothers and fathers. Female parents were investigated in 49 per cent of cases (46 per cent biological mothers and three per cent stepmothers), while male parents were investigated in 54 per cent of cases (biological fathers in 42 per cent and stepfathers in 12 per cent of investigations). This distribution is somewhat biased by the fact that 43 per cent of investigated families were female-parent families (see Table 7-1). The alleged roles of mothers and fathers in two-parent families is somewhat different, with fathers being investigated in 69 [8,521] per cent of physical abuse cases, and mothers in 41 per cent [4,996](see Appendix H, Table 5, p. 203).
All the data must be read and interpreted carefully, as advised by Dr. Trocmé himself. We must keep in mind that all those who are doing the investigations are trained in feminist theory, and thus may begin their evalutions with the mandatory predetermined ideological outcome of the faultless female parent in mind. Curiously, though Dr. Trocmé has been questioned about the fact that the data on two-parent families (these could be intact families or families where one parent co-habits with a partner who is not the biological parent of the child) is only given as “investigated” without giving the substantiation rates, he still insists on not only using it but also citing it as a finding of fact in his propaganda hand-outs:
In two-parent families nearly three quarters of perpetrators [of abuse caused by physical punishment](73%) are fathers, and in most instances fathers on their own. Fathers are also overrepresented as perpetrators in other cases of physical abuse but are equally likely as mothers to be perpetrators in other forms of maltreatment. Source: CIS 1998 [in: Physical abuse of children in the context of punishment]
How to blur the data so that biological fathers are always seen to be the perpetrators has been problematic for the feminist inspired compilers. Nowhere does Dr. Trocmé indicate how many of the incidents where the biological father was the alleged perpetrator in two-parent families are substantiated. On the other hand, in spite of his best efforts to convince us otherwise, he has provided ample data that show that mothers are the main perpetrators of “other forms” of maltreatment. Read on:
Neglect: Biological mothers were investigated in 88 per cent of neglect cases, and biological fathers were investigated in 31 per cent of these cases. The over-representation of biological mothers in the neglect category should be interpreted with caution, given that 43 per cent of investigations involved female-parent families (see Table 7-1). In two-parent families, fathers/stepfathers were investigated in 68 per cent [6,112] of neglect cases, and mothers/stepmothers in 91 per cent [8,206](see Appendix H, Table 6, p. 203). Thirty-one per cent of cases involving biological mothers and biological fathers were substantiated respectively while 43 per cent of investigations for step fathers were substantiated.
Once more, we have the illogical note about the “over representation of the biological mothers”. Note further that Dr. Trocmé does not tell how many of the 6,112 “fathers” and of the 8,206 “mothers” in the “two-parent” families were the biological parents of the children. Yet, though the actual number is given under the generic headings “fathers” and “mothers”, the percentages refer to biological and step parents separately. Thus, the 31% of cases involving biological fathers obviously refers to a number lower than 6,112, but the same percentage of cases involving biological mothers could well be 8,206, as the substantiation rate for step-mothers is not mentioned.
Household Structure: An estimated 19,022 child maltreatment investigations involved children who lived with their two biological parents, and an estimated 10,783 investigations involved children who lived in a two-parent blended family (Figure 12). An estimated 30,746 investigated children lived in a family led by a lone parent: an estimated 27,437 in a female-parent household, and an estimated 3,309 in a male-parent household. Rates of substantiation ranged from 32 per cent (biological parent and other) to 37 per cent (two-parent blended). Somehow the difference between “biological parent and other” and “two-parent blended” is not clear. Neither of them refer to an intact family headed by two biological parents.
Most research documents that abuse by mothers is usually long lasting whereas that by fathers is a one time occurrence. Thus, means had to be devised to give mothers a way out. In his address called “ Child Maltreatment Investigations in Canada: Judicial Implications ” to the National Judicial Institute Seminar “Child Protection and the Law” (Ottawa, ON Sept. 25-27, 2002) Dr. Trocmé suggested that one time incidents should be dealt immediately, though clearly these incidents do not pose an ongoing risk to the children. He recommends that chronic maltreatment cases, which by far are the most damaging, should be put on the backburner, thus exposing the child not only to ongoing psychological, and maybe physical harm, but which at times prove to be lethal. We can only think of the long and tragic abuse of little Randal Dooley in the hands of his stepmother, which only ended when his stepmother battered him to death on Sept. 25, 1998 . Although he died from a brain injury, his emaciated, battered body was covered in marks and bruises. An autopsy concluded he had a lacerated liver, 14 broken ribs, three other brain injuries and a tooth in his stomach. Only one of his teachers made a feeble effort to take note and informed the CAS. The Children's Aid Society twice refused to get involved when told that the 6-year-old boy's arms and back were covered in welts and bruises. Neither the CAS nor the police took the warning seriously. A doctor who had earlier examined him for suspicious injuries did it in front of his tormentor. That is against his professional ethics. The same applies to the police, the CAS, the teachers and principals. Randal, just like so many others, did not make the 1998 OIS child abuse statistics as his case was “screened out”. Dr. Trocmé claims that in 1998 there were no reported child abuse fatalities in Ontario. Randal simply did not exist.
Dr. Trocmé cites OIS 1998 when he tells the judges that:
Table 4-3 shows that 33 per cent of substantiated or suspected investigations (an estimated 12,118 child investigations)involved situations of multiple incidents that had been ongoing for more than six months, while 30 per cent of investigations involved single incidents, and 20 per cent involved multiple incidents for less than six months in duration.
The courts can play a central role in supporting the development of a dual response system by requiring different types of evidence and interventions for child protection cases compared to chronic maltreatment cases. In protection cases, the question of evidence specific to the alleged incident and the short-term safety of the child are paramount. In chronic maltreatment cases, the courts should only become involved after thorough psycho-social and parenting capacity assessments have been completed, and after attempts have been made to involve community resources in a non-adversarial fashion. Once the courts are engaged with families facing chronic maltreatment problems, it is critical they remain engaged until there is evidence that the family’s circumstances identified in the initial assessments have been addressed. In other words, serious mental health, parenting or family functioning problems, not soiled diapers and dirty kitchens, should be grounds for court-ordered intervention in chronic maltreatment cases. Consequently, the resolution of such concerns should be the only acceptable grounds for disengaging the courts.
Needless to say, Dr. Trocmé has exposed his bias more than once. In fact, his entire life’s work is fraught with contradictions and the desire to create perceptions. By bowing to the demands of a corrupt government he, just like most of his peers, is willing to sacrifice his professional integrity at the expense of suffering to millions of children. Like Randal Dooley, Jordan Heikamp and Matthew Vaudreuil.
On February 2, 2001, Christie Blatchford wrote in her National Post article called "Mother reassured as baby slowly died; Shelter boss says workers not to blame for Jordan 's death":
In the stand from midday Monday through yesterday, and still not finished, was Catherine Brooks, the boss of Anduhyaun, the shelter for native women where baby Jordan and his teenage mother, Renee, were living for the last 25 days of the baby's brief life.
This, in other words, was the place where, in June, 1997, Ms. Heikamp and Jordan spent a good deal of time. Anduhyaun has an important role in this case; the Anduhyaun witnesses, of whom Ms. Brooks is the first, are key. [cut]
Indeed, it has become evident at the inquest that reassuring Ms. Heikamp was a goal not only of Ms. Brooks' staff, but also of just about everyone who came into contact with the young mother. In the language of the helping professions, this is deemed "supporting" her. (If I had a nickel for every time the word "support" or its myriad variations have been unctuously uttered these last four weeks, I would be rich beyond bearing.)
The workers at the youth shelter where Ms. Heikamp lived while pregnant and to which she often returned with the wasting baby in tow by and large saw themselves as her advocates; notes made by Ms. Martin, who hasn't testified here yet, reveal that she too was sympathetic to Ms. Heikamp and inclined to believe her. [cut]
About the mother, Ms. Brooks said blithely, no worries at all, no sireebub. Why, they ought to have a good hard look at the man in Ms. Heikamp's life, she told the police.
The night of Jordan 's death, there was a healing circle at Anduhyaun to "support" Ms. Heikamp and the traumatized counsellors. In the house logbook, someone wrote, "Baby Jordan went to the Spirit World. Our prayers go with him." The next day, Ms. Heikamp was duly "smudged" in a native ceremony.
Baby Jordan would have looked increasingly the way he did at death in the last 10 to 14 days of his life. He went to the spirit world weighing four pounds, two ounces, every single tiny rib standing out in stark relief, not a trace of food in his sunken tummy.
His mummy, though, was supported by all and sundry until the chickens came home to roost. [cut]
Jordan died when he was only five weeks old in June, 1997, despite his then teenage mother's frequent encounters with nurses, social workers and workers at Anduhyaun, right under the eyes of Ms. Brooks who admitted that she advised police officers investigating Jordan's death that "the person who is probably most guilty in this death of this child" was the infant's father.
Although the father was not to blame in any way for his death, Ms. Brooks later said she acted because the shelter's role, "was to support the client [Ms. Heikamp]. That's what we do."
Only one month after a coroner's inquest found that Jordan's starvation death was a homicide, Cartherine Brooks received an honorary degree from Queen's University (Kingston, Ontario).
"People have to look beyond the recent news coverage to see the long-term contributions Catherine Brooks has made to women, and in particular, aboriginal women. She's done tremendous work for women in need of shelter" Queen's University principal, Bill Leggett, said.
Ms. Brooks was recognized for her commitment to developing programs geared toward stopping violence against women, the need for early childhood education and promoting healing through crisis intervention. [source: The National Post, May 8, 2001 "Queen's to honour head of shelter where baby died Jordan Heikamp starved"]
In stark contrast a shelter worker in British Columbia, who in 1998 reported her suspicion that a nine year old girl was being abusedby her mother in a shelter that received 300,000 a year in government assistance, was forced to resign. [Source: The National Post, Nov. 16, 1999: "Shelter in a storm: Sandra Cliffe thought she was doing her job as a women's shelter worker when she reported a suspected child abuser. Her co-workers disagreed" by Donna Laframboise]
Donna Laframboise, who was the lone voice crying against these outrages in the media wilderness, has also lost her job.
This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the face of the Canadian femocracy that the researchers are paid to construct.
Who's The Cutest?
That hater and slayer of feminazi PIGS!
Off with their freak'n heads!