“IN THE BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN” STOPS DOMESTIC TERRORISM!

“The Ministry of Children’s and Family Services with political objectives and in complicity with the terrorists groups of the Children’s Aid Societies are involved every day in the kidnapping and trafficking children for proceeds. The terrorist attacks especially are aimed against helpless families that historically have been recorder as mass destruction with tens of thousands of children as causalities.  The criminal policies from the government and the threats, attacks, and deaths from the societies groups of thugs targeting defenseless children from poor families are causing permanent human tragedy across the country.

Ontario needs more oversight of children’s aid societies: Editorial

An audit of the Sudbury children’s aid society revealed senior managers charged more than $171,000 of questionable expenses over a two-year period. That is money that would be better used delivering services to kids in care.

It’s hard to believe anyone involved in overseeing the care of vulnerable kids in foster care or group homes would dream of wasting even a penny of the $1.5 billion allotted to children’s aid societies in Ontario.

But sadly, that appears to be the case at the Sudbury children’s aid society. An audit there revealed senior managers charged more than $171,000 of “unreasonable” or otherwise questionable expenses between April 2013 and March 2015. And that doesn’t include another $290,000 in expenses on corporate cards that auditors couldn’t even account for because they could not determine which senior manager had charged them.

What they do know, though, is that a full $99,000 in unreasonable expenses were charged by one person: Colette Prévost, the former executive director, who now heads the York Region Children’s Aid Society. That included hotel rooms costing more than $200 per night, meals at more than $50 and taxi costs of more than $100. It also found $2,591 in expenses not related to Prévost’s job.

This questionable use of funds underlines yet again why the province needs to increase its oversight of the 47 children’s aid societies, which are responsible for the well-being of 15,000 kids.

The Ministry of Children and Youth Services spelled out the right approach. Funds “are to be used for the protection of children. . . It is simply unacceptable for these funds to be used inappropriately.”

That is even more the case because it is not as if children’s aid societies are rolling in dough. One of the most common concerns raised, for example, is that they can’t afford to hire enough staff to properly oversee cases in which children are at risk. 

As Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk noted in a 2015 audit of children’s aid societies, the ministry doesn’t even know whether they can actually “deliver timely and appropriate child protection services” because they have not established standards for how many cases a social worker should be handling.

Money allocated to children’s aid societies, then, would be better spent on hiring more staff to reduce caseloads rather than on dubious expenses.

The money involved in this case may sound like small potatoes until one considers what’s at stake: tax dollars that are supposed to go toward ensuring children’s well-being and safety.

Sudbury children’s aid says it has launched a forensic audit to “identify all the expenses that can be recovered” from Prévost. In the meantime, the ministry must increase its oversight of children’s aid and set benchmarks for how many cases social workers can effectively handle.

In China, they approve the death penalty for corrupt politicians!
The Supreme People's Court of China and the State Attorney's Office have introduced the death penalty for corrupt leaders who embezzle or receive bribes in excess of $ 463,000.

This measure will take effect from the publication and implies a revision of the Criminal Code of 2015 where the precise amounts were not stipulated to justify or not to apply.

 
But if the accused confesses the crime or returns the embezzled money, the capital punishment would be suspended for two years and in fact would mean commuting to life imprisonment, which is the usual condemnation for corruption cases in the country.

 
In addition, senior officials may be tried for complicity in not reporting corruption to close colleagues, even if they are part of their family.