Winnipeg Mother Faces Child Welfare Inspection and Questioning After Allowing Her Children To Play Alone In Their Fenced-In Backyard

Coat_of_arms_of_Manitoba.svgWe have another bizarre case of child welfare overreach on the same week as a story where child welfare officials appear to have ignored one of the worst cases of child abuse in recent memory in Washington state. In Winnipeg, Jacqui Kendrick, a stay-at-home mom, was called out by Child and Family Services because she let her children play in her fenced-in backyard. That’s right, a neighbor called to complain that children were playing on their own in their own fenced-in backyard.

Kendrick has three children ages two, five and 10, and was home watching them through the living room window. She said that the interrogation by the CFS, including an inspection of her home and questioning of her children left her in tears.

She was even questioned on whether she was feeding her children properly. What is astonishing is that the original call would seem frivolous if it were based only on children playing alone in their backyard. Yet, that call appeared enough to warrant a visit and inspection.

Source: Calgary Herald

27 thoughts on “Winnipeg Mother Faces Child Welfare Inspection and Questioning After Allowing Her Children To Play Alone In Their Fenced-In Backyard”

  1. CPS targeted me for bringing my kid to McDonald’s, weighing her on a bathroom scale, and letting her have a soda, here they are lambasting me for it and threatening to take my child away for this:

    Today, even though completely exonerated of any neglect, I now have no contact whatsoever with my child.

  2. Bambam…if the stakes are so high why is it always ‘anonymous’…? But that’s right …. all you need is a picture and you can divine all the facts.

  3. Nick

    There are certain groups, within society, which are particularly vulnerable and, often, totally and completely helpless: the elderly, the handicapped and, of course, the children. I would much rather that someone venture to speak out, on behalf of these individuals, and run the risk of being potentially mistaken regarding his or her observations, as opposed to turning a blind eye to what is occurring and refraining from getting involved. There’s a risk of being mistaken, but the stakes are too high to be concerned with such trivialities. When the stakes involve life or death, those possessing a clear conscience and a pure heart have no problem, whatsoever, being perceived as an advocate for those with no voice. There is, in my opinion, no greater sin than that of indifference in the face of irreversible harm.

  4. bam, I am not speaking about this story. I am speaking about the TOPIC. I am honestly not busting on you. I agree there is always a Paul Harvey “Rest of the story.” But, this topic of children safety is visceral for you.

    Regarding this story, and all issues involving the govt. and parents/children. Remember, I worked for a big city juvenile court. I saw horrors inflicted on children by “parents.” I saw GOOD social workers work on getting parents minds right, or if that was not possible, work hard to sever parental rights. I have also seen incompetent, nanny, social workers intrude on families where it was not righteous and create horror. Finally, I have seen child abuse cases assigned to lazy, incompetent, social workers and kids die while “under supervision.” I too have emotions on this topic. But, I always effort letting knowledge and experience take the lead over my emotions.

  5. Nick–

    It’s quite simple. I would assume that you, as a former and/or current PI, would grasp the concept that there is often far more to a story than what simply appears on the surface. I guess that I assumed incorrectly. Those with a more developed sense of curiosity and inquisitiveness read this story and question what was it that motivated the reporting neighbor to behave in the manner in which she did? Was she simply some evil person, attempting to even the score–where the report, from its inception, was patently bogus and baseless–or was the neighbor, in fact, truly, rightfully and legitimately concerned about the welfare of these children due to various observations, incidents and warning signs which transpired over an extended period of time–observations, incidents and warning signs that she, for whatever reason, chose to no longer contain? Did the children appear to be malnourished and neglected? Did the children ask her for food, over that purported fence line, because they were hungry and were not being fed on a consistent basis? Did the children complain of abuse or neglect? Did they act terrified in the presence of the alleged mother?

    We are inundated with the refrain–if you see something, say something–whether it pertains to possible terror related activities or potential parental abuse and neglect. We, as a society, have to choose–either we want individuals to speak up, when something doesn’t appear to be right and/or normal or we don’t. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand that and then bash those who answer that call.

    If a healthy and active curiosity–which demands that more facts, which are woefully absent from this story, be presented BEFORE we all, uniformly, decide that this neighbor was intrusive and overreaching–makes me the Universal Mother of all children, so be it.

  6. bam, I would love to know the history regarding your being the Universal Mother of all children.

Comments are closed.