Unbelievable: Mother Questioned By Child Protective Services For Allowing Her Children To Play

Screen Shot 2016-04-24 at 4.57.12 PMGovernment encroachment into our lives is an everyday occurrence, but when it comes to our family, we’d like to think a line is drawn. More and more, that is not the case as a mother in Canada found out the other day when she allowed her children to play in the backyard unsupervised.
According to The Blaze:

Jacqui Kendrick, a stay-at-home mom from Winnipeg, said a CFS worker showed up at her house unexpectedly earlier this month, telling her they were there to perform a “well-being check” after receiving a complaint about her children being left unsupervised in the fully-fenced-in backyard.


“We had to go through a whole interview asking so many questions — asking me about if we’ve ever dealt with CFS before, what my childhood was like, how I punish my children, whether we drink or do drugs,” Kendrick told CTV News. “[S]he had to look to see where my kids slept. She had to see if we had enough food in the house.”


Kendrick has three children, ages two, five and 10. She said her kids enjoy playing outside after school, adding that she’s always either outside with them or watching them from her living room windows. The mother of three insisted she feels “completely comfortable” letting her children play outside.


In addition, Kendrick said she has taught her two older children about “stranger danger” and “they know what to do” if they feel unsafe.


“We’ve taught both the [older] kids so far that you look after each other,” she said. “That’s kind of the point. The older ones should be looking after the younger ones.”


Nevertheless, Kendrick said the CFS worker continued pressing her for answers. So much so, that Kendrick nearly broke down in tears.


“The whole time I’m sitting there, pretty much in tears, because I couldn’t understand what was going on,” she said.


There has been no further contact made by CFS since the check-in earlier this month, so Kendrick assumes everything is fine. But she still doesn’t understand why whoever called the authorities didn’t simply stop by her house.


“If you really had a concern, you could have knocked on my door,” Kendrick said, later adding that, if there is ever another complaint in the future, “there’s always going to be a file there.”


Now, Kendrick fears additional complaints could lead to her kids being taken away from



Winnipeg psychologist Dr. Toby Rutner agreed with Kendrick’s assertion, saying kids should be allowed to operate independently as much as possible and, in the age of the Internet, “everyone feels entitled to give an opinion.”


“With the Internet, it has not only created a situation where everyone feels they are entitled to give an opinion, but [also] this approach that says everyone’s opinion is equal in value,” Rutner said.


Manitoba’s Child and Family Services Act states that children 12 and older can be left at home alone unsupervised, but it does not mention anything about leaving kids unsupervised in the backyard.

It’s interesting that the government even thinks it has jurisdiction in your family. What ever happened to parents deciding when their kids are old enough to; be left alone, cook, clean, do laundry or babysit.

More and more, we’re seeing the government push themselves into the roles held by mother’s and fathers for thousands of years, as if some bureaucrat will know what’s best for your kids.

What do you think? Government encroachment or service? Leave a comment with your thoughts below.

  • pamountainman

    Government encroachment…….more like interference……none of their d$%m business……..

  • Norman

    Government encroachment!

  • Pilgrim

    Believe it or not, when you apply for a “marriage license” you sign a document agreeing to place your children under the authority of government.

    Just like when you apply for a driver’s license or register your car you’re agreeing to obey the “Vehicle Code”.

    Read what you sign.

    • ITSa341

      I’ve read every word on my marriage license applications and there was no such thing in them. If there had been I would have sued rather than sign.

      • Pilgrim

        By signing you agree to their authority to grant, revoke and regulate your marriage and the children arising therefrom. You’re receiving a ‘benefit’ and acknowledging their authority over it. It’s the acceptance of the ‘benefit’ that places your marriage under the venue and jurisdiction of government.

        • ITSa341

          Once again none of that language was on any marriage license application I have ever seen and I am one who reads any and all fine print.
          If you know anything about contracts the language must be part of the contract to in any way be binding on any or all parties to the contract.
          Please present any evidence you can find showing any language you claim to be on a marriage license application or marriage license. Don’t just make the claims, back them up with facts.

        • Palomar Jack

          And I suppose da bushes was involved in UFO cover-ups between the 9/11 cover-ups, too. Whatever…

          • Pilgrim

            Because I don’t assume a man is a fool on the basis of a single sentence, I’ll take you seriously. I have no information or opinions on “UFO cover-ups”, so I can’t respond to that aspect of your question. I do, however, have strong opinions on 9/11. I believe Bush was taken by surprise by the event. I don’t believe he had any foreknowledge or involvement prior to the 9/11 incident. I do believe much of the apparatus of the federal government was complicit. You are aware, I’m sure, that the federal government is more than the handful of elected people the msm focuses on, don’t you? There are literally millions of full-time employees working in hundreds of alphabet-soup agencies and many involved in clandestine projects, many spanning years if not decades. Because elected politicians are viewed by those who truly have their hands on the levers of power as merely “temps”, they pretty much do what they do and often the “temps” elected by the people aren’t even aware of what they are involved in. I believe 9/11 was both orchestrated and covered-up by elements within the apparatus of the federal government for the purpose of derailing Bush’s original agenda. Bush didn’t go into office with the purpose or intent to invade the middle-east. In hindsight, however, it is those events that define his presidency.

  • harvey bumfelder

    This appears to be from Canada. If so then their law is probably different from the U.S. but this really does look like a nosy hateful neighbor trying to get “even” for some assumed slight.