10/03/2026
CLASS ACTION AGAINST CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, EDMONTON ALBERTA
If you have had any similar experiences, please PM us!
—————————
Social media post (public advocacy)
Children and Family Services Edmonton
When I finally received my Child Intervention records and interview transcripts through Access to Information, I did what every parent should be able to do—I compared what was said with what was documented through audio recordings with child intervention workers and supervisors and CFS records.
What I found left me asking difficult questions about how child protection investigations assess domestic violence and cumulative harm. The contradicting statements made no sense.
1. Child returned with strangulation marks in 2023. CFS worker (audio recording) agreed that the doctor had a legal obligation to report to children and family services- but did not despite the contradicting statement in the final review after dismissal by the review board at CPSA that “the doctor did not consider the time we waited in the waiting room for 6.5 hours before seeing the doctor, only the child behaviour at assessment at 3 am after a meltdown and a sleep (documented).
2. Additionally, the father refused to provide a statement to RCMP regarding the strangulation marks, but later affirmed in an affidavit that “he did not see any marks on the child neck while changing her diaper prior to exchange”, “the child had taken a spill on her bike” and “upon receiving the doctors notes and photos in color, he acknowledged the marks were present.”
3. CFS repeatedly recognized mother to be willing to protecting child.
4. CFS also acknowledged throughout the notes the domestic violence by the father while mother was pregnant with child as a risk factor.
5. CFS was made aware the father did not want the child and there was an appointment to terminate the pregnancy.
6. CFS also acknowledged the mother had no previous history with CFS, despite having another child with her ex husband and currently living together since the mother was assaulted by the father of the (2yo) until the child returned with strangulation marks in 2023.
7. The CFS records also noted that there were concerns that because the child was no -verbal, they wouldn’t be able to interview her.
8. Supervised visitation was ordered, and the child had supervised visitation with the father.
9. During that time, the speech pathologist recognized her concerns, and referred the child to a trauma assessment which the father refused to consent to.
10. After returning to the speech pathologist the second time, the child had made significant improvement and the only thing that changed was the child was not unsupervised, or left alone, with the father.
The records describe a framework that considers, on paper:
coercive control,
fearful compliance,
cumulative patterns,
emotional impact,
developmental impact,
physical impact.
11. The Zebra Child Advocacy Center: (November 17, 2025) “ zebra centre has declined further forensic interviews unless disclosures arrive from an independent third-party due to concerns that additional interviews may be harmful.”
12. CFS records indicate on March 30, 2026: CIIRT intake from third party collateral describing disclosure made by child outside parental care.
13. CFS records indicate on April 2, 2026: CIIRT intake from self-defence instructor reporting past and present disclosures.
14. Despite medically documented child abuse acknowledged by the Stollery Hospital on April 28, 2026.
15. The Zebra Centre declined to do an interview in addition to these two disclosures which contradicts the statement above.
Yet much of the discussion focused on whether previous reports had been found "unsubstantiated."
The records also confirm that parents should continue reporting suspected child abuse. At the same time, repeated reporting, medical attendance, photographs, and documentation became part of the concern discussed against me.
Key CFS contradictions
16. Nov. 19, 2025 & Mar. 27, 2026 supervisory review Contradiction DV expertise Workers said they understand domestic violence, coercive control, fearful compliance, and patterns.
Supervisor refused to discuss qualifications and said, “We are qualified to be here.” CFS claims DV competence but avoids explaining how DV risk was actually assessed.
Reporting abuse
17. Workers said you must report suspected abuse. Supervisor says repeated reporting/filming is emotionally damaging and you “need to believe that it’s not happening.” CFS says report abuse, but also treats reporting/documenting as the risk/harm.
Physical harm
18. Workers said impact to the child matters. Supervisor says “there’s no evidence that she has been hurt.” This disregards the listed pre/post photos(100+), disclosures, physical injuries (69+), regressions (15+), and emotional dysregulation episodes (150+).
Neutral investigation
19. Workers said it was only an allegation and not a conclusion. Supervisor says the file was “waiting to close” before the review. The review may not have been meaningfully open if closure was already intended. They also made notes about how to speak to mother because she records the conversations to hold them accountable. (All Mothers going through CFS, start recording! You have a legal right! It’s called “One Party Consent”.)
Child disclosures
20. Workers questioned whether the child may be coached. Supervisor says a four-year-old can melt down over a cup colour and calls audio “out of context.” Child disclosures are minimized instead of assessed through a trauma/DV lens.
Family Violence Relevance
21. Workers acknowledged exposure to domestic violence can fall under legislation. Supervisor says strangulation statistics and prior relationship abuse are “irrelevant” / “not what we’re here to talk about.” CFS says DV history matters, but treats it as irrelevant when assessing present child risk.
Future risk
22. Workers said they assess harm/danger and patterns. Supervisor says past findings do not prove future events, but also relies on past unfounded findings to dismiss current concern. CFS uses past findings when they help close the file, but not when they support cumulative risk.
Protective Parent Role
23. Workers said families are experts in their children’s lives. Supervisor discounts my observations and says I need to believe it is not happening. CFS recognizes parental knowledge in theory but disregards your firsthand observations.
Mental Health
24. A CFS worker stated in record “mental health assessment for mom”. When two intervention workers interviewed me on November 19, 2025 and I confirmed my counsellors name and info (attached from audio recording of the November 19, 2025 interview) as they stated they would be reaching out to her and never did for the investigation.
Additional Concerns and Info
25. CFS records indicate that CFS accepted “additional concerns” on April 20, 2026 prior to the April 27, 2026 disclosure of abuse by the child against the father. I also relayed the social media posts made by a third party who made identifying statements about active ongoing investigations that the third party was not a party of the investigation or court proceedings.
As a parent, that is a difficult position to navigate.
It is to encourage accountability, transparency, and informed discussion about how child protection systems assess coercive control, cumulative family violence, and the experiences of children.
Every child deserves a thorough, fair assessment.
Every parent deserves to understand how those assessments are made.
Share this post to expose CFS in Edmonton, AB Canada! They do NOT work in the best interest of children and keeping them safe. They are not trained in domestic violence, they do not understand domestic violence. Like & share!!
I hope these conversations lead to stronger systems and better outcomes for children.
Grounds for a Class Action Against Child and Family Services Systemic Misuse of Safety Assessments Against Post‑Separation Abuse Survivors CFS engaged in a pattern and practice of deploying safety assessments in a manner that systematically discredits women reporting and/or experiencing post‑s.....
