The young singer has been issued a supervision order and now custody of her two children has been handed to their father, Kevin Federline. Why the forceful protection of the kids? Spears reportedly gave gum, pop, and Doritos to her children, she was photographed by the paparazzi driving with her baby on her lap, and on another occasion, she seemed about to drop her baby. She’s also been in drug rehab.

Most US citizens polled think that the kids are better off without the right to a moment of privacy with their mother, and the result of this media bomb is a huge precedent that will influence every community that receives news of Brittney Spears’ life, which is nearly everywhere. To think that if Brittney Spears, who can afford the finest support money can buy, shouldn’t be trusted with her kids, then the parenting abilities of all new families are called into question and the rates of children removed from their parents will increase across the map. In the case of BC, we are already at a peak of frenzied abductions. Governments campaign and are elected on promises that they will prevent abuse of children. Studies are conducted that invariably suggest increased funding to protective services and to foster parents. Social workers are directed to err more on the side of caution and removing children when there is the slightest hint of danger, as Spears’ supervisor has been instructed to sever Spears’ visitation at the slightest provocation. In BC over the past seven years, thousands of children have been taken into government custody, an increase of over 300% from the previous administration.

On the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) website, the government addresses the fact that large numbers of children die in the care of the government. These statistics, it argues, show the severity of the threats to the health of the children that the Ministry is dealing with. The disproportionate number of First Nations children in government supervision is addressed in a similar manner, implying that native families are more at risk. This sort of approach to the issue may be enough to convince voters, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. For example, the number of cases of sexual abuse in foster care is proportionate to the number of deaths in government care. Some estimates indicate more than half the children in foster care fall prey to sexual abuse. Is there any way to blame the children or the families for this sort of statistic? Indeed, it indicates that risks to children are actually increased by governments meddling in the privacy of families.

In cases of celebrities like Spears, the privacy of the family is already jeopardized: throngs of photographers sell images of the girl or the kids for small fortunes to disreputable newspapers that dedicate space to the continued exploits of this pop singer on a nearly weekly basis. Each installment is more shocking than the last and slanderous gossip abounds, always quoted as “sources close to Spears.” America watched the pregnancies, the break-up between the parents, Brittney’s partying and drug abuse, and Spears shaving her head and being arrested for DUI. The media portrayed the public as outraged at Spears’ having shaved her head, and the story was presented as a desperate act by a deranged young lady. The real effect of the head shaving, however, is to cause parents to reconsider radical fashions for fear of arousing the attentions of protective services, and to cause communities to reconsider the parenting abilities of parents that already sport unorthodox appearances.

Most people think that children aren’t taken from their parents without a really good reason, but the state actually removes children for the slightest hint that the children may be in danger of being in danger. Police are notified by the state and move in to forcefully separate parents from their children, and the parents are not told why until later, and then only vaguely. Parents with histories of substance abuse, mental health issues, or poverty are especially targeted. Social workers look for parents in bars, and, as was the case at the Woodwards demonstration for housing, they even approach parents attending political rallies for the poor. In many cases, social workers are just waiting to swoop down on a family at the slightest provocation, which can often be no more than a phone call from neighbourhood busy bodies, an estranged family member, or any other enemy of the family. In the case of Spears, too, her ex-boyfriend and body guard brought the accusations against her repeatedly, and Federline looks to supplement the million he took from the divorce with millions more in child support. Children are increasingly taken first and the reason is decided afterwards.

Another big factor in the growth industry of protective services is the aging population. Many of the baby boomers will never trust the newer generations and will always see them as children, or as babies having babies, as a source close to Spears has reportedly called the case of Spears’ parenthood, even though she’s 24. Young parents in BC are subject to a line in the provincial legislation that directs social workers to find family members to turn the children over to, and in many cases these replacement care-givers are just as much of a risk to the children as the parents they are replacing, but more often than not they are of the boomer generation, along with 95% of the social workers. Kids today, thinks the elder generation, are having children without being able to care for them properly, and so all youth are suspected as unfit parents and control is given more and more to older, more experienced family members, members of an elite generation that insists on nannying the world’s youthful population.

Once attention has been raised regarding a parent, resistance is useless and is labeled as “non-compliance.” Every detail must conform to society’s expectation and the slightest discrepancy is often enough to put the parent right back at the beginning. The slightest mess or hint of unorthodoxy is often enough to support the government’s claim that they should be forcefully involved in the raising of a child. If the parent gets upset at losing their children, which is to be expected, then these emotions are used as evidence against the parents. The only choice is to submit totally and beg to jump through whatever hoops the state deems necessary to reclaim one’s children. One’s ability to redeem oneself depends directly on one’s ability to kow-tow and kiss butt.

At one time, the MCFD operated in what was called a silo or vertical approach that operated independently from other governmental departments, but that is changing. The approach today is a “horizontal” model that involves all governmental agencies, the ministries of employment, health, justice, education, etc, all of which talk about the parent in question, often without releasing the information to the parent because MCFD cases are exempt from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. Parents are then forced to defend themselves against accusations without even knowing what the accusations are.

If there is an epidemic of social workers swooping on families like rabid storks, you may ask, then why don’t we hear more about it than just the cases of troubled celebrities? The answer to this question can be found in the rare cases of parents that have had the courage to stand up and complain, such as the parents that made the video on Youtube “Children Held Against Their Will by MCFD.” The first half of the video shows the children saying that they didn’t want to be in foster care, that they wanted to be with their parents, that their parents would never hurt them, and that they wouldn’t mind if the video be posted on the web. The second half of the video is a recording of the family’s social worker explaining that the parents had lost their visitation to their children because they had posted the video on the web. This use of access as a weapon is common and acts of defiance on the part of the parent is often met with severed rights to reasonable access, so most parents are afraid to fight the injustices when their children are being held hostage.

Brittney Spears may not be the best mother in the world, but she is the only mother that her children have. Whatever shortcomings she is accused of, we have to wonder if they are really worth building fences across the mother-child bond. Spears can afford to buy the best for her children, but for many parents every meal is a challenge, every diaper budgeted, every load of laundry a calculated expense. Spears has been sold as the ideal, the white, upper class conformist that believes Americans should stand by their government, no matter what. If Spears isn’t fit to parent her children, then what of all the lower-income families, the ethnic minorities, the non-conformists?

It’s open season on families in BC and everywhere else too where making a buck is more important than children being with their mothers. History, however, will certainly support the need for a supervision order for Spears because if she’s not traumatized enough now, she soon will be after dealing with state baby snatchers.