A 36-year-old Quebec mother has an idea that has been kicked around in this column in the past. She believes child protectors have too much power to be without public overview, and a review board similar to those in police services is needed.

She can't be identified because it's a child protection case. She tells it this way:

The family has an upscale two-storey, three-bedroom home and a summer cottage. Both parents work and they figured their five children had pretty good lives and bright futures.

In April last year, the oldest child, 12, spit at father. Father whipped off his belt and left a mark on the child's thigh. Says mother: "It was wrong and he knew it right away, and held her and apologized." The mark was displayed to friends at school the next day, and news of it got to teachers. By law they have to report such marks to child protection authorities.

The five children didn't come home that night. They were taken into protective custody at the school, and the younger ones from day care. The youngest was two. The children were separated into two different foster homes, and the parents were allowed to visit them one hour a week.

"The visits were a horror," says mother. "The children cried and clung to us and wanted to go home."

After five weeks they were allowed to go home, but there was a condition. Father had to move out.

"I couldn't run the house and take care of five children without my husband's help. After about a month he was allowed to move back in."

But the protectors didn't stop, and the court dates kept piling up. The couple had to dip into their retirement savings to pay legal bills, ran out of money at the $5,000 mark, and are now appearing in court without a lawyer. Their most recent trip to court was last Wednesday, and a lawyer representing the child protection agency asked for a delay, and it was granted. The parents don't know what it's about, or when they have to go back to court.

Father missed so much work, because of court time and stress, he lost his job. Although he has found another, he's worried his new employer will find out about his legal problems and suspect him of being an abusive man. Mother holds a mid-level government job.

"I swear on a stack of Bibles my husband is not an abusive man. He lost his temper and did something wrong. I would not let my children be exposed to a dangerous man. But the social workers say he's a controlling man and he controls me, and I don't know what I'm talking about. That's an insult. I am not stupid. Recently one of the caseworkers, no more than a girl, told me my youngest child was too attached to my oldest child, and that kind of dependency wasn't good. I have children who love and trust each other, and that's bad?"

She says her children are being abused by the very people who are supposed to be protecting them. She offers report cards as proof. In 1997 her children were top students. Now two of them are at risk of failing. "They're afraid they're going to have to go back into foster care, or their father is going to have to leave home again."

In one of the latest court steps, the father has been ordered to undergo a psychiatric assessment. The parents are worried about that, because the protection system will choose the psychiatrist and, after almost 10 months in the system, they no longer trust it.