CAS workers break the law and encourage kids to break the law too!

 

2001 - 'There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this (9-11) disaster to carry out ... a new world order.'  (Gary Hart, at a televised meting organized by the CFR in Washington, D.C. Sept 14.

 

Eux-elles et nous

 

La cause des femmes

 

Papa a raison 2

 

Masculiniste

 

Loi C-484 : le devoir citoyen d'objection de conscience

 

La soeur de Lindsay Lohan attaquée par des adolescentes

 

Libérations conditionnelles : le juge Auger s’interroge en plein tribunal

 

Deux détenues de la Maison Tanguay s’évadent

 

Toronto Mother absolved of murdering her two children (?)

 
 

 <<.."....not criminally responsible because she claimed she "was trying to take her babies to heaven with her." >>
 

 

 No media reports yet but this news just picked up and reported by a Toronto activist from a local TV report
 
A Toronto mother who drowned her two young children in the bathtub about 2 years ago was absolved of responsibility for their murders. The judge stated that the woman was not criminally responsible because she claimed she "was trying to take her babies to heaven with her."
 
The woman downed the two children, then climbed into the tub, slit her own wrists, drank bleach and toilet bowl cleaner.   

 

The mother survived.  Both children died.
 
 

Hmm....Is this possible? Sure it is. Apparently not criminally responsible because she claimed she "was trying to take her babies to heaven with her."   What would a Father say in defence how would his defence be received and what would he get for a sentence had he killed his children in this way. or any way for that matter? I think we all know the answer to that one.  More news to follow as it develops

JS 

 

 

Égalité: accumulation de privilèges et de ressources accordés exclusivement aux reproductrices

 

Two mother IVF families enshrined in law

<<Justice Bruce Pugsley's criticism came in a case where a 40-year-old woman was arrested and jailed overnight based on her husband's complaint that she had struck him more than a month earlier at a Valentine's dance>>

What an absolute joke! I wonder if anyone in the family law industry is actually aware-or up to admitting-how many men this happens to, and has been happening to just about every day in Canada and nothing has been done about it, or even spoken of in legal circles- for years. And no-one cared-least of all Canadian Judges. Now all of a sudden the reverse happens for a change and a woman is arrested and jailed based on a month old allegation and a judge is up in arms about it?  

 

And now, seemingly overnight it seems the entire legal community (and even Lawyers Weekly)  is up in arms and trying to change things? Where have they been and where were they when the real travesty was taking root and men were being arrested and charged  in droves under these mandatory arrest policies? Many of them also based entirely on the (probably false and unfounded) statement of one person with a legal agenda?  Where were they when innocent men were being arrested and charged, jailed and losing their children and their homes? Er, um... whats "good for the gander must surely be good enough for the goose? Right?

 

As a Canadian Fathers Rights Activist wrote to me just a few minutes ago "This story is interesting Jeremy. All of this Judges considerations would have not been given if the violence had been done by the man. If he had of hit his wife and an ex parte order was in his wife's favour, he would be out of the house for good. Another example of the law not being applied equally".

 

Incredibly this story places FR activists in the position of siding with the Mother in this case because it sounds so similar to the usual 'mandatory arrest of Dad' story. Its identical to the norm but gender reversed. But at least its bringing attention to the overall injustice. Now what about all the innocent Dads who have suffered before this time?

 

Jeremy Swanson

(Italics, bold, quotations and colour are mine)

 

Winning family battles in criminal court

By Thomas Claridge

Toronto 

 May 23 2008

Lien

Family law practitioners have welcomed an Ontario Court judge's criticism of a provincial policy on combatting domestic violence that effectively requires police and Crown lawyers to prosecute any spouse alleged to have engaged in domestic violence.

Justice Bruce Pugsley's criticism came in a case where a 40-year-old woman was arrested and jailed overnight based on her husband's complaint that she had struck him more than a month earlier at a Valentine's dance.

Justice Pugsley also cautioned lawyers against advising clients to use criminal court processes to achieve objectives that are beyond their reach in family court, such as custody of the couple's children or possession of the matrimonial home.

In the judgment, which was critical of both police and the Crown, the judge vacated an ex parte order which Stephen Edward Shaw had obtained after having his wife Alison Shaw arrested for assault. The order gave him exclusive use of the matrimonial home and custody of their children, aged 7 and 2.

Justice Pugsley said that although the alleged assault occurred at the dance on Feb. 9, the husband did not ask police to charge her until March 11, after surreptitiously viewing his wife's e-mail and going to a lawyer who he said told him to have his wife charged. She was arrested, held overnight, and released on $5,000 bail only after being bound by the order, which Justice Pugsley said "effectively granted exclusive possession of the couple's matrimonial home to the father. Further, Ms. Shaw, a 40-year-old adult with no prior criminal history, was required to reside with her surety and be amenable to the rules and discipline of the home; to abide by a curfew; and not to access the Internet."

Noting that the assault charge involved "what was in effect a one-punch bar fight over a month before, where her target was her spouse," he said the case "illustrates the danger of speedy or discretionless criminal procedure."

Terming the wife's story "commonplace," Justice Pugsley said it did not show "the police, the Crown, counsel or the criminal judicial system in a good light."

Based in Orangeville where he handles both criminal and family law cases, Justice Pugsley said an accused spouse is invariably barred from his or her home and prevented from exercising custody of, or access to, the couple's children, without any consideration of the factors a family court must apply in determining custody or access.

"This is not for one moment to diminish the impact of spousal abuse on family members and children in Canada," the judge wrote. "Spousal assaults are by nature serious and there are very sound policy reasons to lay such charges and have them proceed through the judicial system to ultimate resolution if not diverted."

However, the criminal court process "often wreaks family law havoc with the family unit of the defendant and the complainant, and in particular the children of those parties. Family courts decide custody and access issues on the basis of statute and case law defining the best interests of the children. The criminal justice system pays no attention to such interests because it is not geared up to do so."

 He said routine orders excluding a party from the common home without a remedy short of a bail review "place one party in a position of immediate superiority over the other party for as long as it takes (perhaps a year) for defended criminal charges to be resolved. Such rote treatment of all matters of domestic assault can lead, on the one hand, to concocted or exaggerated claims of criminal behaviour or, on the other hand, to innocent defendants pleading guilty at an early stage out of expediency or a shared desire with the complainant to start to rehabilitate the family unit."

Justice Pugsley said that although he didn't know what advice the unnamed lawyer had given the husband in advising him to have his wife charged, "I can only hope that no licensed lawyer in this province would have advised the father that the fastest way to get custody and exclusive possession of the family home was to report the mother's transgressions to the police."

In addition to vacating the ex parte order, he issued a temporary order for joint custody of the children, aged 7 and 2. Under the order the spouses have custody on alternate weeks.
Both counsel at the hearing praised the judge's reasoning.

The father's counsel, Brampton lawyer Ross Milliken, told The Lawyers Weekly other family law lawyers have described the judgment as "long overdue."

He added that although he had asked that his client be given interim custody, the judge's ruling "seems to be working. The parents have been co-operating and there have been no problems."

Milliken, whose practice includes both family and criminal law, said he often finds himself representing accused spouses. He had been retained that day by a wife who was arrested "for throwing a telephone at her husband." But unlike Alison Shaw, she had been released on her own recognizance.

The wife's counsel, Orangeville lawyer Gillian Shute, took no credit for the judge's extensive analysis and citing of case law, advising The Lawyers Weekly that the client retained her less than a week before the court hearing. She, too, said such occurrences were commonplace.

She said the client "felt she had no option" but to accept the ex parte order's terms.

A zero tolerance policy is indicated in the Ontario Crown Policy Manual, which says that whether or not a complainant agrees, "all such assaults shall be prosecuted with vigour."

A spokesman for Attorney General Chris Bentley denied that the policy amounts to zero tolerance, requiring only that domestic violence be treated "very seriously."

Brendan Crawley told The Lawyers Weekly the "clear policy direction on handling these cases" includes discretion in the form of Crown vetting.

He said public safety, "including that of the victim," was the "paramount consideration."

Reasons: Shaw v. Shaw, [2008] O.J. No. 1111.

Lien

 

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer Harming Children and Families at the Expense of Taxpayers  

Tom Thompson, Justice Reporter

19th May 2008

Tax dollars and resources meant to help children being squandered by Ontario’s Children’s Lawyer in efforts which ultimately harm the interests of children and Justice in Ontario. Under legislation in Ontario, the Office of the Children’s lawyer (OCL) is the taxpayer funded agency which is appointed to represent the interests of children in many family court proceedings.

While most taxpayers would expect this government agency with its lawyers and social workers to spend tax resources in a manner which would best help children and promote justice in an open and accountable manner, evidence would reasonably indicate that this agency is often failing in these objectives.

The person assigned the responsibility to manage this taxpayer-funded agency is Ms. Claire E. Burns, a lawyer who also serves as the Vice-Chancellor of the Anglican Diocese of Toronto.  

Analysis of documents and testimony from the very children and families which the OCL is supposed to be helping, reveal that significant problems continue to plague this agency and that significant changes are required to repair the serious flaws in the way in which this government agency operates under the direction of Ms. Burns.

Of significant concern is that a number of children and parents who have had dealings with the OCL state that there experience has not been a good one.

Many say that they do not trust the OCL or its workers and report that they have been harmed by the agency.

Some children report that OCL workers showed clear signs of bias against one of their parents and that they did not think this fair while some others reported that they wished they had a recording of their meeting with the OCL worker so that the workers could be exposed for lying. 

While Ms. Burns has been questioned as to why she does not support the concept of having OCL workers simply employ the use of audio recording devices to maintain accurate records, Ms. Burns has stated on the record that the recording of meetings with children by her staff will cause the children harm.

Yet the Supreme Court of Canada has disagreed with Ms. Burns and has stated that recording of children’s testimony for court purposes is a most reliable form of record keeping.

Police as well, routinely record children when interviewing them during investigations involving sexual assault or domestic violence.

Yet even when children say they wish to have their meetings with OCL workers recorded they are refused.

One 13-year-old from the Barrie, Ontario area told Court Watch during a videotaped interview that she caught the OCL lawyer attempting to record her but that the lawyer lied to her about this when she asked.

By far, the most common and alarming complaint voiced by child clients of OCL is that their lawyers fail to make their wishes properly known to the court and that OCL workers use leading questions and coercive questioning techniques during meetings.   Children have reported being completely ignored by their lawyers and their wishes never heard by the court at all.

One child informed her mother that she had not seen her lawyer in over a year and during a subsequent telephone call to an administrative assistant at the OCL, the parent was told that the file had been closed some time ago.   Yet, according to the parents, in spite of the child being told that she no longer had a lawyer, the lawyer continued to attend court appearances afterwards and to “speak to the child’s wishes” in court.

Given that this lawyer had no contact with the child it is difficult to imagine how the lawyer in question was able to determine the child’s wishes without actually speaking to the child.   It would be reasonable to assume that the taxpayers of Ontario were paying for this lawyer when she did go to court as it is unlikely that she went to for free.   Last month, one parent from Halton, Ontario reported that he was concerned that the OCL lawyer for his daughter had billed the Ontario government for services which his daughter had not received.

The 15-year-old girl involved testified in a videotaped interview that she did not trust her OCL lawyer and that she felt that he had been “useless.”

Currently, there appears to be no reliable method which would allow clients to verify the billable hours charged to the taxpayers for services provided to children being represented by the OCL with some saying that the OCL billing process lacks transparency and could be easily abused.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer also employs clinical investigators that that are assigned to conduct assessments and provide reports during high conflict custody and access cases.   In some cases, OCL workers are refusing to provide any written documentation as to work they have done and in some cases where reports are provided, serious flaws can be found with the manner that evidence is gathered and with its accuracy.

A report from a clinical investigator from the OCL was submitted as evidence in a recent high profile case in Newmarket, Ontario which related to the health and welfare of two morbidly obese children.

When the OCL investigator was cross examined at trial on the content of the report, it was admitted that this OCL worker had failed to interview any of the collateral contacts provided by the father and had refused to review crucial medical evidence provided by the father relating to the weight of the children.

Simply, the OCL worker had failed to exercise due diligence in the gathering and reporting of the facts.

Significant tax dollars are being paid out to so called, “clinical investigators” from the OCL to produce what many parents and even professionals say are highly flawed and unprofessional reports with many of these reports costing thousands of dollars in each case.   In another case, OCL workers demanded that a videotape of an 11-year old disclosing that he was being coerced by his children’s lawyer child be destroyed.

Just last week in a Hamilton courtroom packed with media representatives from all over the Province, Ms. Burns singled out the media representative from Canada Court Watch and immediately asked the court to exclude Court Watch from observing on the proceedings, involving a young leukemia patient apprehended from his parents by the Children’s Aid Society in Hamilton.

Ms. Burns wasted the court’s valuable time and that of many other people to exclude Canada Court Watch in spite of the fact that this individual held valid press credentials and despite the fact that a court had ruled against the OCL in a previous court on this identical issue.

Most believe that the real intentions of Ms. Burns were to silence those who dare to criticize her agency. 

Ms. Burn’s efforts to muzzle Canada Court Watch would indicate that she has more interest in keeping her agency unaccountable and that she holds little respect for the fundamental role that the media play in protecting the public’s interest in the administration of justice.   The entire court was forced to sit and listen to arguments that had absolutely nothing to do with the best interests of the child and everything to do with Ms. Burns own personal agenda to stifle those who dare expose the failures of her agency.

Already distraught at having their seriously ill child apprehended these poor parents were forced to watch as Ms. Burns turned their child protection hearing into a personal attack against Court Watch.

It was a good example of Ms. Burns wasting tax dollars to lessen transparency and accountability.

Ms. Burns and her agency are supposed to be focusing their energies on providing legal services to vulnerable children and to do this job in a most efficient and transparent manner, not squandering tax dollars for the purpose of muzzling criticism of their agency.

As a government funded agency, the OCL should be placing the interests of children and families first, not the interests of its lawyers and social workers.

Disturbing complaints which continue to arise about the OCL raise serious questions as to the ability and willingness of its director, Ms. Claire Burns, to find solutions to these repetitive problems.

The Auditor General of Ontario, Mr. McCarter who delivered a scathing report after conducting his value for dollars audit on the spending habits of CAS agencies might be well advised to review the financial records of the OCL sooner than later before more children are adversely affected by the actions of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

 

Entreprise approuvée par
Content d'être un gars

Construction CEG: Effervescence au port de Matane

 

Licence to Kill

Mom not criminally responsible for drowning girls, judge rules

 

Men's rights group file domestic violence lawsuit

 

Fiez vous à l'odeur

Les féministes américaines tentées par Barack Obama

 

Accesss Denied – Accès Interdit – Omgang miskend

 

Chaque année, après un divorce, des centaines de milliers d’enfants  perdent le contact avec l’un de leurs deux parents.

Il serait legitime d’empêcher un parent d’exercer un droit de garde ou de visite, si ce parent avait été condamné pour un crime qui pourrait mettre l’enfant en danger.

Mais l’accès interdit est a peu près systématique dans les divorces. La prise d’otage perpétrée par un parent est usuelle – et impunie.

Cela n’est pas normal ; cela est malsain.

Certains pays européens, en laissant faire les parents rapteurs, ne respectent pas l’affection naturelle d’un enfant envers ses deux parents. Ils méprisent ainsi les droits de l’Homme, ceux de l’Enfant, et les conventions internationales.

Deux parents aux enfants ainsi disparus ont commencé, le 25 avril, une marche du Parlement Européen de Bruxelles à celui de Strasbourg. Ils arriveront le 21 mai à Strasbourg, accompagnés de parents et d’associations internationales. Ils seront honorés par la présence de l’auteur Karin Jäckel.

Arrivant aux portes du Parlement Européen, ils seront accueillis par :

-        Mr Libicki, Président de la Commission des Pétitions,

-        Mr McMillan Scott, Vice Président du Parlement Européen,

-        Mme Brepoels, Eurodéputé Belge,

-        Mr Rogalski, Eurodéputé Polonais .

 

De plus en plus de parents font savoir leurs doléances au Parlement Européen, dans l’espoir que ce dernier fera pression sur des juges paresseux, des fonctionnaires incompétents, des Etats lâches, ou complices de crimes familiaux jamais punis.

Ce 21 mai, nous déposerons une pétition avec des milliers de signatures entre les mains des responsables de l’Union Européenne. Plusieurs centaines d’entre ces signatures sont accompagnées de témoignages de parents touchés par le problème.

Nous donnons rendez-vous à la presse, le 21 mai à 11h30 devant la Mairie de Strasbourg, 1 place de l´Etoile,  au départ de la dernière étape de notre marche, qui nous conduira à 13h30 au Parlement Européen, à la Porte du Bâtiment Louise Weil

Contact pour d’avantage d’informations :

Français : Sabine Vander Elst (Tel + 32 497 38 69 77 )

Français / Anglais : Pascal Gallez (Tel + 32 473 97 42 92 )

Allemand :  Karin Jäckel (Tel + 49 (0)7802 90 40 9 )

Néerlandais : Goudi.be ( Tel + 32 11 22 86 25)

 

Action Access Denied // Press Communiqué

Every year, after a divorce, hundreds of thousands of children , loose contact with one of their two parents.

It would be legitimate to forbid custody or visitation rights to a parent, if he/she had been condemned for a crime which could put the child in danger.

 But a denied access is almost systematical in a divorce. Hostage taking perpetrated by one of the parents is only too common – and almost never punished.

It is not normal; it is unhealthy.

A few European countries, condoning the parental kidnapping, do not respect the natural love a child has towards both his/her parents. They are scornful of Human rights, Children rights and International Conventions.

Two parents whose children disappeared through a parental kidnapping started, on the 25^th of April, a long walk from the European Parliament of Brussels to the seat of Strassburg. They will arrive in Strassburg on the 21^st of May, together with parents and international associations. They will have the privilege to be accompanied by the author Karin Jäckel.

At the doors of the EP, they will be welcomed by:

-        Mr Libicki, President of the Commission of Petitions,

-        Mr McMillan Scott, Vice President of the EP,

-        Mrs Brepoels, Belgian MeP,

-        Mr Rogalski, Polish MeP .

More and more parents are sharing the story of their woes with the EP, in the hope that it will put some pressure on lazy judges, incompetent civil servants; against States which do not act or which, through their silence, condone the crimes they were meant to prevent.

On this 21^st of May, we shall give thousands of signatures to the responsible peoples of the European Union. Hundreds of stories are linked to those signatures, and show the inacceptable short comings of the family law, as it is applied in Europe.

We invite the Press, on the 21^st of May, at 11h30, in front of the City Hall of Strassburg (1, Place de l’Etoile), for the start of the last leg of our journey which will take us, at 13h30, to the EP (at the door of Louise Weil Building).

For more info:

French : Sabine Vander Elst (Tel + 32 497 38 69 77 )

French / English : Pascal Gallez (Tel + 32 473 97 42 92 )

German :  Karin Jäckel (Tel + 49 (0)7802 90 40 9 )

Dutch : Goudi.be ( Tel + 32 11 22 86 25)

 

Oil price rises above $130 a barrel