Thursday 18 October 2012
Wednesday 17 October 2012
Sunday 1 April 2012
Thursday 29 March 2012
The Administration of Justice in British Columbia Has Failed Vulnerable Children and Youth
The Representative for Children and Youth in British Columbia, Canada, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafonde released a Special Report today describing in heart-wrenching detail how justice was denied to a young girl who was allegedly sexually assaulted and beaten by her father who is from Afghanistan.
Read it and weep: "The Impact of Criminal Justice Funding Decisions on the Children of BC."
Saturday 24 March 2012
Ray Ferris on the Rights and Best Interests of Children
I have taken the liberty of reposting this article from Ron Unruh's GPS blog. I have posted a link to the original article below.
Ray expresses what most of us contemplate but fear to accept: is the system broken because of greed? Is it dysfunctional because " the adversarial process generates much more income than a conciliatory process" as Ray suggests?
He speculates on the amount of collusion that must take place in order for social workers to ignore the guidelines and time lines of the Child Family and Community Services Act which governs their mandate.
Anyway you debate this subject, we simply have to create and maintain a Community Watchdog to oversee and ensure that social workers adhere to the law that governs their actions.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012
The mythbuster writes again. Ray Ferris sets down another of his interesting reads. Take a look.
The rights and best interests of children.
In British Columbia children have certain rights. They have a right to be made safe in their own homes, or in alternative care. Right? When in care they have the following rights. They have a right to continuity and stability of care. Right? They have a right to be placed with relatives and to continuing kinship contact. Right? Young children have a right to timely resolution of their cases. This means not being left long in damaging limbo. Right? They have a right to privacy. Right? They have a right to the protection of the courts from unwarranted removal. Right? The ministry director has the responsibility to prove his case. Right? Parents have a right to protect their own children. Right?
Wrong on all counts because in practice they get none of these rights. The system simply cannot deliver them.
The Child Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA) says that a temporary order on children under 5 cannot exceed one year and can only be in three monthly increments. This protects against the emotional damage known as attachment deficit disorder. The courts often stretch this temporary care to years before any hearing of evidence. They just re-label it as interim custody. The indefinite limbo of interim custody causes the same damage. At first hearings, called presentations, courts rubber stamp approval of social workers' actions, because there is no time to hear arguments. All judges want to do is to clear the list and not get seized (stuck) with a case. Contested cases will not be heard for over a year. Kids are often moved from home to home and disclosure is withheld. (Protection of privacy you know.) Children have even been moved from safe relative care to protect privacy. Nobody asks the kids if they are grateful.
The Child Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA) says that a temporary order on children under 5 cannot exceed one year and can only be in three monthly increments. This protects against the emotional damage known as attachment deficit disorder. The courts often stretch this temporary care to years before any hearing of evidence. They just re-label it as interim custody. The indefinite limbo of interim custody causes the same damage. At first hearings, called presentations, courts rubber stamp approval of social workers' actions, because there is no time to hear arguments. All judges want to do is to clear the list and not get seized (stuck) with a case. Contested cases will not be heard for over a year. Kids are often moved from home to home and disclosure is withheld. (Protection of privacy you know.) Children have even been moved from safe relative care to protect privacy. Nobody asks the kids if they are grateful.
The truth is that children's rights can often come into conflict with each other and judgement is needed to strike a balance. That judgement is in the hands of those with power. That means the ministry's regional directors, until a judge rules otherwise. The paramount right declared in the act is "the best interests of children." The big problem with this is that the best interests are always a matter of opinion. Only the opinion of those with power counts and that can be biased and self-serving.
Family courts have become as adversarial as criminal courts and just as expensive. Some parents who got back their kids had to sell their homes in order to raise the legal fees to do it. Ask how this in the best interests of the children and you will be told that the topic cannot be discussed to protect privacy. Or that the safety of the children must come first. In a case recently covered on CBC's "Go public" and "Fifth Estate" programmes, three children were kept in limbo care for nearly four years before the parents got them back. The children suffered multiple moves and all had anxiety disorders. That effort bankrupted the parents and cost the taxpayer an estimated half million dollars or more. The act allows the judges to make protection hearings quite informal, so sticking to rigid, expensive processes in not necessary. This informality only seems to extend to the social workers and not to the parents. Social workers are allowed to enter as evidence any piece of hearsay, gossip or conjecture. The same leeway is not given to parents, who may not be allowed to say anything at all.
It takes a certain amount of collusion to be able to dodge all the important guidelines and time lines of the act. Collusion between ministry employees, judges and counsels for both prosecution and defence. Obviously the adversarial process generates much more income than a conciliatory process, so there is little incentive for lawyers to speed things up. One device is to stack the court with far more witnesses than necessary. Parents are simply outgunned by the legal financial clout. The end result is that child welfare gets drowned in the culture of the courts.
Ray Ferris speaks from 31 years of service in child welfare and protection as a social worker and district supervisor and family court coordinator. He cannot tolerate unseemly case work or the injustice imposed upon families in too many cases. Ray Ferris is the author of the book “The Art of Child Protection.” You can purchase it from him by writing to rtferris@telus.net
Tuesday 13 March 2012
Law Society of Upper Canada Cautions Against Use of Canadian Lawyers Index
Dads and Moms, stay away from CANLAW which is operated by J.Kirby Inwood.
He masquerades as a referral service for lawyers, but he is obviously filled with contempt and does nothing but fan the flames of conflict between divorcing parents, thereby causing further harm to children. Furthermore, he damages the reputation of hard-working lawyers with integrity.
An interesting article about J Kirby Inwood's background which should give you a precise indication of what he is all about:
"(...) In the family violence trial that probably received the most media attention in Canada's history, Kirby Inwood received 30 days in jail after his conviction for assaulting both his Russian wife, Tatyana Sidorova, and their one-year old baby." (in The Canadian Family in Crisis, John Frederick Conway, James Lorimer & Company, p. 158)
Link to Article on website of the Law Society of Upper Canada
Notice to the Profession
Law Society Cautions Against
Use of Canadian Lawyers Index
As a lawyer, you may have recently received an invitation from CanLaw or
the Canadian Lawyer Index (“CLI”), both found online at www.canlaw.com,
to subscribe to a lawyer referral service. The Law Society strongly
recommends against subscribing to this service.
The following are facts about CanLaw and CLI that you should be aware of:
CanLaw is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kirwood Inc., and CLI is a
division of Kirwood Inc. J. Kirby Inwood is represented to be the president
of CLI. None of CanLaw, CLI or Kirwood Inc. are associated with or
endorsed by the Law Society. And, J. Kirby Inwood is not a licensee of
the Law Society.
Since 2000, the Law Society has received numerous complaints from
lawyers and members of the public about CanLaw, CLI and J. Kirby
Inwood. The complaints relate to communications received from CanLaw,
CLI or J. Kirby Inwood which are offensive and expose the recipients
of the communications to hatred, contempt, abuse and obscenities. The
following are examples of such communications:
“You are a sick, hate male sexist bigot who is definitely trying to
restrict my freedom to express my opinion.”
“Women like you are monsters who take and take and take.”
“You are a fool and a bigot”.
“STEP [sic] TELLING US WHAT TO DO IMMEDIATELY YOUR
HIGHNESS. WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE YOU
ARROGANT, CONCEITED BITCH1 [sic]”
“WoW! Both a pig and a rat.”
“Utterly contemptible.”
“Look you pompous power made two bit flunky, we do not take orders
from the likes of you.”
In order to avoid the possibility of abusive comments such as the
foregoing, the Law Society suggests that lawyers not reply to any e-mail
or other communications from CanLaw or CLI.
A referral service that facilitates public access to lawyers’ services should
reflect credit on the administration of justice and the legal profession. The
Law Society does not believe CanLaw or CLI is such a referral service
and advises lawyers not to use the service.
Lawyers can contact the Law Society at 416-947-3315.
He masquerades as a referral service for lawyers, but he is obviously filled with contempt and does nothing but fan the flames of conflict between divorcing parents, thereby causing further harm to children. Furthermore, he damages the reputation of hard-working lawyers with integrity.
An interesting article about J Kirby Inwood's background which should give you a precise indication of what he is all about:
"(...) In the family violence trial that probably received the most media attention in Canada's history, Kirby Inwood received 30 days in jail after his conviction for assaulting both his Russian wife, Tatyana Sidorova, and their one-year old baby." (in The Canadian Family in Crisis, John Frederick Conway, James Lorimer & Company, p. 158)
Link to Article on website of the Law Society of Upper Canada
Notice to the Profession
Law Society Cautions Against
Use of Canadian Lawyers Index
As a lawyer, you may have recently received an invitation from CanLaw or
the Canadian Lawyer Index (“CLI”), both found online at www.canlaw.com,
to subscribe to a lawyer referral service. The Law Society strongly
recommends against subscribing to this service.
The following are facts about CanLaw and CLI that you should be aware of:
CanLaw is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kirwood Inc., and CLI is a
division of Kirwood Inc. J. Kirby Inwood is represented to be the president
of CLI. None of CanLaw, CLI or Kirwood Inc. are associated with or
endorsed by the Law Society. And, J. Kirby Inwood is not a licensee of
the Law Society.
Since 2000, the Law Society has received numerous complaints from
lawyers and members of the public about CanLaw, CLI and J. Kirby
Inwood. The complaints relate to communications received from CanLaw,
CLI or J. Kirby Inwood which are offensive and expose the recipients
of the communications to hatred, contempt, abuse and obscenities. The
following are examples of such communications:
“You are a sick, hate male sexist bigot who is definitely trying to
restrict my freedom to express my opinion.”
“Women like you are monsters who take and take and take.”
“You are a fool and a bigot”.
“STEP [sic] TELLING US WHAT TO DO IMMEDIATELY YOUR
HIGHNESS. WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE YOU
ARROGANT, CONCEITED BITCH1 [sic]”
“WoW! Both a pig and a rat.”
“Utterly contemptible.”
“Look you pompous power made two bit flunky, we do not take orders
from the likes of you.”
In order to avoid the possibility of abusive comments such as the
foregoing, the Law Society suggests that lawyers not reply to any e-mail
or other communications from CanLaw or CLI.
A referral service that facilitates public access to lawyers’ services should
reflect credit on the administration of justice and the legal profession. The
Law Society does not believe CanLaw or CLI is such a referral service
and advises lawyers not to use the service.
Lawyers can contact the Law Society at 416-947-3315.
Sunday 11 March 2012
The Views of the Child Society Online Store
We are so very pleased to be able to offer you practical and pretty clothing, accessories, jewelry and office items at reasonable rates. Proceeds from sales support programs for children and teens in Canada and the United States who at risk of bullying and physical or emotional harm in their environment.
Most recently, in a ruling in the Yukon Supreme Court in Canada, Madam Justice Donna Martinson ignited a metaphorical fire in the legal system by stating: "In my respectful view all children in Canada have legal rights to be heard in all matters affecting them, including custody cases. Decisions should not be made without ensuring that those legal rights have been considered. These legal rights are based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, (“the Convention”), and Canadian domestic law." Madam Justice D. Martinson, YKSC B.J.G. v. D.L.G., 2010 YKSC 44.
There has been a very destructive and negative trend in the Canadian and American Family Courts over the past two decades, in particular, wherein children have erroneously been removed from the care of a caring, intelligent parent and placed in the custody of an abusive parent or guardian.
This trend has caused immeasurable harm to children and families all over the continent and it has got to stop.
Thankfully, righteous judges, legal professionals, members of the law enforcement and child welfare communities have gotten together over the past 4 years in Canada and reviewed the Family Law system in Canada, and most recently, in British Columbia, on the West Coast.
Madam Justice Donna Martinson has been the courageous pioneer in this very necessary and overdue trek into what Moms and Dads already know as common sense: children and youth have a right to be consulted in all matters that concern them and that decisions should not be made without considering their views.
Preceding this new positive trend, our children and families have been thrown to the "mercy" of lawyers and so-called "court expert witnesses" who have picked at our bones and those of our children, leaving us ragged, impoverished and so very sad.
We now have a new law in British Columbia, called Bill 16, the Family Law Act of B.C. wherein it is declared that the views of children and their best interests and protection from harm is paramount.
The Attorney General of British Columbia believes that this law will take up to a year to implement.
I wonder how many more children and families will be traumatized in Court in the meantime?
No, my Dears, I have decided, along with my respected colleagues that the time is ALWAYS NOW to implement and ensure the legal and human rights of children and youth.
I thank you, from my heart and from the hearts of my esteemed colleagues and our Board of Directors, for your support as we journey this glorious path together. God Bless you all.
Lee Strong
President
The Views of the Child Society
Vancouver, B.C. Canada
www.viewsofthechild.org
leestrong@viewsofthechild.org
Views of the Child Society Online Store
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)