Monday, November 8, 2010
UPDATE: IN COURT TODAY
Today's brief 9:15 am appearance in court was for the purpose of insuring that both parties, MCFD and Baynes were satisfied that all material had been adequately presented to the Court and then Judge Crabtree repeated as earlier timeline. He will take from 8-12 weeks to produce his ruling. He said he understands the urgency for all people involved and as soon as it is completed he will notify both parties and a determination will be made as to delivery of the ruling by letter or by a scheduled court appearance.
7 comments:
I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
An approach I have seen by some judges issuing rulings on long cases is to have a shorter, public reading of a "short" version that contains the results of the decision (ie. the return of the children), then later, a full written reasons are published and the parties notified.
ReplyDeleteThis is a no brainer. No evidence of abuse; therefore, give back the children.
ReplyDeleteHere are two tales about different grandmothers. These are true stories from my archives.
ReplyDeleteAppendix
For the sake of brevity, I have condensed them
1
A judge awarded custody of a child to his grandmother on her application. The child was living with his mother at the time and the judge noted the evidence of gross neglect and severely criticised the local child welfare office for doing nothing, although they were fully aware of the grandmother's pleas to protect the child. The regional head told the newspapers "We believe that families can change." This is one of the finest examples of avoidance that I have seen, coupled with a classic empty cliché.
2 Another grandmother successfully petitioned the court for access to her grandchild. The brief by her lawyer actually made a compelling case for child protection. The mother managed to block the access order by alleging sexual abuse against the grandmother. The grandmother was advised to show her brief to the local protection staff, who avoided action on the grounds that the evidence was several weeks out of date. When he reached school age and the teacher complained about his condition, the Ministry financed a psychologist to see him at school once a week. At the age of twelve he ran away and had to be placed in a youth mental health facility. He eventually finished up living with his grandmother, but by this time he had severe emotional problems. This case demonstrates, denial and avoidance of responsibility. It also shows the completely inappropriate use of a psychologist. One cannot help but wonder about a psychologist who would accept such an assignment without becoming concerned about the obvious neglect to the child.
Issues on the court hearing today. One would think that judges would be allowed to use a little common sense, especially where the lives of young children are concerned. I know that courts are driven by correct procedures and protocols, but I thought that the act was supposed to allow a little more informality. Judges and lawyers do not seem to differentiate between family court and criminal court. One of your contributors made the point that the supreme court moves things along much faster on family matter. What would Judge Crabtree risk, if he stepped outside the strict lines for the sake of expediting matters. Anybody out there got any information on this?
ReplyDeleteThe judge seemed keen to make sure he had all the evidence and all written submissions complete before committing himself in any way. He had not read the Bayne summation, but part of it was a request for unsupervised visiting. Zabeth repeated this request and she particularly wanted the judge to order access at Christmas. She was denied it for the last two years. The judge avoided dealing with it today. He was really pushed for time. He did not deny the application. He probably wants to read the last submission before doing anything either way. He invited the parties to see if they can come to an agreement. He gave them a couple of weeks or so to sort things out and if they are unable to do so, he invited them to contact him. He said he would rule by letter or video conference.
I would imagine by now that the judge has a pretty good idea what he is going to do, only he must follow the process. He would probably prefer not to have to deal with all these interim problems and wishes that the director and the parents could simply get on better. He has my full sympathy, but this is rather like asking the wolf and the lamb to try to be friends. We can predict that the director will be his usual obstructive self and the Baynes will be back before judge Crabtree within two weeks. The entourage will come out from Hope for the day and Rumpelstiltskin will get another pot of gold.
Ray,
ReplyDeleteI think someone wrote a book about the kind of psychologist you refer to above. It is called "Whores of the Court," and it is written by an expert, writing on experts who will do anything or say anything as long as they get paid. The book is actually available for free online and has a chapter on child protective services (child protective services in the US, but it is still probably applicable).
Whores of the Court (free download)
http://whoresofthecourt.com/WotC%20Book.pdf
"In this provocative and well-researched book, Margaret Hagen, Ph.D, reveals how expert psychological testimony is a total fraud, showing how the courts have increasingly embraced not a cutting-edge science but, instead, a discipline that represents a terrifying retreat into fantasy and hearsay; a discipline propelled by powerful propaganda, arrogance, and greed.
Dr. Hagen sounds a clarion wake-up call, offering some startling – and much-needed – recommendations about how we can reclaim our own ability to judge and supplying vital advice on how we can protect ourselves from the ravages of psychological testimony in our own lives."
“A damning indictment of the psychologizing – and undermining – of the American legal system. With righteous wrath and devastating wit, this sweeping critique should stir national debate.”
-- Publishers Weekly
This Whores of the Court book is quite the read. It is a valuable addition for parents that have to deal with counsellors, psychologists, doctors and other such experts that will be used against them in child protection proceedings.
ReplyDeleteThere is no table of contents or index, and the PDF bookmarks have only a dozen or so links, but word searches will work to get directly to child protection discussions.
The only thing that can be done as a remedy to defend oneself from 'experts' is to do as Mr. Christie has attempted in court, to attack the validity of this or that junk science assumption (Shaken Baby Syndrome is not mentioned). I include parenting courses as yet another category of junk.
The Baynes countered with their own experts, which is exactly what has to be done. Save to hire opposing experts, they are more valuable than the lawyers.
Parental capacity testing is also mentioned. The Baynes are fortunate in not having to defend themselves against this as well as SBS.
The logic behind psychologists slanting their reports in favour of those who pay them is well written. When you have a number of experts who were not paid to appear or write their opinions, this diffuses any MCFD claims they are biased, and the reverse cannot be said to be true.
The book does not provide any solutions or remedies to the observations, however, a lawyer or parent reading this can readily identify situations that match their own, and reading other's experience, they may be in a better position to devise a defensive strategy.
A properly motivated and skilled counsellor can definitely have a positive impact. I requested such services from MCFD for my daughter when her mother made a malicious call to the Ministry leading up to a custody court battle. The service was free, but it took 8 months for a spot to open up.
ReplyDeleteThe first counselor was good for my daughter, as she made a connection and the counsellor communicated her observations to me. I could see the improvement in my daughter and in her grades.
There was also involvement of this infamous 'sand-play' that I participated in with my daughter. For me, it was 'whatever', but the counselor took this stuff seriously and regarded it as a form of hidden communication where children would not consciously verbalize in other ways.
This counselor left and started her own practice. The next counselor made no attempt to get a connection with my daughter, my daughter was not interested in repeating her story to a new person she did not connect with. Additionally, the counselor was more interested in using my daughter to further her thesis development at the school she was attending. Anyways, this person quit. Shortly after, then I canceled the counseling sessions and registered my daughter into activities instead.
The wrong person, or if there is no connection with the child, this can be a waste of time and money, and no one would be the wiser. The subject of counselling would always be blamed for any lack of progress if there was no one checking on he work of the psychologist.
Many years later when my children were removed, my view of 'counseling' took on a different view. As the Whores of the Court' book outlines, the parenting counselor in my case was only interested in a confession, agreement that removal of my children was justified, 'acknowledgment' and anything else that could be contrived to look like guilt. Also, there was no end to this "service." The ministry was never satisfied with progress. Involvement with the counselor was identified in court as 'working towards' addressing protection issues, even before a protection hearing validated the basis for imposing such services.
Counselling or psychologists used in the context of child protection is used either to get an advantage in court, or to prolong the length of time of the intervention.