Derek wrote, “Well I'm gonna put on a pot of coffee and get to reading here. But first I'll write up a brief synopsis. It was very emotional to say the least - did have to take a recess but at least now we know how long this can possibly go on for.”
Soon Derek sent us his report which I posted the next morning, Tuesday January 24th, entitled ‘Derek’s Report about Case Conference,’ which you can read here. If you have not read that report, it provides the backdrop to today's and tomorrow's pieces. Many page members responded to him on Facebook.
His report prompted numerous questions from me which I consolidated into one comment. The following day Derek graciously took time to answer these questions, one at a time which became very informative for us all but also offered opportunity for us to continue those conversational strings. I have provided the series of my lead questions and Derek’s responses.
I said to him, “Derek, I have read your comment and I have responses by your supporters. I am sure that none of us feel differently than we did with regard to our ardent desire to see Ayn come home to you. However, I believe a number of us may experience some confusion. I think many of us have questions arising from your report of the Case Conference proceedings and your principled position. I will place some of this before you and also make some comments. They are reasonable questions I think."
I believe we now understand that it was not the Ministry that abandoned mediation and moved toward a trial, but you Derek. You wanted the trial so that you can insure that the Ministry’s feeble reasons can be exposed and your positions on all features of this removal, disruption and confinement entered before a judge. Is that correct?
Derek responded this way. “Well that is sort of correct yes, the Ministry did not abandon the mediation, but neither did I. What happened was that there was a push to delay the setting of a trial date in order to first go through the mediation set for the 2nd of March. I did not want to leave that room without getting a trial date, in no way does mediation have to be cancelled in order for the trial date to be set and as far as I know it is still set. I did however say that if mediation was going to be an impediment to getting that date then I would simply cancel it as I am not optimistic about its success anyway. I think the most likely resolution will be found through our ongoing informal mediation, and not the formal mediation set for the 2nd.”
I put to Derek, "I suspect that you Derek, in wanting the trial did not foresee that the waiting time could be so far away - is that correct? If you had known, would that have changed what you said and did yesterday?"
Derek answered with this. “No I knew that I was looking at about a year away, and did make my choices with that knowledge in mind. It is my belief that once the ministry examines its case with an eye for an actual standard of evidence to meet, they will simply not show up. What they did is wrong and how they present my daughter and my family is skewed at best.”