Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 1 of 6 - Strickland and Tymkow


My synopsized version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presents the substance of his overview of evidence that necessitated his ruling against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. I present it in a prose style, in several segments. No stated opinion or fact appears here that was not in Justice Walker's ruling all of which has been made public.

Justice Paul Walker heard and ruled upon two cases between JP and BG. The plaintiffs in both cases were JP and her four children.  JP is the mother whose four children were sexually abused by BG, their father, her estranged husband. In the first case JP sought custody of her children as well as confirmation that BG was an abuser who should no longer have access to the children, and further that the Ministry was dead wrong in its assessment of both mother and father and had made a outrageous error in judging JP to be mentally unstable and placed children in BG's care. 

This second court case, J.P.'s lawsuit against the Ministry, began April 8, 2013 and ended July 3, 2015 with the published ruling by Judge Paul Walker on July 14, 2015.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 1 of 6 - Strickland and Tymkow
The Director of Child Protection (CP) acted egregiously to the children's reports that their father sexually abused them.  The Director and her agents failed to assess and to investigate the children's claims and then imprudently apprehended the children and also granted the father unsupervised access to the children. The Director held an inflexible but unproven belief that JP had mental health issues and was unfit to parent and that BG was the most capable parent.  

B.G. was arrested and removed from the family home in October 2009 for assaulting both JP and her eldest daughter K.G. (then 5 years old), and on a charge of the uttering death threats against J.P. She immediately sought divorce and sole guardianship and custody. A restraining order was issued that prohibited B.G. from having direct or indirect contact with any of the plaintiffs. Investigative social worker Jeff Tymkow reported to the Director that K.G. had not been assaulted by B.G. Further, B.G. told Tymkow that P.J. suffered from mental health problems that Tymkow determined were not then a protection concern to the children.

Mr. William Strickland was investigative team leader responsible for assessing potential harm to children. He and Mr. Tymkow signed a letter at B.G.'s request that purported to clear B.G. of physical abuse of K.G. B.G. then used this against J.P. in court. J.P. confronted Mr. Strickland, accusing him of acting inappropriately and she also voiced her concern that B.G. may have sexually assaulted the youngest child, who was one year old at that time. Strickland apologized and assured her that he would send a written retraction and that the Director of MCFD would conduct an investigation into J.P.'s concerns about potential abuse of her children.  However, Strickland discouraged Vancouver Police Department (VPD) from taking J.P.'s claims seriously, suggesting to police that she was unstable and selfishly motivated.  Mr. Strickland's conduct adversely affected the police investigation.


  1. All I can say, Mr. Unruh - stand in line. I am currently the lead representative in a Class Action against the MCFD in B.C. 23 other parties are presently working on their evidence to join me against the most derelict of organizations in our local government. Please help me understand, as a segway - I understand how most human beings can't actually handle trauma, so they either dissociate or manage a case superficially, hoping it will go away and they can get on with their job. More than one of the potential parties in the class action has raised the subject that they are concerned there is a cover-up for an organized pedophile ring behind all of this malfeasance. Kindly share your opinion on this matter, thank you.

    1. With regard to your question concerning an organized pedophilia ring possibly associated with malfeasance in some case management or cover up of the same, my first response is one of caution. I want to congratulate you for your class action initiative that may help others. "Raising the subject" of cover-up and pedophilia is merely talk. It's speculation and it is hypothetical. If there is true substance to the suspicions, that will become evident, just as it was with PJ's children when they began telling on their dad. You do not want to jeopardize the merits of your class action suit with gossipy conjecture. You must insist that in your entire presentation and with all lawsuit partners and all your public communications, you deal only with evidence and not hearsay or you discredit yourself and waste all your good effort and good cases.


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