This is
my synopsized prose version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presented in
several segments that reveal the substance of Walker's overview of evidence that
demanded his verdict against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. No
stated opinion or fact appears here that does not also appear in the Justice
Walker's ruling (legal document). It is public information
Because of the allegations of sexual and
physical abuse, Judge Walker issued a court order on December 21, 2009, that
permitted B.G. to have only supervised access (A Supervised Access Order) to
his children. Then on December 30, 2009 without any basis for the action, the
Director apprehended J.P.'s children. Mr. Strickland without foundation, misled
the Deputy Director by informing him that J.P. was suffering from mental
distress and illness so severe that she was a risk both to herself and to her
children. Mr. Strickland and his subordinates failed to insure the truth of
information contained in their prepared report drafts to the Director. The
Director then initiated the Apprehension Proceeding in Provincial Court in January
2010, but did not disclose to the presiding judges the allegations of sexual
and physical abuse or the Supervised Access Order and the circumstances relevant to it.
The Provincial Court relying on the Director's information, made orders that permitted the Director to use her discretion in providing to B.G., access to the children, even unsupervised access. Against the vigorous objections of J.P., in May 2010, the Director did provide to B.G. unsupervised access, even though B.G. would thereby be in breach of the Supervised Access Order with which the Director was familiar.
As early as February 2010 almost all of the social workers involved with the case had become convinced that the children should be returned to their father and they supported his claim for sole custody. The children were briefly placed in care of J.P.'s sister and subsequently with her brother and sister-in-law, and by June 2010 they were with a foster parent. The Director continued temporary custody of the children well beyond the maximum time permitted by the governing statute, and kept the children in foster care until June 2012. To do this, the Director relied on part of a section of the governing legislation that she should have known was inapplicable.
and physical abuse or the Supervised Access Order and the circumstances relevant to it.
The Provincial Court relying on the Director's information, made orders that permitted the Director to use her discretion in providing to B.G., access to the children, even unsupervised access. Against the vigorous objections of J.P., in May 2010, the Director did provide to B.G. unsupervised access, even though B.G. would thereby be in breach of the Supervised Access Order with which the Director was familiar.
As early as February 2010 almost all of the social workers involved with the case had become convinced that the children should be returned to their father and they supported his claim for sole custody. The children were briefly placed in care of J.P.'s sister and subsequently with her brother and sister-in-law, and by June 2010 they were with a foster parent. The Director continued temporary custody of the children well beyond the maximum time permitted by the governing statute, and kept the children in foster care until June 2012. To do this, the Director relied on part of a section of the governing legislation that she should have known was inapplicable.
No comments:
Post a Comment
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