Sunday, August 23, 2015

WALKER'S SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 6 of 6 - Continued … More findings

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
The Ministry failed to carry out its obligations to protect the children from harm and to act in their best interests, yet the fault cannot be attributed to a single Ministry employee.  Rather, many opportunities arose for the Director to conduct a proper assessment and investigation of the reports of sexual abuse. She frequently received evidence and other information and different employees were at fault at different stages for various reasons. What is compellingly obvious is that the Director and her agents formed their opinions prematurely, before the children were interviewed, and so concluded that J.P. fabricated her report information and there really was not merit to her allegations of sexual abuse by the children's father.
Most startling is the fact that until the 64th day of the First Trial, the Director maintained this view that the allegations were groundless and that J.P. was unfit to parent. Then the Director changed her mind. Nevertheless, the Director supported B.G.’s claim for custody of the children and to the detriment of the children, unreasonably preserved that plan until March 29, 2012.
Justice Walker did determine that B.G. sexually abused P.G., the youngest child, at the time that the Director allowed him unsupervised access. The Director has exhibited lack of regard for directions from this court as well as for her obligation to present candid, full disclosure to the Court during the Apprehension Proceeding. The Province is responsible in law to pay for any damages suffered as a result, and is liable for special costs of the first trial.

When finally the children were returned to their mother, the Director thwarted the plaintiffs’ request for funds from another branch of the provincial government that provides compensation to victims of criminal acts. The plaintiffs proved this.

1 comment:

  1. It is surprising that given the size and importance of the case, there is not a great deal of individuals talking about it. the premature baby MCFD remived in order to allow the hospital to withdraw life support got more public response.

    B.G. runs around unscathed for a very good reason. The moment he is convicted, this condemns the collective actions and faulty processes of multiple agencies and the very nature of how the work together to undermine objectivity.

    This gets down to individual who run amok because they know they can do so without recrimination. No accountability whatsoever. Accountability is what is on trial here, not whether two parents and four children did or didn't do, this case about much more. This is about the unspoken and unexamined, what no one asks questions, how often does this sort of thing go on? Is anyone measuring this financially or through reporting metrics?

    This case exposes a fundamental way of life for MCFD and their lawyers, the Province, the VPD, experts who are handsomely paid indirectly through tax dollars, the VPD and how they do MCFD's bidding without question. Why? What is the motive?

    William Strickland was promoted to Community Service Manager for a very good reason. It is a message from the government to the other 2,600'social workers that says 'we've got your back" "carry on, and remove as many kids as possible using precisely the same means Stricklands office used, and you will be rewarded"

    Corrine Feenie is not on the BC Lawyers website under disciplinary procedures, why not?

    I find it astounding that after solid findings, B.G. is still running around free. Why is the system set up to wait for a cop to be told to file charges. Why can't Mr. Justice Walker order that criminal charges be pressed? Why does J.P. have to wait to get the money to file charges herself?


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