Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 3 of 6 - Unsupervised Access

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.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 2 of 6 - Closed Minds

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 2 of 6 - Closed Minds

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.

Mr. Strickland believed J.P. was acting maliciously toward B.G. Mr. Strickland shared these biases with his staff because he believed there was no merit to J.P.'s report that B.G. had sexually abused P.G., and consequently Strickland did not conduct an assessment of J.P.'s report, disregarding the standard of care and applicable legislation. Mr. Strickland's conduct adversely affected the case social workers and furthermore, as a result, the Director (she) did not assess the report of possible sexual abuse as required by her governing statute and the standard of care, nor did she investigate.

In mid December 2009, early in the VPD investigation of sexual abuse of P.G., her mother J.P. disclosed to both the Director and Mr. Strickland that her three children were all divulging that their father had sexually abused them and she was asking the Director and Strickland for help. The children spoke of sexual touching, digital touching of genitalia and the anus, oral copulation and partial penile penetration by their father. B.G. denied all of the allegations and the Director did not investigate these reports in the manner that the standard of care commands.

 Without suitable investigation of the children's disclosures, Mr. Strickland and other social workers marginalized this supportive evidence of the sexual abuse allegations, believing them to be fabricated, and that the children had been coached, and that J.P.'s relentless efforts to prove these abuses were indications of her mental instability. Subsequently, the Director did not carry out an assessment and investigation of the children's claims, and further concluded that J.P. was unable to parent the children. 

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

JUSTICE WALKER'S OVERVIEW OF THE CASE, LEADING TO HIS SCATHING 2015 RULING AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN

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.