They took us to court knowing our children were well cared for
Author's Video Note:
The society's worker swore an affidavit and applied to the family court for a supervision order and this is what happened.
Neither of our lawyers filed our responding materials for our first appearance. Only my lawyer showed up, late. The judge "gave us an extension" to file responding materials saying the court would proceed prima facie.
Prima facie - based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proven otherwise (the appearance being the society worker's affidavit)
When your family lawyer fails to file the required paperwork on time for your first appearance in a child protection matter in Ontario and tells you not to worry about it - there is no bigger lie your lawyer can tell you and there are no extensions. If the required paperwork isn't filed on time before the first appearance in a child protection matter the court assumes you've in essence pleaded guilty to whatever accusations have been made by the children's aid society. Another important fact to know is an affidavit sworn by you carries the same weight in court as one sworn by anyone else including the children's aid society's employees.
The judge never inquired about our responding materials again and never allowed us to speak for ourselves. Our lawyers did all the talking and said nothing. Not once did the judge ask to see any kind of validation or verification for the society's concerns/suspicions.
The society's lawyer never mentioned in court or in any way informed the judge we had officially filed and served FCSLLG with two sworn affidavits, a plan of care and 100+ pages of current medical documentation, showing happy healthy children who were thriving. Our lawyers never once mentioned or brought up in any way that our responding material had indeed been filed. The court, the society and our lawyers all failed to acknowledge our responding material.
This audio is a compilation of the legal advice I got from my legal aid lawyer during our court involvement with FCSLLG. As he says, "a good game of chicken" and guess who won... https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/517416991801403/
Why? - The family court, the society and family lawyers have no standard for due process. All materials and internally manufactured documentation provided by the children's aid society appears be accept as totally factual and accurate by the court and there is no opportunity to examine or dispute it even with an extention if your lawyer fails to submit the required paperwork before the first appearance and after having spoken with many of the other parents I found not one of their lawyers had file any paperwork as required. You have no right to know who your accusor or accusors are and therefore they can not be cross examined nor can their credibility be established and you can't know if your accusers have any qualifications to have an opinion - let alone a simple file disclosure before the court proceeds isn't manditory, your just expected to know what you've been accused of in general - violating again our right to due process.
Even if the rights of the child come before the rights of the parents or family or the public at large - the rights of the child doesn't come before the public's right to due process and even the child is entitled to due process. It seems even the right to appeal a family court decision doesn't exist as those who manage to get a file disclosure can not appeal blackout portions of a disclosure to the Privacy Commissioner to be able to dispute a decision.
Nor can you file a complaint before or after about a worker abusing your rights with the Ontario College of Social Workers as the children's aid society has refused ethical oversight by failing to require their workers to register violating the intention of the existing law regarding all forms of social work. Calling themselves child protection workers in an attempt to avoid the intention of the law is nothing more than a distiction without a difference. There isn't a law Society for every kind of lawyer or a different College for every kind of doctor, nurse and teacher - is there?
Due process governs the application of all laws, even child protection matters in the family courts and how it's been overlooked is baffling, or is it?
"You can't change the way the wind blows but you can adjust your sails"
“Judges are not required to accept questionable or non credible evidence; and that goes for affidavits as well. Even though the evidence in an affidavit appears to be un-contradicted, no judge is obliged to render judgment based on a single particular affidavit. He or she always remains the gate-keeper of evidence.
Just as with regular testimony in Court, evidence tendered by affidavit will be inadmissible if irrelevant, particularly if scandalous, oppressive, embarrassing or judgmental, or where privileged facts or documents are submitted.”
This is how it works in family court - this is what you can expect to happen to you and your family should you ever be so unfortunate as to be targeted and victimized by the children's aid society.
The society's lawyer would tell the judge they wanted us to sign consents - the judge would relay the request to our lawyers who would then explain it to us in stupidese and recommend we do what the "judge" wanted, co-operate and sign everything. We refused for the next 5 months.
I knew the judge hadn't seen or was ignoring our responding materials when the judge asked on behalf of the society's lawyer to provide them with a doctor's note stating our children were well.
I asked my wife's lawyer, (since my lawyer chose not to attend again)
"What about the 100+ pages of current medical documentation we provided?” To which he (the lawyer in video) replied,
"It's not relevant, the judge wants a doctor's note." The judge didn't want anything. He only relayed the society's ‘requests/demands.’
Excerpt from UNETHICAL PRACTICES IN INVESTIGATION: THE NEED FOR REINFORCEMENT OF ETHICAL CODES AND VALUES IN ONTARIO CHILD PROTECTION INVESTIGATIONS
(Prisoners in our own homes.)
“Do you have something to hide?”
(social workers and police officers will both try this)
Children's aid workers often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrant-less search of your home.
The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed some form of abuse or neglect against your child, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches.
This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the social worker puts the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
“Cooperating will make things easier on you.”
(social workers and your very own legal aid lawyers will both try this one to get you to sign consents and service agreements)
The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to keep a file open or apprehend your children, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”
In my family's experience the director of service for FCSLLG claimed the not so veiled threats were nothing more than an attempt to be transparent, that my wife and I failed to interpret correctly, well on video it certainly was transparent.
“We’ll just get a court order.”
Children's aid social workers may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a court order if you don’t consent.
This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the children's aid society by requiring them to go through the process of getting a court order will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.”
But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything and is one very good reason to record and document for legal purposes, everything they say and do.
Join our letter campaign on Unpublished Ottawa - and tell your story.