Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > General Chat

General Chat This forum is for discussing anything that doesn't fit into another forum, or for discussing things that are off topic, or just for general venting.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2016, 05:10 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,143
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default You life in the hands of the corrupt

Motherisk scandal highlights risk of deferring to experts without questioning credentials - Health - CBC News

More reason to fight the system...
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2016, 12:07 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
What is more concerning is that many of the Section 30 private assessors in the Toronto area have worked at SickKids during the time all this and other scandals was going on and doing reviews for CAS on other matters.

Systemic failure all around!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2016, 12:13 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
"When Smith walked in, the legend walked in. And very few lawyers challenged him. Sometimes, innocent people, innocent parents, would plead guilty because they were told by their lawyers that his testimony was so powerful and influential that they would be convicted even though they were innocent."
I am no longer recommend anyone bother with Section 30 or OCL evaluations. What I learned from WorkingDad's case and many others (over 40 now!) is that these experts are more prone to getting it wrong than right.

The evidence of parents given directly to the court should be the most valued evidence. "Experts" who spend on average only 10 hours with parents (5 hours each) and maybe 3 hours (1.5 hours) observing children should hold little value.

If you want to know about the psychology of parents - then do psychological testing. (I think Links17 will agree with me on this point.)

Do we need more afluenza idiots running wild in Mexico?

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2016, 12:20 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Adding this thread to the conversation as it is relevant to this discussion:

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...reports-15153/
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2016, 12:37 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,961
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

I wish there was more detailed information on specifically which testing was administered by the toxicologist (mass spectrometry, eg). Certainly the toxicologist should have been vetted as to whether or not he qualified as an expert witness.

Current and Future Applications of Mass Spectrometry to the Clinical Laboratory | American Journal of Clinical Pathology
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2016, 12:43 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
I am no longer recommend anyone bother with Section 30 or OCL evaluations. What I learned from WorkingDad's case and many others (over 40 now!) is that these experts are more prone to getting it wrong than right.

The evidence of parents given directly to the court should be the most valued evidence. "Experts" who spend on average only 10 hours with parents (5 hours each) and maybe 3 hours (1.5 hours) observing children should hold little value.

If you want to know about the psychology of parents - then do psychological testing. (I think Links17 will agree with me on this point.)

Do we need more afluenza idiots running wild in Mexico?

Good Luck!
Tayken
I agree. Psychological testing is the way to go. OCL are a nightmare.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2016, 12:43 AM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,143
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

The sad thing are the people that just pled guilty out of fear... how terrible...
I am happy I believe in God because all the "justice" we get here is just "best effort" and the true justice is when we're dust...
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2016, 10:54 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

More on the issue of "experts" in the news today!

Note: This is a very complex case and all links below related to that matter.

Father in B.C. child abuse case says judge relied on faulty expert evidence
Father in B.C. child abuse case says judge relied on faulty expert evidence - CityNews

Quote:
The father also said the judge erred when he used findings of fact from the family court trial for the civil trial, alleging the findings were based in part on bad expert evidence.

B.G. said Walker allowed an American psychologist to testify in the first trial even though she did not interview him or his children before offering her opinion that he sexually abused them.

Claire Reeves’s testimony, which was “unqualified, uninformed and based on junk science,” coloured Walker’s approach to the evidence in the second trial, B.G. said.

He alleged Reeves holds “illegitimate” degrees, entered evidence on a discredited child sexual abuse syndrome and has lobbied in favour of laws permitting chemical castration of sex offenders.
B.C. defends social workers after abusive father gets unsupervised access
B.C. defends social workers after abusive father gets unsupervised access - British Columbia - CBC News

(the better of the two articles to read)

Quote:
Allegations about the father were investigated by Vancouver police in this case, who concluded there was "no evidence to support J.P's allegations that B.G. molested their children." As a result no criminal charges were laid in this case.
Quote:
- Pediatrician found no physical evidence of sexual abuse.
- Child psychologist found low probability that sexual abuse occurred.
- Parental capacity expert concluded sexual abuse was unlikely.
- Child psychologist concluded sexual abuse was unlikely.
- Parental capacity expert recommended father get custody.
- Child psychologist recommended father get custody.
- Parental capacity expert said mother required mental health intervention.
- Child psychologist found mother required psychiatric assessment.
To my previous point about psychological assessments... I find often the party that has issues refuses to get one... Case on point?

Quote:
The document says the mother refused to go for a recommended psychiatric assessment while the father followed orders to work with a parenting coach, who wrote positive reviews.
Here is all the related case law on this one:

Court of Appeal
J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCCA 481 (CanLII) - 2015-11-23
J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCCA 480 (CanLII) - 2015-11-23

Supreme Court of British Columbia
J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216 (CanLII) - 2015-07-14
J.P. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2013 BCSC 1403 (CanLII) - 2013-08-02
J.P. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2013 BCSC 2580 (CanLII) - 2013-06-05
J.P. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2013 BCSC 515 (CanLII) - 2013-03-26
J.P. v. B.G., 2012 BCSC 979 (CanLII) - 2012-07-05
J.P. v. B.G., 2012 BCSC 938 (CanLII) - 2012-06-25

First instance I have ever seen of a CAS service defending a parent like this...

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Life Insurance Berner_Faith Financial Issues 13 10-26-2012 10:08 AM
Unjust enrichment - which court? -clean hands? Strider22 Common Law Issues 4 06-09-2012 08:18 PM
Splitting life insurance benoitc Divorce & Family Law 6 06-22-2011 10:08 AM
Previous Quality of Life and current SS Alentia Financial Issues 1 09-08-2008 09:50 AM
life insurance ont2005 Financial Issues 6 04-10-2006 02:23 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:52 PM.