View Single Post
  #34  
Old 09-11-2012, 08:07 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,293
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 StephenWatkins View Post
Tayken - You are absolutely correct in your reasoning as the law act we are suggesting can be used at a REGIONAL, PROVINCIAL and in INTERNATIONAL cases.

We have selected the law name, " iCHAPEAU", as part of its meaning relays to ensuring children don't get abducted:

International Child Harboring & Abduction Prevention Enforcement Act Under-Law

If there is a threat that your child will be abducted in any case, even locally, the Judge can impose requirements to make sure they don't disappear. We are NOT leaving it to the Judges to decide what to do - we are outlining exactly what steps should be taken and when these should be enacted.
To "prevent" child abductions for many parents in regional, jurisdictional and international prior to the involvement of the courts, the Children's Law Reform Act of Ontario ("CLRA") (and the other similar legislation) in the provincial legislation need to be hardened significantly. Often, the courts are not even involved when children are removed in contravention of section 283.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Often, the abducting parent flies into court with affidavit in hand on an "emergency" ex-party motion in an attempt to "gain control" over the other parent.

Lawyers, police, health care workers (including the CAS), shelter workers, teachers, et all... Need in my opinion to know the 17 points of the check list to parental abductions.

Often, in regional/jurisdictional (also known as "forum shopping") children are abducted to create an improper "status quo". Even if the children do not leave their habitual jurisdiction or are just taken to a local "shelter" on false pretenses it should be considered "abduction" under 283.(1) of the CCC.

The harboring of a child without consent or a court order from another parent should be acted on as a criminal act, especially if the act was done to create a false "status quo" before the courts.

In my opinion, until there are provisions that have hard requirements to determine when a child can be removed from their habitual residence that can be done by law enforcement/Children's Aid Society abduction will be white washed by the court as a "mistake" by parents who try to "win" an improper "status quo" by doing so before the courts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenWatkins View Post
You can say we are tired of leaving it to the discretion of the family Judges as they don't seem to ensure the safety of children nor do they enforce their own rulings. A 17 point Judges check list is part of the law process.
Evolution in case law may solve that in the near future for which parents can leverage as part of the public court system and reporting in CanLII.

Good Luck!
Tayken