View Single Post
  #41  
Old 10-22-2012, 02:00 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,309
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

RE: Victim Impact Statement
October 22, 2012

Dear Honourable Madame Justice J.F. Kenkel,

I am not a direct victim of the crime and the following is my relationship to this case:

I have come to know the struggles surrounding the abduction Christopher and Alexander Watkins from their court ordered custodial father Mr. Stephen Watkins through valiant efforts to bring much needed attention to the problems facing all Canadians in relation to parental child abduction in contravention of section 283.(1) and 282.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

I have not been solicited for this statement but, kindly request that this honourable court consider this victim impact statement with regards to the sentencing of Mr. Tadeusz Ustaszewk on October 24, 2012.

How has the conduct of Mr. Tadeusz Ustaszewk impacted me?

The conduct of Mr. Ustaszewk has impacted me, as a citizen of Ontario, Canada, in the following ways:

1. Mr. Ustaszewk’s conduct has me question the applicability of Section 283.(1) and 282.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. If our law enforcement agencies, officers of the court, government (municipal, provincial and federal) and society truly understands why child abduction by a parent in either situation is outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada and why it even exists as a law.

2. It has me question if “the best interests of the child” is really the consideration that law enforcement, the Children’s Aid Society, officers of the court, government (municipal, provincial and federal) and Canadian society truly understands the determining factor regarding child custody.

3. It has me question if perjury before the Family Court is even a weighting factor in the determination of custody and access in matrimonial disputes. If and why perjury is acceptable conduct before the Family Courts. I continually question what could have been done to protect Christopher and Alexander Watkins prior to their removal in contravention of Section 282.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada from their court order custodial parent, Stephen Watkins. I continually feel that Mr. Ustaszewk has demonstrated that the laws of Canada are to be ignored and that unilateral and conduct by one parent and their immediate family members is acceptable to our society as a whole.

4. It has me question if false allegations of “intimate partner abuse” (“domestic violence”) and “child abuse” are occurring too often before Canadian courts and if that law enforcement, the Children’s Aid Society, officers of the court, government (municipal, provincial and federal) and Canadian society truly understands the impact this has on our family, friends and our most important asset in our society – our children. What are we saying to honest and upstanding parents who constantly have unsubstantiated and false allegations raised against them? That they should give up on their children and walk away because of the costs, both financial and emotional, are just too high? Those false allegations of “intimate partner abuse” and “child abuse” are acceptable patterns of behaviour before our courts and a justifiable means to an end because the false accuser goes unpunished?

5. It has me question if mental health services are properly being allocated to families in need and if a clinically focused resolution to the issues brought forward before the Family Courts could have been implemented to properly and thoroughly put in place to assist in identifying that the mother of Christopher and Alexander Watkins and subsequently Mr. Ustaszewk could have identified the flight risk prior to their removal from Canada to Poland in contravention of section 282.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

6. It has me concerned for the health and well-being of Christopher and Alexander Watkins, born citizens of Canada and if they are currently being psychologically abused by members of their immediate family in Poland through well-known patterns of hostile aggressive parenting and/or parental alienation and may possibly continue to be abused.

Financial impact of Mr. Ustaszewk’s conduct on citizens and residents of Ontario, Canada:

Mr. Ustaszewk’s possibly bad faith in these and other proceedings has prolonged the need to investigate these matters, created numerous appearances before the family and criminal courts, impacted numerous police agencies and various child welfare services in Canada and internationally all while knowing where Christopher and Alexander were being harboured.

Public money has been spent to locate, find and bring forward these criminal proceedings. Public money that could have been better invested into improving Canada’s services we provide to residents and citizens as a whole. For example, investment into much needed improvements to our country’s delivery of mental health services for separating and divorcing parents and their children, our societies’ most important asset. Mental health services that could have assisted the courts in identifying the potential flight risk, false allegations of “intimate partner abuse” and “child abuse”, and provided help insure both parents are equally involved in their children’s lives.

Considerations for Mr. Ustaszewk’s sentencing that I kindly ask of this honourable court:

That this honourable court, when sentencing Mr. Ustaszewk on October 24, 2012 do so in a manner that identifies to potential and would-be abductors, be their plans to municipally, regionally, jurisdictionally or internationally abduct children that the laws and tenants set forth in the Criminal Code of Canada will be enforced and with the proper prejudice.

This court has a unique opportunity to set forth in jurisprudence that could bring forward much needed change in a number of aspects of law surrounding the “best interests” of our most important assets, the children of our country. I kindly request that this honourable court leverage all necessary means to establish jurisprudence that not just left behind parents but, future and possible left behind parents, law enforcement, the Children’s Aid Society, officers of the court and clinicians can rely upon, to identify past, current and future intentions of child abduction.

Yours very truly,
A Concerned Citizen of Ontario

Last edited by Tayken; 10-22-2012 at 02:05 PM.