View Single Post
  #48  
Old 11-20-2012, 07:43 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,308
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

Dear Stephen:

My thoughts and hopes will be with you and your family today. As there has been no updates regarding the return of Christopher and Alexander to their habitual jurisdiction where they were born and raised for the majority of their lives - CANADA.

The criminal removal of children in contravention of section 283.(1) and 282.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada continues to happen every day in our country. Parents every day are having to wonder where their children are being taken, enticed away, concealed, detained, received and harboured by "domestic violence" shelters, with the "assistance of police", by unscrupulous parents, their assisting family members and with the assistance of "counsel" in an attempt to "gain an advantage" in a custody and access dispute and ultimately in a clear and transparent manner to alienate and remove loving and upstanding parents from the lives of the children involved.

One would have thought that the wise words of the Honourable J.A. Osborne in 1998 would have rung true on many matters when a parent unilaterally abducts children in contravention of our country's Laws and Acts. They were put in place to, and I quote, "deter forum shopping and child abduction". Clearly, the message was not strong enough and hopefully the Honourable Justice presiding over matters today recognizes the need to update and strengthen jurisprudence ("case law") where the acts and laws of our Country and Provinces are clearly lacking.

Brooks v. Brooks, 1998 CanLII 7142 (ON CA)
Date: 1998-08-07
Docket: c29247
Parallel citations: 41 OR (3d) 191; 163 DLR (4th) 715; 39 RFL (4th) 187; 111 OAC 177
URL: CanLII - 1998 CanLII 7142 (ON CA)
Citation: Brooks v. Brooks, 1998 CanLII 7142 (ON CA)

Brooks v. Brooks 1998 CanLII 7142 (ON CA), (1998), 163 D.L.R. (4th) 715 (Ont. C.A.), stating at para. 22 (my emphasis added):

Quote:
22. Part III was added to the CLRA to deter forum shopping and child abduction, to provide some uniform powers and procedures for the resolution of custody/access disputes and to reduce the time for the resolution of parental disputes involving children. To secure the best information relevant to the children’s best interests, it is also important that jurisdiction over custody/access disputes not be unduly fragmented and prolonged, as has occurred here.
Every day, frivolous lawsuits are brought against loving and caring parents on "urgent" basis ex-parte by unscrupulous "negative advocate solicitors" and their "high conflict" clients in an attempt to strip the rights of every resident and citizen to a fair trial and to defend themselves as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Every day, children are taken from parents, often with the "assistance of the police" because they feel "unsafe" and are harboured and "sheltered" at private residences of their immediate family members and friends, in "domestic violence" shelters and other locations unknown to the left behind parent.

All by leveraging as has been done to you Stephen - false allegations of "domestic violence" and "child abuse". This conduct is becoming all too common before the Superior Court, Family Law and the Criminal Court system and hopefully the "buck stops here" in Newmarket at 9:30 AM.

Shaw v. Shaw, 2008 ONCJ 130 (CanLII)
Date: 2008-03-25
Docket: 34/08
Parallel citations: 62 RFL (6th) 100
URL: http://canlii.ca/t/1w7sx
Citation: Shaw v. Shaw, 2008 ONCJ 130 (CanLII)

Recanting the wise words of the very Honourable Justice Pugsliy in Shaw v. Shaw para. 8:

Quote:
I do not know what advice Mr. Shaw received from the unnamed lawyer whom he consulted before, as he put it, asking for charges to be laid. I can only hope that no licensed lawyer in this province would have advised the father that the fastest way to get custody and exclusive possession of the family home was to report the mother’s transgressions to the police.
Left behind parents, who have had their children abducted in contravention of section 283.(1) still do not know what "advice" the abducting parent received from their often "known" lawyers whom the abducting parent consulted with days before the abduction, as often is done, before "asking for charges to be laid" against the other parent. I *do* know that there are "licensed lawyers" in this province that *have* advised parents that the fastest way to get custody is to attempt to leverage the police and false allegations of "domestic violence" and "child abuse" and to leverage the "wings" of Legal Aid Ontario to do so.

Reminding everyone that the Criminal Code of Canada section 283.(1) and section 282.(1) explicitly state:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Criminal Code of Canada
Sections 282 and 283 of the Criminal Code of Canada

Section 282

(1) [ Abduction in contravention of custody order ]

Every one who, being the parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbours that person, in contravention of the custody provisions of a custody order in relation to that person made by a court anywhere in Canada, with intent to deprive a parent or guardian, or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person, of the possession of that person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) [ Where no belief in validity of custody order ]

Where a count charges an offence under subsection (1) and the offence is not proven only because the accused did not believe that there was a valid custody order but the evidence does prove an offence under section 283, the accused may be convicted of an offence under section 283.

Section 283

(1) [ Abduction ]

Every one who, being the parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbours that person, whether or not there is a custody order in relation to that person made by a court anywhere in Canada, with intent to deprive a parent or guardian, or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person, of the possession of that
person, is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) [ Consent required ]
My warning to parents who take children and commitment to the parents who have this happen to them:
I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you're looking for sole custody, I can tell you I don't have money... but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you think before you act and don't make children pawns in family law, that will be the end of it - I will not look for you, I will not pursue you... but if you do, I will look for you, I will find you... and I will stop you from doing it!
(Quote "tayken" and modified from the movie of the same name: "Taken".)

Good Luck! (Past, present and future abducting parents.)
Tayken

Last edited by Tayken; 11-20-2012 at 08:02 AM.