Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RCMP negligent in parental abduction, father claims

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
    Thanks for your concern, D2bm, however I am not contributing to this thread as a moderator, and will continue to post my comments and opinions.
    So, when you're acting as McModerator, you can slap people around who dare to use sexual innuendo, but as McDreamy, you can say whatever you like, and talk about blowjobs?

    I sincerely hope that someone moderates you, and soon.

    If you have a position as a moderator on this site, then the expectation is that you are to always conduct yourself as such. Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Perhaps too heavy. Perhaps you should just demote yourself to civilian life and free yourself of the burden of behaving appropriately. Then, you can carry out your vendetta against LF32 without all of that moral hassle.
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
      it definitely difficult to understand the law for me and a lot of people like me but it doesn't matter what they planned before... After the moment one of the parent did not want to go for whatever reason other parent should not just abduct the child.
      This is a key point. The issue with the RCMP is that the evidence had not been presented. Despite the eventual outcome the reality is that the RCMP do not have the authority to make any decision about custody, access and residential location of children. The court system does.

      If the matter was raised in Canada a judge here could have ruled otherwise on the matter. That is the basis of this lawsuit against the RCMP. That it was not in the right of the RCMP to allow the child to leave the country without a court order in hand.

      Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
      Why she did not obtain custody order with clause that she can move and instead just decided to run?
      Because it is well know that the best place to stop an application made under the Convention is in the country you want to remain in. This is what happened to Stephen Watkins and all of the parents whom have lost their children this way.

      Most countries do no return children once they are in the country. With the case law in place in Canada this child had a good chance of remaining here.

      We need better exit strategies in Canada for children.

      Good Luck!
      Tayken

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
        Thanks for your concern, D2bm, however I am not contributing to this thread as a moderator, and will continue to post my comments and opinions.
        You are a moderator, so I would think one should keep that in mind when posting "comments and opinions". Your "blowjob" comment had nothing to do with this thread at all, and is simply a poke at another forum member.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
          I think it does matter what they had planned as a family status quo, just as it matters what my family's status quo is pre-separation.
          Actually, you are incorrect generally in my humble opinion. A plan does not necessarily mean it will be executed. It is simply a plan. That is why the "plan" to commit a crime versus actually committing a crime result in way different charges and sentencing.

          In fact, this is the first instance of where a "plan" (which is hearsay evidence by rule) of a "future status quo" being made the "status quo" and I have read a lot of CanLII.

          Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
          If the parents are presumed to have equal custody, then you’d have to look at the child’s habitual residence to determine where the child should be located.
          Yes and if the child is in the boarder of where the hearing is the probability of the child being moved back is very rare. So, the strategy of this parent (as with many others) is to get your ass to the country you want to be in because they will more than likely rule in your favour. Especially if you are a citizen of that country.

          It is a tactic.

          Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
          Isn’t that the basis on which we advise people not to leave the mat home, not to leave their school district, etc? - the children would be returned.
          Yes, but the intervening court generally is a Canadian court. My advice when the threat of the child leaving our boarders and our nation's care and control is to go immediately to court... Even on an emergency ex-parte motion!

          Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
          In this case, they hadn’t created a “habitual residence”, they were living out of suitcases and had all intentions of the habitual residence being in Australia.
          As I am a Canadian and bound to the laws, rules and regulations of our country I can't accept the order of the Australian court. A Canadian court ordered the removal of the baby and mother's passport. We can't speculate how our court system would have ordered in this matter as they were never given the opportunity to weight it against our laws... The child was abducted in contravention of Section 283.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada and similar to Stephen Watkin's case 282.(1) as the court had ordered.

          This matter is very similar to the Watkins matter in fact. The Polish courts there have ruled the similar nonsense as the Australian courts have.

          Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
          I don’t understand why he didn’t act when they first separated to obtain an order - he was well aware they were returning to Australia and I can’t imagine he wouldn’t have been successful in obtaining an emergency motion?
          1. Lack of education/knowledge to know what to do.
          2. Another question is how the child got a passport. Canadian born needs a Canadian passport and both parent's signatures.

          Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
          Of course, the article is about the RCMP and its failure to act without a custody order in hand - and I don’t think he will get to far with this suit.
          It all depends. The order from the Australian court is irrelevant in the argument possibly. The narrow issues is exactly as you have identified - the conduct of the RCMP. They were negligent in their conduct in my humble opinion. The best outcome in this situation would be an order that the RCMP update their policies and procedures and for training for all staff.

          Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
          I don’t want our RCMP to have the power to act arbitrarily, and already have concerns about the new security measures being put into place and what those new measures will mean to the average individual.
          The result should be training really. As well, we as a country need an exit strategy where we check everyone leaving and to insure they have the proper documentation in hand to leave.

          Good Luck!
          Tayken

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Tayken View Post
            ...It is a tactic...
            Yes indeed. This is why it was abduction. Throw in her prior "assault attempts", and that should throw up the red flags for why a child should not just be absconded with, from Canada. She knew what she was doing.


            Originally posted by Tayken View Post
            ...
            The result should be training really. As well, we as a country need an exit strategy where we check everyone leaving and to insure they have the proper documentation in hand to leave.
            Agreed.

            Comment


            • #21
              Status quo isn't 'planned'. It exists, or it doesn't.

              Pretty sure you would be laughed out of court if you tried to use what (may or may not) happen as the status quo.

              On a side not - I'm delighted to see both Tayken and WorkingDad both still take the time to visit the site. Kudo's to both of you, gentlemen.
              Last edited by wretchedotis; 02-20-2015, 10:58 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Having finished reading the court order from the Australian court that someone kindly posted (thanks!) the whole basis of the Judge's decision was that the father had applied for a VISA to Australia.

                Interestingly the mother withdrew her sponsorship of the father but, the Judge didn't make a negative inference against the mother for this conduct.

                The mother was found to be suffering from anxiety "postpartum". The judge tip toes around this medical evidence and excuses as to why the mental health of the parent cannot be weighed at this time but, the judge doesn't close the door.

                The order does not set anything as final when it comes to custody and access. My recommendation to this father would be to seek in the next steps to seek joint custody of the child and equal access at minimum.

                The mother has no means to support the child in Australia and this fact is outline in the court order. The judge does say that maybe in future proceedings where there is a trial and evidence can be weighed better that the child's best interests are met in Canada where the child can be properly supported.

                It is not a "loss" at all for the left-behind parent in this matter. In fact, the court order does not bold well for the mother more than the father. The way the judge struck down the "domestic violence" allegations is the possible death knell for the mother's whole case.

                This is a matter where a Section 30 evaluation (or Australian version) would really benefit the courts. The mother's mental health and state are in question and the ability for her to support the child. Best done by a qualified medical professional trained in these matters.

                Good Luck!
                Tayken
                Last edited by Tayken; 02-20-2015, 11:24 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by wretchedotis View Post
                  Status quo isn't 'planned'. It exists, or it doesn't.

                  Pretty sure you would be laughed out of court if you tried to use what (may or may not) happen as the status quo.
                  Generally yes. The evidence the judge relied upon was not the hearsay but the father's conduct of applying for a VISA to live in Australia and his late cancellation of this VISA.

                  Originally posted by wretchedotis View Post
                  On a side not - I'm delighted to see both Tayken and WorkingDad both still take the time to visit the site. Kudo's to both of you, gentlemen.
                  In limited capacity... March is going to be busy I suspect...

                  Good Luck!
                  Tayken

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    No status quo isn't "planned" but the family plans/intentions -and actions based on those intentions -are most certainly taken into account when a judge determines -I've seen the "whole preseparation " family planning taken into account on other cases I've read re education planning, private schools etc. For the kids and can ultimately determine sq. This Australian judge certainly considered intent. Tayken isn't the case interesting? I don't think I can type this all out in tapatalk and want to read your points one by one, but will when home. Plus -I think a convo on rcmp actins with /without orders could be engaging.


                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                    Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                    Comment

                    Our Divorce Forums
                    Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                    Working...
                    X