RCMP negligent in parental abduction, father claims

[WorkingDAD]

Here is another one...

RCMP negligent in parental abduction, father claims - British Columbia - CBC News

I have very little hope he will get anything from case against RCMP. But who knows ...


Regards,
WD

 

[LovingFather32]

He suspects officers bought a story from his ex – without any evidence - that she was an abuse victim. Bride did later claim in an affidavit filed with an Australian court that she had to flee for her safety.

And once again we see how abductor's duck the eyes of the law by relying on rule 285 of the criminal code which trump other abduction codes.

All she had to do was feed a sob story. No evidence needed. In fact once she was successful in thwarting our RCMP the Australian authorities found no substance to the allegations.

Investigating parental abductions for the last 20 years I would say the greater majority of allegations of abuse are more fictitious than they are real," said Davis. "The greater majority are made up stories — so that they can get their way."

And yet another loving parent loses a child.

 

[WorkingDAD]

And once again we see how abductor's duck the eyes of the law by relying on rule 285 of the criminal code which trump other abduction codes.

All she had to do was feed a sob story. No evidence needed. In fact once she was successful in thwarting our RCMP the Australian authorities found no substance to the allegations.




And yet another loving parent loses a child.

Yea
every time I read this kind of story it gives me chills. I was so close to be one of thouse parents. Thanks got I out of the blue went to that kijiji and saw that she is selling staff and leaving the country... Rest is history and published on CanLii.

WD

 

[HappyMomma]

Hm.....as usual there is more to the story.

So did anyone read the Australian court docs?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667140-australiancourtdocsredacted.html

Turns out they were planning to move back to Australia. They were only in Canada temporarily so the dad could complete his degree. The court decided their intentions were to live in Australia and therefore, the child's habitual residence was Australia.

Sad but that was their plan. Seems unfair to try to force the mother to stay here when that was never their intention. Would have made more sense for him to do what he planned and go to Australia to be with his daughter.

 

[mcdreamy]

^^Indeed. And what exactly did he expect the RCMP to do with no custody order in hand? Continue to bar her and the child from boarding? They had already pulled them once.

 

[WorkingDAD]

Hm.....as usual there is more to the story.

So did anyone read the Australian court docs?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667140-australiancourtdocsredacted.html

Turns out they were planning to move back to Australia. They were only in Canada temporarily so the dad could complete his degree. The court decided their intentions were to live in Australia and therefore, the child's habitual residence was Australia.

Sad but that was their plan. Seems unfair to try to force the mother to stay here when that was never their intention. Would have made more sense for him to do what he planned and go to Australia to be with his daughter.

What would make more sense is to go to court and get an order that she can leave and not just abduct child. Don't you think ?

 

[dad2bandm]

What would make more sense is to go to court and get an order that she can leave and not just abduct child. Don't you think ?

Agreed.

Seems to me, that a child's habitual residence, would actually be the country where that child lived with both parents, up until the point of abduction, not "well, we were *planning* on this together..."

An international child abduction occurs when a parent, guardian or other person with lawful care of charge of a child removes that child from Canada, or retains that child outside Canada, without either the legal authority or permission of a parent who has full or joint custody rights.

Seems like child abduction to me.
What gives the Mom the right to remove child from country, over the right of Dad to ask for child to remain in country?

Seems like Mom eventually had a good lawyer, and an Australian court, that found every way they could justify why it wasn't abduction.

 

[LovingFather32]

Seems unfair to try to force the mother to stay here when that was never their intention. Would have made more sense for him to do what he planned and go to Australia to be with his daughter.

Yea .. might as well abduct her huh? That solves things.

^^Indeed. And what exactly did he expect the RCMP to do with no custody order in hand? Continue to bar her and the child from boarding? They had already pulled them once.

Umm yes. Until mom got the proper paperwork from the courts that's exactly what they should have done.

Honestly WD .. I can see why you've stopped coming here so much.

 

[mcdreamy]

I understand it is difficult for you to understand the law. But without a custody order in place, the RCMP have no right to make a decision nor to restrain a parent.

And frankly, if one is going to plead that a false status quo created post-separation shouldn’t be relied on to create a permanent custody arrangement, then one certainly shouldn’t attempt to rely on a false status quo pre-separation to argue a permanent custody arrangement.

He had his visa application on-going with Australia, they had told their landlords they were renting short-term and refused to sign a one year lease, they had no permanent residence, neither had long-term employment positions (she had none), and neither had any intention of residing in Canada – all of their friends/family knew this 3-some was going to reside in Australia, as even further evidenced by their facebook postings to their friends in Australia. But, hey, maybe she gave him a blowjob.

Honestly WD .. I can see why you've stopped coming here so much.

 

[dad2bandm]

... But, hey, maybe she gave him a blowjob...

Moderate. Keep your childish zingers against forum members out of your moderating duties please.

 

[WorkingDAD]

I understand it is difficult for you to understand the law. But without a custody order in place, the RCMP have no right to make a decision nor to restrain a parent.

And frankly, if one is going to plead that a false status quo created post-separation shouldn’t be relied on to create a permanent custody arrangement, then one certainly shouldn’t attempt to rely on a false status quo pre-separation to argue a permanent custody arrangement.

He had his visa application on-going with Australia, they had told their landlords they were renting short-term and refused to sign a one year lease, they had no permanent residence, neither had long-term employment positions (she had none), and neither had any intention of residing in Canada – all of their friends/family knew this 3-some was going to reside in Australia, as even further evidenced by their facebook postings to their friends in Australia. But, hey, maybe she gave him a blowjob.

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.

Why she did not obtain custody order with clause that she can move and instead just decided to run?

 

[LovingFather32]

But, hey, maybe she gave him a blowjob

Moderate. Keep your childish zingers against forum members out of your moderating duties please.

dadbandm. She can't help herself. I had an opinion.

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.

Why she did not obtain custody order with clause that she can move and instead just decided to run?

^^ Seems logical to me. Plans don't always stick. Things happen. That doesn't constitute abduction.

 

[mcdreamy]

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.

Why she did not obtain custody order with clause that she can move and instead just decided to run?

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.

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. 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. 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.

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?

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. 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.

Btw, I wasn’t referring you not understanding the law, WD - you could be teaching people

 

[mcdreamy]

Moderate. Keep your childish zingers against forum members out of your moderating duties please.

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.

 

[Tayken]

Yea
every time I read this kind of story it gives me chills. I was so close to be one of thouse parents. Thanks got I out of the blue went to that kijiji and saw that she is selling staff and leaving the country... Rest is history and published on CanLii.

WD

It happens so often that judges are getting wise. The challenge is that the rest of the legal system (law enforcement) need an update. We need a national strategy to protect children from parental abduction.

Courts and police need to lay a criminal charge and send an abducting parent to jail as an example. Just a few is all that is needed for the situation to change. We got close with recent case law that I posted.

But, parental child abduction is not a game of hand grenades and horseshoes. Close is NOT good enough!

Good Luck!
Tayken

 

[Straittohell]

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.

 

[Tayken]

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.

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

 

[dad2bandm]

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.

 

[Tayken]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[dad2bandm]

...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.

...
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.