Monday, September 21, 2015

J.P. vs. MCFD - Trial Watch, Day 25, November 4, 2013 Afternoon

Day 25 Nov4/13 2:15pm-4:15pm

Papa is watching the MCFD lawsuit, social home wrecking parasite #8 (I think is #8) testifying. Susan Allen, family services team Vancouver MCFD (post child removal family services team).

Perhaps miss-nice-on-the stand, nasty-witch-off-the-stand should be more aware of her antics in the courtroom when the judge is noticing, to the extent of yelling at her to stop her behaviour (which now appears on the court record). That being, leering at mom, possibly mouthing foul words. How tactless.

Tomorrow, MCFD's "saviour" appears under cross examination: madam detective Rowley.
Ms. detective androgynous never-been-in-court-for-a-sex-crime-case will likely be accompanied, by her cringing lawyer for the VPD, sitting with the rest of us unwashed public. This would be her 6th day of testimony.

YES: is the answer to the question of, as a class of people (is it MCFD really a cult?), do these social workers and their bureaucratic overseers and lawyers in confidence (oops! client solicitor privilege waived in this court case) ALL plot, connive, scheme, collude, twist and reconstruct truths, to victimize children and their families, knowing full well the damage they do?

If social workers have a "look" that parents who have dealt with MCFD instantly recognizes, this one epitomizes that look. Keep in mind that I am biased, I call it unvarnished evil.
Susan has thick rimmed black glasses, long brown hair, an over-confident we-know-best way of talking, happily expanding on why they are "right" and everyone is in "written" agreement, to further prove her rightness.

When I see witnesses walking out of the courtroom, discussing their testimony with 'observers' against court direction (yes, I'm sure they are just talking about what to have for dinner), I consider the lawsuit is sufficiently insulated again the possible damage this can do, because of the sheer complexity and volume of cross-checking testimony of this case the judge and Hittrich and mom is aware of, but not the mass of individuals working against mom.

Lying and twisting testimony by MCFD and their cronies should prove fruitless. "Shorter" 5-30 day MCFD protection trials they can easily manage.

This trial is more than 130 days (NOTE: more trial time was found to the end of November, so the Nov8/13 estimated completion date is now changed.)

It was interesting to hear the turmoil that a simple judge directive that the parents get no less than 11 hours a week supervised access, has on an MCFD office. Supervised access cost, $828 times 2, for a single 6-hour weekend visit, ouchy ouch ouch ouch, poor MCFD.
The approvals, the few weekend access facilities, greedy companies knowing they can soak MCFD. Then, the supervisors twist the notes so critical occurrences such as sexualized activity observed can be muted.

What, you ask? Pedo-dad may have had unsupervised access and supervised-only access with mom reveals that a three year old says and does inappropriate things?
That's ok, miss social worker says, it is not important enough to follow up on with an immediate interview of the child.

However, such a non-event is important enough to involve the MCFD lawyer Corrine Feeney, team leader, community service manager and anyone else on the spin bandwagon to create a suitable back story to prove that a non-verbal three year old's uttering a is unimportant child's play.

Connecting the dots and 1+1=2 (not = 0) is something that is not allowed in MCFD land.
Parents should be gratified to know that such supervised visitation times ARE possible to be imposed on MCFD lest they be cited for contempt.

Note the Bayne's family got 9 hours weekly access given to them by Chief Justice Crabtree in 2009 or 2010, so you parents now have case law to go by, to use as a precedent to increase your own paltry 1-2 hours twice weekly.

As typing this with one finger on an iPad is not the easiest exercise, Papa will take a break.

Until tomorrow. Tuesday, November 5th, 2013 10:00 AM Robson Square BC Supreme Courtroom #75, Judge Walker, with Ms. Rowley on exciting cross examination.

Comments
  • Trevor Doering Wow. Im shocked how much the visits cost. Well you know I heard that after spending half your career being a child stealing vulture, you get a nice juicy Children's Aid contract being a contract type of business, charging those rip off prices. If your good at stealing children that is. Then you get to run a daycare or something and turn in potential victims on a grand scale.
  • Papa Inbc That's what I say, a bunch of parents should get together and form a supervised access coalitian, "approved" by MCFD, and franchised all across Canada. Bill all the child protectors a shitload of cash, give it back to the parents to use to survive the onslaught of their local terrorist office.
  • Ron Unruh Papa Inbc, thanks for taking the time, for investing time that is, to be present for this monumental case. Unquestionably, I envy you, if for no other reason than to see some MCFD reps backed into an inescapable corner, and I also appreciate you making the effort to keep us all informed. This may be only one case, but it is exposing the seamy side of child protection that damaged parents and children have been wailing about for so long.
     
  • Trevor Doering Is this trial getting media attention?
  • Papa Inbc The end date was supposed to be November 8th, but now the rest of November is allocated. I think there is an independant journalist there, while all the other observers have a vested interest. The Surrey 6 trial is getting all the attention.

    Mom has r
    epeatedly said the objective is to open the doors to future lawsuits by parents. The exercise here I would hope, is to educate the judge as to the depth and nature of this MCFD cancer. However, the challenge will not be in just winning, it will be to close off appeal avenues.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are manually approved to eliminate spam and off topic discussions.