Monday, September 21, 2015

J.P. vs. MCFD Trial Watch- Day 28 November 7, 2013 - Susan Allen, Social Worker

MCFD Misfeasance lawsuit, day 28

Thursday November 7, 2013 2:30-4:00pm
Social worker Susan Allen is under cross examination today and tomorrow

Finally, VPD officer Rowley is off the stand. 8 days, I think. Imagine, if all the dozen officers involved testified and used up this much court time, that would be 96 days right there.
Today, Crown, Mr Johnston, was whining about the misuse of court time with respect to questioning Ms. Allen about events of December 2009, when the children were removed.
Susan only arrived on the case in May of 2011 to May of 2012, lording over mom's access with her kids and attending the first protection trial until MCFD withdrew, and the judge ordered the children returned the following year.

This is the women who followed the Ministry line that dad would be the one who ended up with the kids, despite the BCSC restraining order and supervised-only access imposed by Judge Walker. Let's not forget the kiddie porn hard drive judge Walker ordered delivered to the VPD, which they destroyed without examining it. (So much for Ms. Rowley's "due diligence").

The day before, we heard Officer friendly, Ms. Rowley insist that pedo-dad was not going to be charged. That there was zero evidence of him molesting his kids. So, the evidence standard she used as an excuse for finding the opposite of judge Walker was "beyond a reasonable doubt", not the much lower civil standard of reasonable doubt and risk of harm to the children. Note that only a 10% level of risk is required to justify action by social workers.

MCFD as a whole, did NOT care about the "possibility" of risk the children. Ms. Allen reiterated the Ministry position that there was just no way in hell mom was going to get her kids back, that dad was. Period. That was their written legal position. Which, Ms. Allen claims she did not participate in the writing or editing of, with the lawyer Corrine Feenie.
Apparently, Ms. Allen was not the slightest bit interested in seeing any of the video tapes before they were shown. Viewing them might POSSIBLY served to alter MCFD's position, given that "unreasonable doubt" was not a barrier to the much lower risk of harm threshold.
Susan claimed not to know the primary concern of mom, which was sexual abuse by dad to her children, and MCFD's violating the BCSC Walker's ruling that dad ONLY get unsupervised access. As we now know, she, and the whole of MCFD ignored that ruling and allowed dad unsupervised access, while mom got supervised access.

At some point, Judge Walker ruled that EACH parent would received equal 11 hours of supervised access.

Susan gave a lot of "I don't recall" answers, until she was actually asked to read emails to and from her, THEN she started remembering. She could not recall who told her the kids were not being fed, but that was one of the many reasons for the removal.
The monotone voice she answered with made it very hard to discern any stress of importance on one part of a sentence compared to another. It was exceptionally irritating to have to listen too.

As the primary social worker, Susan claimed to be unaware of the kerfuffle of mom and her friend attempting to serve MCFD and her brother who was "fostering" the kids with the supervised-only access Order. Anyways, such court orders didn't matter to her, since pedo-dad was getting unsupervised access, regardless.

The impression that she gave regarding her attendance to court, all 67 or so days, was that she just "showed up", she took notes, talked to the lawyers between breaks, rarely talked to her team leader Mr. Blandford, and certainly did not give him any of her notes to review. So, she was unable to answer who exactly she was reporting to and getting procedural instructions from. She simply deferred to the lawyer, Ms. Feenie, who was handling the trial. Susan Allen was the face of MCFD, but her testimony today made it appear as if she didn't have much of a clue as to her reason for being there or what to do.

Susan could not come up with any s.13 concerns that was the basis of their claim that if mom were to be awarded custody of the kids, they would simply re-remove. She just said that generally, whatever the original removal concerns were, mental health, kids not being fed (that was a new one), mom hiding the kids, and so on.

Most notably, the crown objected to Hittrich's 2009 questioning as irrelevant and what probative value did it have, and that it was a waste of the courts time (translation: the core allegations of misfeasance and malice were being touched on and crown didn't like it).
The judge sent the witness out of the room, and gave what appeared to me to be a lecture to Mr. Johnston about the point of comparing different witness accounts and tracking what information was supplied or learned from whom, allowing a challenge of the witness evidence, and then later deciding if credibility would have to be assessed where there were differing accounts. In short, the line of questioning put to Ms. Allen about 2009 events she was not involved with was valid, because it was necessary to find out her knowledge of those events, how it was transmitted to her and her account of why the kids could not be returned to mom due to s.13 concerns.

Ms. Allen's seeming lack of interest in viewing the videos mom and the VPD made of the children as a step in ongoing assessment in her capacity of deciding whether or not to return the kids to mom, or support dad's full custody application, was most troubling. She made it a point to deliberately ignore available evidence that would have helped her understand the situation better. She was apparently content to accept whatever information was fed to her, and was not interested in any other view. Certainly, Susan was not interested in mom's view the kids were molested and that she and MCFD, on the advice of their lawyer against a BCSC order was allowing unsupervised access to pedo-dad.

The protection trial, MCFD was asking for a 3-month extension to the 2009 interim custody order, NOT a continuing care order. This is pretty stupid in itself, having to wait two years to get to trial, then taking 92 days FOR the trial.

She was unable to answer why MCFD withdrew. From the 2009 date of the removal to two years later, MCFD was supporting the return of the kids to dad, not mom, and the next minute in the middle of trial (after two months had elapsed), they flip-flopped and said there were no more concerns. Before the flip-flop, lawyer Corrine Feenie filed a position statement declaring the Director's position, (really, it was not Ms. Feenie's position). At some point, MCFD switched lawyers to Gary Somers Q.C. who presided over the withdrawal of MCFD three days after he was hired.

Tomorrow, Friday November 8th, 2013 at 10:00 AM, trial resumes with Ms. Allen on cross examination.

This was originally estimated to be the last day for witnesses, but Ms. Rowley wasted most of that time. Another 10 days has been added.


Comments
  • Ron Unruh Thanks Papa Inbc. Again a great job of reporting. It appears that Ms. Allen is effectively digging MCF's hole deeper. She should be asked whether she conducts all of her cases as she did this one, oh wait. We can assume the answer.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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