Monday, September 21, 2015

J.P. vs. MCFD Trial Watch - Day 4

Day four of the 6-week lawsuit against MCFD run by Jack Hittrich

The fat lady social worker responsible for cobbling together the crap "evidence" and removed a mom's four kids is in her third day of being on the stand, being cross-examined by Mr. Jack Hittrich.

Is this insufferable excuse for a human being squirming on the stand, you might ask? It sure doesn't look like it to me. She seems quite happy to be up there. How dare an annoying lawyer question her motives for saving those four helpless children her mommy was about to kill. This social worker sleeps just fine at night, thank you very much.

Truly, these people need in depth psychological evaluation before they be given powers to remove children. But, I digress. This lady has only four years experience in the child kidnapping business, and admits she had no idea what a PCA (Parental Capacity Assessment) was before she started filling out forms. No, of course the psychologist is not biased in MCFD's favour. Lack of focus on specific sexual abuse allegations is not worthy of a psychologists focus.

How the various bits of allegations that were assembled to write the court Report to Court (Form A) was questioned. The craft of writing these damning phrases was dissected. The social worker dismissed the ambiguity as, (paraphrased) "oh, I suppose it could have been written better, but the concerns were there and that is really the bottom line for snatching these kids..."

How the CRA (Comprehensive Risk Assessment http://bit.ly/16lZII6 page 7 of 34 "Mental/emotional ability to care for child) form was done. Questioning had just begun before 4PM arrived to finish the court's 4-hour workday.

The plump purple dressed social worker with stylish leopard scarf, was asked why the bulk of one page regarding parental mental fitness was filled with irrelevant 8-year old crap from 2002 (maybe because there was nothing better or current, one might ask?). "Historical Perspective" is the response, "we don't want to omit that information in case it is later lost due to paper shuffling" is another response. "Because it's there and it helps MCFD villify this parent" should be another response.

Apparently, the lawyers participate in this writeup and editing of the Report to Court. Somers and Co. office in New Westminster handled this case, lawyer "C.P. Feeney" did editing. If you look at the Judgment at http://bit.ly/1buNukE you will see this nefarious law firm set their top dog Gary Somers Q.C. lawyer against this single Mom.

Thank god for Jack Hittrich, otherwise this parent and the usual run of the mill legal aid lawyer would have been lunch meat for this law firm.

Very interestingly, disclosures that are normally hidden, client/solicitor information are included, and have been referred to throughout this case. Certainly, in a normal CFCSA protection hearing this is absolutely unheard of. Disclosures of this magnitude if the come at all, are always produced at the last minute. Plus a page or two (or a few hundred emails) of missing items.

Also interesting is, when the social worker is asked her source of a particular piece of information, it remains anonymous unless that source intends to come forward, and that person is called as a witness. In these cases, the intake reports show "a credible source" rather than the name of the person, which would normally be blacked out. (The "credible source" does not get any qualification, such as, this this person might have a bone to pick with parent x).

When it comes to second guessing parent's intentions, social worker interpretation is fast and loose. Such as, the abuse allegations by parent x is unlikely because of an ongoing custody dispute so any disclosure is obviously coached and should be ignored. Or poor parent y, convicted pedophile is a fine upstanding university educated citizen facing "unproven allegations" of sexual abuse. Why, one question asks, is an unsupervised visit granted by social workers who were willfully ignorant of BC Supreme Court Orders saying "supervised visitation only."?

For some observers, if you do not already have a firm grasp on the sequence of events as they are supposed to happen, and how the Ministry operates, this could be all Greek, or like watching paint dry. For any parent who has been through this, they will palm slap themselves and go "holy shit", "this is exactly what happened to me" and will find the flow of the questioning and responses very interesting.

The usual social worker run-around, them constantly referring to other people "who had conduct of the case" at a particular microsecond in time, so they "don't recall" this or that snippet of information, is readily apparent in this case.

The various allegations in the report to court were broken down. "It could have been written better...." says the non-apologetic social worker, answering why a sentence was phrase to insinuate that several qualified individuals said that mom was probably going to kill her kids, when it was just one stupid cop with a long history helping MCFD steal kids, who had no business making such statements, and a social worker has no business making such out of context one-liner quotes that have only one purpose, to justify a removal, not to withstand evidence rigor.

Watching this gong show is very quite instructive on how social workers create an air of imminent danger before a removal, by arranging statements from supposedly qualified individuals who all contribute to the hearsay evidence pool. Simply by increasing the number of people involved, makes it seem as if "all these people can't be wrong" in order to increase the hurdle for any parent to disprove allegations years later.

Day 5 starts tomorrow at 10:00AM sharp, Friday October 4, 2013.

Note that the strict security has now been eliminated. No sheriffs guarding the door, no pat downs, the metal detector is off. The pedophile has left the building.
Thank god he is safe from the killer public.

http://bit.ly/JP-MCFD-2012BCSC938

No comments:

Post a Comment

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