Damnation Consumated

July 31, 2006 permalink

Earlier we reported on a fetus damned to apprehension, even before birth. The source for that article has informed us that "this baby has now been apprehended and is now in foster care". Following is an analysis of the case at length by Anne Marsden.

expand

collapse

July 9, 2006

No one said she has never been involved with CAS. The issue is when a child is apprehended the reason it is apprehended is because that baby is considered a child in need of protection. In the past cases we have reviewed CAS have had children for years without them ever being deemed children in need of protection, it has all been bluff and getting parents to consent, through manipulation. I have had parents who have fought to get their children back through the courts and unknown to them the courts have believed they consented to their children being in care. When a lawyer represents you in court you don't have an opportunity to put your position before the court the lawyer does it and believe you me we have seen some cases where the parents lawyer has put on the record that they consent to their child being in care when they have not.

The CFSA sets out the headings that a child can be considered as a child in need of protection. Unless you consent to your child going into care a judge has to declare your child is a child in need of protection for an apprehension to be valid and for the child to be kept by the CAS. Why do you think the last Brantford child was returned on the first court date and CAS who originally said the child should be adopted out closed the case as soon as we brought in a lawyer who knew what the law states and was not a Brantford lawyer.

The judge also has to determine that the child cannot be protected while in the care of the mother (there are various options open to the judge e.g. a supervision order where the CAS is charged to supervise the care given to the child etc.). Because they have been involved with the mother in the past is no reason to determine a child is a child in need of protection, each child is a separate issue. The problem is families have no idea of the child protection laws and CAS have gotten away with acting outside the law in these matters for years now with the full support of the police and the courts (Because often the judge is not involved and when he is he is not given the proper information to make a proper decision - that's the way it has been set up - which is not in line with the CFSA), Its only when someone with knowledge of the child protection laws, like myself and the lawyer we got involved last time, Ian Mang (he has published a book on child protection law issues) that CAS are unable to pull it off as they normally do. To remove a child from a parent without lawful reason is abduction which is a criminal offence, the police in Brantford do understand this after the last episode so if they allow this child to be apprehended by classing it as an emergency they are not being very wise. That is why mom and myself have kept them informed every step of the way.

Mom has not been given due process with the other issues and will be going back to the CAS on this once this is cleaned up. Her first priority right now, however, is to stop CAS walking off with her baby and adopting it out as is their plan when the child has not been deemed a child in need of protection and neither is it likely to be classified as such if mom is given due process as she is legally entitled to and has not been given thus far.

CAS have had at least seven months to let mom know what the issues are where they consider this child is a child in need of protection, they have not come up with any reasons whatsoever. Everyone is entitled to know the case against them. CAS have refused to set out the case against mom so she can present the evidence that shows they have no case. There have been no papers filed in court although this has been her request so she could present her case to the judge. No-one can say this is an emergency - they have had seven months to file papers etc.

I received a letter from the Civilian Police commission which agrees with me that the complaint the last Brantford mom we worked with filed against the Chief was not frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. As this is the only reason the Police Services Board are able not to consider a complaint we will be going back on them. The Chief failed to properly investigate criminal offences involved with the apprehension of a 3 year old in Brantford that caused emotional trauma - if this was a mom and not the police and the CAS, the CAS would have all they need to deem the 3 year old a child in need of protection - emotional trauma is one of the reasons - check out the Child and Family Services Act. This is the issue, Brantford CAS and Brantford Police are acting outside rule of law when it comes to the apprehension of children and no-one in the media is taking a stand against the improper use of our tax dollars to bring harm to children. This mom has been told that it is on her chart that the baby is going to be apprehended by CAS and yet she has not been given any reason in writing from the CAS as to why her child is considered a child in need of protection. This was the case with the three year old and we got the child back but not without major trauma to mom and child. This baby is being breast fed and will be unable to breast feed or bond with mom as a baby should be allowed to do if you are looking out for the childs best interests which is the whole purpose of the CFSA.

Anne