Like everyone involved in a family court case, we suffered from the frustration of never once getting an opportunity to speak directly to the court. Here here some arguments I presented to our lawyer, but which were deleted from the court papers. The statement about court procedures is not strictly correct, since courts will allow live testimony with cross-examination, but only after the family has been nearly destroyed by pre-trial maneuvering. In practice, it is rare, even in crown-wardship cases.

4. The procedures of this court do not allow for cross-examination or discovery, making it impossible to compel a witness to answer a question, and permitting CAS to engage in deception by omission. The affidavit of Trish Cox in support of extension of supervision contains many instances.

4.ii. We find it impractical to get a statement from Karen Bowers, because the events described by Trish Cox are too far in the past for accurate recollection.

4.iv. A letter from Debbie Launspach is attached as Exhibit A. She does not agree with the dire prognosis attributed to her by Trish Cox. I do not recall the "retarded" remark attributed to me, but in informal circumstances I frequently use hyperbole. CAS does not understand hyperbole or chooses to misrepresent it.

5.vi. Nothing in Kindrey Rowland's report suggests that the parents are unwilling or unqualified to promote Ken's speech development.

4.viii. We have treated gift offers from CAS as a Trojan Horse.

4.ix. Dr Bakht has never made the diagnoses to us reported by Trish Cox. The correct opinion of Dr Bakht is in Exhibit H. I stand by any of my statements inside or outside this proceeding that removal of children from intact families that have caused them no harm is an outrage.

4.xii. Trish Cox criticizes me for addressing Mono Council, and by implication, the other political remedies I have sought. Exercising one's rights as a citizen is not a disease, and is not a form of child-abuse.

8. The CFSA is vague about many terms such as abuse or neglect. In other areas suffering from vague laws a body of cases becomes a guide both for future judicial decisions and for laymen to know their rights and obligations. CAS cases are secret, preventing laymen from learning the law either directly at the courthouse, or indirectly through accounts of legal journalists. There is only a tiny public window in the form of published appellate decisions. Disregarding Young Offenders and Adoptions, the law librarian at York University was able to show me 96 published cases dealing with the CFSA. None of them define issues in dispute in this case, such as when it is proper to put locks on doors, and of course, none deal with the silly factor of eye contact, mentioned six times by CAS in this case. As long as almost all CAS cases are secret, it is simply impossible for a layman to be in compliance with the law. This court ought to recognize the same principle that parents lobbying CAS have made politically - the best interest of the child is served by keeping his parents.

9. The requirement to execute disclosure agreements with CAS has been harmful to Ken. CAS routinely approaches persons involved in Ken's care with misrepresentations requiring us to terminate relationships with them. The first letter of Dr Murphy, attached as Exhibit D to the affidavit of Kim James filed November 19, 1999, falsely reports that Ken has no toys. I took Dr Murphy a clear plastic bag filled with 200 liters of toys in the house at the time of the raid, though I could have filled three such bags. On all visits Ken's mood has changed from cheerful to taciturn immediately on meeting Dr Murphy. Linda Prosh, acting without the requirement of CAS took Ken to the Community First Centre, and later to the Women's Centre, but can now use neither because of the hostility resulting from contact with CAS. Friends at Hand-in-Hand daycare is unavailable to us for similar reasons. We also encountered a child psychologist who refused to help us because she will not get involved in litigation.

10. By moving to extend supervision, under circumstances where it can be extended yet again, CAS apparently intends to extend the supervision as long as possible. When Ken reaches college age, I will be 72 years old, making it likely that his higher education will be financed from savings rather than income. The unbounded drain of twenty thousand dollars a year for legal costs unrelated to his care and development could imperil his education.

11. During the original raid, CAS promised to leave our child in our home if we removed a crib from his room, but apprehended him anyway after we complied. In the courthouse negotiation for the consent of November 22, 1999, they promised to return Ken at the end of a two week observation period, but reneged by filing 36 pages of motion documents to retain custody. At the negotiation for the consent of January 19, 2000, they promised that the supervision would end six months from the apprehension on May 16, 2000 - time served was the operative phrase. Trish Cox in her own handwriting put May 16 as the expiry date on many of our consent forms. Still, CAS later insisted on July 19, 2000, a date that they now ask to extend. We have scrupulously complied with our consent agreements, while they have defied their agreements, both formal and informal, and acted contrary to the opinion of the court on the Child Abuse Register. We are requesting that the court for once compel CAS to respect their own agreement.

(Eight letters were sent, each to just one of the addresses shown below. -RTMQ)

(There were eight letters enclosed, identical except for the addressees, all shown in the single copy below. -RTMQ)

Epilogue

Examination of this and other cases suggests that all CAS affidavits are the work of a single composer working from notes supplied by caseworkers. Nina Little Alcorn wrote her own memos candidly, all other caseworkers spoke through a composer skilled in journalistic smear without specific facts constituting libel. In this case, and every other one I have seen, CAS asserts that any child in its custody is showing signs of improvement, taking full credit. Disparaging his abilities at the start furthers the effect. Here they took credit for getting Ken interested in toilet training, though that was not done until eight months later, and Ken's speech improvements, though rapid improvement in his speech began a month before the raid, for example, the first correct use of a verb with an object.

We got onto the Child Abuse Register March 28, 2000, but new legislation, enacted by the Provincial Parliament in 1999 and awaiting proclamation during our case abolished it. Its replacement is a Canada-wide computer system containing a full record of all Children's Aid cases.

The remaining legacies of Ken's abduction are the permanent Children's Aid record, a large number of other parents met through the internet but excluded from the court record, and the ongoing effort, which I am now calling Dufferin VOCA, to get CAS to change its policies politically. In this effort, I am surprised by the silence of voices that ought to defend the family, such as the clergy.

In my previous career I have been a party to every kind of lawsuit from squabbles over rent cheques to a hundred million dollar tort action against my company. This litigation is for even larger stakes than a multi-million dollar suit, yet is conducted with less respect for the rights of the parties than a small-claims case.

Here are some facts withheld during the litigation for strategic reasons. During the year preceding the raid, Linda worked part-time outside the home, and I took care of Ken during the day. This accounts for Linda's ignorance about Ken's care during the raid. My story never got to court. The construction of heating vents in our home allows Ken and me to talk to each other while he is in his room and I am in my office, so he was not isolated even when locked in. In other cases where CAS finds bugs in a home, they ostentatiously report them. We had none.

A vital element to prevailing over CAS was the hardening of Linda's attitude. While she was dead-set against a court hearing in January, by June she was willing to do whatever it took to get rid of CAS, including newspaper publicity.