More recent news

HISTORY was made at Sotheby's in London this evening (July 10, 2002) when a completely unknown early work by Sir Peter Paul Rubens, Massacre of the Innocents, sold for £49.5 million, making it the most expensive painting ever sold. (The painting brought $76.7 million, the third most expensive price for a painting in dollars). The work, a record for Rubens, is also a record for an Old Master Painting at auction. The painting was the highlight of a sale of Old Master Paintings which brought £67.6 million ($104.7 million), the highest ever total for an auction of Old Master Paintings.

Alex Bell, Head of Old Master Paintings in London, said: "We are absolutely delighted with tonight's result, which is the highest total ever for a paintings sale in Europe. The Massacre of the Innocents was identified by Sotheby's after being misattributed since the 18th Century. The appearance of this work at auction was extremely exciting and the price certainly exceeded our expectations."

Bidding for the painting began at £3 million and quickly rose to £3.8 million when Ben Hall, an Old Master Paintings expert from Sotheby's in New York who was on the telephone bidding for a client, called out "£6 million." People in the room gasped at the enormous jump in increments and then laughed when the auctioneer Henry Wyndham, Chairman of Sotheby's Europe, said: "Now I'll take £12 million!" While his specific suggestion was not followed, bidding nevertheless increased steadily in million-pound increments, with eight bidders entering the fray, five actively competing over £25 million. Several other interested buyers were never able to enter the bidding at all. Four of the bidders were in the saleroom, with four Sotheby's employees bidding over the telephone. The successful bidder was Sam Fogg, a London dealer in Western and Oriental Manuscripts, who was in the room bidding on behalf of a private collector. At the fall of the gavel, the room erupted in loud and sustained applause. Following the auction, Mr. Wyndham said, "in my 28 years in the art world, this was the greatest Old Master painting ever to come on the market. I have lived with it for the past six months and it has been a great friend. This has been a highly emotional experience for me."

The foregoing text is from a press release by Sotheby's. The painting shows the murder of children by King Herod following the birth of Christ. We wonder what Sotheby's could get for a painting of the police taking children for the Children's Aid Society.

Thirteen-year old Stephanie Jobin, an autistic ward of the Hastings Children's Aid Society, died on June 21, 1998 while physically restrained in a Brampton Ontario group home, Digs for Kids. A coroner's inquest into the death opened on November 18, 2002, and is expected to last for five weeks.

The following advertisement from the Orangeville Banner of November 22, 2002 gives the qualifications and job description of group home parents. Certain phrases, such as "supporting families" and "love of children" have to be taken in the bureaucratic sense.

Dufferin Child and Family Services is an integrated and accredited children's services agency which strives to advocate for and provide co-ordinated quality services for children, families and adults in Dufferin County. Our primary service focus is on children most in need of counselling, support and protection from abuse and neglect, while supporting families in their central role of caring for and nurturing children. RELIEF GROUP HOME PARENTS The agency presently operates four licensed group homes in Dufferin County. An opportunity exists for a couple to be contracted as relief home parents for group homes who can have up to six children at any time. Relief Group Home Parents are required to fill in for regular group home parents / staff when they are on vacation or on weekend off. Duties: To participate in the daily care of children placed in the home; To work collaboratively with a team of agency professionals; To liaise with schools, doctors, and other involved community professionals where required; To provide written reports as required; To prepare meals, to perform required household duties and assist in the weekly budget of the home. Qualifications: CYW, SSW certificates, or equivalent, preferably with two years related experienced by one partner in a residential setting or extensive experience as a foster parent without formal training; Experience in caring for children and a demonstrted understanding / love of children; Skills in or a desire to learn a personal computer; Good oral and written communication skills; Valid drivers license and clear criminal record. Please submit your resume by December 6, 2002, or call for further information to: Debbie Shaw, B.A., B.S.W., R.S.W. Program Manager, Dufferin Children's Homes Dufferin Child and Family Services 50 Fourth Ave., Unit 13 Orangeville, ON L9W 4P1 Tel: 519-940-3560 Ext.1 Fax: 519-941-1525 email to Debbie.D.Shaw@cas.gov.on.ca

Here is a two-month-old letter we just received:

(on letterhead)

PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
HJA Brown Education Centre
5650 Hurontario Street, Mississauga Ontario L5R 1C6
Fax: (905) 890-6747
Tel: (905) 890-1099 1-800-668-1146 www.peelschools.org

September 23, 2002

To: Parents and Guardians

RE: The law requires scools to report concerns regarding children in need of protection

I am writing to share with you important information that affects the way our schools report concerns about children who may be in need of protection.

In April 2000 a new law, the amended Child and Family Services Act, came into effect. This legislation has an impact on everyone in our community. For Children's Aid Societies, the definition of a child in need of protection because of suspected child abuse or neglect has been expanded. For the school system, every person who has reason to believe that a child is or may be abused or neglected must report his or her suspicions immediately to the Children's Aid Society. This law means that:

• School staff do not have a choice if they suspect that a student is or may be in need of protection. They MUST report their suspicions to the Children's Aid Society.
• When staff report concerns to Children's Aid, they must also share with the Children's Aid any information about the concern which might otherwise be confidential.
• It is not the school's responsibility to investigate suspicions, evaluate the situation or assign blame.
• Staff can be fined $1,000 for failing to report that a student is or may be in need of protection.

Our staff has a special awareness of the signs of child abuse and neglect, and as such, has a legal responsibility to report any suspicions to Children's Aid. It is not necessary for staff to be sure that a student is or may be in need of protection. All that is needed is "reasonable grounds to suspect" abuse or neglect. "Reasonable grounds" is defined as being what the average person would expect given his or her training, background and experience.

The Peel District School Board is fully committed to meeting the legal requirements of the Child and Family Services Act. Staff has the full support of the board in meeting this obligation. As a board, we must continue to protect the welfare of each student.

Sincerely,

/signed/

Jim Grieve
Director of Education

Previously we had only anecdotes of threats against child care professionals, but here is documentary evidence. There was also a penalty for failure to report Jews to the Gestapo.

On November 20, 2002 the judge in the Aylmer case met with lawyers for both sides. Here are messages from Henry Hildebrandt just before and after the meeting:

November 20:

Dear Ryan, The Aylmer parents are back in court this afternoon at 2:00 o'clock. The judge has summoned both sides back to "further discuss the case" which is highly unusual to do for a judge before she would give her reasons for her partial ruling in October. Please remember this situation in your prayers.

Pastor Henry Hildebrandt

November 21:

Dear Ryan,

Thank you for your prayers!

I was not allowed in the courtroom, therefore I don't know exactly what happened. According to the lawyers, not very much went on. The judge seems to be pushing the lawyers to work out a settlement. The lawyers in return asked her to make her ruling according to her findings whatever it would be.

It appears that this case is to high for her to judge. My prayer is that the Lord would just totally confound her.

Henry Hildebrandt

The Ryan mentioned above is Ryan Kidd, the source of these messages.

The other two Church of God families under investigation by CAS are "off the hook". They both received letters indicating that their cases are closed. (The first family's mother and younger children took refuge in the US for over a year beginning July 2001; recall the second family's harassment starting with a TV interview July 2002)

This is a letter to the editor printed in the Orangeville Banner of November 5, 2002:

Story lacked view of birth parents, children

Dear Editor;

The Banner of October 22 contained an article and editorial saluting two foster couples in Dufferin. The article presented the view of Dufferin Children's Aid and of the foster parents, but neglected the view of the birth parents and the foster children themselves.

Children in foster care are not, as your article suggests, from families unable to care for them at the moment. Most are taken from their home by force of arms.

Children's Aid usually makes its initial approach to a family in the presence of a police officer, and the threat of force is used in every apprehension. Your article treats the reunification of children with their parents as a tragedy.

As for the foster children, I know of at least two teenagers who have run away from a local foster home. One had to be restrained with psychotropic drugs.

You also neglected to mention the large amounts of money that go to remunerate the foster parents, and the Children's Aid Society, for each day a child is in foster care.

Robert T McQuaid
Orangeville

The article is exactly as submitted, except that the original clause "teenagers who have run away from one of the foster homes mentioned in your article" became "teenagers who have run away from a local foster home".

This is a step forward for the Banner, and represents only the second CAS criticism of any kind to appear in its columns.

The Ontario Libertarian Party holds its annual convention this weekend. One of the items on the agenda is Children's Aid. The current Libertarian Bulletin contains a much abbreviated version of this article.

The Orangeville Banner published the following letter on October 25, 2002:

Commends foster parents for dedication

Dear Editor,

In our community we are fortunate to have a group of dedicated foster parents who are literally the heart and soul of the foster care system that cares for our children in care.

Foster parents open their hearts and homes to infants, children and teenagers and instantly become a significant part of a young person's life.

The length of their connection may be a few days, weeks, months, years or in some circumstances, a lifetime. The positive impact that a foster parent can have on their foster child's life is immense and cannot be underestimated.

Children are society's most precious asset and our foster parents provide them with the nurturing, love and caring that facilitate their personal growth and emotional stability. Our foster parents make a positive difference in our community one child at a time. As Mother Teresa said "We can do no great things only small things with great love". Fostering is a wonderful example of this.

Our local foster parents are to be commended for their efforts and congratulated on a job well done! Keep up the good work and thank you for all of your hard work.

Marianne Breadner
President, Dufferin Child and Family Services

And what do we have to say in rebuttal? Nothing. We have a letter on file from lawyers for Marianne Breadner threatening litigation for comments critical of her.

Svend Robinson of the New Democratic Party is the Canadian Member of Parliament representing Burnaby-Douglas British Columbia. He has introduced a bill, C-415, that will protect homosexuality from criticism by adding sexual orientation to the list of speech treated as hate crimes.

The exact bill reads:

Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.

This action goes far beyond tolerance, by suppressing opposition. In principle, it outlaws the bible, which contains passages condemning homosexuality. While seizure of bibles is unlikely, child-protectors could move against parents who teach their children from the bible, or even direct their children toward heteosexuality.

Here is a picture of the openly gay, fun-loving Svend Robinson. While apparently subject to computer editing, it originally appeared on a website supporting Mr Robinson's views.

The following article, and editorial, in the Orangeville Banner, salute two foster couples in Dufferin County. No contrary view appears anywhere in the article. It even characterized reunification with birth parents as a tragedy. One of these foster families took in the girl we identify as Sophie. The family viewed the foster home as a purgatory from which escape was required at all costs. Sophie ran away from the home, and had to be restrained with psychotropic drugs.

Love for children, desire to help leads two couples to fostering

By NELIA RAPOSO
Banner Staff Writer

Two of the most important men in her life -- her husband and her brother -- are adopted, so it's only natural that Nathalie Plouffe would want to be a foster mom.

Plouffe and her husband, Michel Vachon, who have three children of their own ages 6, 7 and 12, have been fostering for about a year.

Originally they had talked about adopting but then they decided that fostering was the way to go. Plouffe says by fostering they are helping more young people.

"We love children", she says. "The kids are all in school and I wanted to work. This is my work".

Over the last year the couple have opened their doors to nine teenagers.

The couple requested that they only get teenagers from the Dufferin Child and Family Services.

"With babies you have to get up in the middle of the night and I'm past that stage", Plouffe says.

"To teenagers you become more like friends", says Vachon, an insulation sub-contractor.

He says teenagers don't need parents, they need mentors. Besides, they say, neither of them could bear to give back a young child or baby after parenting them for even a week.

Glen and Joan Smith know what that's like.

"I fell in love with one baby and the judge said she had to go back (to her birth parent). I didn't think she should", says Glen. "That's really the downest side of it. Sometimes you get 15 minutes to pack them from the time the court lets out.

The Smith's have been foster parents for about seven years.

They began when their youngest child was finishing high school; and their other three children were already adults making their own way in the world.

Joan, who had always wanted to be a foster mom, figured this was the time to do it.

But Glen, a truck driver, wasn't so sure. After convincing her husband, the couple went through a year of training before Joan quit her job as a personal support worker and took on the job of full-time mom.

"It wasn't easy. I wasn't ready to have a family again", Glenn says.

But now he wouldn't change his role for the world.

Even though there are painful moments when a child has to leave their home, Glen says the happy moments far outweigh the sad.

"One little guy said he'd changed his name to our last name", Glen says. "You feel like you're their parents".

When one of his sons comes home for the weekend, he says you can bet that one of the "little guys" at their house will be outside helping him work on the car.

In some cases kids that have moved on call their former foster parents to see how they're doing. "They call to see if we're still here", says Vachon. "I think it's a security thing for them".

"Any child that has been in your home no matter where they are still hold a piece of our heart", says Joan.

"We're a couple of steps higher than the Block Parents. We're full-time parents for kids whose parents can't do it at the moment", says Glen. "If somebody doesn't step in what's going to happen to those few that didn't get attention".

This week is Canadian Foster Family Week. There are about 40 foster families in Dufferin County but a spokesperson for the local children's aid says 40 more are needed. There are over 100 children in the system in Dufferin County.

"The more homes you have the more personalities you have to match the child's needs to", says Diane Maloney of DCFS.

Maloney says it is not necessary to have a stay-at-home parent to qualify as a foster family. For more information call (519) 941-1530.

Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Editorial Comment

Care and commitment

It's a tribute to the caring and commitment of foster parents like Nathalie Plouffe and Michel Vachon, and Jean and Glen Smith that when they were interviewed about their work, they focused on the positive.

Although they probably could have told stories about caring for children with behavioral problems or lives interrupted by late-night arrivals -- they instead chose to talk about bonds that last beyond a child's stay with phone calls and the rewards of becoming a mentor to needy teenagers.

These couples are just two examples of ordinary people who are doing the extraordinary -- taking children into their home, often on short notice, and offering them care and a nurturing environment for a few days, months, weeks or even years.

And they are filling a need that continues to grow.

According to the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies statistics, there has been a 36 per cent increase in children in care in the province from 1998 to 2001; a 44 per cent increase in the cost of days in care; and a 35 per cent increase in staff. However there has been only a 29 per cent increase in foster parents.

There are about 40 foster families in Dufferin County and a spokesperson for the local children's aid says 40 more are needed. There are over 100 children in the system in Dufferin County.

This week is Canadian Foster Family Week; so we offer recognition and thanks to local foster parents for their dedication and hope that their stories might encourage other people to offer similar care and commitment.

The following paragraphs are extracted from a news report in the Times of Oman, October 18, 2002. Saddam Hussein, like the Dufferin Children's Aid Society, uses an election procedure allowing for no opponents on the ballot.

BAGHDAD -- Saddam Hussein, wiping away a tear, was sworn in for seven more years as Iraqi president yesterday and delivered a stinging and defiant rebuke to the `evil tyrant' of the United States.

(paragraphs omitted)

Officially the president won 100 per cent in Tuesday's referendum which saw a 100 per cent turnout, compared with the 99.96 per cent he recorded in 1995.

Saddam, who called the result a `glorious victory over the enemies', received gifts of a mighty sword symbolising strength, which he unsheathed in admiration, and a large pencil for intellectual powers.

The president, who has been in power since 1979, had been greeted at a Baghdad auditorium by poets reading out verse full of lyrical praise, in the recorded TV broadcast.

Outside in the streets gun fire rattled out in celebration of the event.

On October 12 the National Post and the London Free Press reported that Judge Eleanor Schnall has made a ruling in the Aylmer Ontario case. Last summer, CAS seized the children from an Aylmer family that spanked their children with objects. A few days later, when CAS threatened another family, every woman and every child in the Church of God, a hundred people, fled Canada. This spring the court heard a week of voir dire testimony. Judge Schnall's decision was a technical one, ruling that the voir dire testimony can now be used in the main issue of whether the family should be placed under CAS supervision. This ruling, favorable to CAS, suggests the judge will ultimately rule against the family.

Here is a quote from the National Post article by Christie Blatchford:

Unusually, since the case had been on hold since last June in order to give Judge Schnall time to make this critical decision, the judge did not release her reasons. Normally, judges either deliver a ruling orally, and follow up with written reasons, or reserve important decisions until they can provide a proper legal rationale.

A family has fled Dufferin in a desperate attempt to save itself from Children's Aid. An earlier version of our help page contained the paragraph:

Some parents adopt a cooperative approach to CAS, some the opposite. For families that have the means to hire lawyers, non-cooperation is the best choice. For others, either approach may work, depending on circumstances. We know of one family that has warded off the worst CAS abuses through cooperation. It is a religious family that will not separate under any conditions. Should you get in a court battle with only legal aid lawyers, your chances of keeping your family undamaged are small.

We regret to say that the family that warded off the worst CAS abuses is the same one that fled, and we now know of no family that has saved itself through cooperation with CAS. Consequently, our suggestion is now changed. Once CAS is in your life in any way, the only legal way to save your family is to get a favorable ruling from a judge.

Following the adoption of the new bylaws by Dufferin CAS, Dufferin VOCA sought a legal opinion on the possibility of running candidates for director under the new rules. The legal opinion, which follows, is that there were some irregularities in the adoption of the bylaws, but under the new rules running true opposition candidates is impossible. Elections within CAS are now like those in the Soviet Union, where there was only one candidate on the ballot.

A consequence is that opposition to CAS can no longer be directed at the agency. The government of the Province of Ontario is the only possible source of relief from the abuses of Children's Aid.

This letter is on the letterhead of Minden Gross Grafstein and Greenstein, Barristers & Solicitors, Toronto Ontario:

Robert T McQuaid
RR #5
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2

Dear Mr McQuaid:

Re: The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin ("CAS")

On July 15, 2002 you sent some material to me relating to the Revised By-Law No. 5 for the CAS. There are three issues to consider:

1. Whether it is possible for opposition candidates to run for the board of directors, given the provisions of Section 10.04. This Section provides basically that candidates running for the office of director "must be recommended by the Nominating Committee".

Is there some common law doctrine or court decision that allows people to nominate candidates from the floor notwithstanding the by-law or to force the Nominating Committee to nominate opposition candidates? There is nothing directly on point but there are some cases and some jurisprudence which I would like to bring to your attention regarding a possible challenge to the by-law.

There are two unreported cases both involving the Toronto Humane Society ("THS") and both in the Superior Court of Ontario. Enclosed pleased find copies of the following:

• Trow v Toronto Humane Society decided September 10, 2001
• Toronto Humane Society v Milne decided October 2, 2001

In both instances the issue related to the fact that the proposed by-law which reclassified THS members as either "active" or "sustaining" provided "only active members" would be entitled to vote at a meeting of members.

As you will see from the Trow decision (paragraph 3) this had the result of taking away the right to vote from more than 1,000 members and limiting the right to vote to 12 "active members".

What transpired in the case was that it was not clear to the members that they were being asked to approve a drastic change. As a result the Judge set aside the by-law because basically there was a failure to give sufficient information to permit the members to come to a reasoned decision as to whether or not to support the proposal to change the by-law (paragraph 15). What would have happened if the THS had made proper disclosure is a matter of speculation, but undoubtedly the members would not have approved it.

The second THS decision in paragraph 9 discusses the Trow case and again refers to the right to adequate notice of a meeting sufficient to permit someone to come to a reasoned decision.

What I question here related to the notices of the meeting called for the purpose of approving By-law 5 in the first instance (meeting of February 20, 2001) and any changes in it. Were they really adequate given the changes that were referred to in your March 8, 2001 letter to the Hon. John Baird, Minister of Community and Social Services, particularly with reference to the Nominating Committee and their nomination of the candidates for the board of directors and the fact that no member would be allowed to hold more than two proxies.

Regrettably the best that could be hoped for in these circumstances would be that the by-law would be struck down and then the proponents of the by-law would undoubtedly send out a new notice and bring specifically to the attention of the members the fact that these changes were proposed.

One could consider moving to strike down the by-law based on the THS cases but the results may ultimately be the same no matter what.

On the question of whether there is any common law right to strike down a by-law for any other reason there are certainly provisions in various textbooks which have been supported by cases that director must exercise powers for a proper purpose. For example, the power to enact a by-law must be exercised in good faith. So any by-law made in bad faith would be invalid. See McGuiness: The Law and Practice of Canadian Business Corporations

"3.33 As with every power to enact subordinate legislation, the power to enact by-laws must be exercised in good faith so that any by-law made in bad faith is invalid ...".

"Like all corporate powers, the power to enact by-laws must be exercised for its proper purpose, and therefore a hidden improper purpose affords a ground for attacking the validity of the by-law".

"By-laws may not be discriminatory".

See also Hogg v Cramphorn [1966] 3All ER 320

If what was done was for the purpose of maintaining the incumbents in office the by-law may very well do that by virtue of the Nominating Committee being composed of incumbent directors of the CAS. This, of course, would have to be "proved" in any court proceeding. The onus would be on you to show this.

The problem we have here is that even if there was bad faith in the enactment of these provisions to the by-law, they appear to have been confirmed by the members and that of itself may mean that no-one can challenge the by-law even if it was passed by the directors in bad faith.

There is case law to the effect that the shareholders of a business corporation may "sanctify" an excess use of power by the directors. It is always open for the directors who are in breach of duty to cast their votes as members in favour of the "forgiveness of the breaches of duty committed by them as directors". Although the courts have placed some limits on the power of the shareholders (members) to ratify breaches of fiduciary duty it is not an easy task to set aside a decision of the members (Gower: Company Law at p. 646).

To mount a campaign against the by-law to strike it down for failing to give sufficient notice might be successful but ultimately if it were once again proposed to the members with adequate disclosure and confirmed by the members it would be difficult in our view to set the by-law aside absolutely as being discriminatory or for any other reason.

I enclose an extract from Renton: Guide for Meetings and Organizations an Australian text which refers to the role of the Nominating Committee. (See 11.14). The writer seems to infer there is nothing improper about restricting candidates for the board to those who are nominated by the Nominating Committee.

I reviewed a number of US texts on corporate procedure to see if there is any jurisprudence whereby this restriction or qualification of a director could be considered improper. The following extract is from Fletcher: Cyclopaedia of Corporations, Volume 2:

"S.297 - Qualifications and Eligibility of Directors

Any person may be elected or appointed as a director ... of a corporation, unless there is some special provision on the subject in the charter or by-laws of the corporation or in a general law ...

Section 298 - Power to make by-laws as to eligibility

It is undoubtedly within the power of a corporation to make by-laws prescribing the qualification of its directors ...

Other texts do not deal directly with the issue of whether other persons other than those nominated by the Nominating Committee can stand for election.

A final point on this issue is the fact the By-law was approved by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This fact would make it even more difficult to set it aside.

2. Whether Section 12.09 "Voting by Proxy" provides that "No Member may hold more than two proxies at any time".
Is there an argument that this is invalid.?

Our view is that this is not invalid. You and your wife would not be able to hold more than 2 proxies which along with your own vote gives you 3 votes each or a total of 6. In basic terms instead of seeking proxies you would have to get members out to vote at a members' meeting to support a position you might take.

Another issue here is whether you could be nominated from the floor at an annual meeting. You referred me in your letter to Sturgis: The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. By-law No 5 in Section 23.01 provides that "Sturgis: Rules of Parliamentary Procedures" shall apply at all meetings of the members, the Board, the Executive Committee and any other committees established by the Board".

You also provided me with an extract from Sturgis at p 150 which states:

"Unless the bylaws provide otherwise, nominations from the floor are always permitted even if the initial nominations are made by a nominating committee. To open the nominations, the presiding officer may say: "Are there nominations [or further nominations] for the office of president?" Any member may then rise and say, for example, "I nominate Mary Smith". (my emphasis)

If it comes down to a matter of interpreting which prevails, the foregoing quote seems determinative. To take it one step further by way of confirmation one of the leading Canadian text books on non-share capital corporations namely Burke-Robertson and Drache: Non-Share Capital Corporations provides as follows:

"when an organization has adopted rules of order as its authority, the rules are binding upon it in all cases provided they do not conflict with the organization's charter or by-laws." (my emphasis)

Accordingly, to rely on Sturgis is authority for your ability to be nominated from the floor at an annual meeting will not prevail.

Unfortunately there appears to be little you can do to correct the present situation. In coming to this conclusion I also reviewed the provisions of the Child and Family Services Act which created the CAS and it is very narrow in scope. Even if the CAS were governed by the Corporations Act which regulates non-share capital corporations incorporated under that Act, by-laws or amendments still need to be approved by directors in the first instance and then by the members.

Please let me know if I can clarify any matter for you.

Yours truly,

MINDEN GROSS GRAFSTEIN & GREENSTEIN LLP
Per

/signature/

Hartley R Nathan
HRN/lc
encs

A Dufferin family has been entagled with social services for over a year, including attack from just about every kind of agency. Recently, one aspect of the case was resolved in favor of the family: the criminal charges for spanking the children. This family is still subject to many legal restraints, and we find it advisable to report it under the fictitious family name Bakker. Here is the court transcript.

Over the past year, Dufferin VOCA has received many calls from couples who have been subjected to unwanted restraining orders, often originating in a domestic violence complaint. In one case, a neighbor misunderstood the seriousness of a squabble and called the police, in another a wife called the police thinking that the police would calm the situation. In all cases the police set in motion a train of events that leads to one partner, the husband in all cases so far, being barred indefinitely from his home, or from any contact with his wife. These orders are imposed on the family against the will of both husband and wife, but will not be dissolved by the courts. Mothers have complained that they cannot take care of their family without their husband. We have dubbed this pattern the shotgun divorce. The following article from today's Orangeville Banner deals with the subject, but neglects the family's point of view.

Domestic violence charges a priority for police, courts

By NELIA RAPOSO

The number of domestic violence related charges laid by Orangeville Police has more than doubled in recent months.

From Jan 1 to June 30, 24 such charges were laid compared to 10 laid between June 13, 2001 and Dec 31, 2001.

It's hard to say why the numbers are up, says Const Ondine Easson.

She guesses more people are calling as a result of heightened public awareness, especially since the tragic death of Shirley Snow this past spring.

Show was run down by a minivan outside Wal-Mart on a Sunday afternoon in front of horrified shoppers. Her ex-husband Angus Snow is charged with her murder.

There is no specific charge for domestic abuse; in these situations police choose from a number of offences described in the Criminal Code of Canada -- assault, sexual assault, assault with a weapon, etc.

Domestic violence calls are a high priority and require two officers to attend.

Const Easson says statistics show that it's the most dangerous call for officers.

"It makes sense. Emotions are running very high", she says.

"A complainant has the potential of getting violent when she (most complainants are female) sees her meal ticket going out the door with the police officers", Easson says. "She sees her short term circumstances being worse -- no money, no home. In the long term she may be dead if she stays with him. They feel its self-preservation to recant".

All front-line police officers in Ontario take domestic violence training. And new officers on the Orangeville force receive a refresher course.

Police try to videotape all victim statements and they hold onto audio of 911 calls to use in court and to remind the woman of how hurt she was at the time of the call.

Since 1983, police in Ontario have been directed by the Solicitor General to lay charges in all cases of domestic abuse where police have reasonable grounds.

In 1993, the offence of criminal harassment, also known as "stalking" was introduced to the Criminal Code.

Prior to that, it wasn't uncommon to refer a complainant of domestic violence to a justice of the peace to apply for a restraining order or file civil charges.

Now police officers must lay a charge or at least file an occurrence report for every domestic call.

If a suspect is arrested, police may release him on a promise to appear in court or on an undertaking with conditions or on recognizance with or without sureties (money that police may keep if the conditions are broken).

"If he breaches his surety his mom loses her $500. It can be a deterrent for some people", says Easson.

"Our jails can't hold the number of people who commit domestic violence. It's not uncommon to breach undertaking conditions. It's a sad reality that people don't have much respect for the law", Easson says. "If we kept everyone in jail the jails would be full to bursting within a couple of days".

Therefore it's not often that a suspect is held in custody for a domestic violence related trial.

"Realistically it doesn't happen very often, but it should", Easson says.

Locally, there is talk of setting up a domestic violence court.

No specifics were available at press time but both Easson and staff at the Crown's office confirmed that it was being pursued.

Since 1997, there have been special domestic violence courts in Ontario, intended to provide a more supportive environment for victims. The goal of such a court is to make the system more effective in prosecuting offenders and holding them accountable for their actions. As of 2001, there were about 16 domestic violence courts in the province.

Other improvements may be coming. Over a year ago, the government passed, but did not proclaim law, a Domestic Violence Protection Act.

This new legislation, not yet in effect, would: give police and courts more ways to protect victims of violence including removing the abuser from the home; replace restraining orders with domestic violence intervention orders which would be easier to obtain and more strongly enforced; provide for education about domestic violence and new interventions for all people employed in the legal system; and enforce mandatory counselling for abusers.

The following article appears on the same page:

Banner searching for local ghost stories

The Banner is searching for local stories of unexplained phenomena, unsolved mysteries and unusual characters.

We are planning a special publication -- just in time for Halloween -- that will feature these "believe it or not" type of stories.

Haunted houses, alien sightings, local superstitions and unexplained occurrences will all have a place in this section.

If you know of any such stories from the area -- Orangeville, Caledon, Shelburne, Erin, Hillsburgh, Grand Valley and beyond, -- call Banner editor Lee Ann Waterman with the details at (519) 941-1350, ext 240 or email banner@orangevillebanner.com with the details.

The deadline to submit story ideas is Sept 30.

Children's Aid held its annual meeting at Mono Community Centre. After two years in which the meeting format was changed in response to Dufferin VOCA intervention, the meeting returned to the traditional form. John Christie opened with a brief welcome, then there was a dinner catered by DACL. In the formal business meeting, John Christie, president and meeting chairman, noted that as of the record date of May 1, 2002, there were 115 members of record. A quorum of 20%, or 23 members, was exceeded by the attendance. The meeting:

• Approved the minutes of the previous annual meeting.
• Approved the auditor's report.
• Appointed BDO Dunwoody as auditors for 2002/3.
• Approved the revision to the bylaws. The Ministry did not accept the bylaws as passed by the meeting on March 20, 2001, but made some changes. Consequently, it was necessary to get the approval of the membership again to comply with the rules for amendment.
• Introduced the existing board of directors:
  • Mary Lynne Richardson
  • Bruce McGillivray
  • Erika Skala Black
  • Sandra Card
  • Marianne Breadner
  • Mark Van Horne
  • Greg Maslen
  • John Christie
  
  There were four others for whom we do not yet have full names or spellings, surnames Wilcox, Wallace, Murray and Evans. We note that a majority of the board resigned during the year.
• Introduced and elected the nominees to the board of directors:
  • Mary Lynne Richardson
  • Bruce McGillivray
  • Bonnie Jones
  • Terrence Deneen
• Promoted the Children's Festival to be held on Mill Street on June 22. and the Famous People Players Theater performance on June 25.
• Adjourned the meeting.

Following the business meeting a series of awards were presented to ten current and former board members. The awards were accompanied with lots of hugs and jokes, creating a party atmosphere.

Gary Putman gave the staff history of Dufferin CAS. 20 years ago there were 15 staff members, 10 years ago 27 staff, year 2000 58 staff, and now 93 staff of which about 80 are full time. 58% of today's staff has tenure less than one year, and 72% less than two years. Only 17 staff have served 5 or more years.

Awards were presented based on tenure to:

The last presentation was to the group home parents, identified only by first name. All persons involved in the meeting were white, except for one pair of group home parents, who were black. One final joke closed the procedings.

From the May 31, 2002 Orangeville Banner:

Brian and Ruth Christine were convicted in the case of abducting their own children. Because of mandatory sentencing laws, they will both spend at least 7 and a half years in prison, and immigration consequences mean Ruth will be deported to England, and the couple will never again see each other or their children. This is the punishment for loving your own children. For more, see Paul Walter. The article neglects to mention that the father of Ruth who testified at the trial was in fact her foster father.

Addendum. On May 28, 2002, the Christines were sentenced between them to twenty years in prison. Here is a website devoted to just this case: Christines

A trial is taking place now in Oregon that could alter the future of child protection in the United States, and the results might well spread to Canada.

Brian Christine is a Purdue graduate, formerly worked in a Christian summer camp for small children, and was active in several other religious groups. His wife Ruth Christine is a graduate of the University of Kent, formerly taught English to Tibetan refugees as a volunteer and also worked for a Mother Teresa home for children and adults with disabilities. Neither had ever been in trouble with the law before 2000. The Christines lived with three young daughters in a bus converted into a mobile home, touring the United States. On July 31, 2000 Oregon Services to Children and Families (SCF) seized the three young girls following an anonymous tip that the girls looked dehydrated. SCF later said the girls were malnourished from a vegetarian diet and one had a skull fracture. They pronounced the malnourishment cured in two weeks. The skull fracture was found only after repeated examination by different doctors, and no X-ray evidence has been presented. It was possibly a misinterpretation of a bruise under a Band-Aid.

During the next year the Christines saw their daughters only twice. The second time, Brian Christine took possession of them, allegedly at gunpoint, and fled with them to Montana. The parents were both arrested in Montana a few days later. Since the original seizure, Ruth has given birth to two more girls, one of them while shackled to a bed during part of her labor.

The couple is now on trial for kidnapping, and faces decades in prison if convicted. The stakes are enormous for the child protection industry. If the Christines are acquitted by the jury, it could mean armed guards accompanying children on every parental visit, and security perimeters around foster homes.

A byelection will be held on May 2, 2002 in the riding of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey to replace David Tilson. The candidates are:

• Ernie Eves, Progressive-Conservative
• Josh Matlow, Liberal
• Doug Wilcox, New Democrat
• Dave Davies, Family Coalition
• Richard Procter, Green

There was an all candidates meeting on April 22 in Orangeville attended by the candidates and about 600 spectators. OPSEU, currently on strike, was represented by a large and vocal part of the audience. In the opening statements, only Dave Davies mentioned any issues relating to family law. He mentioned that government does harm to families, through Children's Aid, and noted that Dufferin now has a group opposing CAS. To correct the drop in the standard of living of young couples he advocates a flat-rate tax. He also advocates a school voucher system. He deplored public funding for elective surgery, such as sex-change operations. Audience members were invited to deposit written questions in a box, from which Geoff Mullin drew questions for an hour to be presented to the candidates. None dealt with child protection or family law. In his closing remarks, Mr Davies advocated a 48-hour wait before abortion, and called for the freeing of Linda Gibbons, currently jailed for protesting abortion.

We have approached the offices of all candidates except Mr Procter. Dave Davies took a position opposed to some current CAS practices. Mr Wilcox expressed concern about CAS without taking any specific position. Mr Eves and Mr Matlow have not responded to our inquiries.

The girl we identified as Sophie is now hospitalized. CAS called Sophie's mother to report that the hospitalization occurred after her roommate in foster care shared marijuana with her. According to her mother, Sophie did not have a drug abuse problem before CAS intervened.

We recently examined the minutes of board of director's meetings.

We have so far not reported the scuttlebutt that Orangeville is the human rights abuse capital of Canada. Here is numerical support from January 15, 2002:

Greg Maslen, who works in Peel CAS said they have 545 kids in care; if they were measured proportionally with Dufferin, they would have 2500 kids in care.

Ever wonder why your kids are being stolen? Here is a quote from March 19, 2002:

Mr Putman advised the board that we received a hand-delivered cheque from the ministry for the amount of $331,000 that brings us to the 5 million dollar mark. To maximize this money we must spend about $150,000 in child protection before year-end -- approximately one week.

The dues will be raised. On October 16, 2001, the board passed the following motion:

That upon approval of the new by-laws and in accordance bylaw 5.03 that the society membership fee be set at $5.00 and to be effective in the membership year following the approval of the new by-laws.

As for the bylaws, the following report appears on December 16, 2001:

Mr Putman distributed a copy of a letter sent to Anna Raimondo of the Legal Services Branch regarding our by-laws. Mr Putman consulted with our corporate lawyer, Terry Carter, before responding to the areas of concern raised by Ms Raimondo. These concerns have been addressed and minor corrections have been made with the hope we may have the by-laws approved in a short period of time. This will allow us to have a quorum of 7 rather than 9 as set out in the old by-laws. Prior to 100% funding by the province, we had five county representatives appointed to the board making a total of 17 board members, therefore a quorum of 9. Once the county was no longer involved our board decreased by 5 members, therefore giving us a board of 12 members and a required quorum of 7. However, as the ministry has not yet approved the changes to the by-laws, we must abide by the quorum of 9.

Dufferin CAS has been plagued with resignations of directors, and has had to search for replacements. The current board is: John Christie president, Marianne Breadner vice president, Erika Lyn Skala Black, Greg Maslen, Mary Lynne Richardson, Mark Van Horne, Laura Wilson, Bruce McGillivray, Lea McGillivray and Sandra Card. There are two vacancies. Notwithstanding the desperate search for directors, no directors have been appointed representing clients purportedly served by Children's Aid.

Sometime during the last few months, Dufferin CAS removed a contentious sign from its door that formerly read:

Lesbian and Gay Positive Space. This is a place where human rights are respected, and where gays, lesbians, bisexuals, their friends and allies are welcomed and supported.

Addendum. On April 29, 2002, a new sign with the same wording was back on the door.

News reports today say that David Tilson, MPP for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, will resign to allow the new provincial premier, Ernie Eves, to run in a byelection to be held May second.

A fifteen-year-old girl now in CAS custody has been drugged with prozac. (A teenager who wishes to return to his parents can only be kept in custody with physical or chemical control). In desperation, she has resorted to self-harm, and now has wounds from this activity. Her mother reports that she has been reduced to the mental acuity of a six-year-old. Since we cannot report the name of the child, we will refer to her in any future reports by the pseudonym of Sophie.

On June 20, 2000 Ralph and Gillian Hadley died in a murder/suicide in Pickering Ontario. An inquest was held into the deaths, and Walter Fox represented FACT at that inquest. Tonight Walter Fox addressed a meeting of FACT in Toronto.

Among his conclusions was that there is an unelected bureaucracy within the Attorney General's office that seduces or cajoles the elected officers. A chief weapon is the threat to brand any politician opposing their policies as a proponent of wife abuse or child abuse. In deciding which deaths are the subject of an inquest, the choice is limited to those in which the husband is already dead, preventing his point of view from being heard.

On February 2, 2002 the Liberal Party of Ontario held a policy conference at the Oakville Conference Centre. The following item was on the agenda:

L2. Adoption Reform

Whereas Children's Aid Societies are non-governmental agencies that are governed at the local level; and

Whereas there is no central registry or matching system for children available for adoption and families interested in adopting; and Whereas the families interested in adopting may only apply in their local area and are only allowed access to local children; and

Whereas in most CASs due to limited funding, a `home study' is not conducted until a child is available locally for adoption; and

Whereas there is an increasing emphasis on removing children from troubled homes but no equivalent increase in the ability of the system to find adoptive homes; and

Whereas there is a one-year limit for a child under the age of 6 to be in temporary protective custody, but nothing happens when the deadline is not met; and

Whereas 75% of children in care are not eligible for adoption due to a court-ordered access for the birth family and a law that disallows adoption where an access order is in place; and

Whereas a `special needs' tag is needlessly applied to most children in protective CAS custody (rather than cataloguing the specific needs and factors), thus hindering their adoptability; and

Whereas it is to the benefit of the child in care to be adopted at the youngest possible age (and thereby not be a ward of the state for an extended period of time); therefore

BE IT RESOLVED that the Ontario Liberal Party promote while in Opposition and implement when in Government:

1. A comprehensive review of the Children's Aid Society system to determine new province-wide policies and procedures that will allow the speedy adoption of Ontario's children in care.

2. The development of a centralized adoption registry to allow effective matching of children in care to Ontario families who are willing to provide stable adoptive homes.

Dufferin VOCA wished to report its actual experience with Children's Aid. We found the statement that Children's Aid Societies are governed at the local level to be particularly outrageous, in view of our experiences in Dufferin. A request through a friend to participate in the conference produced the response:

On the agenda are only the resolutions which I e-mailed you last Saturday. The themes of the conference are limited to education, agriculture, rural and local issues. Anyone, who does not have delegate status can not speak or vote on any of the resolutions.

I checked with OLP today: it is possible to attend as an "observer". However this would cost the individual $300. This, of course, would be tax receiptable.

So the OLP has lost an opportunity to listen to community experience, and has adopted a resolution representing only the agenda of social workers.

In a speech to the Vatican court on January 28, 2002 pope John Paul II denounced divorce, going so far as to ask lawyers not to participate in divorce proceedings. And the pope appears not to have heard of the shotgun divorce, in which social workers remove children from a home, then advise one of the parents to get a divorce as a means of recovering their children. The following extract comes from the BBC:

The essential testimony on the value of indissolubility is given through the matrimonial life of spouses, in the faithfulness to their bond that leads through the joys and tests of life.

Nonetheless, the value of indissolubility cannot be considered as the object of a private choice: it relates to one of the benchmarks of the whole of society.

And thus, while the many initiatives promoted by Christians and other people of good will for the good of families must be encouraged (such as the celebration of wedding anniversaries), the risk of permissivism in issues concerning the essence of marriage and family must be averted (see Letter to the families, n. 18).

Among these initiatives, there must be those aimed at the public recognition of the indissolubility of marriage by civil law systems.

A constructive attitude must be coupled with stern opposition to all legal and administrative measures which introduce divorce or consider de facto unions, even homosexual ones, equal to marriage.

This must happen through judicial measures that tend to improve the social acknowledgement of true marriage, in the framework of a legal structure that unfortunately admits divorce.

Conscientious objection

On the other hand, those who work with civil law must avoid being directly involved in what might imply a co-operation with divorce.

This can be difficult for judges, because legal systems do not envisage a conscientious objection that can exempt them from passing a sentence.

For serious and well-grounded reasons, they may thus act according to the traditional principles of material co-operation with the evil.

But they, too, must find effective means to favour marriage unions, particularly by wisely acting in order to favour reconciliation.

Lawyers, as independent professionals, must always decline the use of their profession for an end that clashes with justice, such as divorce.

They should only collaborate with an action in this sense - when the intention of the client is not aimed at breaking up the marriage, but at other legitimate purposes that can be reached only in that judicial way within a particular legal system (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2383).

In this way, by aiding and reconciling people who go through a marriage crisis, judges will truly serve the rights of the individuals and will avoid becoming mere technicians who serve any interest.

Bruce Pugsley was appointed a judge on January 23, 2002. Mr Pugsley, age 45, of the law firm of Parkinson, Parkinson and Pugsley, has represented Children's Aid cases on both sides, including representation adverse to Dufferin VOCA. The Orangeville Banner describes him as follows:

Pugsley's been a part-time assistant Crown attorney, a deputy judge for Small Claims Court in Grey County, a panel lawyer for the Children's Lawyer and the Family Responsibility Office, a charter director of the Caledon Optimist Club and a board member at Family Transition Place.