Pat Ellis, an Ontario man, who was arrested when his ex-wife run him over
with their pick-up truck, has filed a Statement of Claim against the Government of Canada for Constitutional Gender Bias.

This is a multi-million dollar lawsuit. All 260 lines of The Charter should
be studied, in order to appreciate the cause of action.

The Charter may be found at:

http://dial.uwaterloo.ca/~ccmclare/docs/charter.html

This is a Federal Court of Canada Action. Class action inquiries are
welcomed.

CLAIM

a. General damages of $25,000.

b. Loss of personal property $50,000.

c. Loss of earnings $420,000.

d. Loss of "Charter" rights to biological off-spring $4,300,000.

e. Special damages to be determined.

f. A deletion of the prohibited ground of "sex" found within s.
15(2) of the "Charter".

g. Such further and additional relief that the Honourable Court
may deem just.


Dated this 18th., day of June 1998.

(Signature of Plaintiff)

Patrick Ellis
347 Ranee Avenue
North York, Ontario
M6A 1N9
[Tel: (416)781-4300]
====================================The full Statement of Claim is posted at
http://telusplanet.net/public/sheep_/patellis.htm

Pat Ellis isn't yet hooked up to the Internet, but he'll be, shortly. In
the mean-time, he can be reached by phone, snail-mail, or by e-mail via Nick

Kovats at <cn650@freenet.toronto.on.ca>

FATHER'S DAY TRIBUTE CANCELED - FATHER DETAINED FOR MOCK HANGING

Event: June 21, 1998 at 11:00 AM

Christopher Robin at Ingleside Hospital (626) 571-9167

Sgt. Gregory Hoyte, LAPD (213) 485-4302

Officer Briggs, LAPD (213) 485-4188

On Friday, June 19 at approx. 8 PM, LAPD surrounded and stormed the Purple Heart House, seizing Christopher Robin - a father who was going to stage a mock hanging on Father's Day to symbolize how child support and custody rulings exile non-custodial parents (mostly fathers) out of their children's life - effectively killing the parent. Mr. Robin built a gallows on top of the Purple Heart House and earlier in the week hadbeen practicing hanging so he wouldn't hurt himself. He was inside starting work on a dummy to hang prior to the news conference when police arrived. "We don't know who tipped off the LAPD, but they came in force. Five squad cars and 8 Officers arrived - apparently fathers are considered pretty dangerous" John Smith said who was working with Mr. Robin on this Father's Day press event. Police placed Mr. Robin in protective custody at Ingleside Hospital in Rosemead for 72 hours. "Public hangings are being performed every day on non-custodial parents in our court system," said Lowell Jaks, Executive Director of ANCPR.

"All Christopher Robin threatened was to expose the truth. But as his arrest clearly demonstrates, the system can't handle the truth. Who is really being protected by Christopher Robin's arrest? What are they afraid of him hanging himself and dying or exposing the injustices of our family law system and of the bureaucratic malfeasance of Gil Garcetti and Wayne Doss?"

A close friend of Christopher Robin - who was with him at the time of his apprehension - worried that handcuffing him would aggravate his spinal condition. The friend mentioned that a "Dr. Weignberg" - she is supposed to be a Psychologist with either LAPD or the Dept. of Mental Health - was "very standoffish and officious" and "not forthcoming with information" on who she was. When asked for her business card, she claimed to not have any with her. She gave the unusual spelling of her name, but no title or agency that she worked for. Two LAPD Officers - Sgt. Gregory Hoyte and OfficerBriggs -did leave business cards after repeated requests.

In an interview with Mr. Robin, he said he was feeling tired but otherwise in good spirits. His biggest complaint was that the handcuffswere so tight, they made his fingers numb. After first being taken to County USC pysch unit, he was transferred to Ingleside Hospital inRosemead. He can be reached directly at (626) 571-9167. He does not know when he will be released.

A group of parents will be at the press conference on Sunday talkingabout the injustices of the Family Law system and calling for a completeoverhaul of these outdated laws.

DIRECTIONS from 101 South: Cahuenga Blvd. Exit - Turn left (go under101)Cahuenga north to ODIN DRIVE (under construction)Turn Right on ODIN DRIVE (only way to turn)Turn Left on HOLLY DRIVE - you can't miss it 2297 Holly Dr.

Sunday, April 26, 1998

Dad sues over child's abduction

By RACHEL BRIGHTON -- The Daily News

E-MAIL: jmacdonald@hfxnews.southam.ca

One grieving father is so frustrated with official efforts to rescue his child he has threatened the government with a $5-million lawsuit.

Dartmouth resident Carlo Martini has not seen 18-month-old Carla Angela since October 20.

"Not knowing where your daughter is, is the worst nightmare anyone could imagine," said the 39-year-old father and writer.

As part of a private prosecution filed with Dartmouth provincial court - and being reviewed by the crown - Martini charges his former common-law wife kidnapped their daughter and endangered her life.

Martini has also written to the provincial Ombudsman, indicating he intends to sue the Department of Community Services for $5 million.

He blames the department for not tracking down and protecting his daughter before she was taken out of the province.

Community Services Minister Francene Cosman wrote to Martini this month, telling him he could discuss his case with her staff, or leave it for the courts to settle.

"I have no intentions to stop, until one way or another, my daughter's safety is secure, and she is returned," Martini told The Daily News.

"I have exhausted myself; it has been an endless battle. Since October, I have been up and down ladders and to all the chains of command."

Martini stood in his living room, which is almost bare except for his daughter's soft toys: a purple Easter bunny and her "guardian puppy" Chuckles. He believes the toys would not have been left behind unless Carla was taken from her family home in a hurry.

Martini dabs his eyes before they spill out tears, and says he used to sing his daughter to sleep to the tune of Amazing Grace. But he substituted the words `Amazing Carla.'

"I wanted her to know she was special. That's why her second name was Angela - Angel," said Martini, who fears his daughter's fragile health will worsen in her mother's care.

Martini first reported his daughter missing to Cole Harbour RCMP. He told officers his child had been kidnapped by his common-law wife from their Cole Harbour apartment.

But the RCMP officers had earlier heard a complaint about Martini from his wife.The officers were faced with a "he said, she said" dilemma, said Cole Harbour's Cpl Jim Powell, in an interview with The Daily News this week.

Powell said officers told Martini they knew where his daughter was -with her mother at a women's shelter - and they were convinced she was safe.

Not satisfied, Martini hired a lawyer, notified child protection services, and won a temporary custody order from a Dartmouth family court judge, who instructed police to detain the child in Nova Scotia.

When Martini returned to the RCMP on Oct. 31, with the court order, it was too late, said Powell. Investigating officers discovered the mother and child had been in Quebec four days before they began their search.

Powell said Martini's wife had simultaneously applied for custody of the child in Quebec, which meant the RCMP in Nova Scotia had no jurisdiction to take the child from Quebec.

"We have her in Quebec, saying, `I have custody'. We have hiim appearing in Nova Scotia, saying, `I have custody.' It happens a lot," said Powell.

"The children are sometimes used as a pawn."

It was now up to Martini to convince higher authorities that a national warrant should be issued for his wife's arrest, said Powell.

"We couldn't make it a federal issue; that's up to him." Powell said he had "no doubt whatsoever" Martini's daughter was in safe hands. Yet he acknowledged Martini "certainly wasn't very happy with the service we provided."

Martini's wife could not be reached for comment.

February 28, 1998

Mother jailed in fight over child Gets 60 days for denying father access to their daughter

By Patricia Orwen

Toronto Star Social Policy Reporter

A Mississauga mother of two is serving a 60-day jail sentence for failing to allow the father of her 4-year-old daughter access to the child.

``I'm devastated . . . I don't understand how this could happen,'' Lisa Barbosa said during an emotional interview yesterday at the Metro West Detention Centre.

``I know people get sent to jail, but couldn't the judge have understood how horrible this is for my children? ``Their mommy is suddenly gone and she's in jail.''

Barbosa, 31, had been ordered several years ago to allow Richard Dadd, the father of 4-year-old Britney, regular visits with the child. He took her to court, arguing that he was denied access a number of times.

She, however, maintained she always complied with the order, except when the child - who is asthmatic - was sick.

She was jailed Monday after a hearing in a Brampton court. Dadd said he was not suprised by the judge's decision. ``I can't say I'm happy that the mother of my child is in jail,'' he said. But ``this is really the other side of the coin,'' Dadd said.

``I've been prevented from seeing my daughter on all her other birthdays . . . Father's Day . . . a lot of times . . . so now things have turned around.'' Barbosa, who was allowed only a short telephone interview from behind a plexiglas wall in the visitor's room of the jail, said she fears that both her children will be emotionally scarred by her legal battle with the father and, now, by her jailing. Tuesday is Britney's 5th birthday. ``What will she feel when I'm not there?'' asked Barbosa, who has always been a stay-at-home mother to Britney.

Barbosa and Britney's father were never married. She has another child, 18-month-old Joey, by her husband, Tony Barbosa. Barbosa said her children have never been without her for any length of time. Little Joey, she said, is so upset by his mother's absence that Tony has had to take time off from his job to take care of him.

``I'm afraid for my children and I'm afraid for myself,'' said Barbosa, who was sentenced for breaching a court order which allowed Dadd, 34, of Mississauga to visit the child. In court, Barbosa denied breaching the order. Dadd, however, testified that he had been prevented from having his court-ordered access to Britney on numerous occasions.

Dadd and Barbosa began their relationship in 1983. Though they dated until 1993, when their daughter was born, they never lived together. Barbosa said she has custody of her daughter; Dadd was granted access and ordered to pay $250 a month in child support.

PROTECTIVE CUSTODY

Dadd, who is now married to another woman, has temporary custody of Britney while Barbosa is serving her sentence. Asked how the child was reacting to her mother's jailing, Dadd said he had not told the girl.

Barbosa was placed in protective custody last night after she reported to officials that other inmates had threatened to beat her. She has requested a transfer to another facility.

Her mother, Nancy Tempelmann, has contacted Toronto family lawyer Lauren Israel. She has also enlisted the support of the mothers' right group Mothers Against Fathers In Arrears.

Dadd says he has kept his child support payments up to date.When told about the case, Israel said she had never heard of any woman receiving a 60-day sentence for such an offence. ``It's very unusual,'' she said. Tempelmann, 51, who attended the court hearing with her daughter, plans to picket outside the jail.

``I told the judge they (Barbosa and Dadd) were both to blame for the situation . . . and I asked for his mercy,'' said Tempelmann, recalling her shock at seeing her daughter led away in handcuffs. The most unfortunate aspect of the case is that ``two children are being punished by having their mother taken away,'' said Kaarina Pakka of MAFIA.

Her organization knows of only one other case of a mother being jailed under similar circumstances.

Last year, Deborah Grenier of Hamilton was jailed for six days after the father of her child won a contempt of court motion in family court.

In that case, the father argued that his former girlfriend and mother of their 2-year-old daughter had breached a court order by refusing to let him see their child.

Contents copyright © 1996-1998, The Toronto Star.

User interface, selection and arrangement copyright © 1996-1998,

Torstar Electronic Publishing Ltd.

ALBANY (AP) A man sprayed liquefied chicken manure on the home of the state's highest court Monday to protest what he says is the unfair treatment of men in child custody eases and of corruption in the judicial system.

Charles Collins III surrendered to police following the 5:45 a.m. incident and was charged with a second-degree criminal mischief, a felony which carries a punishment of up to 7 years in prison. He was released on $7,500 bail and ordered to return to Albany Police Court next week.

"It was a disturbed act of vandalism," Court of Appeals spokesman Paul Browne said. A security guard and maintenance worker were the only people in the Court of Appeals building at the time of the incident, Browne said. The seven-member Court of Appeals is not meeting this week in Albany. No one was injured.

"That's why I did it before it (the court) opened," Collins, from Troy, told The Associated Press. "I am not looking to injure anybody or to destroy property. I am there to make a point that the Court of Appeals is corrupt" Firemen hosed off the building following the incident, and the affected areas were sprayed down with disinfectant later in the day, according to Browne.

Still, he said, "It smells like a Hong Kong chicken farm in July, not a court in winter." More cleanup was planned, according to the spokesman A banner hanging over the main entrance to the building commemorating last year's 150th. anniversary celebration of the Court of Appeals was destroyed by the manure and was confiscated by Albany police as evidence, Browne said.

NOTE: He's a member of Fathers' Rights Association of NY, Capital District Chapter. I'm sure this was not something the Board knew about.

Friday, January 30, 1998

By Kevin Cox and Sean Fine

BRIDGEWATER, N.S. -- A Nova Scotia woman who abducted her son 17 years ago and fled to Texas to escape a husband she said abused her was given a conditional discharge yesterday at an emotional sentencing hearing.

Gloria Butler hugged her son Jeremy in court in Bridgewater after Mr. Justice Hiram Carver of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court handed down what is believed to be the first discharge for child abduction in Canada.

The judge ruled that Ms. Butler be placed on one year's probation, do 240 hours community service and donate a total of $5,000 to two charities that support or protect children.

The ruling brought an end to a saga that began Aug. 24, 1980.

Ms. Butler, then 20, picked up two-year-old Jeremy from his father in Mill Cove, N.S., and flew to Santa Fe, Tex. Her former husband, Christopher Chisholm, had been awarded custody of Jeremy by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, and Ms. Butler was allowe visits.

Mr. Chisholm did not see his ex-wife and son for 17 years. Ms. Butler was arrested by FBI agents in Santa Fe last March after an organization that searches for missing children found Jeremy.

In November, a jury found Ms. Butler guilty of child abduction, despite arguments by her lawyer, Anne Derrick, that she was a battered woman who saw fleeing to the United States as the only way to protect herself and her child.

Crown prosecutor Tony Brown had asked for the maximum sentence of 10 years for Ms. Butler, claiming that her actions had flouted a court order and deprived Mr. Chisholm and Jeremy of a father-son relationship. "Christopher Chisholm was deprived of his son permanently and irrevocably," he said. "He was not able to take Jeremy to Scouts, he was not able to take Jeremy fishing . . . that is a terrible thing to do to a father."

He said Mr. Chisholm, employed in the Canadian Navy, had spent several thousand dollars and many years searching for his son. In his victim impact statement, Mr. Chisholm said he was traumatized and plagued by nightmares after his son disappeared.

"It [the abduction] altered his life irrevocably and fundamentally," Mr. Brown said. "Whatever we do in this courtroom can never give his his son back."

Father and son met briefly outside the courthouse in November and are planning to get together later this week. Mr. Chisholm, who wrote to Jeremy last March that he had urged the authorities to drop the abduction charge, hurried from the court house last night, saying only that he was happy with the ruling.

Jeremy Chisholm, 19, a welder who came to court sporting a cowboy hat, was the defence's star witness.He told the judge that his home life in Texas with Ms. Butler and her second husband George Rockers was "great. I had no problems. I think she was the best mother."

He said he regarded Mr. Rockers as his father and said he was an honours student and athlete in high school. He also attained the highest rank in the Scouting movement as an Eagle Scout. Jeremy Chisholm, who is now a legal resident of the United States and intends to live there, said his mother has always said he was free to meet his natural father and relatives in Nova Scotia.

He also said he and his half-siblings Elijah Rockers, 11, and Caitlin Rockers, 10, were shocked last year when they saw their mother in jail in Galveston, Tex.

"It's pretty difficult to go see your mother in a federal facility. .. . You don't say, 'Today I think I'll go visit mom in jail,' " he said with a Texas drawl, adding that he would console Elijah and Caitlin on the drive home after the prison visits.

In an impassioned address to Judge Carver, Ms. Derrick said that if Ms. Butler were imprisoned she would have a criminal record that would prevent her from travelling to the United States to see her children. The two children are staying with their mother and grandmother in Boutiliers Point near Halifax. But Ms. Butler said they will go to Texas to be with their father, to whom she is no longer married, after school ends.

Ms. Derrick insisted that the evidence heard in the trial showed Ms.Butler was abused by Christopher Chisholm and believed that fleeing to the United States was her only escape.

"The evidence discloses abuse. She took Jeremy because she believed Jeremy was at risk," Ms. Derrick said. She said Ms. Butler has no criminal record, had a good work record in the United States, where she lived under a false identity, and had always been a good mother.

"To separate Ms. Butler from her children now would be a cruel and ironic conclusion to this case," she said.

Judge Carver agreed, saying that it would serve little purpose to send Ms. Butler to jail, since she is unlikely to commit the offence again, nor would it help Jeremy establish a relationship with his natural father.

He noted that while Ms. Butler was physically assaulted by Christopher Chisholm, the father had never harmed his son. The judge added that there was no evidence that Ms. Butler took her son away as revenge over the custody arrangement, as is often the case.

According to the RCMP's Missing Children's Registry, nearly 10 times as many children are abducted by their parents as by strangers. Only 45 children were abducted by strangers in Canada in 1996, the last year for which figures are available, compared to 409 children abducted by parents. (That number has changed little over the past several years.)

Abductors tend to be impulsive and anger easily, said Michelle Hébert, the program co-ordinator for Child Find Canada's Nova Scotia branch in Halifax.

"It's usually someone who is hostile and vengeful. Parental abduction is usually an act of revenge. It's seldom an act of love."

The abductors were not usually the child's primary caregiver before the abduction, she said.

Unlike Jeremy Chisholm, who appears to be well-adjusted, many children are harmed psychologically by parent abductions. "These are kids living like fugitives." Ms. Hebert said. "They move frequently, they're discouraged from making friends. Very often they're told the other parent doesn't want them or doesn't love them or is dead."

A U.S. Justice Department study in 1990 found serious emotional harm in 16 per cent of cases, serious physical harm or physical abuse inanother 8 per cent, and sexual abuse in another 1 per cent of cases.Another study, from the University of Maryland, put sexual abuse at 7 per cent of cases and physical abuse at 24 per cent. That research, based on interviews with the children and family members, found that the abductions were done simply out of anger or to cause pain in 80 per cent of the cases. The Missing Children Society of Canada, one of several Canadian agencies dedicated to tracking children, says it has found 300 abducted children in the past decade, some taken from as far away as Uganda and Morocco.

The organization's first step in dealing with an abduction is to make sure that a missing-person's report is filed with police; it also asks for the latest custody documents (it checks these with court officials); it asks police in both Canada and the United States to enter the cases on police computers in both countries; and it checks that border alerts are issued, and warrants issued for the arrest of the abducting parent. Then it makes contact with the family of the abductor. If the child is of school age, it contacts those in charge of thechild's school records -- if the child is registered at a new school that school may request the records.

The Internet is another valuable tool that carries pictures of missing children.

Copyright © 1998, The Globe and Mail Company

All rights reserved.

Jan 21, 1998.

Dear Members of Provincial Parliament

The National Association for Public and Private Accountability, N.A.P.P.A., requests your indispensable support to assist us in our endeavour to bring an end to the needless injustices being perpetrated by so many branches of the Children's Aid Society against so many families. The main goal of N.A.P.P.A. is to bring accountability to individuals and institutions guilty of violating the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens.

There is a growing sense of outrage amongst the people of our great land. No longer are we prepared to stand by while others suffer the unbelievable torment some Children Aid Societies have inflicted upon their families in general and their children in particular. The time has finally come for the madness to be restored to sanity. Individuals and institutions that are clearly found guilty of negligence, incompetence and malicious prosecution must be held accountable for their actions. We need to remember the great importance of those immortal words, "All that is required for evil to triumph over good, is for good people to do nothing". Similarly it is imperative that we recognise the truth in the very sobering statement, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!"

We, in this magnificent country of ours, are tired of political impotence in the face of tyranny. Whilst we have many fine judges and lawyers across the nation, we remain in the vice-like grip of the "Legal System" that embraces an adversarial approach whilst paying shallow lip service to such concepts as mediation, joint custody and access, and overall justice for children and their families. Too many families are being pillaged and plundered as homes and relationships are ripped to pieces by litigation that takes much too long and offers much too little.

My concerns outlined herein are not just the vain musings of a disgruntled citizen, but rather they come fresh from the crucible of personal suffering over the 11 years, 2 months and 11 days it took me to become the first Canadian in legal history to successfully sue a Children's Aid Society. In July of 1996 the Ontario Court of Appeal unequivocally found the Durham Children's Aid Society guilty of the grossest negligence, gross incompetence and malicious prosecution.

Judge Sommers described the behaviour of the social worker Ms. Marion Van den Boomen in particular and the agency in general as "utterly reprehensible". In all likelihood you may well be familiar with my case, which was published in over twenty newspapers across Canada as a moral victory and a pathetic, pyrrhic financial victory. The whole immoral and sordid action by the C.A.S. cost me in excess of $380,000 and my final pathetic award for damages was a pitiful $70,000 and the indignity of personal bankruptcy. Today I stagger under the financial burden of owing in excess of $300,000!

Whilst my life was all but destroyed (thankfully I did win sole custody of my two precious daughters in Jan of 1987), the social workers along with many others responsible for similar injustices continue to work with impunity and in some cases are promoted. The cost to the taxpayers for my case alone was well over a million dollars. The fact that social workers who have caused such needless cost and brought such needless pain and suffering continue to work for the C.A.S. is clear evidence that the system as it now stands is utterly broken.

As our elected members of parliament, we look to you to fulfil the mandate you have been given by helping us to usher in a new era of checks, balances, and accountability. An era where the needs of our children and families will be placed first in word AND in deed. An era where justice and mercy will prevail and the families of Ontario will cease to be ravaged by the unbridled adversarial system that encourages the complete and utter annihilation of the family unit. An era where the families of Canada will be allowed to blossom and flourish.

It is time that the Ontario government put into place an independent citizen's organisation to oversee the C.A.S.. We ask the government not to throw away any more taxpayer dollars at these agencies. We would, instead, ask that you provide funding to establish an independent civilian watchdog organization. This is the only way to cut the horrendous costs caused by needless litigation involving the separation of children from their families, which results in appalling costs to the government of Ontario.

Our organization would be pleased to meet with government representatives to discuss such an initiative. We could have a pilot project set up and operational within weeks if given a clear mandate and the necessary funding to implement our solutions. An outside and independent organization with a very small budget, free from the bureaucracy currently within the CAS could put an end to the needless suffering of families while significantly reducing the operating costs of such agencies. We feel that such a body could save the province of Ontario hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars annually.

We would very much welcome an invitation from the government to be part of the process to make our system of child protection the best and most cost efficient in the world.

In conclusion we would draw attention to the attached copy of the Ontario Children's Aid Watch Report. This, along with other similar publications, is put out by the citizen's across the province. It is a clear manifestation of the growing unrest with regard to injustices being perpetrated upon the lives of innocent Canadians.

We thank you for your attention to our very serious concerns and we look forward to your early response.

Respectfully and sincerely yours,

The Rev. Dorian A. Baxter B.A., O.T.C., M. DIV.

National Chairman  

Winnipeg Free Press January 8/98 by Leah Janzen, Law Courts Reporter

JAILED FATHER SAYS HE WON'T EAT TILL HE'S SET FREE

Zero tolerance for domestic assaults unfair: accused

Pulling a tattered photo of his two smiling daughters from a shirt pocket, Frank Chief points to the reason he has gone without food for the last 30 days. "I'll take this to the grave if I have to," he said, wiping tears from his face with his remand centre uniform."I'll eat when I'm free and back with my kids."Chief, 29, awaiting trial for a domestic assault on his wife, has been waging a solitary hunger strike at the Winnipeg Remand Centre since early December. In the last 30 days he has refused all food and has lost nearly 23 kilograms. After being charged with assault and uttering threats against his wife in October 1997, Chief was released on bail only to be returned to the remand centre after his estranged wife called police to report he had breached his bail by trying to contact her. A second bail was revoked when the woman told police she woke to find Chief sitting on her sofa in her home. "I'm scared of him," said Chief's estranged wife who didn't want to be named out of fear for her safety. "I'll continue to phone the cops every time he comes to my house if I have to."

While she said she can't discuss specific details of the case because it is still before the courts, the woman said the original assault charge came after Chief allegedly physically attacked her.

Police officers who arrested Chief, but had no contact with his wife, wrote in their report that she sustained no injuries in the alleged attack. "He didn't leave marks," she said. "But he did threaten me and I was scared." Chief maintains his innocence and said he believes his wife is taking advantage of the province's zero-tolerance rule implemented in 1991 which directs police officers to make arrests in virtually any domestic case where a complaint has been make regardless of whether or not there are any physical marks or independent witnesses.

Chief said he will continue his hunger strike in an effort to call attention to a law he says is one-sided and unfair. "Some women do need help to protect them from abuse," he said from a visiting room at the remand centre. "But the pendulum has swung too far."Chief said police should have to weigh both sides and find physical proof of abuse when one partner makes a complainst against another.

But while police need to investigate all domestic abuse complainsts someone making false complainsts can also be charged with public mischief, said Ray

Wyant, senior Crown Attorney. Chief's lawyer, Roberta Campbell said a trial date has been set for next month.

While remand centre staff can't force Chief to eat, he is being monitored medically, said Ron Coles, superintendent of the WRC

From: John Weidlich <amradio@regina.cbc.ca>

Subject: Re: RCMP admits to discriminating against Fathers Hi, regarding the note dealing with access rights ... we'd be interested to learn if people in saskatchewan were having the same experience. If so, and they don't mind, could you ask any to get in touch with us, here at cbc, via e-mail ... or call, collect: 306-347-9503 regards, John Weidlich

January 8, 1998

Supreme Court appointment frustrates women's groups

OTTAWA (CP) Ian Binnie, a lawyer who was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday, was praised as one of the best litigatersin the country but some question why the government failed to name a woman to the high court.

Binnie, 58, is a former associate minister of justice who has argued constitutional, civil and criminal cases before the Supreme Court. He replaces John Sopinka, who died suddenly in November.

Binnie attended McGill University in his native Montreal, Cambridge University in England, and the University of Toronto. He is described as brilliant but laid back, a man who won't bring an agenda to the court and will decide each case on its own merits.

Binnie, who works in Toronto, said he's a strong supporter of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "I think the Charter is there to be used," he said. "I don't think the courts need apologize for the way in which they have developed it."

Prime Minister Jean Chretien noted that like Sopinka, Binnie has been plucked from private practice instead of the ranks of lower cour judges.

"Many people observed it would be useful to have someone at the court who comes from private practice," he said.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Lamer said Binnie's appointment will help keep the court in touch with the society it serves. "It is important that this court always be aware of the realities of the practising bar so that we do not lose sight of the practical effect of our judgments," Lamer said in a release. "I am sure that Mr. Justice Binnie, who is counsel of the highest standing in the profession, will make a very valuable and lasting contribution to the court."

There had been speculation the government would use the appointment as an opportunity to add another woman to the high court. Claire L'Heureux-Dube and Beverley McLachlin are the only women on the nine-member bench. "My reaction is extreme disappointment," said Toronto lawyer Nicole Tellier, a spokesman for the National Association of Women and the Law.

"We know what the composition of the bench is right now. We (women) are 50 per cent of the population. "Many of the issues that are before the Supreme Court deal with discrimination against historically disadvantaged groups. We need judges who are attentive and sensitive to discrimination arguments."

Chretien said the government picked the best candidate available, regardless of gender. "It's not a question of numbers," he said. "We do not select based on sex, language, religion or color. We try to have the best person available."

Many academics and legal experts say Justice Louise Arbour would have been Chretien's first choice but he didn't want to cut short her tenure as chief prosecutor of the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. That term doesn't end until the year 2000. The timing of Binnie's appointment is also critical. Next month the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on whether Quebec can unilaterally secede from Canada.

In his release Lamer said Binnie will be sworn in Feb. 2 and the Quebec reference will proceed during the week of Feb. 16. One critic said Binnie's four years as associate deputy justice minister from 1982 to 1986 may influence his opinions. "There's always a worry that people who spend too much time in (the Justice Department) come at the world from the government's perspective," said one source.

But Justice Minister Anne McLellan, who recommended Binnie's name to Chretien, dismissed any suggestion the new judge may be biased. "He has represented a lot of groups against the federal government and he has won a lot of cases against the federal government," McLellan said.

Binnie was called to the Ontario bar in 1967. Since 1986 he's worked for the Toronto firm of McCarthy Tetrault where he's practised general and commercial litigation, and administrative and aboriginal law.

Copyright © 1998, Canoe Limited Partnership.

The Toronto StarDecember 19, 1997 page A-3 by Patricia Orwen

JUDGE JAILS DAD FOR 90 DAYS.

The article states in short that there are 80,000 deadbeat parents that will face the same sort of sentence when the FRO cracksdown on them. Judge David Main at 311 Jarvis, Provincial Court. jailed XXXXXX was for 90 days for failing to pay $21,000 in support arrears and court costs. Serving the time does not wipe out the debt. He can be released on payment of the full amount. MAFIA co-founder Kaarina Pakka said that "It's wonderful that this whole issue is finally being taken seriously.

--end of basic article-

I took the time to track Mr. BXXX down and found him at Maple Hurst Correctional Centre in Milton. Here is what the paper did not report. (1) the mother in this case was still married when she married Mr. BXXXX and she used a false death certificate to secure a marriage license; (2) Mr. BXXXX is unemployed and on welfare meaning that he was able to convince Social Services that he has no money; (3) He has not seen his child in over a year contrary to a court order; (4) He tried to secure a variation and it was not granted; (5) His parents do not have much money.I offered to prepare a Notice of Appeal, and to prepare a Motion to have Judge Main's order set aside pending the appeal. He accepted however, his mother prefers to use the same lawyer that represented him to go back to the same judge and ask for a variation on the order. I bet that will not work.This case is important because (1) the system failed to acknowledge that there was sufficiant evidence to grant the variation; (2) there is a fraud in that the woman was not legally married to this man and the marriage was void in a rare move from our courts; (3) false allegations are the cause of this happening; (4) is shows again an over willingness to punish those that can not defend themselvies and allow the guilty party to another court order to get away with illegal acts. Since the parents have asked that we give the lawyer a chance we can't do anything but we will if requested in the future.

This should be appealed because it is a return to debtors prision.

WHITBY -- A provincial court judge said he'll have to "wrestle" with how much weight to put on the gender of an attempted murderer in sentencing her for trying to kill her husband after sex.

Crown lawyer Lisa Cameron told Justice Alfred Stong yesterday that Christine Alexander should not be given a lighter sentence than a man would in a domestic violence situation because of the fact she is female.

"The Charter of Rights guarantees that everybody must be treated equally. But equally doesn't mean treated identically ... I have to wrestle with that too," said Stong.

Alexander, 48, was convicted July 8 of attempted murder in the shooting of her husband David on Nov. 5, 1995. David Alexander, 47, survived but still has a .22-calibre bullet lodged near his upper spine.

During the trial court heard David had returned to the couple's Bowmanville home to help Christine move out in the midst of their separation. They ended up having sex, but after David insisted they could never reconcile, his petite wife shot him with a gun kept in the home.

COUNSELLING

The Crown asked for 11 years with a provision for counselling. Alexander's lawyer, Katherine McLeod, asked for two years less a day and three years probation so that Alexander will be jailed closer to her sons and friends.

Cameron acknowledged that Christine Alexander "perceives herself to be the abused party still" but added that "clearly her behavior cannot be tolerated ... if this had been a completed offence this would have been first degree murder." She will be sentenced Dec. 5.

Copyright © 1997, Canoe Limited Partnership. 

INVALID DAD, 82, FACING JAIL TIME

By SCOT MAGNISH -- Toronto Sun   A North York pensioner who alleges his daughter is the fruit of rape by his former Filipina housekeeper now faces jail time for allegedly defying a summons and skipping court.

 An arrest warrant was issued for the 82-year-old invalid, charged with harassing his former cleaning lady, when he failed to show in College Park Tuesday morning.

  "I've been victimized again and again and this is the last straw,"t he man told The Toronto Sun yesterday after learning of the warrant.  He said he had a doctor's letter stating he is medically unfit for court faxed to the judge last month.

 Besides the long-term effects of a stroke that have left him virtually unable to walk, he said, he suffers from decreased hearing, difficulty concentrating and severe headaches. "If they want to send an old man to jail for his 83th birthday, so be it," said the retired salesman and WWII vet. "I'll get three square meals a day. I'm not worried. I've been through worse."

He was served with a summons in September after his former cleaning lady told police she and her daughter received a threatening letter. He has alleged the diminutive woman who worked for him in 1987 sexually assaulted him while he was bedridden and recovering from a stroke in his apartment. DNA tests conducted in 1993 have confirmed he is the biological father of her child.

The woman won custody of their daughter in 1994 and has received $300 in child support payments garnished from his pension every month.

ELDERLY FATHER WILL NOT BE JAILED

WARRANT DROPPED (Thanks to FACT)

By SCOT MAGNISH -- Toronto Sun   A North York pensioner who alleges his daughter is the fruit of a rape by his former housekeeper won't be going to jail after all. Bill Flores of the advocacy group Children's Voice appeared in College Park court in the wake of a bench warrant issued for the 82-year-old's arrest when he didn't appear in court earlier this week.

"The warrant was rescinded," Flores said yesterday after explaining to a judge that the the older man is too weak to appear in court. Flores said the judge gave his friend until Dec. 18 to choose between court and a peace bond ordering him to have no contact with his former cleaning lady and their daughter.

  `I'M AN INVALID'

 But when told of his options, the elderly war vet said he's still between a rock and a hard place. "I can't go to court -- I'm an invalid," the man said, "and the only choice I have means never seeing my daughter again."

 The dad, who turns 83 next week, was served with a summons in September after his former housekeeper told police she and her daughter had received threatening letters. He has alleged the diminutive Filipina woman raped him while he was recovering from a stroke in 1987. Her friends have maintained the sex was consensual. She became pregnant and had a child. DNA tests confirmed the octogenarian is the biological father of the girl. The woman won custody of their daughter in 1994 and has received $300 in child support payments every month.

(I wish to publish names and addresses, we need to have a Deadbeat Mother" protest here)

DAYS AS BLACK AS COAL

False Accusations

Saturday, November 15, 1997 By Margaret Wente

ONE morning in 1992, Frank Stephens drove to the school where he worked as a vice-principal. As he got out of the car he was accosted by a police officer, who arrested him. "You've done some very bad things," said the officer.

With those words, Mr. Stephens fell down the rabbit hole of the legal system. Five years later, he's still there. Frank Stephens is a pseudonym. His real name can't be used because he is facing another trial soon, and identifying him could jeopardize the trial process. Everything else, though, is real. Mr. Stephens was charged for sex crimes committed on a student he had taught in Grade 6, back in the 1970s. By the time he went to trial 15 months later, a second victim had been found. He had, it was alleged, raped them repeatedly in the school, and had committed a particularly vicious assault on one of them with a classroom pointer. His first trial occurred at just the time that zero-tolerance policies toward sex-abuse cases had gripped police forces, prosecutors, and politicians across the country. The theory of repressed memory had gained wide currency, and had not yet been repudiated by scientists and courts of law. This theory holds that traumatized victims often forget what happened to them, and may later recover the events through flashbacks or fragmentary recall.

The jury heard that the two complainants, now in their 30s, had both repressed their memories of the assaults for 17 years, and had never discussed these incidents with anyone at all until 1992. The first complainant had received extensive therapy for an eating disorder that she believed was caused by childhood sexual abuse.

Searching for the identity of the abuser, she hunted through old photo albums until she came across a Grade 6 classroom picture with Mr. Stephens in it. The photo triggered flashes, and then memories, and then a torrent of detail.

The second complainant came forward after being contacted by the arresting officer. At first she didn't remember anything. The officer phoned her repeatedly for months, and finally persuaded her to meet. After he gave her a detailed account of the abuses alleged by the first woman, she started to have her own flashbacks.

The two women's testimony contained contradictions and confusions. For example, one of them described the rooms in the school where some of the assaults were supposed to have occurred. One was a room that hadn't yet been built. One was a room in which Mr. Stephens never taught.

But there were, after all, not one but two victims. Their stories were, after all, horrific. The jury found him guilty, and Mr. Stephens was sentenced to two years less a day.

In 1996, the verdict was overturned by the appeal court. The three judges cited many substantive reasons for the reversal, including the fact that recovered memory evidence is not reliable.

BUT Mr. Stephens didn't head back to school. Instead, the Crown decided to try him again. This time, the second complainant's flashbacks had solidified into memories. Even so, the judge warned the jury to be very wary of her testimony. A psychiatrist who had treated the first complainant over a period of five years testified that she suffered from borderline personality disorder, had trouble distinguishing fact from fiction, and fantasized about sexual activities. (The complainant's memories were recovered with the help of a subsequent, more sympathetic therapist.)

The verdict? There wasn't one. The jury could not reach unanimity, and the judge declared a mistrial.

But the Crown did not give up. Mr. Stephens is now preparing for Trial No. 3.

I called the prosecutor to ask whether he was concerned about the fact that repressed memory evidence is now being thrown out in courts across North America. Not at all, he told me. In fact, he said, he doesn't think that's true -- certainly not in his own jurisdiction.

And what has become of Frank Stephens's life? "I have enough faith in myself and enough faith in humanity left that I believe someone will recognize this is a mistake," he told me.

Since the guilty verdict, he's been suspended from his job without pay. He has mortgaged his house, cashed in his investments, and gone into debt to pay his legal bills, which now amount to about $450,000.

The next trial will cost another $100,000. He has found a job as a woodworker, which was always an avocation, and has built a much-admired altarpiece for his congregation. Once this is all over he'd like to be assigned back to his old job -- he was a teaching vice-principal -- but he realizes that probably won't happen. "There's a political reality to all this," he says.

In some ways, Mr. Stephens is a remarkably lucky man. He has deep roots in the community, and friends and colleagues have rallied round him. Dozens of local religious leaders, school principals, vice-principals and teachers have pitched in to write letters on his behalf to the Attorney-General and to raise money for his defence. His wife and kids are true-blue. All of these people regard the events of the past five years as an astonishing miscarriage of justice. "Some days shine like diamonds," says Mr. Stephens, of his life, "and others are black as coal." That's the way it is, down the rabbit hole.

E-mail: mwente@globeandmail.ca

Copyright © 1997, The Globe and Mail Company

All rights reserved.

Hamilton Spectator
Wednesday 18 June 1997

A father fights stigma of abuse
And sues CAS for $1.5 million

Paul Benedetti
The Spectator

This is a story about the Children's Aid Society and abuse. Except this time it's about the CAS abusing someone.

That someone is Chuck Farrauto. For the past three years, he has been battling the CAS for the way it investigated a sex abuse allegation against him.

He was accused of sexually abusing his four-year-old daughter. The CAS ruled the abuse had occurred.

When the case came to criminal trial, the charges were withdrawn. When the issue later resurfaced at an access hearing in Family Court, an eyewitness testified that absolutely nothing happened.

The judge officially ruled that the allegation was false, that Farrauto had not abused his child. The court awarded him unsupervised access to her.

As well, the judge took the unusual step of severely criticizing the CAS for mishandling the case. With the help of lawyers, it took Farrauto almost two years to get the CAS to agree to recommend the removal of his name from the Ontario Child Abuse Registry.

In the end, even though the CAS agreed to the removal, it sent him an official letter saying it still thinks he abused his daughter.

For Chuck Farrauto, there is no closure. No justice. He is suing the CAS for $1.5 million plus costs, for the lost years, the pain, for what his daughter had to go through, and for the stain on his reputation that will not go away.

Normally, you would never be reading this story. Criminal cases involving alleged sexual abuse of a child are strictly controlled by law. Names of victims and often of alleged perpetrators are not published.

(NOTE: The FACT Webmaster WILL publish YOUR story)

The CAS cannot discuss cases. In fact, Domenic Verticchio, director of services, explained that workers are legally forbidden to discuss or even acknowledge specific cases. Period.

When contacted this week, Judy Blair, the CAS worker who handled the case, said: "I appreciate you calling trying to get my perspective or at least some comments from me É but, unfortunately, I can't comment."

Consequently, material in this story is drawn primarily from court
documents.

The alleged abuse and the actions of the CAS all became a part of a Unified Family Court hearing before Justice Patricia Wallace. She had to decide on Farrauto getting access to his daughter. And this time, the judge took a very unusual step. With permission from Farrauto and the girl's mother, the judge halted the trial.

"I feel the need to state very clearly what I think has happened in this matter and why it has happened," she told the court in October 1995. She hoped her comments might help others who have to deal with families in the future.

Judge Wallace said the CAS and other professionals involved "seriously exacerbated" the problem, that they did not do their jobs at a high enough standard. She found that the CAS "played a major role" in the advancement of a false allegation of sexual abuse.

While noting that their job is difficult and that they are "overworked, understaffed (and) financially stressed," she stated: "I question the correctness or adequacy of some of their policies which were implemented in this case. I do more than question them, I will be so bold as to suggest that they are inappropriate."

Wallace says things began to go wrong right from the outset. On Aug. 30, 1994, mom brought the child to a doctor because she was complaining that her "bottom hurt."

After the appointment, on the way out to the car, the child told the mom maybe it's because "daddy touched me." The doctor re-examined the child, found a small scratch on the outside edge of her vagina, and no other problems. The child said "daddy pressed me there," that he put his finger in her vagina and it had hurt.

The doctor noted that the mother was "extremely shocked" at the disclosure. The mother said the child has a positive relationship with her dad. The doctor, as required, contacted the CAS.

Wallace noted that the doctor didn't ask the child about where or how the touching happened. The doctor talked to the child in front of the mom, and to some extent, adopted the mother's answers. The flaws in this interview, says Wallace, start the ball rolling. But it's the CAS, says Wallace, that really pushes the ball along.

Enter Judy Blair. She interviews the mother, then the child. The child's interview is audio-taped. Then on Sept. 6, Blair contacts the Muskoka CAS and the Ontario Provincial Police in Huntsville, where Farrauto lives.

The child is interviewed again on Sept. 7 by Blair and an OPP officer. This interview is videotaped at the Hamilton central police station.

Next day, the OPP drives to Chuck Farrauto's cottage. They do not interview him. He is arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail. He is charged with sexual assault and sexual interference.

He spends a day in jail. He is released on his own recognizance, but is denied all access to his daughter.

It is the beginning of an ordeal that will cost Farrauto thousands of dollars in legal fees and the better part of three years of his life.

The two interviews of the young girl conducted by Blair form the basis of the case. Wallace finds them flawed. Later, so does the leading Canadian expert in child interviewing techniques.

Wallace was concerned that all interviews were not videotaped, but her real focus was the way in which they were conducted and interpreted.

In the interviews, the child says that one day at the cottage her dad, while giving her a bath, put his finger in her vagina. But inconsistencies in the child's story emerge. The rooms change, she is on the couch, her sisters are there, the blinds are drawn, she cries.

CHANGES COMMON

Experts state it is common for very young children to alter details in different interviews, although the core story may still be true. In an affidavit, Blair said "the differences in the child's disclosures were carefully considered É My role was to carefully balance the implications of these differences in the child's disclosures with all the other evidence "

But Wallace said Blair disregarded the inconsistencies. The judge says they "were relevant and should have been considered by the Children's Aid Society in its further assessments."

A third interview, conducted much later, was not recorded at all and drew the most criticism from Wallace. Blair said the interview was not recorded because no disclosure of abuse was made. That, said Wallace, "infers that the Children's Aid Society only tapes what it wants to hear in support of the advancement of abuse allegations. I trust that is not the Children's Aid Society's position."

Blair stated she did not record the interview because of a "strong desire to protect the child from further emotional distress."

Wallace reserves her harshest criticism for the way Blair conducts the interviews -- for what the worker injects, and for what she omits.

The judge said the interviews made it clear to her -- and to the child -- that the CAS was the "good guy" and that daddy was the "bad guy."

"The mandate of the CAS is to determine what has actually occurred to this child. The child's interview implies to the child that what daddy did was wrong, it does not offer the child the possibility that what daddy did was not wrong," she said.

Later, the CAS will send both interviews to Dr. John Yuille in British Columbia for his assessment. He is considered the country's leading expert on interviewing children. Yuille's report contains some specific criticisms of the interviews, but he states that overall Blair "did a good job."

But when contacted recently, Yuille changed his assessment of parts of the interview. When it was pointed out Blair repeatedly used words and phrases that suggested touching occurred more than once, Yuille called her approach "inappropriate." He said he had not noticed that earlier.

INAPPROPRIATE QUESTIONS

Yuille also said that Blair's repeated suggestions -- five questions in a row -- asking if the touching included any other parts of daddy's body, were wrong. "All of this is an example of inappropriate questioning and inappropriate procedure," he said. "The interview was good because the child resisted the suggestions. But the openings were repeatedly given and the interview could have gone wrong, but it did not."

Yuille says Blair's questioning indicates an assumption on her part. "That form of questioning is inappropriate."

Blair stated that most of her questions were open-ended and non-leading, but said that "in the instances where somewhat leading questions were asked, the child did not provide any information which would support an allegation of abuse."

Everyone in the case agrees that the washing episode at the cottage is the one and only incident involved.

Yuille says explanations for the washing other than abuse should have been explored. He says from the interviews, it is not clear if the touching was sexual or not. Either is "equally likely," he wrote in his report, and only further investigation -- including interviewing the dad and all other relevant witnesses -- might have resolved the question. "It appears that the CAS worker erred in not considering alternative explanations for the allegations."

In the recent interview, Yuille reiterates that Blair's apparent assumption "really affected the investigation."

In general, "the single biggest impediment to a proper investigation is making one assumption and then the investigation becomes an attempt to prove the conclusion instead of discovering what might or might not have happened," said Yuille.

Blair stated that she "seriously considered all the evidence, made a genuine effort to be fair É and reached a difficult decision in good faith."

It is at this point that the situation escalates. On Sept. 20, 1994, Blair sends Farrauto a letter requesting an interview. On Oct. 6, they talk on the phone. Farrauto tells her he wants to consult a lawyer before he talks to her.

In her report, Blair writes that Farrauto declined to be interviewed. In court, Blair said Farrauto refused to talk and made no indication that a future interview was possible. In an affidavit, Blair stated "it appears there was a misunderstanding" about whether Farrauto refused absolutely or simply wanted to speak to his lawyer first.

Farrauto says any misunderstanding is inexplicable, because he sent Blair a letter on Oct. 11 recapping their conversation that includes the line, "I wish to speak to counsel prior to our meeting." Farrauto requested a return letter, but says he never received one.

Farrauto was warned by Blair and her supervisor that the abuse could be "verified" by the CAS without speaking to him. On Oct. 6, the Child Abuse Support Team (CAST) -- a management consulting and review group -- met and decided "verified" meant that Farrauto had sexually abused his daughter. They also placed Farrauto on the Ontario Child Abuse Register as a sexual abuser.

This decision later outraged Judge Wallace. "I find it absolutely impossible to understand the basis for the initial finding. I find it impossible to understand why, at least at that point in the process, there would be external registration, when the option of internal registration was available."

Wallace says despite the contradictions in the child's disclosures, despite not interviewing the father, despite the mother's repeated doubts that the abuse occurred, "despite all these contradictions and gaps, it appears as if the CAST team had at that point in time developed a vested interest in the result."

During the course of the investigation the mother repeatedly expressed to Blair serious doubt that Farrauto had abused his daughter. From the outset she supported contact between father and daughter. By early 1995 the mother was frustrated with the process and wanted to allow Farrauto unsupervised access.

After the criminal charges were withdrawn, she again suggested unsupervised access. Blair told the woman that if she didn't follow through with an upcoming hearing on supervised access, the CAS would be forced to take action. The mother's lawyer requested that information in writing, and the Society sent a letter saying that if she did not proceed with the supervised access motion, it would initiate a child protection action. In short, they would seize the child.

Blair defends the society's action. She stated that the mother "did not at any time during this period state that she did not believe the child."

In a June, 1996 hearing before Judge Wallace in which Farrauto applied to have the CAS cover court costs, the Society admitted the letter was an "error in judgment," but it was never retracted. Farrauto meets with Blair on Nov. 18, 1994. At Farrauto's request, Blair's supervisor promised to delay the Abuse Register entry until after the interview.

During the interview Farrauto explains that he can think of only one incident that might be linked to the allegation. He says his daughter was playing at the beach with two friends and got a crotch-full of sand in her bathing suit. He took her inside, stood her on a chair by the sink, and washed her off as best he could. She finished off with a wash cloth. She did not complain about anything and seemed fine all weekend, he said.

Wallace would later say: "I find that the Children's Aid Society failed to adequately investigate this explanation."

Farrauto also gave Blair a crucial piece of information -- that at the time he had company, his friend Jim Elsliger and his wife and their two young daughters. It's also important to note Blair did not confirm to Farrauto at the time that the washing was the incident in question.

CAS policy and the Yuille protocol direct the investigator to interview all other relevant witnesses, but Blair never interviews Elsliger or his family. "No one ever called me," Elsliger says. "I was never contacted."

NO SUGGESTION

Blair stated she "did not have any reason to believe that any company had directly witnessed the incident. At no time did (Farrauto) suggest that I interview Mr. Elsliger É Mr. Elsliger never contacted me to advise me that he had witnessed the incident."

Wallace found this completely unacceptable. "I cannot fathom how the child's best interests could be met without speaking to the alleged perpetrator and all witnesses."

In fact, Elsliger only tells his story during the Family Court hearing, and what he says changes everything. Elsliger was chatting with Farrauto as he washed the child. Elsliger testified that nothing unusual took place.

Wallace found Elsliger to be a solid, caring, family man who came across in court as decent, straightforward, honest, and clear about what happened.

There was an obligation by the CAS to interview Elsliger, said Wallace. And it could have changed everything.

"After an interview with Mr. Elsliger, if the Children's Aid Society were seriously interested in ferreting out the truth of this incident, as opposed to assisting the police in assuring a criminal conviction, the version of the facts presented ultimately by the father, I believe, corroborated by Mr. Elsliger, would necessarily have been considered, and I believe this matter could have been concluded much earlier, much more simply."

At the hearing over court costs, the Society's lawyer called the failure to interview Elsliger an "unfortunate misunderstanding" and "at the absolute worst, an error in judgment on the part of a society worker."

Farrauto's lawyer, Michael Clarke, said the idea that his client should have directed Blair in her investigation was ludicrous. It "is incredible that É if Mr. Farrauto did not tell her to interview a witness, that she was not going to do it. She had the names right from the beginning."

THOROUGH AND FAIR

Lawyers for the CAS maintain the investigation was thorough and fair.

Wallace found the CAS did not "function at an adequate level of professionalism" in the case. The CAS admitted they had made several errors in judgment and Wallace asked: "Surely, a society with all the expertise and specialized services that it offers cannot continue to say, 'Oops, we made a mistake. Oops we made a mistake. Oops we made a mistake,' without some impact and some consequences."

In the end, she did not award costs because of a legal technicality.

Wallace notes, as do some of Farrauto's friends, that he had a role in his own fate. He took a "high-handed and stubborn" approach in his correspondence with the CAS. He and Blair clashed early on and it affected the case. His outrage was not unwarranted, said Wallace, but it may have influenced the way the case went.

Once all the evidence was in, after the problems with the interviews were revealed, once Elsliger's eyewitness testimony was heard, the case should have ended, Farrauto believes.

But it did not.

The letter he received in November 1995 is grudging at best. "Although the Society continues to have serious concerns that sexual abuse occurred, the Agency recognizes that it will experience difficulties in maintaining a registration, having regard for the judicial determination of Justice Wallace, and the inherent difficulties involved in attempting to establish whether the touching in this case was sexual or non-sexual in nature."

How can the CAS maintain this position? The CAS will not comment.

"The actual outcome?" says Elsliger. "I still don't believe that Chuck was fully vindicated."

Neither does Farrauto.

Today, the former successful real estate salesman is a full-time activist for divorced and separated fathers. He splits his time between his Huntsville cottage and his parents' Hamilton home. He's helping to raise his daughter. To make ends meet, he does odd jobs -- tree trimming, moving, woodcutting. About two weeks ago he went on social assistance.

"I feel crippled. I'm a valuable person," says Farrauto, who feels he cannot move on with his life. "I'm wasting my time. But until this thing gets put right, there's nothing to stop this from happening again. How am I supposed to live with that?''

And so he fights on.

Finally, the truth about Joe Roacha after a delay, fact presents a copy of Joes sworn affidavit. This shows the cruel state of the law in Canada. This is covered by a publication ban in Canada. Click here to download

The National Shared Parenting Association, is a newly formed national network of parent, grandparent, family, community groups and professionals. We provide helpful divorce education and recovery concepts that assist divorcing families to implement shared parenting solutions.Currently we are organizing the national association through a series of regional consultations and organizing meetings across Canada.

Working committees exist in Regina, Saskatoon, Toronto/Golden Horseshoe (encompassing from Durham Region/Oshawa to Niagara Falls) and Halifax (Maritimes Outreach with contacts in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island). Committees are beginning the process of formation in Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal (Quebec outreach project - Montreal, Hull, Ste Foy, Quebec City) Vancouver, Victoria. Initial outreach projects are slated for Winnipeg, Labrador City, Whitehorse, Yellowknife.

Danny Guspie, Chair of the Toronto organizing Committee states: "It is time to solve these difficult questions in a non-partisan way. We encourage all those interested in sharing solutions to join with us in a national dialogue to heal Canada's Children of Divorce."

Randy Liberet founder of The National Shared Parenting Association adds: "This is one of the most important undertakings our country will establish in our lifetime. The contribution of every family member will make it possible for children to make a safer transition during divorce.There is nothing more important than meeting children's needs during this sensitive time."

MORE TO COME, CLICK HERE
For Further information :
416-861-0626 ext. 2 e-mail : doppler@astral.magic.ca
416-410-FACT

HAMILTON, ONTARIO: In what is possibly the most highly contested custody / access case before the courts today in canada, ALLEN vs GRENIER will proceed to trial at the Unified Family Court in Hamilton April 22, 1997 before Justice George Czutrin.
This case has been aired on JANE HAUGHTEN LIVE, VISION TV, various newspapers including the HAMILTON SPECTATOR, TORONTO SUN, TORONTO STAR, CKCO-TV, TV-ONTARIO and the LAW TIMES.
This trial has all the elements of what can go wrong with Family law today, including Breach of Trust, False Allegations (including Sexual Abuse ), Abrogation of Duty of the Children's Aid Society, and not too limit the foregoing, an independent action by the Hamilton Wentworth regional police to be relieved of their obligation to enforce court ordered access.
This trial has the potential to be the custody trial of the century, and set precedents for years to come.
The custodial parent has been found in contempt of every court order by almost every judge that has heard the case ( no less than 5 ), has kidnapped the child ( Jenna ) from the Children's Aid Society and gone unpunished, and has been Jailed for Contempt for Access denial.
Mr. Allen has primarily represented himself for the past two years of this custody / access litigation and has succeeded where most lawyers have failed. The entire family system is challenged by this action.

FAMILY LAW RULES BAR MEN FROM COURT

IF YOU THINK BILL C-41 HURT YOU, WAIT `TIL YOU GET A LOAD OF THIS.

The new Family Law Rules for Ontario will bar men from court by making it impossible to cope with the legal expense. There will be no bill, no hearings, no Parliamentary debate, no vote by the provincial parliament.

The Family Rules Committee is inviting comments from the legal profession (and even most of them don't know about this) until May 1, 1997.

For those of you outside Ontario, read on: this is soon to be playing havoc in a court near you.

THE NEW RULES CREATE A “LOSER PAYS” SYSTEM FOR THE FIRST TIME. Today, the parties in family law cases cover their own expenses, except in unusual cases, where a judge finds that someone is abusing the court process. Where people have honest disagreements, it is unjust for the loser in the dispute to have to pay the legal expense of the winner.

Even in the rare cases where judges award costs to the winner (who is the woman 90% of the time, so we'll just say “woman” from here on), the woman is not allowed to load up the bill, and costs are set somewhat lower than what the woman demands.

THE PROPOSED RULES 246, 248, AND 256 WILL SADDLE THE LOSER (90% MEN, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'LL CALL `EM) WITH THE WOMAN'S COSTS ALMOST EVERY TIME, AND LOAD UP THOSE COSTS WITH EVERYTHING SHE AND HER LAWYER CAN THINK OF, INCLUDING INCIDENTAL ITEMS LIKE BABYSITTING AND PARKING.

It's obvious that the overloaded court system (which designed these new rules), is finding ways to keep men out of court by punishing them for even *trying* to make sure their kids have fathers.

This way of handling the overload is unjust, but it mainly damages men (who don't resist) and children (who can't vote), so it should go through without a hitch. It won't be necessary to consider other ways of changing the system.

Or, maybe men (and women who love them) will be willing to do something to preserve their rights to go on defending their kid's interests.

HEART wants to do something. We're open to suggestions, but we're asking you to do the following (as soon as possible, and by Tuesday, April 22, 1997, if you can manage it!):

1. Get informed. Either download the new rules from one of these websites:

http://qsilver.queensu.ca/law/familyrules/ http://www.qlsys.ca/family/rules.html

2. See if you can find any other problems in the new rules. Think dirty. How might the rules be abused? Get back to us, and we will combine your comments with others (making sure we give credit to all sources).

3. Think up some constructive proposals for improving the rules and get back to us about them.

4. Consider what you would like to do next and get back to us. The process of making the new rules take effect is this (some technical details are left out):

a) The committee has been discussing the rules for a few years.

b) The committee put the suggested new rules out to the public for comment (we don't know exactly when, but the committee offices apparently started sending out printed copies only within the last few days). Very few people actually have any means of knowing about them, and they are not readily available to most even now. Internet access is the best way.

c) The committee will be accepting comments until May 1, 1997.

d) The committee will discuss the comments they have received, and make any changes to the rules that they see fit. The timing of this is up to them.

e) The committee passes their final draft of the rules to the Attorney General, and a process of preparation takes place in the ministry, typically for 2 or 3 weeks.

f) Cabinet votes on the new rules. Normally, such things pass. This part typically takes about 2 weeks.

g) The new regulations are announced in the Parliamentary Gazette, and that's that.

Please look to your email for our recommendation for coordinated action on Wednesday, April 23. We'll try to choose the most effective ways.

As important as they are, the rules are not laws, they are just regulations, so they will be changed by cabinet without any vote in parliament.

WE GET 2 SHOTS AT THIS ISSUE: one by summitting comments before May 1, and the other by communicating with the Cabinet. HEART researchers are studying the question of how much information we will get about the committee's work while they study the comments.

IT'S NOT TOO LATE! With Bill C-41, we got informed at the last minute of the day, but we've been warned about these new rules at the eleventh hour (thanks, again, to Wayne Allen), and there is still time to act!

Can you help with research, emailing, FAXing? If you can do any of these, please contact us at parental@interlog.com.

Ontario Police Response to assault. If you have ever wondered how inflated reports of "Wife assault" are produced, download this exclusive copy of the Ontario Police Manual on "Wife assault". This document is NOT available to the general public. Read and you will understand how those "funny" statistics come about. Included are some facts on actual studies on assault. enjoy, and don't forget to question your local polititian

A CASE OF CHILD ABUSE

Saturday, March 29, 1997
By Margaret Wente
BACK in 1995, an Ontario schoolgirl was asked to write a short essay for a Grade 8 class assignment. Instead, she turned in a 31-page story that suggested her father had physically and sexually abused her. Something was obviously wrong. The school contacted the Children's Aid Society, which took the girl into custody. The CAS treated the abuse allegations as true. The girl (who by law can't be identified) has been in CAS custody ever since.

For the past two years the family has been fighting for a rediagnosis of what ails their daughter, who is now 16. Along the way they have gained many allies, including psychologists, lawyers, the minister of their church, a number of parishioners and other church authorities.

The family and their advocates say that the CAS never did consider any alternative explanation for the girl's behaviour. They say it never conducted a family assessment, that it has stonewalled and fought every effort at a review process, and that it has used threats and intimidation to make the family shut up and go away. And they have grave concerns for the girl, who continues to receive psychiatric treatment on the basis that she is an abuse victim.

At first, the minister attempted to act as a mediator between the family and the CAS. He was rebuffed. "I was scolded," he says. "They immediately isolated the girl. . . . The social worker said to their faces it was clear that they were abusers."

The CAS put the parents on the province's abusers list. In custody, the girl's vague allegations escalated to include charges that her parents had prostituted her, and that they had broken her arms. She became suicidal.

THE CAS has used the girl's fragile mental state as a sort of nuclear deterrent in its fight against the family. In a court hearing to determine Crown wardship last fall, the girl's lawyer threatened that her life would be at risk if she were not made a ward immediately. "They told the judge, 'If you don't make this child a Crown ward today you will have a dead child on your hands,' " the girl's father says.

The judge made the girl a Crown ward, not because there were any findings of abuse but because of her beliefs, and those of her protectors.

The family has made strenuous efforts to get the case reviewed by the CAS, which has provisions for an internal review process. After many delays the CAS investigated itself, and found itself not in error. Now the family has obtained another review of CAS procedures by someone appointed by the government. It has been dragging on for six months.

On several occasions the CAS suggested that if only the family would admit its problems and go to counselling, it might be possible to get the child back. The family resisted this opening.

Lawyer Jacqueline King is a family-law expert who is familiar with the case. She says there are many others like it. She says that some teachers and social workers have become so sensitized to possible child abuse that the CAS is called in if a child has a bruise, or says that Mommy spanked him. These undeniably good intentions can have a disastrous impact on the child. "There's a quantum leap," she says, "when a social worker starts asking if anyone touched your private parts."

The family in this case is not typical because they are educated and articulate (though not well off). They have been able to find plenty of people to go to bat for them. They have been tenacious in their efforts to tackle the maze of bureaucracy that has trapped their daughter. Most parents aren't nearly so well equipped.

"Typically the parents who get their children taken away from them are on legal aid and not able to fund their own case, or they're single mothers, or they've had a mental illness," says Ms. King. "They're not able to get the type of representation they should or could. . . . I am very concerned about this area of law."

A psychologist who is familiar with the case argues that the child-protection system in Ontario is seriously flawed because front-line social workers play advocate, judge and jury all at once. "Child abuse is a serious crime," she says. "If there are allegations of abuse, they should be immediately investigated by the police, people who are trained in the rules of evidence." In some jurisdictions that's the law. Not in Ontario. (In this case there was eventually a police investigation; no charges were laid.)

Earlier this month the CAS wielded its nuclear deterrent again. CTV's current-affairs show W5 was set to go to air with essentially the same story I've related here. The CAS threatened that if CTV aired the story, the girl would likely try to commit suicide yet again, and the network would have blood on its hands. CTV pulled the piece, and is currently examining its options.

"It's abuse of power," says the father.

His daughter is currently in a group home for sexually, physically and emotionally abused children. He has not been allowed to speak with her since last June.

Story &COPY; the Globe and Mail 1997
mwente@globeandmail.ca

Different views of labor ruling involving men's flyers

TORONTO (CP) &SHY; A University of Toronto employee who distributed men's rights flyers on campus has won back the day's pay he lost after being suspended from his job in the mailroom.
   The grievance board decision, released Thursday, is being hailed as a major victory by a national men's group, but others say it was simply a case of an employee misusing campus mail.
   Tony Costa was suspended one day without pay in January after he distributed flyers advocating male rights through the university's internal mail system.
   The flyers, produced by an organization called In Search of Justice, state that alimony often goes to ex-wives who choose not to work and that 92 per cent of men accused of rape are found innocent.
   "The labor board is supporting our organization's position that if women have the right to distribute literature on their issues and points of views, then men should have exactly equal opportunity," said Ross Virgin, president of In Search of Justice.
   "This encourages us immensely to distribute more flyers," he said, adding that members are being asked to escalate their efforts on campuses across the country.
   However, a university spokeswoman said the group has misinterpreted the decision.
   "The whole disciplinary action and this hearing had nothing to do with In Search of Justice. It had to do with the improper use of the mail system," said Kerry Delaney.
   "What they are and what they represent and the content of their literature just has no bearing on what the university was doing here."
   Only university-sanctioned groups can use campus mail. Although In Search of Justice includes two professors, students and some alumni, it is not a recognized student organization.
   Costa turned to the group for help five months ago when he separated from his wife.
   The group, with members across Canada, requires them to distribute literature that often elicits hostile reactions and obscene phone calls, said Virgin.
   The university's Women's Centre refused to comment on the flyers, saying In Search of Justice has received too much attention.
   However, Ruth Perkins, executive assistant of the university's Graduate Students' Union, said she was taken aback when one of the flyers ended up on her desk.
   "It was the content of the poster. I found the content offensive and many statements not true."
   Perkins said she did some digging, and upon discovering the flyer didn't come from a student group, she called the mailroom.
   Costa was reprimanded by his supervisor and told, in writing, that he could be fired if he did it again. Several days later, he was suspended one day without pay.
   The Canadian Union of Public Employees grieved the suspension.
   Walter Coburn, the university's senior labor relations officer, said management and union members agreed to reinstate Costa's pay, in part because he acknowledged he broke university rules.

   In a great decision for non-custodial parents in Ontario, Police were required now and in the future to enforce access orders. A major victory, but we still have a lot of work to do. A complete story by The Hamilton Spectator is available online. The COMPLETE decision is available via our NEW FTP site in MS Word format Click here to download We can achieve results, if we work together toward our goals. Email FACT to get on our mailing list.

A 9 year old B.C. Boy hanged himself Wednesday because his mother told him he could no longer see his father.FACT has the complete story and pictures. This is perhaps the most horrible story I have come across. An update to this story is available here

You may fax the senators and Mp's, no charge by clicking on the links below. This list compiled by Kirby Inwood Click on this link for FREE Faxing to your MP and Senators

A call to all Men's groups, GET CONNECTED! Communication seems to be our biggest problem today, the most cost effective way of our networking is of course the internet. However, not all groups seem to be able to participate in this new means of communication. Therefore, here is some advice on how to connect inexpensively to the internet. It you have a DOS only machine , click on this link to download Arachne for DOS, a complete web browser, e-mail and dialer for DOS machines. Another way, is to Get a BBS account, these often are free, or have minimal cost, and allow you to send and receive e-mail. Please GET CONNECTED, we can t do it without you!

January 11, 1997, MOM JAILED FOR DENYING DAD ACCESS GIRL, 2, FOCUS OF TIFF

By IAN HARVEY
Toronto Sun For the first time in more than 20 years a mother has been jailed for denying access to the father of her child, a Hamilton lawyer says.
 "I lost a job that I was to start Monday," Deborah Grenier, 33, of Hamilton said after she spent two nights in jail for contempt of court.
 Hamilton Unified Court senior judge David Steinberg ordered Grenier to jail for five days on Monday. She was released Wednesday morning.
 `GREATEST VICTORY'

 The case was pressed by the father of 2-year-old Jenna, Wayne Ellen, 35, also of Hamilton who represented himself in the battle that has raged since the toddler was born.
 While men who fail to pay child support are regularly jailed for contempt, the last time a woman was jailed for denying access was more than 20 years ago, said veteran Hamilton lawyer Richard Gaasenbeek.  "A layman has scored the greatest victory in 25 years of family law," Gaasenbeek said when told of the case. "I'm going to invite him to lunch."
 But now Ellen himself risks being jailed for contempt. He says he's unable to pay $650 a month child support because he's not working full-time and, in any event, shouldn't have to pay because he's caring for his daughter 3 1/2 days a week.
 "How does he get away with quitting his job and not paying support," said an angry Grenier who is on Legal Aid. "I'd like to be reasonable. I want my daughter to know who her father is. He should grow up and face reality -- we have a daughter to raise."
 While Ellen had complained about being blocked from several weekend visits, Steinberg upheld only the complaint about the weekend of Nov. 21 -- a weekend Grenier claimed she went on vacation. Steinberg would have ordered her jailed Dec. 20 but set the case over to last Monday to avoid incarceration over the Christmas period.
 Ellen said he fathered the child after dating Grenier and although the couple briefly lived together, their relationship ended before the baby was born.
 "But I want to be an active father," said Ellen, a former line worker for Ford of Canada. "I got sick of being denied access and wanted to do something about it."
 BITTER BATTLE

 The battle turned bitter from the outset when he claims he was denied the initial court-ordered nine hours a week with newborn Jenna.  The next hurdle was an allegation by Grenier of sexual abusing his daughter. It was found to be without foundation and prompted Judge P.H. Wallace to suggest it "was worse than mischievous ... that someone would play with the system in such a way is intolerable."  His predicament was also one of the cases cited by Senator Anne Cools to support her legislation to penalize those who knowingly perjure or make false allegations to the courts.
 "It's long overdue because if a father can go to jail for not paying support the custodial parent should also face the same penalty for denying access," said Stacey Robb of Dads And Divorce Strategies, a self-help group that initially helped Ellen with his case.  "Kids shouldn't be denied a relationship with their parent unless abuse is clearly proven." [&COPY; 1997 TORONTO SUN]

Supreme Court of Canada Ruling on the mobility rights of the custodial parent.
In a 9-0 judgement handed down on Thursday May 2, 1996, the Supreme Court decided that the non-custodial parents may seek an order preventing their ex-spouse from moving, if their access is in "the best interest of the child", rejecting the presumption in favor of the custodial parent. However the custodial parents wishes will still be taken "with great respect",MADAME Justice Beverley McLachin wrote. Naturally, women`s organizations, such as LEAF are disappointed with this ruling, as if any move is contemptated, it opens the door to litigation. The guidelines set up by the Supreme Court are as follows:
The parent wishing to block the move must show that lack of access would negatively impact his or her relationship with the child.
If this requirement is met, a judge must begin a new inquiry into what is "the best interests of the child"
The presumption in favor of the custodial parent, is non existant, although that parents views are entitled to "great respect"
The determining factor is "the best interests of the child" again the rights of the parents are ignored. This case arose in Saskatoon, where Janet Gordon moved with her daughter, Samantha, to Australia, against the wishes of Robin Goertz, the father. Mr Goertz now may have access to his daughter, the cost of transportation to be split.

Senator Wants to Jail Lying Lawyers

Senator Anne Cools of the Senate of Canada has introduced a bill (S-4) that would make it a criminal offense for a lawyer to allow their client’s to make false statements in an affidavit.
Lawyers would be required to verify any statement contained in an affidavit before filing it with the court or face criminal charges.

Many people who have gone through the family law process in particular have expressed concern to her about the damage of unsubstantiated allegations against them contained in affidavits.

Many people believe that lawyers are knowingly allowing false statements because;

• 1) It benefits their clients case, and
• 2) There are currently no penalties to the lawyer for allowing false statements in an affidavit.

The bill is currently up for second reading and Senator Cools would appreciate any help on the bill that interested parties could provide.

If you have been a victim of a false affidavit or you know someone who has, you may have the ability to testify before a Senate committee.

For copies of Bill S-4 or for any other information, you can call Senator Cool’s office toll free at:

1 800 267 7362

To learn more about Bill S4, visit Senator Cools Homepage :) It works now!