- If you are new to this site scroll to the bottom of this page to read 1.INTRODUCTION and then work upward
- If you have accessed a single posting click on "home" at the bottom of the page first
- Visit our important sister LINKS to the right
See Updates! - This posting 23 (Thelma Gillespie's presentation) and posting 7. Marion Tyson
Here are 2 Presentations given to the Minister of Community Services Advisory Committee on Februaray 21, 2007 by Thelma Gillespie and Linda Youngson, 2 advocates who have worked for many years exposing the serious flaws in our "child protection" services that has been victimizing - not protecting - our children and families.
There have been many concerns with the Minister of Community Service’s Advisory Committee. In her presentation, Linda Youngson includes:
- Her history with the CS Agency,
- The Makeup of the Minister’s Advisory Committee, their responsibilities, and the message she wants the committee to carry to the Minister,
- The 2 years history of the creation of the Advisory committee,
- Some specific concerns with the Children and Family Services Act,
- Concerns with the Minister’s Advisory Committee,
- An introduction to 2 Documents submitted to this, as well as the Human Rights Senate committee:
Concerns with Nova Scotia’s Children and Family Services Act
Checks and Balances
Thelma Gillespie speaks about the pedophiles who have been allowed to work within our child protection system as well as the pedophiles who have been protected by this system.
Presentations to the Minister of Community Services Advisory Committee, February 21, 2007
Presentation by Linda Youngson
To begin with, I would like to thank this committee for this opportunity to finally make a presentation. Unfortunately, it has been a 2 year process getting to this point.
My name is Linda Youngson. I am an advocate who, along with a number of other people, has been fighting for many years to bring the ineptness of Children’s Services, Children’s Aid, and the Community Service’s Agency, as well as the numerous stakeholders connected to them, to the foreground.
My History with the Agency
I naively contacted the Agency for assistance for my daughter who was suffering from the baby blues and was not bonding with her child. Instead of helping her - they gave her NO services - the Agency took advantage of her mental state, recruiting her to assist them to fight against both the father and I as we attempted to keep the child in our family. Because of my daughter’s mental state, I had been my grandson’s primary caregiver - This was never disputed by any party throughout the 1 ½ years this proceeding was before the courts.
Legal action was filed against my daughter and the father for a limited 2 week period when this child was suppose to be in their sole care. After this 2 week period, my grandson who had just turned 1 years old, was wrongly apprehended and placed in foster care for 1 year. No attempt was made by the Court or the Agency to have my grandson placed with a family member as mandated by the CFS Act. When I attached myself to the legal proceedings as a Third Party requesting custody - which the father agreed to at the first court appearance - the witch hunt then began against me.
When my grandson was cigarette burned and otherwise abused in foster care, this abuse was covered up by the system, which included my own lawyer.
A year and half after this Agency proceeding began, on August 28th, while the Agency’s Case was still before the courts, the father, who did NOT have legal custody, and who had already self-confessed to drug abuse and had NOT submitted to any drug rehabilitation program, disappeared, out of province, with my grandson. At the time I had court ordered access.
I immediately appealed to the Agency for assistance to bring the father and my grandson back to Nova Scotia for the conclusion of the court proceedings. However, the Agency, wiped their hands of any responsibility, claiming they had reached the end of their time frame. However, the Agency’s documents filed in court on March 7th concerning this timeframe specifically specified “The agency is currently estimating meeting the August outside date for disposition, however may request extended dates if necessary.” This was evidence that the agencies hands were not tied. They could have extended the timelines. Timeline expiration was not a legitimate excuse for the Agency’s inaction. They let my grandson disappear with no evidence of his well being.
At the time of my grandson‘s disappearance, there was a court date scheduled 6 weeks hence on October 12 -please note this was beyond the August end date claimed by the Agency. But though the Children’s Services’ lawyer had signed the adjournment slip to be present, neither the Agency’s case worker nor their lawyer appeared in court on that date. This absence was duly noted by the Justice, and the Justice made it clear that the Agency and their lawyers were suppose to be in attendance.
In response, the justice requested that all parties, including the Agency and their lawyers were to appear before him within 15 days - However, this requirement, without explanation, mysteriously disappeared, despite all my efforts to have this implemented.
At this point, my lawyer jumped ship and I was left to continue, on my own, to pursue this case by myself and without the Agency’s assistance.
The Makeup of the Minister’s Advisory Committee, their Responsibilities, and the Message They Need to Carry to the Minister
I believe we do need a healthy, proper functioning system to assist both our children and our families. We need a legitimate program that the people of this province can trust, that people can turn to for genuine help and assistance.
Unfortunately, after years of research and advocacy work, I have come to the conclusion that the various entities that function under the Children and Family Services Act are sick and dysfunctional and have become more and more so with each passing year because no one has made them accountable.
For the sake of our children, you committee members must send a clear message to this new Minister, Judy Streatch:
- Tell her there is a very different story, gleaned from experiential knowledge, that the families of Nova Scotia wish to tell.
- Remind Ms. Streatch that she is only an elected official: the people who actually run these departments only tell her what they what her to know.
- Tell Ms. Streatch that it is important that she allows us into her hallowed office to speak to her directly - She speaks with the people connected with these departments, it is only fair that she should also speak to us.
- Tell the Minister that to restore the trust of the people, there needs to be a major shake down, including a clearing out of the old guard who has allowed this dysfunction to persist, and an adjustment and a tightening up to Section 88 so that a balanced representation of members on the advisory committee is guaranteed .
- And lastly, inform Ms. Streatch that the people within this government need to respect the law, and must, by example, show the citizens of this province the importance of following the law- specifically I refer to the CFS Act 1990.
Now let me clarify the duties and membership of this committee. It is the responsibility of this Minister’s Advisory Committee to report back to the Minister of Community Services on the Children and Family Services Act 1990 (CFSA) , as well as the actual real-life implementation of this Act. Let me quote from the Act itself, the duties of this committee:
“The Minister shall establish an advisory committee whose function is to review annually the provisions of this Act and the services related thereto and to report annually to the Minister concerning the operation of the Act and whether the principles and purpose of the Act are being achieved.” - CFSA 88(1)
I emphasis the term “shall” because this word “shall” is a very important legal term that has been explained to us by a number of lawyers including Mr. Rollie Thompson, one of the co-writers of the Act itself.
When “shall” is utilized in law, it means that the action referred to is mandatory. If the action specified is not carried out, then the individual or entity specified to carry out the action is legally in contempt of the law and can actually be sued for inaction.
As already quoted, the creation of this committee on an annual basis is mandated by the Act itself, as is the specific job this committee is suppose to do.
I wish also to remind this committee that by law, 7 members of this committee are also mandatory. And please take note of the use of the term “shall” in this section I will quote as well. I quote from Section 88 (2) (a) through (e).
"The advisory committee shall be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the relevant groups and individuals, and shall include
(a) 2 persons whose children have been, are or may be in need of protective services;
(b) a representative from an agency;
(c) a representative of the Minister;
(d) a legal aid lawyer;
(e) 2 persons drawn from the cultural, racial or linguistic minority communities; and . . . "
Subsection (f) also allows up to 3 other unspecified people to be appointed to this committee:
" (f) such other people, not exceeding 3, as the Minister may determine."
I bring it to the attention of this committee, that I am well aware that these 7 mandatory members are currently not appointed, yet this committee is still functioning . [In fact, on the day of this presentation February 21, 2007, 3 of the mandatory members were no longer on this committee -In fact, this committee did not have the full mandatory membership since Dec 8, 2006 1]
History of this Committee’s creation
I realize that there may be some on this committee who are not aware of the history of this particular committee’s creation. It is important that the people of this province, as well as the members of this committee, understand that though the creation of this committee was mandatory under the law, there was a lengthy hard fought process, taking almost 2 years that lead to this committee’s creation.
Since the CFS Act 1990 came into existence, there had only been 2 committees struck, one produced a report in 1993 and the other a report in 1996. Though the government claimed there were also committees in 1999 and 2001, the documents published by these committees show no evidence that the 7 members required by law was fulfilled, and it is also clear that these committees did not do the specific job mandated by this Act, which is to review the CFS Act and its implementation.
On May 11, 2004, I wrote my first letter to the Minister of Community Services, David Morse, informing him of this lapse of government responsibility and my interest to apply for membership for this committee. On June 28, 2004, I received a signed letter from the Minister informing me that he would inform me “at the appropriate point in time when membership selection is being considered”.
On August 16, 2004, I again wrote the Minister reminding him of his obligation and pressing him for a “specific date for the implementation of the mandated annual review”. On August 21, 2004, I received a letter signed by the Minister, stating that “membership selection is still not currently being considered for this committee”.
Almost a year later, on June 16, 2005, after conferring with a total of 5 lawyers, Marilyn Dey and I finally filed for a mandamus application against the Minister to force him to obey the law. A mandamus application is a judicial writ commanding a person to follow a public or statutory duty.
On Dec 13, 2005 we went to court understanding that the government had decided to accept our mandamus application and that they would sign all required documents in court on that date. However, when we arrived in court we were informed that the government had changed its mind and that all agreements were, now, off the table. The government was forcing this to trial and now planed to fight our mandamus application in court. Our lawyer was given only 2 hours to prepare for trial.
What was significant about this trial was not so much that the sole argument that the Minister brought to the table was that individual citizens like Ms Dey and I did not have the right to bring the government to trial to force them to obey the law - This argument, in itself is wrong and a danger to democracy. But what was even more significant was that the government’s lawyer wrapped its argument in the phrase “the Crown only owes its duty to the Crown”. In this argument the government , in fact, was arguing that the government was answerable to no one, including any elected government opposition - that they were, in fact, above the law !
Such attempted actions from any democratic government should be recognized as a serious and dangerous warning - It should make us aware of the self-important mindset that this government has graced upon itself and we citizens, everyone of us, need to be mindful of these insidious attempts by our elected representatives to legally wrest the power away from the people.
Specific concerns with the Children and Family Services Act
When I applied to make presentation before this committee, I filed a 35 page document listing specific concerns that I had with the Children and Family Services Act and its implementation - including comments and recommendations. I wanted to make it very clear that it was not only the implementation of Section 88 that was being ignored - that, in fact, the problem was that most of the Act is being ignored.
As advocacy workers we have habitually seen the Court, the lawyers, the Agency workers and the justices functioning with a total disregard for the law. We have seen court administrators taking advantage of self representing parents, giving out deliberate misinformation, impeding parents from accessing correct information, and documentation they have a right to and giving misinformation concerning the parents right to file subpoenas and evidence. As advocates we were given misinformation concerning our right to be present in Supreme Court Family Division court rooms. And most distressing, we constantly see lawyers who are doing absolutely nothing to protect or defend the parents from the slanderous accusations the Agency brings against them.
There is no fair shake - there is no justice - there is no concern for the truth or what is in “the best interest of the child” - when the Agency decides to take a child, they are funnel-focused to save face and prove their case at any cost - even at the expense of the child‘s current and future happiness!
Concerns with the Minister’s Advisory Committee
We have many concerns about Children’s Services, Children’s Aid, and the Community Service’s Agency, and with the Minister’s advisory committee.
First, because this Minister’s Advisory Committee is appointed by the Minister, there is a complete imbalance of representation and there is no guarantee that people who might have views other than those supportive of the current government, Minister, and Agency can be appointed.
In April, 2005, a one day notice, in tiny print, was published for people to apply for membership to 78 provincial committees and boards. This notice appeared tucked in the backs of 6 different newspapers across the province including the Chronicle Herald, and the Daily News. When I phoned the Executive Council to get this information, the person giving me this information refused to identify herself. Within 5 minutes I accessed her identity, through the internet, phoned her back addressing her by name, and chastised her for not revealing her identity. As a public servant giving me public information that I want to record, I have the right to the identity of the person giving me information.
This one day publication in small print tucked in the back of a newspaper does NOT indicate a sincere effort on the part of the government to secure anyone but those they end up actively approaching to be on these committees and boards.
If this situation persists, there is no hope for positive change. As it stands, we are left helplessly hoping that the current government will do the right thing by exposing the ineptness of this system. But this is a wasted dream because it is never in the current government’s interest to expose wrong-doing within its own government departments.
But our children are precious and our families need to be protected and assisted when needed. Partisan politics should not be a part of this system. There has been too much going on for far too long that is not right about Children’s Services, Children’s Aid, and the Community Service’s Agency. The responsibility for these children and these families have not been well served by any one party in power. Indeed, there is concern that the 2 parties who have shared power back and forth over the years, the Liberals and Conservatives, are content, for whatever reason - and some of those reasons may be serious and sinister - these Parties are content with the status quo.
Innocent children who have no voice to speak for themselves deserve better than this. It is time to make this department more open and accountable - to all political parties as well as to the citizens of Nova Scotia.
To begin with, I would suggest that the appointment of this committee be taken out of the hands of the Minister and placed in the hands of a multi-party committee. All applications for membership should be made public and any political affiliations, past or present, of the applicants should be made public as well.
I also understand that the current per diem for this committee is well below the standard $100, and I also understand that this low per diem allows a little known loophole to exist - that the details of members do not have to be made public.
Well, what I say to that is - for shame! Get the per diem up to standard and get out from under all the secrecy! You are a public committee. The taxpayers of this province are paying for you and we have a right to know who you are.
As public servants, the public also has a right to contact each member individually. As it is, there is wholesale distrust from persons making presentations critical of this government. They are concerned that all the information filed is not getting to all the members. To assist in establishing trusting relationships with this committee, the public needs the ability to send material directly to all members of this committee.
Now let us move on to concerns we have with scheduling of presentations for this current committee:
An ad was originally placed in the paper for people to file documentation and/or to make requests to present before this committee. There was an e-mail address included to assist with these submissions and requests. Eventually people were contacted by e-mail and asked to phone a specific phone number. However, as the final date to make applications drew near, Lynn Cheek, a member of this committee and the person originally connected with this contact phone number, suddenly proclaimed new criteria for eligibility to submit documentation or make presentations, including that from henceforth - only days before the deadline - requests and submissions had to be made “by mail with a stamp”. She also declared that people would have to access the CFS Act and would be required to link their documentations and presentations to specific sections of the Act. People who did not have computer connections who asked for a copy of the act were refused.
It was apparent that Lynn Cheek’s goal was to knock out or dissuade as many people as possible from making presentations. When Lynn Cheek spoke to me, she informed me that because my written submission met her criteria there was no reason for me to make a presentation. So you see, you were damned if you did and damned if you didn’t. If you didn’t make the criteria you were out and it you did, Ms Cheek did not see the need for you to make a presentation.
Other people, including a mother whose child had been left out in a torrential downpour as punishment by the foster parents, were informed, up front, by Lynn Cheek, that they did not meet the criteria to come before this committee.
As for having to make connections with the Act - This is not the job of ordinary citizens who want to make presentations - When I made a presentation to the Senate Committee on Human Rights, I was not required to make connections to the Human Rights document that Canada signed in 1991.
Making those connections is your job, you whose qualifications were suppose to include familiarity with the CFS Act! And besides this, your job is also to be vigilant to any omissions in the Act that might need to tightened up with recommended amendments. So even if the concerns of the presenters are not presently covered in the Act- maybe they should be!
The date of closure for these submissions and requests was October 21,2006 . We believe that because this committee has extended its timeframes, without first making an annual report as directed by the Act, that a second advertisement for submissions and presentations by the public should be opened.
We believe that that the description of the 2 parent members of this committee in Section 88 (2) (a) needs to be tightened up as well. It is clear that the original writers of this act meant these spots for parents who have wrangled with the department to get their children back - or even parents who did not succeed in getting their children back. - These people have a very different story to tell and their voices and their experiences are valuable and are needed on this committee.
One of the original “parents” appointed to this position was Mr. Van Zoost, a personal friend of the Minister who had adopted children. Theoretically this man could have been on the receiving end of a tragic apprehension - He was NOT a parent who had experienced the wrenching heartache of being separated from a child - for a time or for a lifetime. The specifications for this parent category needs to be tightened up so that the political uproar that followed Mr. Van Zoost’s appointment is NOT repeated, and so that this position is safeguarded for those it was originally intended for.
That being said, we are also aware of the Agency’s habit of grooming a few trophy children and a few trophy parents to bring out as examples of how well this system is working - This is NOT the norm, and people appointing this committee must be vigilant to this ploy. These two parent spots are the best opportunity to attempt to put some balance to this pro-Minister committee and the opportunity to do so should not be missed.
Because there are currently no members on this committee who are critical of Children’s Services, Children’s Aid, and the Community Service’s Agency there is much distrust concerning the actual working of this committee. As mentioned before, we are concerned that not all members are receiving our submissions. In addition, we are concerned about what may be discussed after our presentations. In particular, is the Agency representative and the legal aid lawyer, dismissing and talking away our concerns to this committee without allowing us to be privy to what is being said and giving us no right of rebuttal?
We are also concerned that there is talk afoot that this committee does not intend to publish a pubic report. This would be a tragedy and would only intensify the distrust that is building against Children’s Services, Children’s Aid, and the Community Service’s Agency.
Might I also point out that if this committee does not publish a report, the government would not have the evidence to present to the public in the future that there was indeed a committee as per section 88 of the CFS Act. Section 88 (1) states that “The Minister shall establish an advisory committee whose function is to . . . report annually to the Minister . . .” Because a year has already passed since this committee began, you have already missed the boat on the requirement of an annual report - Do not miss the opportunity to gain the trust of the public by publishing an honest report - that we can all read!
That being said, it seems there is now a need for an amendment to the CFS Act specifying that the work of this committee includes publishing a public report.
We are also concerned that all presentations that we have been privy to have NOT been given the respect of a quorum. When we of contrary opinion began our presentations Ms Harawitz informed us that the quorum was 8. We were also informed that this was the first time that they had not had a quorum. We were also of the understanding that various government representatives had already given presentations to this committee. With this in mind, we were very distressed when it became apparent that presenters critical of the government were being habitually snubbed with poor attendance by this committee. At the most 7 came to these presentations, at the least 3 [now 2], with the norm being 4 or 5. As a support person, I challenged this, but was met with the retort, “Would you rather we called the presenters up at the last minute and ask them to rescheduled?” To which I replied that I would rather that they appointed people to the committee who cared enough about the business at hand to come to hear the presenters.
The Mona Clare committee, that was comprised of a number of journalists, informed us that they were concerned about the apparent lack of interest conveyed by the committee members, that no one except Cheryl Harawitz was taking notes and that the presentations were not being taped. These were exactly our concerns as well.
With people dropping out of the committee and new people being appointed, how are they suppose to get any accurate understanding of the presentations made thus far?
2 Documents submitted
I have covered a lot of ground but believe me this is only the tip of the iceberg! I have included 2 documents with this presentation. The first document, Concerns with Nova Scotia’s Children and Family Services Act (1990) , speaks to specific sections in the act where the Act is misused, habitually ignored, or just plain illogical.
For example, it is rare that the Court or the Agency seek placement of a child with family or community as mandated by Section 28(1) “the agency shall make all reasonable efforts to locate or contact a parent or guardian or, in the absence of a parent or guardian, a relative of the child who is willing and able to provide for the child’s care.” and Section 42 (2) “Where the court determines that it is necessary to remove the child from the care of a parent or guardian, the court shall , before making an order for temporary or permanent care and custody . . . consider whether it is possible to place the child with a relative, neighbor or other member of the child’s community or extended family”
We have never found any child 12 years or older who has been allowed to have an independent lawyer as specified in Sections 36(1), 37(1)(2) as well as the preamble of the Act.
“the agency shall take reasonable measures to provide services to families and children that promote the integrity of the family” Services to assist the family as mandated in Section 13 (1) (2)(a-j), are rarely given, and when they are, they are not given to assist the families but are often used as thinly veiled tools to gather and manufacture evidence against the families.
This document also points out sections of the act that defy all reasonable logic. For instance, though the police maintain an abuse registry predicated on proof and conviction, Section 63 (3) of the CFS Act states that the Minister maintains an abuse registry based “ on the balance of probability, the person has abused a child” .
Another example of grave concern is found when 2 sections of the Act are viewed in tandem. According to Section 26 (1)(2), to get evidence, including questioning a child, the Agency needs to get a warrant or a court order BUT Section 33(1) and Section 34(3) states that to apprehend a child, a warrant or a court order is not needed! So, to get around the need for a warrant or a court order to question a child, the child is apprehended first, and questions are asked later, when the child is alone without support or legal counsel.
These are only a few examples of concern raised by this document.
The second document Checks and Balances gives numerous examples where the checks and balances that are suppose to be in place when families are attempting to redress the injustices while their cases are before the court, or to get redress after their cases are out of court are not working. The checks and balances which we have identified as not working include:
- The family lawyers representing the family, the non-existence of independent lawyers for the children
- The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society through which one is suppose to be able to make complaint against the lawyers,
- The Ombudsman’s Office-Children’s Section,
- The assessments of the children and family members, and the Nova Scotia Board of Examiners in Psychology,
- The Minister of Community Services’ Advisory Committee, and
- The Politicians.
I ask that this committee takes the time to read these documents.
In summation, we implore you to send a strong message to this new Minister. Let her know that there is knowledgeable discontent and mistrust concerning Children’s Services, Children’s Aid, the Community Service’s Agency and the CFS Act that shapes the functioning of this system. People are frustrated, and they are no longer willing to let the Minister take their children and ruin their families in silence.
Our children are our future. Children who have been psychologically scared by a short time or a long time in “the system” are not a heritage to be proud of. The promised services to “promote the integrity of the family” must be forthcoming now!
And last but not least, as other presenters before me have requested, so I request now, a general inquiry into the functioning of Children’s Services, Children’s Aid, the Community Service’s Agency, and all the organizations and stakeholders connected with them.
Presentation by Thelma Gillespie
Good morning, my name is Thelma Gillespie. Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
I believe silence is consent and I refuse to be a moral mute.
According to the Children and Family Services Act 1990 c. 5, s1.
Section 2 (1)
The purpose of this act is to protect children from harm, promote the
integrity of the family and assure the best interest of children
and Section 2 (2) states
In all proceedings and matters pursuant to this Act, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child, 1990,c.5, s. 2.
Being aware of the past experiences of others, expecting assistance pertaining to protecting their children and the horrendous harm that social workers caused to these children, I have no desire to read further. I do not enjoy science fiction and fantasy stories.
At 73. My life can be put to better causes - Life is too short to spend it reading fairy tales.
We are living with a plague of pedophiles in Nova Scotia. Social workers tap dance around the facts, avoiding the issues and leaving pedophiles to continue torturing little children.
Pedophiles are masters of intimidation - and they rely on others to cover up their crimes.
Example: Shelbourne school for boys - Amherst school for the deaf - the husband of Mrs. X in Sydney - Betty Stevens’ two helpless boys. A mother fighting the system and social workers, and friends of the Hendersons’ covering up and protecting the abusers.
Letting the soul murderers continue their evil.
Cesar Lalo, without the aid of persons who are being paid to protect the most vulnerable in our society, would have been stopped sooner.
Who was silent? People in authority providing him with recommendations to gain employment. - Will we ever know their names?
Persons expecting fairness and justice in our Family Courts and the Community Services department are just naïve and need to wake up! They have no understanding of the evil people we place in jobs with absolute power.
I would like to thank some of these people, they have made me a stronger person:
- the deceased mentally challenged family court P C Judge Paul Neidermayer.
- Dr John Anderson, IWK abuse team director
- Ms Lorraine Aucoin (now Dupres) social worker
- Dr Ruth Carter, Atlantic Guidance Centre and IWK
- and a special thank you to our justice system,where money decides your fate.
My family members are not strangers to this system.
My son was a victim of Kingsclear and Springhill prison. He died June 1, 1971 alone in a cell sniffing glue. - Though his problems stemmed from being abused by a pedophile, this information provided by lawyer Kenzie McKinnon was used [more than 20 years later] against me to throw my credibility out the window:
In 1992 we went to Dartmouth Children Services for help. Two grandchildren were unhappy and troubled saying disturbing things to us. -
Very easy to say, “Oh! S.A.I.D. (Sexual Allegations In Divorce) syndrome.”
Rilda Van Feggelan, of the Nova Scotia Board of Examiners in Psycholoy, and Dr Jeri Wine asked Robert Cowcill and Family court to investigate. This was totally ignored. No response from either party.
Rilda Van Feggelan said Dr Carter broke many rules. [Ms Fegglen later repeated this exact statement in the presence of Linda Youngson, a fellow advocate] Dr. Carter under oath reported she had red flags before meeting the children’s mother - my daughter. [For fairness, to avoid unwarranted "red flags", undue bias, or wrong value judgments, meetings with opposing parties are suppose to be staggered, but Dr Carter, wrongly, meet with the husband first on a number of occasions before meeting the mother]
Carter’s report, assessed by Dr Marlies Suderman of the London Family court Clinic- I have these with me today- Dr Suderman appeared in family court with Judge James Williams and was not impressed with the proceedings and stated, “If you need support go to the media - I will help you.”
I have been asking for an inquiry into the decisions of Judge Paul Niedermayer for ten years - No support from Justice -----
September 2005, my daughter again needed help. February 2007, her common law spouse would not return her children after a short parenting visit. They are still kidnapped and he will not return them. The RCMP refuses to take her to get them, ignoring court orders.
We are living in a Gestapo state!
The people we expect to protect - are killing our spirits - taking our children away - and giving the children to pedophiles.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely!
“Someday maybe there will exist a well informed, well considered, and yet fervent public conviction that the most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child’s spirit, for such mutilation undercuts the life principle of trust, without which every human act, may it feel ever so good and seem ever so right, is prone to perversion by destructive forms of consciousness.” Erik Erickson - psychoanalyst