User login
A Telling Transcript
This transcript shows a big heaping piece of the CFSA pie.
Transcripts and images can be downloaded via PDF files in the Court Transcripts Gallery.
The following are direct links to the transcript being referenced in this article:
November 28, 2006 : Summary Appeal Book Cover (35kb - PDF)
November 28, 2006 : Summary Appeal Book Certificate (46kb - PDF)
November 28, 2006 : Summary Appeal Book Index (50kb - PDF)
November 28, 2006 : Summary Appeal Book Transcript (918kb - PDF)
November 28, 2006
Proceedings taken in the Provincial Court of Alberta, Courthouse, Peace River, Alberta
The Honourable Judge Koshman of the Provincial Court of Alberta
L.G. Mann, Esq. - For the Applicant
(NO COUNSEL) - For the Respondent (James Leslie Reamsbottom)
C. Thietke, Esq. - For the Director
L. Pearson - Court Clerk
..........................................................................
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 1, lines 20-25
MR. THIETKE: I appear as counsel for the director, sir. There are a number of applications, which I understand are before you today. I'll speak to the ones involving the director. There are orders of temporary guardianship that were applied for some time ago and were here for today's --
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 3, lines 3-19
THE COURT: In terms of the director's application to withdraw the temporary guardianship and supervision, I take it you have no objection to that.
THE RESPONDENT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: You --
THE RESPONDENT: It -- it's been a year and eight days, and they have not addressed the original -- why these kids were apprehended, and there was nothing but an allegation that can't be proven in their disclosure, as well as numerous accounts of foul play, starting from November 22nd and on December 7th, where there seems to be a Rob Marceau standing in, allowing an initial custody application to be put in, slipped in here while we're not even -- no one's aware of this. The transcripts are here, and then it proceeds up.
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 4-5
THE RESPONDENT: Yes, but now all of a sudden it seems to be that there's a staged-up custody battle here that was slipped in, and the TGO was never addressed, and it's clearly led by the CSF. There's coaching. They've got everybody from Lorne Mann to Boyd Langford in here, who's -- they've been counselled what to do. Showing it up, I've got stuff that's been backed up 87 days in reverse.
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page9, lines 12-15
THE RESPONDENT: See, originally, all these affidavits from day one were held out of court, as the parent and separation courses, the day after apprehension by the school teachers.
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 12, lines 14-22
THE COURT: Those children have no Child Welfare status at this moment. Correct?
MR. THIETKE: Yes.
THE RESPONDENT: They didn't have it begin with by with -- how this whole thing's been carried out.
THE COURT: Yes, well, they do not have any Child Welfare status, so this now becomes a private matter between you and your spouse, all right?
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 14, lines 16-23
THE COURT: There was a hearing held. This order that --
THE RESPONDENT: It was -- then I'm sure through the rights of fair trial in my Charter that I should have been notified to be there because I don't seem to have any fair trial here, and the same with setting up this stuff and having two separate transcripts. Clearly there's two different judges on one day --
MR. MANN: December --
THE RESPONDENT: -- different orders.
MR. MANN: December 20th -- December 20th --
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 16, lines 9-17
THE COURT: I am not going to reverse Judge Goodson's order on the basis that you are telling me he made an incorrect decision.
THE RESPONDENT: We have the power to do that, though.
THE COURT: If circumstances have changed --
THE RESPONDENT: So a crime's going to be allowed.
THE COURT: -- this court is prepared to hear those circumstances --
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 19, lines 11-18
MR. THIETKE: -- at the time that we made our application for initial custody, being December 20th, well, that -- that date it was heard, there was no application before the court under the Family Law Act, so his order had to be under the Child, Youth, and Family Enhancement Act because there was no application under the --
THE COURT: That is right.
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 32-33
MR. THIETKE: -- for a period of time, the allegations would be he came to the Child Welfare office seeking some assistance. That led to Child Welfare involvement.
THE RESPONDENT: And that was to get babysitting funds by HRE. Like, I was requested to go there, and they didn't have babysitting funds, and that was the end of the service, and I was -- seemed to be trailed for one full -- three conditionally safes here, wrote up on a court report as an overall year summary. Each one was open and closed, conditionally safe, father refused service, and no authority.
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 41, lines 2-18
THE COURT: Just hang on, not a statutory guardian?
THE RESPONDENT: I am the papered guardian.
MR. MANN: I think he would meet the requirements. He was there from birth and --
THE COURT: From birth?
MR. MANN: Yeah.
THE COURT: I am wondering he applied --
THE RESPONDENT: Yes.
MR. THIETKE: I don't think there was a question about guardianship, sir. I think he's established --
THE COURT: No, there was an application. There is an order on file here somewhere.
MR. THIETKE: No, and I -- I certainly don't speak for what the father does or what he shouldn't have done, but my understanding of the facts is he'd be a statutory guardian.
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 45, lines 3-21
THE COURT: They are relevant to you --
THE RESPONDENT: -- to my children the day they grabbed them, threw them in a foster home with nothing --
THE COURT: Well --
THE RESPONDENT: -- without even intervention. That -- that means -- and they broke the rules of court. They broke their own Family Law Acts.
THE COURT: They may have done all of those things, sir.
THE RESPONDENT: They did, and that's the problem --
THE COURT: Well --
THE RESPONDENT: -- and I'm sitting here and have to walk through it and pay for their mess.
THE COURT: We are here now. They have done all these things that you have complained about. You have a right to pursue the director however you see fit. We are now at the point where we have got to decide where these children are going to be, okay?
THE RESPONDENT: Yes, sir.
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 46, lines 3-8
THE COURT: And if I hear evidence that suggests that somehow the mother was complicit with the director in precluding you from having custody of these children on a basis that is unacceptable to the court, I will take that into account, but right now I am a blank
page, as far as who should get these children --
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 56, lines 3-8
*BETTY LOU WYNESS-BOETTCHER, sworn, examined by Mr. Mann
Q: Did you prepare a -- or prepare and make a report -- a court report in respect to those children?
A: Yes, I have. I -- I started work with the department July the 24th, and my involvement with the children has been, I think, since the last -- latter part of August, because the children were with their dad and their grandmother for three weeks, and I was not able to have contact with them. Since that time, on a regular basis, I've endeavoured to meet with the children in their mom's home.
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 185, lines 7-15
Q: So did Charity hand you a document that said court was going to be on a certain date, an application to vary custody?
A: That -- she give me -- I've got it over there, whatever it is. If it's -- as far as I knew, it was just to vary a parenting order, but I was the -- the primary guardian, as far as I knew, right up until that point, because I was supposed to be there for a TGO, not a custody. That was slipped in.
---
Excerpt: REA01.pdf page 279-280
THE COURT: I may very well agree with you that you have been hard done by by the Department of Social Services, by Child Welfare, in terms of your apprehension. I might agree with that. I am not saying I do, but I may very well, but I cannot do anything about that in these proceedings.
All I am here to determine is where these children should reside, who should be the primary caregiver, and that is on the best interests test that you seem to be aware of under the act. Who should they reside with, and what kind of parenting time should the other parent have?
That is all I can deal with here today.
THE RESPONDENT: That's fine. I accept that.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE RESPONDENT: Other than that, no, that's all I have.
THE COURT: Do you have anything further, Mr. Mann?
*Final submissions by Mr. Mann
MR. MANN: Just briefly. I just stress that not only did -- on the issue of non-support, she also signed over the -- the farm to him -- to him, and -- and I've never seen anyone less satisfied that a temporary guardianship was withdrawn against them, and that's about all I can add, sir.
*Final submissions by the respondent
THE RESPONDENT: That farm was secured so it would stay there indefinitely. No matter what happened, those kids would have a home. No matter what chips and who threw what into the wind, that house would be there, and it would be supported. It would be well furnished, and it will always be there for those children, and that is why.
There was a 1970 Charger that was paid long ago, sold, and put down the damage deposit, the mortgage, everything at one shot, and that was for those children.
*Discussion
THE COURT: I will render my decision tomorrow.