Continued from Abducted children Part 1………



… Continued from Abducted children Part 1………..

[pic] B. Abducted Children Laws PART 2

Abduction Processes Under the Guise of LAW

In Canada

By Anna-Marie Goralczyk

Posted Sep. 02, 2011, updated Sep. 05, 2011

Sep. 05, 2011 updated and corrected under this next section 46……

46. CFSA -TIME OF DETENTION LIMITED - (1) When a child is brought to safety based on evidence to have done so, under section 40 or subsection 79(60) or a homemaker remains or is placed on premises Under subsection 78(2), a society shall, within two days, make known their position by proper service to the parties and court and the matters to be heard on a date agreed to by the parties in no more then 10 days without a specific request for an extension of time with justifiable or emergency grounds,

(a) the matter shall be brought before a court for hearing under subsection 47(1) (child protection hearing);

(b) the child shall be returned to the person who last had charge of the child or, where there is an order for the child's custody that is enforceable in Ontario, to the person entitled to custody under the order; or

(c) a temporary care agreement shall be made under subsection 29(1) of Part II (Voluntary Access to Service).

(2) IDEM: PLACE OF OPEN TEMPORARY DETENTION

-- Within twenty four hours after a child is brought to - safety -, or as soon thereafter as is practicable, the parties and court shall be served and the matter shall be properly brought before a court for a hearing, five to ten days after the parent/s and affected parties, including the child are served and the court shall,

(a) where it is satisfied that no less restrictive course of action is feasible, order that the child remain in the place of open temporary detention for a period or periods not exceeding an aggregate of thirty days and then be returned to the care and custody of the;

(i) lawful parent or guardian, or

(ii) order the child be discharged temporarily into the care of a society.

Family and Children's Services of St. Thomas and Elgin County v. F. (W.) (2003), 36 R.F.L. (5th) 310 (Ont. C.J.) Obiter: The time to dispute the legality, constitutionality or validity of an apprehension would appear to be at a "post-apprehension hearing"…, --shortly after the children were removed from the parents.

Children’s Aid Societies can just make up circumstances, or get their own affiliates to make anonymous calls of complaint to abduct a child as a set up. They don’t behave under the law by bringing evidence to police as those who are held accountable are bound to do. They can bypass this crucially protective step of showing evidence to police. Even in emergency situations, justifiable proof and reasoning should be given to police almost immediately by any witness or social worker that has taken a child into safety and it should be a police file. In rewards for police tips, anonymous callers get paid through a registered number whereas callers who legitimately provide their identity do not. An anonymous caller can make a business out of making fake anonymous calls and be doing it every other week whereas the police tip where the tipper is not getting paid and identifies themselves is by far more legitimate evidence to act upon.

In these cases, the workers could refuse to produce the transcripts to the parents of the anonymous calls upon the request in a legal setting, and the judge could refuse to enforce to produce the calls to the tip line so the parent can’t investigate if there are malicious grounds or conflict of interest behind the persons making the calls. If a Society has abducted a child and cannot show true solid grounds of risk to the life of the child to have done so, the parents do not have the legal right to go with police to have child returned, “file an application” to have the child returned or to apprehend the child to return them to their own home. The parents would be falsely criminalized by labeling it child abduction which is the exact opposite of the truth in who is the abductor and who has the lawful right to apprehend.

The Dilemma: To have the child returned “the parent has to be labeled to be in the wrong but is now reformed” to have their child returned even in cases where the Society is wrongly withholding a child. The judge use a standard of thumb that if a Society can successfully without a child from the parent for a period of two years then the Society is allowed to keep the child irregardless of any evidence that the Society may have illegally abducted the child in the first place. In some cases, depending on “who wants access to the child”, nothing can bring the child back to an innocent parent in seems. The tables are turned. Instead of the Society taking the child and proving they had the right to, the Society takes the child and the parent must prove that the society should not have. When a parent tries to prove something against a Society, life can become very difficult in every direction.

40. CFSA -- APPLICATION -- (1) A concerned party may apply, upon reasonable grounds, to the court to determine whether a child is in need of protection from an individual, organization or a Children’s Aid Society.

(7) APPREHENSION WITHOUT WARRANT -- A child protection worker, person or peace officer who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that,

(a) a child is in need of protection; and

(b) there would be a substantial risk to the child's health or safety during the time necessary to return the child to his/er lawful guardian or bring the matter on for a hearing under subsection 47 (1) or obtain a warrant under subsection (2), or may without a warrant bring the child and or evidence of concern to a peace officer to determine if the child should be discharged to an alternative place of safety.

There seems to be a very large volume of child porn on the market. It seems to be very difficult for some reason for the police to bring it under control. Who has access to children in large volume? The Children’s Aid Society. Who is ungoverned by reasonable law and is in a position to make available a large number of children for pornography? The Children’s Aid Society. I suggest that if the police had taken a picture of each child upon placing them in care of a Society, the police would be able to identify 80% of the child victims later found on child porn and bring the perpetrators to justice. Who do police officers like to marry? Social workers. Who are running foster homes? Family members of police officers, social workers, judges, justice ministers and illegitimate children of the Monarchies would want these jobs.

IDENTIFICATION APON APPREHENSION --- Before the police officers release the care and control of a child to a Child Protection agency, or any persons other then the original parents, the officers shall take and maintain a photo of the child, for purposes of possible needs of protection in the future for the child under Charter section 7.

It is appropriate that the child’s rights come first in a court of law. The rights of the child to be heard are entirely violated due to age by the law makers and the issues need public attention and pressure. By the same token, because the child’s rights are paramount, in theory but not practice, does not mean that the parents rights are to be voided. To consider the child a priority, the parent must be considered equally.

Our judges and laws have a very clear tendency to disregard the rights of the families and their unity. The rights of the child and parents need to be considered equally if the child is to be truly protected. There are two levels of the child’s parallel rights, to have enforcement of rights as i. an individual and as ii. an active, associating member of their original family. Judges rarely show insight to consider the emotional losses of parents concerning unjust loss of their children, as though it were equivalent to losing a pet rock. The Canadian courts misrepresent that the child comes first. The children are not allowed to be parties of the applications involving themselves and in that the rights of the child to their original parents comes last.

PREAMBLE -- FAMILY LAW ACT - Whereas it is desirable to encourage and strengthen the role of the family; and whereas for that purpose it is necessary to recognize the equal position of spouses or parents and children as parties within the families and to recognize "the immediate family" as a unit and inseparable without proven justifiable cause as a form of inherent roots, innate right, ancestry, support, unity, and balance of peaceful and safe living and that the original or biological parents are inherently the most ideal for a child’s upbringing, regardless of status; and whereas in support of such recognition it is necessary to provide in law for the orderly, fair and equitable settlement of the affairs of the parties affected upon need, and to provide nurturing decisions in balanced reasonable resolution for mutual obligations in family relationships, including the equitable and emotional sharing by parents of responsibility for, access to, enjoyment of and with their children.

The internationally adopted Convention set up for protection is not adhering to the duties the public expects, but handing our children over to institutionalized and used. The Monarchy’s family, influence and their connections appear to be that wedge in the family gears. The Conventions inaction about crimes against the family by Children’s Aids and by criminal organization of pedophiles shows that they are in agreement with enabling. The Children’s Aid Societies are not answering to Canadian authorities in any effective way and therefore the only authority the Societies could be answering to is the foreign Monarchy. We have the right to be free of foreign direction to our children.

ARTICLE 1- CLRA - CONVENTION - The objects of the present Convention are:

(a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed from or retained in or by any Contracting State; (b) to ensure that rights of custody and access under the laws of the Contracting State are not violating the Constitutional Rights and Criminal Codes effectively respected in the Contracting States; (c) to ensure that the Child Protection Agencies and courts are effectively respecting the rights of the child regardless of age; (d) respecting the rights of the original parents; and (e) to ensure that police policies do not remove from the rights

of the family unit to be protected from unjust separations.

24. CLRA -- MERITS OF APPLICATION FOR CUSTODY OR ACCESS -- (1) The merits of an application under the Part in respect of custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child derived from the evidence shown by all affected parties.

(2) BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD -- In determining the best interest of the child for the purposes of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child, a court shall consider all the needs and circumstances of the child and the rights of the original parents are innate before other prospective parents are considered, including,

(a) the love, affection, and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person entitled to claim custody of or access to the child,

(ii) another member of the child's natural, birth or biological family, and

(iii) persons lawfully involved in the care and upbringing of the child;

(b) the views, circumstances and preferences of the child, which can reasonably be ascertained considering the child’s level of communication skills;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment of the party having lawful care and control.

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) any plans proposed for the care and upbringing of the child; and a plan of care by the Society if it is shown by true evidence that the child is in need of protection under Part III; and if care and control of the child were given to any other eligible guardian or family member.

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live; and

(g) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order made by reasonable processes of law between the child, whom has benefit by being a party to actions affecting themselves and each person who is a party to the application.

The Societies don’t need to prove any grounds to extort a persons children, they just have to have the “desire” to take the children and they are granted all that they ask, unquestioned. The Society’s are not required to prove to the police or to the courts that the child was in need of protection. The child’s rights to their original parents are last in the judges minds. They use hearsay, perjury and slander as unquestionable evidence. Due to the loopholes assisting child abduction by the Societies employees who largely work criminally organized with their family and associates to extort children, it is a matter of war defence for true parents when a Society comes to the door. They appear to have formed an abduction ring enforced by inaction of our own police.

27. ccc. USE OF FORCE TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE: Every one or community in agreed unity of reasonable and fair judgment is justified in using as much force as is reasonably deemed necessary by the true legal public citizens

(a) to prevent the commission of an offence, offences or immediate or gradual harm, apparent by an action or inaction where action ought to be,

(i) for which, if it were committed by an action or inaction where action ought to be, the person who committed it would be a. in violation of the criminal code, b. an official, under section 23.1 ccc. “Where One Party Cannot be Convicted”; c) the cause or part of the cause in organization with others of immediate or gradual harm to a child, an individual, legal citizens or their property d. might be arrested without warrant, and

(ii) that action or inaction where action ought to be would be likely to cause immediate or gradual loss and or serious or compounding injury to the person, their family members or property of anyone; or

(b) to prevent anything illegal being done by an action or inaction where action ought to be, that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done or not done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a). R.S., c. C-34, s. or would be the cause, means, vehicle or venue of crime by enabling or aiding such offences regardless of any lack of involvement in carrying out the actual offence or offences enabled.

15 (3) CFSA: FUNCTIONS OF SOCIETY - The functions of a children's aid society are to, (a) report all allegations or evidence to police to conduct an investigation that children who are under the age of sixteen years or are in the society’s care or under its supervision where there are reasonable grounds to believe that s/he may have been abused or be in need of protection or may have caused another person harm;

138. CFSA - DISPENSING WITH CONSENT -- The court may not dispense with a consent of the parent who has not been proven to have harmed the child and or who is hotly in dispute or Appeal of accusations and had care and control of the child immediately prior to the commencement of an application or applications and required under section 137 for the adoption of a child, except with the signed consent of the child, a sworn statement of the child's counsel and a Director showing the child’s informed agreement and where the court is satisfied that,

(a) it is in the child's best interests to do so; and

(b) the persons whose consent is required has given notice of the intent to dispense with consent of the proposed adoption and of the application to dispense with consent, or a reasonable effort to give the notice has been made and can be shown.

After adoption, there is no way of proving that the child was in fact adopted and not sold to slavery of some kind or even dismembered for transplant organs. The police agree to turn a blind eye. Parents get no answers. Regardless that there is a staggering 2,000 foster children missing in North America in 2006, the police officers keep handing our children over freely to the phantom foreign criminally organized ring. This staggering number of missing children does not happen when children are left with their real parents. These loopholes have lead to a pandemic of pedophiles and their enablers in position of authority over children. These authorities do not have to prove anything or answer to anyone.

The wording of section 140. CFSA is horrific in that it allows the adoption of abducted children and without need to show evidence to do so in court to have enforced the crimes by law. There are no options open for the original parent and child to enjoy their right to associate regardless of lack of evidence or innocence. All rights are closed out in total violation of the Constitution and criminal code. These laws are very closely resembling war crime against the public.

140. CFSA -- DUTY OF SOCIETY -- (1) A society shall make all reasonable efforts to secure the adoption of every child who is lawfully available and has been:

(a) shown by material evidence to be in need of protection;

(b) made a Crown ward under proper and reasonable processes of law under Part III (Child Protection); and

(c) is in the society's lawful care and custody;

(2) WHEN SOCIETY MAY PLACE CHILD FOR ADOPTION -- No society shall place a child for adoption until the:

(a) outstanding appeals; and

(b) appeal deadlines have expired;

(c) views, circumstances and preferences of the child have been submitted in writing wherever possible; and

(d) where access has been lawfully discontinued and the time for commencing an appeal of the orders has expired.

(3) WHEN PROCEEDINGS CAN CONCLUDE - Concluding the custody portion of the best interest of a child as a priority may not in itself be concluded without first examining:

a) any related losses to the child including loss of right of access to an original parent or relief to be provided;

b) any related emotional losses or relief sought by other affected family members who may also have legal right and reasonable grounds;

c) access and support;

d) that an affected parent may still hold true legal right to care and control of or access to the child regardless of an imposition of an adoption process taking place.

e) a matter of custody may be re-opened after adoption if it is found that the child was not legally available for adoption.

162. (2)CFSA - PAPERS TO BE SEALED UP -- Subject to subsections (3) and 167 (6), the documents used upon an application for an adoption order ...shall be sealed up ..., and shall not be open for inspection except upon,

(a) the adopted person;

(b) an order of the court;

(c) a search warrant; or

(d) the written direction of the Registrar of Adoption…

It is a serious emotional abuse for a child to not know who their original parents are. No matter if the information is good or bad, there is a right, responsibility and duty to know where one comes from and to not have trusted persons around them lying about or withholding that information. Every person should have the freedom and responsibility to know who they are by who they come from.

165.(3) CFSA: PERSONS ENTITLED TO SHARE INFORMATION: Clause (2)(h) applies in respect of: 1. The Minister; 2. The Adoption Registrar; 3. an employee of the Ministry; 4. a child protection agency local director 5. The provincial police; or 6. The Native Can. Mounted Police, 7. the child; 8. the original family.

c. DUTY OF PERSONS UNDERTAKING ACTS 217. Every one, agency or organization who advises, instructs or causes the undertaking or who undertakes to do an act is under a legal duty to do it if evidence of grounds and reasoning of insight gives cause to believe an omission to do the act is or may

i) be dangerous to life, rights and protections,

ii) severely reduce the quality of life, original family bonds, supports or lawful communications of a person, or

iii) of another affected person, and or

iv) a persons other family members

and is under a legal duty to have no malicious, conflicting or alternative motives contrary to the best interest of trust, good faith and intent to the affected persons and to use reasonable knowledge, skill and care so doing.

281. ccc. ABDUCTION OF PERSON UNDER FOURTEEN - Every one, agency or organization who, not ..... having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, unlawfully takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbors that person with the intent to deprive a child of a true parent or deprive a parent... who has the lawful care or charge of that person, of the possession of that person is guilty...

With the loopholes in the Courts of Justice Act, section 140., a Society is permitted to drag families through false and vexatious proceedings year after year, in horrible mental torture. Over the duration, the goal of the authorities is to wear the parents out so that they will have no choice but to abandon the legal fight for justice. If the Society can keep the parent in red tape for a period of two years, the Society is automatically granted “ownership” of the children, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

Section 140. - C. of J. A. - VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS - Where a judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) is satisfied, on application, that a person or society has persistently and without reasonable grounds,

(a) instituted vexatious proceedings in any court; or

(b) conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner the judge may order that,

(c) no further proceedings be instituted by the person or society in any court; or

(d) a proceeding or process previously instituted by the person or society in any court not be continued.

(2) An application under subsection (1) shall be made only with the consent of the Attorney General, or without consent of the Attorney General if the Attorney General is an affecting party to the matter or has sworn alternative, foreign or conflicting oaths or allegiances and the Attorney General is entitled to be heard and is required to respond on the application.

Section 278.9 ccc. is Publication Prohibited and Section 279. Is Kidnapping, 279.1 is Hostage Taking, 280., 281., 282. 283. Abduction of a young person. I did not sign anything in agreement to my child being abducted and forcibly confined and never will. Unfortunately, as soon as any type of agreement is signed with the Children’s Aid, the court and police misread this as agreement and is fueled by the lack of police protection to parents against the abductions and unjust forced confinements.

The court, Children’s Aid, Child’s counsel and the parents own hired counsel may illegally pressure the parent to sign any form of agreement, under Section 284. ccc. Section 285 just to get any signature to appear as agreement and then after this signature the court can fail to require the Society to show by evidence that they had grounds to take the child or to continue to withhold the child. They merely have to “satisfy” a judge but does not particularly mean that the judge must be satisfied by “evidence”. What else should “satisfy” a Judge other then evidence?

At present, the Society can make up any story with the help of false complainants and the judge will rubber stamp for them approval with out any true supporting evidence shown. Further in light of serious risk of harm being imposed on the child by the Society members and their contacts they still get a rubber stamp. Some people don’t believe it is a crime to abduct and redirect “other people’s” children as long as it is done in a system. Some people believe it is a style of profitable living to break “other people’s” families.

S. Harper was adopted but looks so much like John F. Kennedy’s family line. Justin Beiber looks a bit like Harper too. S. Harper’s family is in the Oil business which is in conflict of interest to the environment and the business of natural resources is in conflict to be Prime Minister making decisions on behalf of the country at the same time. The Bill C-2 is clearly in favor of the foreign Phantom monarchies, not Canadians.

284. ccc. DEFENCE 284. No one, agency or organization shall be found guilty of an offence under sections 281 to 283 if he establishes that the taking, enticing away, concealing, detaining, receiving or harboring of any young person was done with out mischief, intimidations or coercions and with the informed consent of the parent, guardian or other person having the lawful possession, care or charge of that young person.

285. ccc. DEFENCE 285. No one, agency or organization shall be found guilty of an offence under sections 280. to 283 if the court is satisfied by evidence shown to be true that the taking, enticing away, concealing, detaining, receiving or harboring of any young person was necessary to protect the young person from danger of imminent harm or if the person charged with the offense was escaping from danger of imminent harm at a time of being in possession of a child obtained through proper consent as in section 284 and was remaining in a place of safety at the time the child was agreed to be returned.

286. ccc. NO DEFENCE 286. (1) In proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 280. to 283., it is not a defence to any charge that a young person

(a) did not overtly and adamantly refuse to go with the accused;

(b) consented to; or

(c) suggested any conduct of the accused.

(2) For purposes of sections 279 to 283 and all sections where a child is taken from an original parent holding lawful care and control, it is an issue of evidence for a court to consider if a child attempted to resist physically, emotionally and or verbally to go with the person who took the child.

In family matters today it is so difficult to find adequate counsel that parents could be faced with representing themselves or remaining a victim of child abduction as the only options. It is totally ridiculous that a court would require an experienced lawyers quality of submissions from parents. We employ the judges and it is crime against the public that they would make requirements unreachable or impossible considering the abilities and resources of the average parent.

UNJUST DISMISSALS OF SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES BASED ON FORMATTING

This is a problem when a litigant represents oneself.

Some judges are so abusive they would dismiss issues due to something as small as a spelling mistake.

--- Regardless of the formatting of a litigants submissions and in the event that they are legible and include the required affidavits, information and evidence the action shall not be dismissed but shall be directed to allow equal benefit and opportunity in proceedings. If a litigant is self represented, it is no excuse to dismiss that the litigant may be unaware of rules, laws or rights that they may have and the judge shall implement the rules, laws or rights to the self represented party as the judge ought to be aware of.

The subpoenas that are set out for use by parents at the Ontario Court of Justice, 311 Jarvis St., Toronto, as of 2004 do not have a signature line for the Justice of the Peace to enforce. So, after the parent delivers the subpoenas to their witnesses, the Society can convince the witnesses to fail to appear and ensure no enforcement of the subpoenas for that failure.

LACK OF J.P. SIGNATURE SPACE ON SUBPOENA OF ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE – The signature and stamp space for the Justice of the Peace shall appear on the subpoena forms at the Ontario court of Justice that are set out for public use forthwith so that the public may obtain enforcement of the subpoenas equally as the officials do in defence against the officials or societies.

The impact of lack of enforced police protection was also previously discussed in other sections: 46.(2)(a)(d) ccc. High Treason & 336. ccc. Criminal Breach of Trust in other projects of “The CANADA Philes” which plays a powerful role in the abduction of children under the guise of law.

Your comments and input concerning these and other laws is highly welcomed and in improvements will be posted.

See interesting information found surrounding different directions of law, other articles and the “Characters Facts” attachment by using control F Flag & following the Cover index. Find these files by going to Hotmail & open public account called genetic.crime.mapping105@ & use public pass code “infreedom”, then go to inbox & save the latest attachments in your USB stick or on a disk. If account says “Temporarily Blocked” go to blue line that says “Skip this for Now”, & click on it, & account will open. (secondary account is genetic.crime.mapping100@ & 101

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download