Decision in Aylmer case

March 10, 2003 permalink

Judge Schnall has rendered her decision (in pdf format) in the case of the children seized in Aylmer Ontario on July 4th, 2001. It is in all respects a defeat for families.

In other areas of law, courts have long recognized the extortionate nature of rules requiring an accused to cooperate with his accuser. Yet child protection cases deny families the right to remain silent. The judge alludes to the value of parental cooperation with CAS, since parents are usually the best source of information about their children, but ignores the reality that Children's Aid selects only the facts unfavorable to the family. We have encountered many cases where the family engages in an hour of interviews with one of the Children's Aid stand-ins, then only a single damaging fact gets presented to the court. Why not, as in other areas of the law, let the parents speak for themselves in the court?

As a reason for denying the right of silence to parents, the judge suggests that the loss of children is not an action directed against the parents. Criminals know better. A sure way to a fortune is to hold a wealthy man's child for ransom. In real life, the threat of child removal is more severe than any criminal penalty, up to and including death.

Later, the judge rules on the validity of the search, finding that CAS was admitted to the home voluntarily. This opinion serves as a ratification of the tricks that CAS uses to get into the home without a warrant, and limits protection against search and seizure to families with litigation savvy.

Here is a a non-legal point. Judge Schnall suggests that Pastor Henry Hildebrandt (whom she insults by calling him Hildebrant) endangered the children by arranging for a hundred members of his congregation to assemble outside the home where the children were seized. One of the worse aspects of seizure for the child is the feeling of being abandoned by their parents. The large show of support for the children spared them this grief.

Traditionally only a parent can represent the interests of a child. We now live in a legal wonderland where an outsider can enter a home and claim to act in the best interests of the child, superseding the parents without even a finding of wrongdoing. There seems to be no chance that judges interpreting the charter will restore the traditional respect for parents.

This case confirms our opinion that there can be no relief from child protectors through the courts. Many judges realize what an atrocity child protection really is, and an appeal to their humanity may get relief in individual cases. Where there is an activist judge, there is no relief. In Canada, the mood of the upper levels of appellate courts seems sufficiently hostile to families that no relief can be expected there. Grass-roots organizations are the only way to correct the abuses. We congratulate Pastor Hildebrandt for his efforts in this direction.