Return to Sender

January 11, 2013 permalink

A mother who has legal authority to send letters to her crown-ward sons recounts her endless runaround when trying to exercise that authority. On expand, send the link to an mp3 player or discard it.

expand

collapse

Yvonne Craig

Finally got around to approaching the matter over my sons' returned Christmas cards. Phoned WECAS yesterday. No matter the day, week, month or year it is always the same experience when dealing with an office structure over human social issues. The following was my experience:

My christmas cards to my sons were returned "no such address" days before Christmas (Dec. 21st, 2012). I know this to be false but it's a stale-mate, catch-22 scenario, to get enforcement despite a court order to be able to send "mailings". Not worth the undue hardship of trying to press the issue. I have not had a lawyer since July/2011 and this circumstance [is] not something the system provides legal supports for so I decided, in principle, to contact WECAS and communicate with their legal counsel whom I was last in Court with to impress compliancy. I have every reason to believe my sons' foster providers have not moved residence. I have since confirmed (to the best of my ability) that they have in fact not moved.

I was met with "repugnance" by WECAS switchboard. Rather then delve into an elaborate story, it was the usual experience when I called yesterday and began to delve into this. Boys' file manager on 5 week vacation, not available til end of month, transferred to intake worker, spoke with her, nothing but confusion, total idiocy, I spoke clear, articulate, concise, had to spell "BARKOVSKY" three times before she could get the surname correct to look up on computer. I addressed the shortcomings of administration dealing with human issues. She repeated like a phonograph that if I had issues with service provisions I could speak with a supervisor. Again I rebuked about the redundancy and twelve year experience with communicating with WECAS over service provisions, litigation, no matter the subject material it was always the same when trying to communicate with the offices being transferred from person to person, extension to extension, going through all these loops and tunnels. She again tried to deflect about filing a "complain". I rebuked that saying how "redundant" as it's internal complaints review and that I am so well versed in the bureaucracy of their affairs — the overlay and structural component that's why I have "undertaken" to approach this myself to make sure of remedy. More confusion over the boys being under Bruce County she began to try and re-direct me saying I had to call Bruce CAS. I stated the particulars of the court order, again advised her of jurisdictional proclivities being but a "small" component and the boys originate from Leamington. The original order from Windsor thereby I am correct in dealing with Windsor CAS. She didn't seem to know what to do with me, and then began to query if I had access. I told her I wasn't getting into years and years of Court history and I could surmise she was on the computer, had access to the file the court order should be right in front of her she would know the answer to that herself, but I gave brief synopsis that there was no access on account of all the damages and corruption, the psychological manipulation of my sons and their advanced ages to perpetrate huge deficit in previous desire for maternal relations that court concluded in 2011 resigned they could do nothing so no access was ever obtained, hence the purpose of years and years of litigation to no effect. I then declared that none of which was the purpose of my call on account of CAS once again contravening a court order and the purpose of my call was to get to the bottom of it, manner of resolve. She put me over to the worker. I went back to switchboard cause he was unavailable. The woman on switchboard (they never identify themselves, nor did I reveal my name, they're so PUGNACIOUS! The intake worker didn't ask any identifying information about me, though I don't doubt the computer file didn't disclose to her. She made no affirmation and never addressed me by any name, but rather had an "inanimate", "detached" way of speaking to me as a "generic" organic being without identity!). When she couldn't satisfy the inquiry I was put over to the boys' file manager though I specifically said I did not want to deal with him having witnessed his short-comings in court. He is unable to properly perform his job duties. I reiterated misgivings about dealing with CAS business office about human relationships, what a redundant process, unyieldly in it's approach, that I wanted to speak legal terms with representative WECAS counsel who could understand what I was trying to accomplish! I was more than fed up with CAS loop back effect of a simple phone call being transferred around and around in circles and inevitably I was back to switchboard cause I'd hung up and called back to get the number for the Windsor law firm representing WECAS from the operator. But when I called back and tried to retrieve the phone number she decided to play games with me and would not relinquish the information I requested. I kept pressing her cooperation, then I began to call the shots on CAS manipulations and repugnancey, orating she was previously willing to comply and why the indignance now won't provide a simple phone number for Frank Philcox (one of the many Windsor lawyers employed by WECAS). The operator barked, "look it up in the phone book" and f'n hung up on me!

January 10, 2012

Source: Facebook, Yvonne Craig