Press one of the expand buttons to see the full text of an article. Later press collapse to revert to the original form. The buttons below expand or collapse all articles.
April 18, 2014 permalink
Father DH filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) on March 27, 2011. According to a lawsuit he filed in February 2013, CAS responded by filing a child protection application four days later. The application was supported by affidavits attesting to injuries to his daughter that never occurred. The suit does not say where the girl was placed, but she "suffered immeasurably as a result of numerous interviews, unqualified therapy and being forced to denigrate the plaintiffs". She "suffers from parental alienation and now requires psychotherapy with a qualified practitioner". CAS showed lack of confidence in their case when they dismissed their own application on December 22.
The statement of claim is DH et al plaintiffs vs Family Youth and Child Services of Muskoka et al (pdf). The outcome of the CFSRB complaint is at D.H. v. Family, Youth And Child Services Of Muskoka. In complying with the CFSRB order, Muskoka CAS supplied an affidavit already part of the record, leading to this reprimand from the CFSRB.
There is no lawyer on the suit representing the plaintiff DH, but Muskoka has brought on the lawfirm of Lerners LLP. Suits of this kind generally follow the plot line of the classic movie Bambi meets Godzilla, YouTube and local copy (mp4), with the unrepresented Bambi meeting the high-powered lawfirm's Godzilla.
Addendum: There is much more to this litigation. Any additional material will appear on a page for DH vs FYCS of Muskoka.