One of the most useful tools anyone can use in a child protection is Case Law. I recently compared my own visitation notes against the workers affidavit and found enormous discrepancies and omitted information.What is even more problematic is they purposely omitted positive aspects of the interaction with my children during our access visits.We know they do this to put any parent in a bad light in the eyes of the Courts, it's catching them doing it and properly outlining it to the Judge.I researched case law on this and found a great one to use.Parents need to be meticulous with any notes the Society provides, highlight your case notes BESIDE their affidavits and you will find the difference!
An example of what I found is within an affidavit-N.P gave K.P a decoration that had the words " I believe in Angels" written on it.She explained to K.P she had bought it for his sister.K.P thought it meant for C.G-P and told his mother that he was going to give it to her,however N.P clarified it was for his sister that died.
What is actually within the workers notes is-Mom brought a decoration that had " I believe in Angels". Mom told K.P that she bought it for his sister.K.P told mom he would give it to C.G-P.Mom told K.P that she bought it for his sister that died but he can bring it home and put it on C.G-P tree.
This is just a small sample of the word manipulation the Society will do within your case!
Here is an even bigger example of omitting positive aspects within a case-Mom gave K.P decorations to put on a tree.Mom and K.P decorated the tree together.Mom bought tinsel.She pretended it was her hair and talked in an English accent.K.P laughed and then mom put the tinsel on K.P's head pretending it was hair.
They played and put glitter on each other.Mom and K.P laughed.When mom asked K.P to stop and wash his hands,he did so without any issues
K.P whistled,sang and danced to the music.K.P continuously played " Jingle Bell Rocks". Mom sang with K.P
This was NOT written within the workers affidavit! and an enormous amount of positive aspects and positive parenting were grossly omitted! This is what you should be looking for within the case notes and their affidavits.The WORD PLAY they use or embellishments they CHOOSE to use in order to convey a more negative impression in their affidavits and provide it to the courts.
My suggestion to any parent caught in the hell of Family Court Child Protection proceedings is to get 2 different colors of highlighters and have BOTH the notes and affidavits beside each other and color code the omitted, embellishments,etc. and begin to draft your findings because no lawyer will bother, you must do this on your own.Draft it and then put it into an affidavit and attach their notes as an EXHIBIT refer to the tab and volume in the court legal brad( if you can) where their affidavit is and what paragraph.
When you do put the omitted,embellishments etc within the affidavit do NOT attack the Society within your affidavit!!! make it simple and straight.
I found a great Case Law off CanlII as well and this is VERY important to be aware of.Do not hand over a case law without reading it. You MUST make note of what you are going to need from it to put fourth in your case.This includes the page and paragraph your using within the case law! My previous lawyer royally and fatally made this mistake in my case, she submitted a Factum with case law and did NOT read it or make note of what she was using and the Society attacked us with our own case law, having recordings tossed from evidence!
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.M., 2013 ONCJ 69 (CanLII)
The above is a great law to use, when you review notes vs affidavits
Paragraph 27 and 28 is what you will read, use and highlight in your affidavit, this mean cite this portion IN your statement.
Concerns with presentation of the Society’s evidence
[27] As this child was apprehended at birth, all of the parenting evidence relating to her stems from observations made at access visits. It was therefore obviously very important that the Society personnel who supervised these visits be accurate and fair in recording their observations in their notes and relaying them to the court in their affidavits. Workers should point out both positive and negative aspects of the parents’ conduct and interaction with the child, so that the court has a complete and fair picture of the parents’ parenting skills.
[28] Regrettably, the evidence of Peel Society Family Service Worker Anda Gheorghe and Peel Society Case Aide Jennifer Arthur was problematic. Both of these witnesses chose, when drafting their affidavits, to omit numerous positive aspects of access visits that they had written in their notes. Even more disturbingly, they chose to embellish and exaggerate some less positive aspects of the visits by using harsher wording in order to convey a more negative impression in their affidavits than what they had written in their notes. It was only through a painstakingly thorough cross-examination of these two workers by the father’s counsel, that these serious discrepancies came to light.
Make NOTE in this below paragraph where the worker states "the father as " harshly" taking the bib from the child.While the CASE NOTES she did NOT describe the fathers action as " harsh". THIS is a SMALL oversight that parents miss within their case notes vs affidavits and a PRIME example of the Society misleading the courts through word play and embellishing the facts within your access visits! These small words will effect your case and you must be meticulous in finding them.
[29] For example:
• In paragraph 63 of her affidavit, Ms. Gheorghe stated that during the August 8, 2011 access visit, the paternal grandmother “did not engage with S.M. in any way”. Her notes from that visit indicate that the grandmother “talked to S.M. for a bit”.
• In paragraph 80 of her affidavit, the only thing Ms. Gheorghe chose to mention about the October 18, 2011 access visit was that the father and grandmother arrived 30 minutes late for unexplained reasons. She omitted all of the positive interaction which occurred between the father and child and between the grandmother and child, which she admitted in cross-examination, was more interaction than had occurred at prior visits (in other words, there had been an improvement).
• In paragraph 81 of her affidavit, which deals with the October 25, 2011 access visit, Ms. Gheorghe refers to the father as “harshly” taking away a bib from the child when she started to chew on it. However, in her notes made at that visit, she did not describe the father’s action as being “harsh”. In cross-examination she could offer no explanation for adding this uncomplimentary descriptive word which was obviously meant to convey a negative impression of the father’s interaction with the child.
