X

Truth is in a man's actions, not in someone else's blind accusations.

Click for the video
X
August 17 2022

Re I chose to leave she called police said I assaulted her
Steve Schauland audience: Public
First of all, we must all post consistently " Family Court is the largest Domestic Terr...
Re: Barristers money for their firms for hurting our children and alienating the parents
Jennifer Spackman audience: Public
Bell & Stock is 110% against Fathers and Fathers rights. They gladly take money ove...
VIORICA LUNGU - WE WANT TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE STORY
pro V audience: Public
he is just another asshole who slanders the internet is full of loosers like him
Re: Viaguard Accu-metrics they said its a lab not lawyer firm they are gathering the info for the lawyer firm
CBC Fifth Estate audience: Public
The Fifth Estate tracked down parents who share stories for the first time on Motherisk...
Navigation

Authors & content contributions
Categories
Groups
Member Login
Page Grid

FOLLOW Brainsyntax VIA EMAIL Enter your email address and receive notifications of selective new pages by email.

Join 12050 other brainsyntax email notification followers

Searching for my children

Fathers in distress if you ever need to talk, or just vent, please message us Contact: Fathers Rights Canada
Deadly Epidemic Against Dads


Parents

To my children & To those that may be concerned ...
Currently working on recordings to produce to the RCMP Judicial Board and Upper Law Society with written complaints
Lillian Christine Sorko
audience: Public

I am in Woodstock County court house today on the third floor in CA$ court. It appears ...
Protecting Canadian Children Advocate Trevor Doering incarcerated by the insecurities of the Alberta Gov?
Doering Protecting Canadian Children
audience: Authenticated Login and access Protecting Canadian Children Advocate Trevor Doering incarcerated by the insecurities of the Alberta Gov?

Protecting Canadian Children Advocate Trevor Doering recently incarcerated mid January ...
So for the sake of Canada's children now is the time to write an email - Equal Shared Parenting
Gene C. Colman Canada Court Watch
audience: Public

Today (May 7) just after 5:30 p.m. will be the 2nd hour of debate in the House of Commo...
Children's Aid Societies beyond reform must be chopped down at the root and discarded
Steve Rudd
audience: Public

CAS is arrogant, out of control, a law unto themselves, destructive to society, and ope...
Re: Bargening for five extra minutes with their loved ones denied 2 be with Mama CAS tried everything
darrel cranston
audience: Public

Sounds like these CAS workers, should be taken out behind the building, and taught a le...
Re: Shared Parenting becoming a Law How can we fix this?
Tanis Kucher
audience: Public

Perhaps you are right and with shared parenting there will be less need for the system and...
im in the same boat
abc
audience: Public

I feel for you. Its been a year and a half for me of only seeing my two boys once a week f...
Re: Got this letter of my son today guess its time to give up!

audience: Public

Scott! I have extensive knowledge about Parental Alienation. This is a clear example of...
I hate everyone that is involved in the alienation of my children from me
Joseph Kenick III
audience: Public

And all those who have gone before you show overwhelmingly that so long as the kidnappe...
Father Rights Canada / She is going after spousal support, child support, property
Not disclosed
audience: Public

We have 50/50 custody. She is living basically common law with one of the g...
brainsyntax.com

★★★ Join brainsyntax

Log On as Member

X

The key here is not to outright deny but to qualify the concerns in advance

Friday, October 11, 2013 - Experts - Papa Inbc

They are definitely setting you up by assembling a "preponderance of evidence". By the time they knock on your door, they have likely already talked to your kids and teachers. 

The most important thing here is what is NOT being said or insinuated. I notice neglect and physical abuse is not on the plate. Emotional abuse seems to be what they are focusing on. 

These are questions and answers you need to get your child on tape talking about. Yes, the child sees smoke (an example qualification is you smoke fake cigarettes once a day outside not in front of your child in consideration), yes you speak loudly on occasion, and your swear words are "heck" and "darn" NOT F or B words (which can be later argued are said in front of the child and then can be labelled emotional abuse). You say exactly when and how often (you banged your thumb hanging a picture last month, and your child remembers that).

The key here is not to outright deny, but to qualify the concerns in advance. This is civil, not criminal. You don't get a right to silence on child welfare concern, because that is always "hiding something" 

By pre-qualifying "concerns" there can be no "difference of facts" that will cause erring on the side of caution, and you are pointing out they are deliberately not qualifying the facts, they are not date or time stamping them in order that readers of their reports will make up worst case scenarios. 

Video tape your kids without them knowing (they would be interrogated and tell someone eventually you taped them and that could be used against you as intimidating or programming your child). When the time comes and someone is saying your kids said this and that, you have something to fall back on.

As a matter of establishing a happy child and healthy interaction, start posting those happy home videos. Take close up pictures of non-smoke artificial cigarettes and smoke those on camera. Your new on-camera swear words are "dag nab" it and "fiddlesticks", and your child will pipe up and say "stop swearing mom" and you put a quarter in the jar. That should get a laugh.

This way, it becomes more apparent the social workers are deliberately being as ambiguous as possible, and are trying to build a case on what is really innocuous stuff. The trick is, to accurately convey on paper on your records this is what they are doing, deliberately and knowingly.

Also note, "abuse" is a word that is a legal conclusion. It does not have a legal definition. If you say "damn" or "dang it" or speak loudly, anyone can slap a name like "abuse" on it and make no further qualification. Call the teacher again and record the call so you have backup. Ask if you are verbally abusing her and record the response. If you speak exactly as you did on the video with the social worker, you can make it clear this label of abuse is false reporting, and is subject to a lawsuit.

Talking to a teacher and smoking are not within the mandate of child protection workers, so what they need to do is insinuate you are subjecting your child to emotional harm by doing these unspeakable things in front of your kid who is scared of you.

Now, if it ever comes down to a time where you have to defend yourself in a legal setting, you will have plenty of proof the allegations were discussed and qualified, and the legal conclusion is, that by them going away is there are no concerns at that time, so they should not be recycling and accumulating crap, which is their stock in trade.

The normal tactic is to accumulate 3 or more "investigative concerns" before taking some sort of intrusive action that will start their funding for involuntary intervention. You can ask the social worker what the stages of least to most instructive action, starting with educational community services, supervision order, kinship placement, then removal (they like to skip over to removal).

Another thing people forget about is making sure your opened file has a lot of positives on it. Parenting wins like listing your kids activities, glowing school reports, proud child pictured beside school and activity awards, good medical and dental history, immunization records, letters of recommendation from friends (that social workers will refuse to question). 

There is a comprehensive risk assessment PDF on the pa-pa.ca website that you can fill out and give to them too. Plug up their files will tons of positive paperwork that will make the negative reports seem like vindictive claims with no evidence.

Lastly, if you lawyer up, and demonstrate in advance you are ready for battle and willing to sue, bluff or not, that can convince them to back off and go fry less troublesome fish.

In reply of
last update
Friday, October 11, 2013
legal disclaimer
Audience
Public
Add new
---
Share this Page
Generate PDF file
Generate document The key here is not to outright deny but to qualify the concerns in advance
Download PDF
Contact
Register
Member access & Options
Search Google about
Search bing.com about
Content feed
RSS content feed: The key here is not to outright deny but to qualify the concerns in advance
Notified by email email notification on replies to this page: The key here is not to outright deny but to qualify the concerns in advance click here and receive notification of this specific page
Add your Comment Reply add your comments to: The key here is not to outright deny but to qualify the concerns in advance Reply to in a new window
Create a new page
0 replies
Access Brainsyntax

★★★ ★★★ Become a brainsyntax Member ★★★ ★★★

Access non public pages as Member
Introduce or record new content We are also assisting with content placement, subjects: Family Courts, Family Law Cases, Parental Alienation, Lawyers & Judges, Obstructions of Justice, Police, Courts, spiteful ex's, Hostile aggressive parenting, injustice, malice, obstruction, oppression and many other subjects ... Contact us

★★★ ★★★ Brainsyntax Members, Add new content, build the brainsyntax.com application ★★★ ★★★
Back || Home
X
Latest pages on brainsyntax.com: