Mom caught in legal marathon after kids were wrongly seized
Stall tactics: Drawn-out court battles just business for governments, but take tremendous toll on individuals
The mom who triggered the high-profile review of the Ministry of Children and Family Development is again playing David as she challenges the Goliath of government in B.C. Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson looked dyspeptic as he wrestled Thursday with an application from her to stop Liberal appointee Bob Plecas and his hired guns from reviewing or commenting on her case.
Six years after her three children were wrongly seized, the woman known only as J.P. remains enmeshed in legal processes with no end in sight.
Her lawyers want to block Plecas from assessing the actions of child-protection workers who dealt with the family from 2009 and 2012 during the high-conflict divorce.
They say Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker already did that in a scathing July 14 decision that ignited a firestorm of outrage after he found ministry employees were guilty of egregious misconduct in their support of the abusive dad.
On July 24, as damage control, Minister Stephanie Cadieux announced the review by Plecas, a retired senior bureaucrat and an architect of the ministry in the ’ 90s.
He was to report by Oct. 21, but ministry lawyer Karen Horsman told the court the government is readying a four- to six-week extension.
The mom’s lawyers say Plecas shouldn’t be allowed to scrutinize her case because it is still before Walker and the report could prejudice further proceedings.
Chief Justice Hinkson — who was dealing only with how the mom’s application for judicial intervention should be handled, not its merits — was clearly concerned.
“Justice Walker made factual legal determinations,” he told Horsman. “It strikes me that what Mr. Plecas has been asked to do is to revisit those.”
Horsman said that was a mischaracterization.
When Chief Justice Hinkson suggested the mom’s application be handled by Walker, Horsman balked, given “the optics.”
She said “in the circumstances, it’s not appropriate.”
J.P.’s lead lawyer, Jack Hittrich, said the ministry wants all the mom’s claims dismissed or a new trial ordered.
Hittrich said he appreciated the concerns about the “optics of Justice Walker” handling the application and agreed the chief justice should deal with it, given the urgency.
Like the other mess on his plate — the Ivan Henry wrongful conviction suit, which also started in 2009 — Chief Justice Hinkson is faced with two parties of hugely unequal resources and capacity for dealing with delay.
For the government and bureaucrats, what’s seven or eight years of due process? What’s another court hearing when the lawyers and bureaucrats are all on the meter and, by the time they end, anyone at fault will probably be retired?
For the actual people involved, those kinds of time frames warp their lives. The emotional price on top of the financial burden is enormous.
In this case, J.P. and her children accept handouts, visit food banks and are unable to put the ordeal behind them.
The chief justice is faced in both cases with facts that beg him to chastise government players for taking their eyes off the ball and injuring individuals.
In the Henry case and this one, the major argument is not that damage was done, but meting out institutional liability. Trouble is, that process exacerbates the damage.
Both are strong suggestions for a separation of those issues because governments can litigate forever — it’s only business for them.
Individuals are in the opposite position — it’s not just business. They need a resolution, closure and a chance to rebuild their lives.
No wonder the chief justice looked as if he needed an antacid: Who likes being a public scold? Especially when your own institution is complicit in letting timely justice become a running joke.
He will deal with the mom’s petition Oct. 23.