B.C.Hosts International Forum on Child Welfare -Oh Really??

Minister of Children and Family Development
Hon. Tom Christensen
Phone: 250 387-9699
Fax: 250 387-9722
PO Box 9057
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC
V8W 9E2
Minister.MCF@gems1.gov.bc.ca

November 21, 2006

Dear Minister Christensen,

RE: SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF JOSEPHINE AND MAXIMILIEN GETTLIFFE-GRANT AND THE INFANT, MARTIN GETTLIFFE-GRUZELLE

We read on November 19, 2006 in the Press Release issued by your office, that British Columbia would be hosting an international forum on Child Welfare.

Of particular interest was your statement regarding the Ministry’s commitment to “strengthening services to build a more positive future for our children and youth.”

Your office goes on to speak about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, “UNCRC”, and Canada’s “theme” for 2006:
“The right of the child to be heard.”

While these words portray an honourable intention, the reality of the day in British Columbia for children like Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant and their infant brother, Martin Gettliffe-Gruzelle, is the complete antithesis of “positive”.

As you are aware, Josephine and Maximilien are the children of Scott Grant, a resident of Vancouver, and Dr. Nathalie Gettliffe, a French citizen who has been confined in a prison in British Columbia and denied bail for seven months, despite her pregnancy and subsequent birth of her son, Martin.

In July this year, both Josephine and Maximilien were lured onto a plane in France by Father/Dr.Lucien Larre, a man with a previous history of assaulting children in Saskatchewan, and brought to Canada under the impression that their mother would be immediately released from prison upon their arrival.
She was not.

Since their arrival in Canada and their forced cohabitation with their father, they are prevented from spending reasonable and necessary time with their mother.

It is our distinct belief that it is not in the interests of Josephine and Maximilien to be forced to live with their father against their will.

Josephine has spoken out about their living conditions with their father and she has told witnesses that they are not happy, that they do not sleep well and that they miss France.

The children are deeply distraught that their mother is imprisoned along with their baby brother.

Judge Garson recently acknowledged in November in the Supreme Court of British Columbia that the children were often “rude” and “angry” and “not affectionate” with their father. Surely this is evidence of their distress?

One may surmise, judging by Scott Grant’s very public statements in the local Vancouver newspapers, that he may very well be telling the children that their mother is “sick”. We know he has informed the public that she can see her children when she takes a “pill”.

We do not believe that a mother who acts to protect her children from harm is “sick” or that she needs a “pill”.
In fact, legislation in British Columbia and in Canada instructs us to report harm and abuse to children or suffer legal consequences.
We are also continually reminded by social workers and police officers that if we knowingly allow a child to be exposed to a harmful environment, that we could very well lose custody of the child.

Furthermore, we were informed yesterday that two attempts to strangle Dr. Gettliffe’s infant son, Martin, were made in the Alouette Correctional Centre where Dr. Gettliffe is incarcerated. These actions were apparently committed by another inmate.

Given this situation, we ask on behalf of the children and in their best interests, the following questions:

1. How does the Ministry intend to ensure that the voices of Josephine and Maximilien are heard in the Supreme Court and in the community, as stipulated by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

2. How does the Ministry intend to provide appropriate counseling and support to the children, as stipulated by the UNCRC?

3. Is the Ministry not concerned that the children only speak French and often do not understand their father?

4. Is the Ministry aware that Dr. Lucien Larre is allowed unlimited access to these children?

5. Has the Ministry investigated Dr. Larre to discover whether there is any evidence that he has rehabilitated since his convictions of assaulting two minors in 1992?

6. How does the Ministry intend to ensure the safety and well-being of the two older children, Josephine and Maximilien, as well as baby Martin?

7. How does the Ministry intend to assist Dr. Gettliffe who is nursing her infant while being forced to live in a harmful environment?

We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,


Canada Children First.
B.C. Canada


Copies to: Attorney General of B.C., Mr. Wally Oppal
Solicitor General of B.C., Mr. John Les
UNICEF
Louise Arbour, HCHR Geneva
Foreign Press













COPY

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

2006CFD0055-001399

Nov. 19, 2006
Ministry of Children and Family Development

B.C. HOSTS INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON CHILD WELFARE

VANCOUVER – B.C. is celebrating International Day of the Child by welcoming more than 1,000 delegates from 40 countries to WorldForum 2006, an international conference on child welfare, underway in Vancouver, Children and Family Development Minister Tom Christensen announced today.

“In B.C., we are continually strengthening our services to build a more positive future for our children and youth,” said Christensen. “WorldForum 2006 is a valuable opportunity for us to broaden our knowledge and perspectives and share our innovative practices with other jurisdictions.”

World Forum 2006: New Directions in Child Welfare is the 17th annual conference held by the International Forum for Child Welfare. As one of this year’s co-hosts, the ministry has contributed $500,000 to help stage the forum, deliver presentations on B.C.’s prevention and protection approaches and support the participation of 400 ministry employees.

This year’s gathering coincides with International Day of the Child, proclaimed to mark the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The theme in Canada this year is “the right of the child to be heard.” WorldForum 2006 celebrates this by providing an opportunity for 100 youth to participate as planners, presenters, delegates and volunteers.

“It’s fitting on this day that so many people who work in the field from around the world gather to share strategies and celebrate accomplishments,” said Christensen. “We hope and trust that everyone will take something away from the event that will enhance their work with children and families.”

World Forum 2006 runs through Nov. 22. For more information on the conference and its hosts, visit www.worldforum2006.ca

Why Attorney General of British Columbia Must Resign

Why A-G Oppal Must Resign
BC Attorney General Wally Oppal His dumb comment could cause a mistrial.
By Rafe Mair
Published: November 20, 2006


TheTyee.ca
We have, in this semi-lawless country, two daft attorneys general.

The federal chap, Vic Toews, distinguished himself in the 2004 federal election when on the eve of the ballot he accused the Liberals of being soft on kiddie porn.

It started when a man was sentenced to prison for a brutal sex slaying of a young Toronto girl. The assailant admitted that he was very fond of kiddie porn he accessed through his Internet connection. Toews suggested that because the federal Liberals, very much including then Prime Minister Chrétien, hadn't done anything about this stuff on the Internet, they bore a great responsibility for this tragic death.

The public turned out to be on the Liberals' side, which scarcely meant it was uncaring. The voters (though not, lamentably, in Toews's riding) thought that this was a scandalous accusation, trying to take advantage of a terrible crime by making it into a political issue. And they voted accordingly. The Conservatives lost in a tight race and many, including me, thought Toews lost it for them.

Now Mr. Toews has another bright idea. Policemen will be asked to sit on the council that recommends people for the bench.

Police would inject bias

Now I yield to no one in demanding that there be more transparency in the appointment of judges. I have long favoured open hearings for all superior court judgeships. But loading the council with interested pressure groups is hardly what's needed. The proper considerations are whether or not the candidate is a good lawyer in the sense that he knows the law, is of good character and is fair -- "fair" including the absence of prejudice, as far as any human can be.

ADVERTISEMENT
What does the policeman add to this? "I watched Bloggs in practice and noted he only took defence cases. He was always babbling on about 'reasonable doubt,' onuses of proof, prosecutor fairness and almost always challenged police evidenced. Hawkeye, on the other hand, was a brilliant prosecutor who gave no quarter. Sometimes when there was evidence that might help the accused and thus deny justice as we saw it, he didn't tell the defence lawyer. When we told him we wanted John Q Public prosecuted, Hawkeye never said there was insufficient evidence but said, charge that sleazy bugger and I'll get him convicted. On sentencing, he wanted everyone to be put away as long as possible. In fact ,we knew him as Hang 'em High Hawkeye. If we want to rest secure in our beds, Hawkeye is our man."

Now, if Toews doesn't want policemen on the panel so they can a get a judge that's "on their side," what's it all about? And, critical question here: Will a member of the defence bar also be on the panel to ensure that the criminals have a friend in the courtroom?

Blame the lawmakers

Mr. Toews would have us think crime runs rampant because judges are always lenient. The way to cure this, apparently, is to fix things so that acquittals are kept to a bare minimum. Even if the police blow the prosecution, jail the bugger anyway because everyone knows he's guilty.

Notably, Toews fails to note that while judges implement that law, politicians are responsible for making that law, including the penalties to be imposed.

Judges goof. Judges sometimes do things they ought not to -- that's what appeal courts are all about. But when you think of the thousands and thousands of cases heard around this land every day, we should thank God we're so well served.

Oppal's sin

Here in B.C., our attorney general must resign over remarks he made about the infamous Robert Pickton case. He may have caused a mistrial. The Honourable Wally Oppal, QC, made it clear that he was on the side of the prosecutors -- that he was B.C.'s top prosecutor and he could say what he pleased.

I find it utterly beyond belief that a former judge, a veteran of both our Supreme Court and our Appeal Court, should be so ignorant of the traditions of criminal law and prosecutions that have made our courts fair and seen by the world as such.

Mr. Oppal would have learned on his first day taking criminal law in law school -- that the accused is presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Crown neither wins nor loses, but presents Her Majesty's case fairly. The Crown has obligations that policemen don't like very much, such as disclosing all relevant evidence to the defence even when the Crown doesn't intend to call that evidence. And to ensure that all the evidence is before the Court, even that which is adverse to the Crown's case.

Has Oppal so quickly forgotten the three Ms: Marshal, Milgaard and Morin? All men found guilty by false police evidence or investigations; all men who spent years in jail for an offence they didn't commit; all men who, but just a few decades ago, would have been hanged long before the true story emerged.

Every once in a while, we must pause and examine what our traditions are. Keeping an accused innocent until proved guilty and forcing the Crown to be fair means sometimes people will "get away with it." (As we have seen above, even this hasn't helped some accused.) This is the insurance premium people in a free country pay to ensure that a police state does not befall us.

Guiding precedent

But why do I say Oppal must resign?

Here's a recent precedent. Back in the late 1980s, the then attorney general had a private conversation with one of his deputies intercepted and recorded. In this conversation, Smith said some unkind things about a lawyer acting in a case in which the Crown was involved. When the matter became public, Smith promptly resigned. I suggest that Mr. Smith's deeds were far less serious than those of Mr. Oppal.

I should add that some of Mr. Smith's conversations to others were not the kind that Mrs. Smith would have liked hearing, but these were irrelevant except as personal embarrassments to Smith.

The sad part is that Toews and Oppal will get away with this conduct so unbecoming their offices. That's because the mainstream media won't hold them accountable, and so the public won't either.

2nd Letter to Wally Oppal, Attorney General of British Columbia

November 20, 2006

MR. WALLY OPPAL
Attorney General of B.C.
Room 232
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BCV8V 1X4
Phone: 250 387-1866
Fax: 250 387-6411

RE: NATHALIE GETTLIFFE; JOSEPHINE GETTLIFFE-GRANT; MAXIMILIEN GETTLIFFE-GRANT AND MARTIN GETTLIFFE-GRUZELLE

Dear Mr. Oppal:

We have not yet received a response from you regarding our letter of November 10, 2006, wherein we advised you of our concerns for Dr.Nathalie Gettliffe and her minor children, as named above.

In this instance, we bring your attention to an incident or incidents that have been reported to us regarding the Alouette Correctional Centre for women in Maple Ridge, British Columbia.
We are told that at least two attempts to strangle Dr. Gettliffe’s infant son, Martin Gruzelle-Gettliffe, have been made by another woman in prison. The infant boy, who is forced into incarceration along with his mother through the orders of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, has been subjected to cruel and unusual treatment, as has his mother, by the Supreme Court orders which deny her bail.

Associates and colleagues have contacted the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner in Geneva, Louise Arbour, as her official intervention appears necessary to bring a halt to the ongoing violation of Dr. Gettliffe and her children’s fundamental human rights.

We remind you that a priest who previously had a criminal conviction for assaulting children continues to have unlimited access to Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant at their father’s residence. We are concerned that your office has not taken this situation seriously. In fact, through vicarious intervention, the Crown Counsel of British Columbia appears to
be enabling this ongoing situation.

Does Crown Counsel or your office have evidence that Father Lucien Larre has rehabilitated and that he is no longer a threat to young children?

We hereby inform you that we hold the Attorney General of British Columbia and your office accountable for the safety and well-being of Nathalie Gettliffe and her children, Josephine, Maximilien and Martin, and we now trust that you will intervene in your official capacity to allow Dr. Gettliffe to exit the prison so that she may nurture her infant child in peace and have reasonable access with her two older children.
We further inform you that we hold the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

We would like to know, in writing, what your office intends to do to ensure the safety and welfare of this mother and her young children.

Sincerely,

Lisa Haeck
Canada Children First

Copy to: The Deputy Minister,
Lesley du Toit
Ministry of Children and Family Development
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Mr. Bruce McNeill
Director of Child Welfare, Fraser Region
British Columbia, Canada
Fax: (604) 586 4153

Attempted Strangulation of Nathalie Gettliffe's Baby in Prison, British Columbia, Canada

The following letter was sent on Monday, November 20th 2006, from Louis Ripault, a private investigator working on behalf of Dr. Gettliffe's family.
The letter is addressed to the high commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Miguel De la Lama, wherein Louis advises him of the following--English Translation--:

I have just learned that Nathalie's baby was the object of two attempted strangulation from an inmate in prison.

This underlines the urgency of an intervention from the High Commissioner of seeing Louise Arbour in person.

These attempts were acted by a co-inmate whose own child was taken away.

The answer from the authorities on this matter was to place the co-inmate in another building and to hand over to Nathalie Gettliffe a key to her cell and to the building.

This now makes Nathalie appear in the eyes of all inmates like a "guard without arms".

We understand with her being awake every hour in the night by the guards and the pressure from her own lawyers that she ended up pleading guilty.

You had attempted this summer to pass this matter to a service of emergency who did not recognize the importance of accelerating an intervention. So what are we to think now?

I advise you of your obligations to advise Louise Arbour of this matter.

The Attorney General of BC has all the power to stop the grave violations done on Nathalie and her children. Why then is he covering up the violations?

Louis Ripault

Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Advises Us to Take Sides

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

Why Was This Mother Allowed to Stay in France with Her Child, Yet Nathalie Gettliffe's Children were Forced to Come Back to Canada

Name of case
HC/E/FR 814 [27/10/2005;Cour d'Appel de Paris, 1ere Chambre - Section C (France);Appellate Court]
CA Paris 27 October 2005, 05/15032

Date of decision
27 October 2005

Requesting State
UNITED STATES

Requested State
FRANCE

Name of court
Cour d'Appel de Paris, 1ere Chambre - Section C (France)

Status of case
Final

Level of court
Appellate Court

Published/where available


Articles considered
13(1)(b), 12(2)

Articles or provision upon which disposition of case based
13(1)(b), 12(2)

Order
Appeal allowed; return refused.

Facts
The application related to a child who in December 2003 was removed
from her home in the United States by her mother and taken to France.
The child was 7 1/2 years old at the time and her parents shared
custody rights.
On 29 June 2005 the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris ruled
that the removal was wrongful and ordered the return of the child.

The mother appealed.


Ruling
Appeal allowed and return refused; the child was now settled in her
new environment pursuant to the terms of Article 12(2).

Cases and authorities referred to


Judges
M Perie, Pdt, M Hascher, conseiller, Mme Chadeville, conseiller deleguee.

Legal basis for decision


Art 13(1)(b)
The mother sought to invoke the grave risk of harm exception by arguing that: the father had taken drugs; the father's new partner had behaved inappropriately towards the child's step-brother; a return would separate the child from her step-brother and that a return would prevent the child from seeing her mother.
The Cour d'appel rejected these arguments and a request for a psychological evaluation of the child, finding that; the step-brother's accusations of drug taking by the father lacked detail and did not rebut the results of blood tests done on the father in March 2003; and that the allegations of seduction by the father's new partner had no relevance to the abducted child and her return.



Article 12(2)
The Cour d'appel noted that Article 12(2) was applicable to the application, more than 12 months having elaspsed between the removal and the initiation of proceedings.
In evaluating the child's settlement consideration was given to the fact she had commenced her third year of schooling in France, she was performing well and in a discussion with a school psychologist she affirmed that she wished to continue with her studies in France and to stay with her mother.

Pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the child's views were gathered and these confirmed to the Court that she was now settled in her new environment. The Court thereby ruled that the best interests of the child required that she not be returned to the United States.



Comments
The Cour d'appel relied directly on Article 12(2) of the UN Convention as justification for ascertaining the views of the child, rather than considering her objections within the separate Hague Convention exception of Article 13(2).
In this the Court was clearly influenced by the decision of the supreme civil jurisdiction in France, the Cour de Cassation, in its decision of 18 May 2005:

Cass Civ 1ère 18/05/2005 (Arrêt n° 891, pourvoi n° 02-20.613).

In this judgment the Cour de Cassation departed from previous rulings in finding that Article 12(2) of the UN Convention was self-executing and could thereby be relied on to allow children to intervene directly in private law proceedings in France.

The approach of the Cour d'Appel in considering the views of the child in assessing the issue of settlement does moreover mirror that adopted by the English High Court in the case of : Re C (Abduction: Settlement)(No 2) [2005] 1 FLR 938 [INCADAT cite HC/E/815].


THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 13(1)(b) IN FRANCE

The treatment of Article 13(1)(b) by French courts has evolved, with a permissive approach being replaced by a more robust interpretation.

Judgments of France’s highest jurisdiction, the Cour de cassation, from the mid to late 1990s, may be contrasted with more recent decisions of the same court and also court of appeal decisions, see:

Cass. Civ. 1ère 12 juillet 1994, Rev. Crit. 84 (1995), p. 96 note H. Muir Watt; JCP 1996 IV 64 note Bosse-Platière, Defrénois 1995, art. 36024, note J. Massip [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 103];

Cass Civ 1ère 21 novembre 1995 (Pourvoi N° 93-20140), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 514];

Cass. Civ. 1ère 22 juin 1999, (N° de pourvoi : 98-17902), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 498];

And contrast with:

Cass Civ 1ère 25 janvier 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 02-17411), [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 708] ;

Cass. Civ 1ère 14 juin 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 04-16942), [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 844];

Cass. Civ 1ère 13 juillet 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 05-10519), [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 845];

CA Amiens 4 mars 1998, n°5704759, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 704];

CA Grenoble 29 mars 2000 M. v. F., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 274];

CA Paris 7 février 2002 (N° de pourvoi : 2001/21768), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 849];

CA Paris, 20/09/2002 (N° de pourvoi : 2002/13730), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 850];

CA Aix en Provence 8 octobre 2002, L v Ministère Public, Mme B et Mesdemoiselles L (N° de rôle 02/14917) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 509];

CA Paris 27 octobre 2005, 05/15032 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 814].

Updated 22 July 2006.


Copyright © HCCH

The Beginning of the End of Democracy

When the media refuse to inform, and the public ceases to question, it is the beginning of the end of democracy!!! - David John Thornton

In the Nathalie Gettliffe - Scott Grant situation we should ask if the Canadian and the French media have access to all the facts?
If they do and they are not publishing all of the facts, why is that?
If they don't have access to all the facts, is it because investigative journalism is a dying profession?

The public are asking questions - they have a right to be informed. Why? Because we have a moral duty, as individuals and a community, to look out for each other. Big Bad wolves prowl around by day and night, preying on the vulnerable, the weak and the poor...a lot of the time they are dressed as politicians, lawyers and people in positions of authority.

Inform yourselves, don't be caught unawares, read "Snakes in Suits" by Professor Robert Hare, from Vancouver,


"If you've ever watched in horror while a charming BS artist methodically tore the guts out of your group, your division, your company (... or your country for that matter) and wondered how on earth they managed to pull it off in broad daylight, this book will help you solve the mystery.

There really are human snakes among us and Babiak and Hare explain in detail what motivates them, how they operate, how to recognize them and, most important, how to neutralize their poisonous effects before it's too late.

No one ever said life was going to be a rose garden and there's a whole breed of individual whose sole function in life seems to be to insure it's not for the rest of us.

Just read the headlines. It's an epidemic: Enron, WorldCom, and their close cousins the neo-cons etc.

When the student is ready, the teachers appear. It looks like it's finally time for our society to recognize these people for what they are, acknowledge that they're not going away and deal with them with something other than wishful thinking and denial.

This book is bad news for the charismatic white collar criminal class. It's about time." Ken McCarthy, New York

Think about the children, and before you go to sleep tonight, say a little prayer for them - let us honour the trust our children place in us.