smallLliberal wrote:Ben Kenobi wrote:I accept your apology ... but still somewhat confused as to why you are sticking to this.
Cross-posting.
Anyways, it's still a blemish on the teacher for her amazing lack of judgement.
ah, no.
The teacher followed the letter of the law. They
must call Childrens Aid if there is any suspicion a childs safety is in danger. If they did not call Childrens Aid they can be fired.
No she didn't.
Child protection proceedings are not criminal in nature. They are civil proceedings which means that the standard of proof is a balance of probability.
A child is deemed to need protection in the following circumstances:
• If the child has been, or is likely to be, physically harmed or sexually abused by neglect, directly by the parent or by another person and the child's parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child;
• If the child is emotionally harmed by the parent's conduct (a child is emotionally harmed if the child demonstrates severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or self-destructive or aggressive behaviour);
• If the child is deprived of necessary health care or the child's development is likely to be seriously impaired by a treatable condition and the child's parent refuses to provide or consent to treatment;
• If the child's parent is unable or unwilling to care for the child and has not made adequate provision for the child's care;
• If the child is or has been absent from home in circumstances that endanger the child's safety or well-being;
• If the child's parent is dead or if the child has been abandoned, and adequate provision has not been made for the child's care; or
• If the child is in the care of a director or another person by agreement and the child's parent is unwilling or unable to resume care when the agreement is no longer in force.
What smallL is omitting is the
threshold for notifying CW and cops is ridiculously low,
given what is at stake smallLliberal wrote:Oh .. and I did not see the important fact about the violent criminal record in Levant's opinion piece ... how convenient.
And you omit the fact that the father was offered a job at the school, is a volunteer at the school - how convenient for you
smallLliberal wrote:Julian wrote:smallLliberal wrote:Julian wrote:He needs to get a good lawyer.
why?
This is Canada, if he sues and loses he has to pay the lawyers bills of the people he sued.
(which is exactly what a lawyer is going to tell him)
And now you're saying he has no legal course to redress of grievance
And given the facts of this situation, he would most likely win any redress to the courts (provided the dad has deep pockets)
smallLliberal wrote:Firstly, how do you know they did not apologize for the mistake?
Secondly, all the authorities say they followed the letter of the law. No foul.
Samsome's life changed when he got that criminal record. This is likely a direct consequence. He no longer gets the benefit of the doubt with the cops or Childrens Aid.
He should have consider that before he became a violent criminal. Hopefully he is over that chapter of his life and in a decade he can apply for a pardon.
We know the cops did not apologize (like you say - just google it).
Again, you can't (or won't) recognize a CYA by the cops, school, and Child Welfare if it smacked you in the face
smallLliberal wrote:Ben Kenobi wrote:The teacher followed the letter of the law. They must call Childrens Aid if there is any suspicion a childs safety is in danger. If they did not call Childrens Aid they can be fired.
And a child's drawing of a toy gun constitutes a credible thread to a child's safety?
Yes, the kid told the teacher their father had a firearm.
In Canada, firearms must be locked up and separate from the ammo. Also, in Canada you are not allowed to shoot people .. monsters or otherwise. The kid said specifically that the father has the gun to shoot people.
I suspect the school knew all about the history of the father .. and took no chances.
No, she did not follow the letter of the law
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
(Think
reasonable actions)
smallLliberal wrote:Julian wrote:Just last week many of you were arguing in favour of shooting violent burglars ... here is a guy who was convicted of
assault during a burglary. Now you want to protect his rights
You don't? What next?
Your lame "for all we knows" are 100% straw. For all we know you are an unindicted unconvicted felon.
There are no "felons" in Canada.
There is a huge difference between somebody who is convicted of a violent crime .. .and the rest of society. He had his day in court, he had a free lawyer, he had the right to appeal, he was convicted ... he went to jail.
Why are you soft on violent criminals Julian?
You're right. Canada doesn't have juvenile delinquents either
