PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
donate button
PAPA logo
notice board blogger icon
New links

Tracy Watson, Renee Stalker, Olivia Stalker, Shafer Watson, Riley Watson v. County of Santa Clara, William Hoyt, Craig Blank, et al (Judgment handed down on April 4, 2011, San Jose, California, the U.S.A. stemmed from an incident on June 29, 2005)

STIPULATION AND ORDER 313 to Extend Time by One Court Day for Filing Opposition to Defendant City of San Jose's Motion for Summary Judgement or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 11/16/09. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2009)

The following are noteworthy:

  1. This lawsuit stemmed from an incident on June 29, 2005. It takes a few years before the court arrives at a decision. Government always enjoys an edge as it has access to the deep pocket of taxpayers for hire the best lawyers while most civilians lack the financial resources to engage in prolonged legal warfare.
  2. Taxpayers are always an indirect victim when victims of abuse of authority are successful in their lawsuits against government employees because:
    1. Government is often named a defendant.
    2. Government, hence taxpayers, is obliged to indemnify civil servants in lawsuits, pay for the legal expenses and court awarded damages.

    It follows that accountability cannot be established as long as government indemnifies the wrongdoings of civil servants.

  3. In this case, it is the police officers, not "child protection" workers, who retaliated when citizens assert their rights. If the defendant is a "child protection" worker, it is doubtful that the jury will be sympathetic to parents as people have undue respect and trust on this type of bureaucratic police.
  4. In British Columbia, "child protection" workers do NOT need any court order before they can remove children, not even in non-life threatening situation. This gives them power to play god. In the case law Director v. M.P., 2005 BCPC 651, Honorable Judge B.K. Davis (a Vancouver Provincial Court judge) ruled that parents cannot use the following in opposing temporary custody order:

    1. that there is no complaint from a third party;
    2. that the child is not in immediate danger when in care of parents;
    3. that MCFD fails to show that removal is in the best interests of the child.

    Judge Davis further held that "All the Director need do is make out a prima facie case (an extremely low threshold of proof in law) that the child may be in need of protection, and then I can make one of the orders set out above that is appropriate in the circumstances."

    This supports arbitrary child removal.

  5. We are unaware of any successful lawsuit against a "child protection" agency in Canada of wrongful or malicious child removal. If our browsers come against any cases that speak otherwise, please enlighten us.

[This page was added on added on 8 April 2011, last revised on 8 April 2011.]