Larry Miller MP writes Superior Court of Ontario judge hearing child abduction case to lobby on behalf of child abductor.

Editorial - August 19, 2008  and updated with minor corrections 0ctober 7, 2008

In the case of Craig Cannock v. Jessica Fleguel ( pronounced flu-gull ), Superior Court of Justice, Owen Sound, Ontario - Court file 08-121

The member of the Parliament of Canada for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, Larry Miller MP, wrote a letter to lobby Justice Robert M. Thompson who was the presiding judge on this international child abduction case.

The hearing was a case regarding the Convention of the Civil Aspect of International Child Abduction of the Hague Conference often referred to as the Hague Convention. The case was regarding a mother living habitually in Australia who abducted her child to Canada. As is the procedure under Hague, the Australian Government requested that the Canadian federal government locate the child and return the child to Australia because the child's habitual residence had been in Australia. Due process includes a hearing in which the judge orders the child back to the parent from which the child was abducted in the other country. That allows both parents to attend at the family court in that country to present their family law case.

The purpose of the Convention is to keep parents from abducting their children to a foreign country and then launching a family law case which can't be fought by the parent in the country  of habitual residence and to insure the safety of children, protecting their right to a continued relationship with both parents unless neglect or abuse is proven in the original country of habitual residence. In such a case of abuse by one parent, it is the responsibility of the other parent, and relatives to report such abuse and to take action with government assistance.

On May 29th, 2008, Larry Miller MP wrote Justice Thompson, the presiding judge on this case, regarding the case and expressed his opinion that the correct judgement would be to allow the child abducting mother to keep the child in Canada.  He cited letters from members of the woman's family, his constituents, as the sole evidence and his justification for severing the child's relationship with the Australian father. The case being heard wasn't even a family law case. It was a Hague Convention case about child abduction. To view a copy of the letter by Larry Miller and the judges letter to the lawyers requesting a hearing to consider the letter of Larry Miller, click here

The 1998, the Special Joint Committee on Custody and Access, with members from both the House of Commons and the Senate, toured Canada and heard from over 500 witnesses, an equal number of men and women. They concluded that false allegations for the purpose of winning child custody battles were rampant and the number one weapon used to win custody battles. Anyone that has read the affidavits submitted to family courts across Canada about their friends are flabbergasted to read how good parents have suddenly become unfit monsters according to the affidavits produced by skilled family law lawyers.

This family law case is no different. The mother claims she is abused,   etc etc etc. The father produced a letter that the mother wrote to the Australian Government referring to him which stated "Since I have known him he has always been responsible, generous and kind."  The father has all sorts of legal declarations from witnesses stating her faults and abuse.  The mother states the child is a Canadian citizen and that the baby was born in Canada and the father states in his affidavits that the baby was conceived while they resided in Australia, they habitually lived in Australia and that the child has spent 5  weeks in total in Canada during the child's short lifetime of 2 years, most of which was at the time of birth. Further, it was planned that he, the mother and the children all become dual citizens in support of their children's Canadian / Australian heritage. The child is automatically entitled to Australian citizenship upon application by a parent who is an Australian citizen.

The point is that any family law lawyer will agree that in most family law cases each side has a remarkably different story and the lawyers and the judges are amazed at the differences.  We don't intend to judge all the arguments of the family law case. That will be up to a judge of the Australian family court.

But Larry Miller not only passed judgement himself on the family law case based solely on the mother's advice but wrote and lobbied a federally appointed judge hearing the case.

Let us explain the international embarrassment of the actions of Larry Miller MP. Mr. Miller is a federal member of the Parliament of Canada and a member of the ruling political party that forms the Government of Canada, that appoints federal judges, who wrote a letter to influence a federally appointed judge presiding over a child abduction case.  To fully understand this, imagine a legislative member of the ruling party forming the government of a foreign country writing a judge in that country and stating that a child abducted from Canada shouldn't be returned.

Upon receipt by Justice Thompson of the letter of Larry Miller dated May 29 and stamped with a received date of June 2, he wrote on June 3rd, 2008, to both lawyers stating:

"Please find enclosed a copy of a letter and its enclosures received from Mr. Larry Miller, MP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. I also enclose a copy of documents given to my office by someone from the group of picket persons outside the Owen Sound Courthouse on Monday, June 2, 2008.

Please arrange with the trial co-ordinator for both counsel to appear before me to make representations as to theses unsolicited communications."

At the bottom of Larry Miller's letter, it states that it was c.c.'d to the mother's lawyer only.

Apparently information from only the the mother's side of the case was circulated in the small town of Owen Sound and 9 or so protestors, were unwittingly supporting the child abductor mother. A picture of the mother protesting caring a large sign with a picture of her child was published in the local newspaper, the Owen Sound Sun Times.

Justice Thompson ruled in his decision dated June 27, 2008 that the child should be ordered back to Australia.  Strangely the judge questioned the competency of the Australian child protective services or that the Government of Australia had a general system of child protection in place.  He stated that he wanted to inform them of potential child abuse in this case and then decided against it .

Note to readers. At the time of publishing this article on August 18, 2008 there was no publication ban or any sealed documents according to the court office. The Canadian Children's Rights Council has entered [child name] in place of the actual name of the child in the court record

In the statement of facts in the judges ruling part off it reads:

" For the purposes of this Application and on the basis of the material filed with this court, I accept that just prior to Ms. Fleguel's departure from Australia, Mr. Cannock intended to apply to the Federal magistrates Court of Australia for an order for joint custody of [child name] and for an order that Ms. Fleguel be restrained from removing [child name] from Australia

{9} I find that Ms. Fleguel knew of the impending application to the Australian Courts and decided to leave their jurisdiction. She did so on or about November 22, 2007..."

" I find that [child name] was a habitual resident of Australia within the meaning of the Hague Convention, as of November 22, 2007. Although born a Canada citizen on June 5, 2006, {Child's name*} ( as of November 22, 2007) had spent only five weeks in Canada with the remaining approximately sixteen and a half months being spent as a resident of Australia."

The judge also ruled:

"....I further note that the lifestyle of the father, his apparent disregard for societal rules and lack of parenting skills, as alleged by the mother, were not sufficient to concern her while in Australia and residing with the father to cause her to take action to alleviate those concerns."

To be fair to the father, the lawyer hired by the Government of Canada and paid for by legal aid in Canada had the responsibility of the Hague Convention case only and not the family law case. The mother wished to argue the family law case for the purpose of defeating the Hague Convention case. The judge correctly stated the applicable law in his ruling:

"..I specifically note that the test in determining whether {Child's name*} should be returned to the jurisdiction of the Australian Courts is not what is in the interests of  best interests of the child. That determination is an issue to be considered by the Australian Courts...."

The Canadian judge ruled that the child was abducted and ordered that the child be returned to the father In Australia.

The mother, after telling the judge at the hearing  that she would return to Australia has now, through her new lawyer, Martha McCarthy, in a Notice of Appeal, indicated that she doesn't want to return to Australia.  The Notice of Appeal states that the mother now refuses to go back to Australia and that the child will now  be harmed by "separation of a child from his primary caregiver.."

McCarthy further states in the Notice of Appeal "Although Hague proceedings often proceed in a summary way, the honourable trial judge has an obligation to order the matter to proceed by way of viva voce evidence in fact of conflicting evidence which goes to the heart of the issue in this case."

It is the opinion of the president of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that McCarthy is simply stalling the return of the child and damaging the 3 children in this case. He stated "Martha McCarthy is going to stall the return of this child as long as she can as a legal strategy. She filed the Notice of Appeal on or about the last day that she could file it. As of August 19, 2008, coming up to 2 months after the judges order that the abducted child be returned to Australia, McCarthy hasn't filed the appeal nor agreed to an expedited appeal as is appropriate for child abductions. The father's lawyer asked for an expedited appeal and McCarthy has not cooperated according to the information in the court file and records of this case held by the parties. It is entirely appropriate that the abducted child be returned to Australia pending the appeal. If the appeal is successful the father could return the child to Canada.  McCarthy can then take all the time she wants to appeal the case.  At this rate, a simple international child abduction case that should have been heard in a Canadian court by last January at the latest will possibly take up to 1 1/2 years."

Mr. Wilson also stated "The Government of Canada has let down this father and children when they gave the wrong lawyer address to the Australian Embassy for the lawyer assigned by the Government of Canada. The Canadian law enforcement system could have easily and quickly found the mother with the information they had. The Canadian justice system has delayed judging this case and after doing so, the courts allow unreasonable amounts of time for the appeal and stalling by lawyers."

How can Canadian parents ask a foreign government to proceed expeditiously to get back their children abducted to foreign countries when we can't even help those children abducted to Canada?