Oregon's Bruce Goldberg does not believe in boarders, due process or anything else that is recognized as constitutional in child welfare.
 |
| Bruce Goldberg |
The actions of Oregon are so unbelievably stupid, I have to ask again, "Who the hell is going to stop this fraudulent billing?"
There was no reason for this child to be in Oregon's foster care system. So the reason Oregon is suing is because its Medicaid Fraud Control Unit cannot go after itself. It was the Attorney General who, ultimately, advocated to keep the child in foster care while advising to violate international treaties.
How can the Attorney General prosecute Department of Human Services when he represents its Director? I want to know where the U.S. Department of Justice is.
September 14, 2010
September 14, 2010
Today, an Alberta judge will have a rare opportunity to send the message that Canadian citizenship really means something: The court can dismiss Oregon's lawsuit against Calgary mother Lisa Kirkman.
Lisa's now 12-year-old son Noah was apprehended by Oregon child welfare authorities during a cross-border visit in 2008 and held for two years -- this despite the willingness of his mother and Alberta child welfare authorities to look after him in Canada. Now, and with plenty of gall, Oregon is suing Lisa Kirkman in Alberta for the cost of Noah's foster care.
Aside from the injustice of being forced to pay a foreign government for depriving you of your own child, this case raises broader questions about the willingness of Canada to look after the interests of Canadian citizens stranded abroad. It is hard to imagine the United States meekly standing by were Canadian authorities to seize and hold for two years an innocent American child. For Americans, that kind of Canadian action might well verge on a casus belli.
Yet, by all appearances, the Canadian government was content to sit back and wait two years for an elected Oregon county judge to finally permit Noah -- a Canadian citizen -- to return home. What if the judge had decided to permanently adopt Noah to an American foster family? Would that have caused our government to take decisive action?
Canadian provincial child welfare authorities are at least as capable as Oregon's of caring for a 10-year-old. A transfer from Oregon to Alberta could have been arranged within days of Noah's apprehension. As it happens, when Noah finally returned to Canada after two long years, Alberta child welfare authorities returned him to his mother almost immediately.
Anybody who can remember their own childhood ought to shudder to think of the disruption and trauma that invaded Noah's world. Will Noah be the last innocent Canadian child hung out to dry like this?
Noah Kirkman is no Omar Khadr. Noah is accused of no crime. The United States had no interest in prosecuting Noah. Neither should we assume that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms will say the same about Noah that it has about Khadr. In Canada, (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to order our federal government to intervene further on Khadr's behalf, calling it a matter of executive prerogative. That might be understandable in Khadr's case, where the applicable foreign policy is complicated by war crimes charges. But would the Supreme Court say the same in Noah Kirkman's case?
When it fails to act publicly and decisively in cases like Noah's, the federal government puts its precious prerogative at risk. Legal jurisprudence has yet to develop, but our constitution may well attach a use-it-or-lose-it condition to executive discretion. Future cases like Noah Kirkman's promise to present far more difficult tests than Khadr for federal governments who hesitate to act.
The Supreme Court in Khadr said that when Canadian citizens are held abroad, Canadian courts cannot force the Canadian government to intervene. They should not have to. If anything, Noah's case emphasizes that point. If Canadian government intervention is not, as our Supreme Court seems to have said, a legal issue, it ought to be a political issue. Will Canadians accept the idea of an elected judge in a backwater U.S. county dictating to a G7 nation? What about tin-pot authorities anywhere else in the world?
Lisa's now 12-year-old son Noah was apprehended by Oregon child welfare authorities during a cross-border visit in 2008 and held for two years -- this despite the willingness of his mother and Alberta child welfare authorities to look after him in Canada. Now, and with plenty of gall, Oregon is suing Lisa Kirkman in Alberta for the cost of Noah's foster care.
Aside from the injustice of being forced to pay a foreign government for depriving you of your own child, this case raises broader questions about the willingness of Canada to look after the interests of Canadian citizens stranded abroad. It is hard to imagine the United States meekly standing by were Canadian authorities to seize and hold for two years an innocent American child. For Americans, that kind of Canadian action might well verge on a casus belli.
Yet, by all appearances, the Canadian government was content to sit back and wait two years for an elected Oregon county judge to finally permit Noah -- a Canadian citizen -- to return home. What if the judge had decided to permanently adopt Noah to an American foster family? Would that have caused our government to take decisive action?
Canadian provincial child welfare authorities are at least as capable as Oregon's of caring for a 10-year-old. A transfer from Oregon to Alberta could have been arranged within days of Noah's apprehension. As it happens, when Noah finally returned to Canada after two long years, Alberta child welfare authorities returned him to his mother almost immediately.
Anybody who can remember their own childhood ought to shudder to think of the disruption and trauma that invaded Noah's world. Will Noah be the last innocent Canadian child hung out to dry like this?
Noah Kirkman is no Omar Khadr. Noah is accused of no crime. The United States had no interest in prosecuting Noah. Neither should we assume that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms will say the same about Noah that it has about Khadr. In Canada, (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to order our federal government to intervene further on Khadr's behalf, calling it a matter of executive prerogative. That might be understandable in Khadr's case, where the applicable foreign policy is complicated by war crimes charges. But would the Supreme Court say the same in Noah Kirkman's case?
When it fails to act publicly and decisively in cases like Noah's, the federal government puts its precious prerogative at risk. Legal jurisprudence has yet to develop, but our constitution may well attach a use-it-or-lose-it condition to executive discretion. Future cases like Noah Kirkman's promise to present far more difficult tests than Khadr for federal governments who hesitate to act.
The Supreme Court in Khadr said that when Canadian citizens are held abroad, Canadian courts cannot force the Canadian government to intervene. They should not have to. If anything, Noah's case emphasizes that point. If Canadian government intervention is not, as our Supreme Court seems to have said, a legal issue, it ought to be a political issue. Will Canadians accept the idea of an elected judge in a backwater U.S. county dictating to a G7 nation? What about tin-pot authorities anywhere else in the world?
In the absence of a signal shift in government policy to something beyond the purely ad hoc, Canadian parents have to think long and hard before sending their children abroad for any reason, even to supposedly friendly allied nations.
The same applies to Canadian companies trying to do business in a global economy. Can the Canadian government post-William Sampson be relied on to protect or repatriate Canadian employees mixed up with foreign authorities?
The present federal cabinet has had a good deal to say about restoring pride in Canadian citizenship and Canada's place in the world. Flexing some muscle on behalf of Canadians detained abroad -- starting with the likes of Noah Kirkman -- is the surest way to give meaning to the rhetoric.
Daniel Mol is an Alberta lawyer. He is legal counsel for Lisa and Noah Kirkman.
dan@moladvocates.com
The same applies to Canadian companies trying to do business in a global economy. Can the Canadian government post-William Sampson be relied on to protect or repatriate Canadian employees mixed up with foreign authorities?
The present federal cabinet has had a good deal to say about restoring pride in Canadian citizenship and Canada's place in the world. Flexing some muscle on behalf of Canadians detained abroad -- starting with the likes of Noah Kirkman -- is the surest way to give meaning to the rhetoric.
Daniel Mol is an Alberta lawyer. He is legal counsel for Lisa and Noah Kirkman.
dan@moladvocates.com
No comments:
Post a Comment