Thursday, September 2, 2010

Part 7



It is my firm belief that Ontario Superior Court Judge Katherine Van Rensburg is a cowardly, narrow minded Asshole. Before I continue check out this link:http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx. If the link should disappear I will summarize the news article. Man A marries Woman B, A & B have twins and divorce when the twins are four. A pays child support for the next twelve years, until B demands an increase in support. Incensed, A orders a DNA test which conclusively proves the twins are not his biological children. A petitions the Court for reimbursement of the child support he has paid. The Honorable Judge Van Rensburg not only denies the petition, but orders A to continue paying child support. B claims to have no recollection of having an affair, let alone who the real Father is, as she was on medication at the time of conception.

This one has set my teeth gnashing. What a topsy turvy world we inhabit. Common sense is now improperly labeled, what we used to refer to as common sense has literally become uncommon sense. If legal decisions are to be based solely on what has come before why do we even bother to convene Courts ? What good does a judicial system provide when a Judge cannot rule based upon each case individually on its own peculiar set of circumstances, or merit ? Precedent, precedent, precedent. Must precedent necessarily sacrifice progress ? Judge Van Rensburg cited precedent related to the rights of the children, but surely one cannot hold such office and be inexcusably ignorant to the fact that there is far more to this equation than that. Yes, there are the rights of the children and rightly so, multitudinous deadbeat Dads ensure this. There are also the rights of the Mother, who in this case is a deceitful, lying, money grubbing opportunist. Then there are the oft forgotten rights of the Father. For my purposes I will not argue genre here, even though I am male, and the Judge is female. ("Objection" !, "Sustained".) Rather I believe it important is to try to get into the Judges' head. Is the primary issue here the rights of the child ? First of all they are not children, they are 16 years old human beings, and as human beings now have to deal with the fact that the person they thought was their Dad is not, and that their Mother is a callous, cheating liar. The Judge knowing the particulars of the situation, reimbursement notwithstanding, should have ordered that A's support payments stop immediately. I don't know what the family's financial situation is, or what hardships this would cause, but it has absolutely nothing to do with A. The Mother would now have to deal with the consequences of her foolishness. A for his part has done the right thing, as it was assumed to be, for well over a decade. A conservative estimate would be that he has provided approximately $ 90,000.00 at the low end of the scale in child support under entirely false pretense. Which of us knowing the situation would order him to continue to pay ? As far as the Mother's rights go, she essentially waived those at point of infidelity. She knowingly with forethought and malice withheld the truth from her husband, and continues to withhold full disclosure of the biological Father's identity from the Provincial Court. To my way of thinking she committed fraud and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Apparently she gets a "get out of Jail free" card, again in the best interests of the children.


I'm quite certain that this case will be heard in a higher Court, but am wary of the outcome. Should A be reimbursed the money he paid out under false pretense ? Certainly, but if the Court orders such B will simply claim bankruptcy, end of story. Will B face any criminal punishment ? The odds are no, none whatsoever. So at the end of the day why couldn't the judge simply rule in A's behalf ? It was and is the right thing to do. Had she made this simple decision A would no longer be burdened financially. B would have a judgment against her for reimbursement, though she would have to shell out about 5 Grand to file for bankruptcy, and justice would have been served. That my friends, is the point, JUSTICE ! Our system is in place to protect the innocent and punish the wrong doers. I would ask anyone who is reading this to look into their hearts and pay heed to their conscience when they answer two simple questions: 1). Was justice served ? 2). Where are Alan Shore and Denny Crane when we need them ?

Shame on you Judge Van Rensburg, you have been given immense responsiibility that has direct consequences in our lives, and those of future generations, and you mistook legal precedent for justice, and in doing so, failed to advance the cause of a just, moral, and ethical Canada.




-James Saito