The Stupidity of the BC Liberals abuse on Fathers and their children
When it comes to family law in Canada, there is no justice for anyone. Men, women, and children are all victims of an unbalanced system where policy and legislation are based on skewed statistics and the whims of special interest groups.
This Vital Statistics Fiasco and the BC Liberals showing their contempt for Fathers and their Children
Subject: Vital Statistics
We are requesting information on anyone who has been a victim of the Vital Statistics agency of BC with regards to :
1. Not being named on the registration of live birth or notice of birth.
2. Forced to sign Registration of Live Birth or not be acknowledged, foregoing your right to have your child bear your surname or hyphenated surname.
3. Have another person listed on the notice of birth or registration of live birth as the father who is not the biological father.
4. Other nightmare.
We are forming a work group to rewrite the legislation to submit to the government with a petition demanding the change. If you or someone you know is a victim of the Vital Stats Agency of BC, or any other province, please send correspondence --- FATHERS RIGHTS -- fathersrights@canada.com
Here is another one of the BC Liberals lame excuses and the latest submissions by the Attorney General's office of BC on discriminatory Patrice and service procedures and attempt to detract from the Supreme Court of Canada's Ruling.
The Minister SINDI HAWKINS E-MAIL ON ANOTHER CASE
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Subject: Ministry of Health Services Response - 456222 From: "Health, HLTH HLTH:EX" <HLTH.Health@gems1.gov.bc.ca> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:25:47 -0700
Mr. R. S.
FROM "BC LIBERAL
MINISTER SINDI HAWKINS"
Dear Mr. R. S.: Thank you for your e-mail of July 8, 2003, regarding the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision made in Trociuk v. AGBC et al.
Prior to the decision of the Supreme Court, the British Columbia Vital Statistics Act was amended to provide fathers (and mothers) with an avenue to apply to the court for an order that the father's particulars are to be included on a child's registration of birth.
While the Supreme Court did not specifically consider this amendment, comment was made by the court that this amendment now allowed the father an alternative for altering the birth registration notwithstanding a mother's prior unacknowledgement. Legal advice from the Ministry of Attorney General to the British Columbia Vital Statistics Agency has recommended that a similar amendment, which allows a father recognized by paternity order, to participate in the naming of a child through court action, will likely meet the remaining requirement of the Supreme Court judgment.
It is anticipated that the necessary legislative change will be tabled in the 2004 Spring Session of the British Columbia Legislature and that it, combined with the previous amendment, will provide an appropriate and effective legislative response to the Court's finding of unconstitutionality arising from the previous exclusion of fathers from the birth registration and naming processes.
I appreciate your special interest in this matter and the time you have taken to express your concerns.
Sincerely,
Sindi Hawkins
Minister
March 20, 2004
Attention: Lisa Lee (Barrister)
Subject: Robinson, Robert v. HMQ – case # 1240
I would like to begin by saying thank you so much for my very own copy of the Supreme Court of Canada case “Trociuk” v. British Columbia (Attorney General). Coming from the Attorney General’s office delivered by courier no less it means just so much more to me and I will treasure it always.
My good friend Mr. Darrell Trociuk for whom this Supreme Court of Canada decision was rendered overturning both the BC Supreme Court and BC Appeal Court rulings which favored the discrimination of fathers based on gender by the BC Vital Statistics Agency and I enjoyed a heart felt laughter upon my receiving the same from the AG office. Thanks for that magical moment as laughter is good medicine. Truth is I already have a copy. However I intend to have Darrell Autograph the one you sent me as a keepsake.
In response to your Form 4 – Time Limit Response Form, you have made submissions that I would personally would like to respond to. I will be focusing on your own submissions, which I am to believe as a representative to the AG office such submissions are the position of said office. I am also to believe that as such being the authority of law in BC Canada.
(a). Form 4 pg. 2 – “The Respondents submit that the public Interest is not served by accepting this complaint outside the prescribed time limits outlined in the Human Rights Code”. – (Outside the time limits?)
Further in paragraph 3 of the same page you write:
(b). The Respondents submit that there is no public interest in allowing this complaint to be filed outside the six month time limitation in light of a lack of any evidence of discrimination based on marital status or sex. (Laugh out loud, sorry liked that one) - (and again outside of the time limitation?)
For further clarity I reviewed the word “outside” in the Webster’s New World Dictionary only to reveal, “beyond the limits as a definition”. Which to a layman as myself to mean beyond the prescribed time limit. Easy to understand if it were not for typical lawyer double talk which you demonstrated so well in your following paragraph on the same page when you stated: (Paragraph 4)
©. “The Trociuk decision has provided the Province with one year since the date of that decision to make to make the appropriate legislative changes”. “That decision was rendered June 4, 2003 (Actually it was June 6, 2003 but who’s counting) and therefore the Province has until June 4, 2004 to make any further changes it deems necessary in light of the Trociuk decision”. “To file a complaint based on that decision is premature”.
Now based on that premises perhaps the word the AG office should have chosen to be anatomically correct would be inside opposed to outside of the time limit as characterized in the previous two paragraphs on the same page. Got to ask, does anyone proof read the work you esteemed professionals do? Would be a great way of saving face and perhaps insuring the public receives quality service for its money for a change. Perhaps you would be good enough to clarify for me which it is as your submission is misleading.
Further you write in paragraph 5;
(D). “Accordingly, the respondents submit that the Complainant’s application to have an extension beyond the six month time limitation period to file his Complaint be dismissed”. – Hello? Excuse me here but did I miss something? After having read Paragraph 4.
Is it the position of the AG office that I not be permitted to file said complaint after December 2004?
You have further written in Paragraph 2:
(E).“The Complainant does not outline how he is being discriminated against only that he has not completed the process prescribed in the Vital Statistics Act to have himself registered as the father of Rachel May Nitura which requires him to obtain a Court Order declaring him to be her biological father”. “The Complainant asserts that he has obtained the necessary evidence to obtain an order of paternity however, he has shown no evidence that he has either been before either the British Columbia Provincial or Supreme Court with an application addressing the same. There is no evidence of an application nor is there a Court Order that would indicate that the application was dealt in court”.
With all due respect and full prejudice intended I will keep my response to this rhetoric brief, as just the very submission demonstrates your lack of performance to your chosen profession and apparent arrogance to not even review the summary brief I submitted with my complaint.
For a heads up before you shove your foot deeper into your mouth I would suggest you read my brief and while your at it review file # E008131 of the Supreme Court of BC, New Westminster Registry regarding my ongoing divorce litigation for which I am the Plaintiff. For that matter I resided at the Surrey Provincial Court for most of the first year beginning Dec 1, 1999. I would provide you with more insights however would not bother as I am sure you will discover them through this process and I look forward to our newfound friendship.
By the way on the note of the competency level of the SCBC which has ruled in favor of discriminating against fathers as affirmed in the Trociuk case, parallel to my own , I included Justice Harry A Slade and Justice Francis W Cole of the BC Supreme Court in my initial Human Rights Complaint. Only to learn that Justices are absent of bad faith, morals, integrity or commitment to uphold the Constitution of Canada while performing their duties. I personally would not be referring to the SCBC as a formal authority on the subject of protecting the rights of its citizens given my case file and many other fathers. Unless you are referring to the same as an authority on the act of discrimination in which case I stand corrected and humbly apologize for my scrutiny of the same.
In regards to your Memorandum letter dated March 8, 2004 I only wish to address your statement in your closing paragraph which reads: (f).” There is no continuing discrimination and so the Complainant cannot say the time limits outlined in the Code have not begun to run”
– Hello? According to your submission in your reply form 4 that is the point you make as far as I can determine. So perhaps you could again clarify as there would appear to be a misunderstanding based on your submissions. Sorry, I don’t think you can have it both ways. This is not the SCBC after all. LOL.
You further write:
(G). The last time the complainant dealt with registering the name was May 12, 2003 which is well outside the 6 month time frame”. – Once more that outside, inside issue arises. Which is it?
By the way I have only petitioned the court regarding the Name change. I was more concerned with being acknowledged as the biological father of my daughter given Justice Cole, who chose to ignore or address my application of correcting the birth registration of my daughter in June of 2000 was kind enough to issue me court ordered support payments based on the same DNA evidence I submitted to the court in my application as the Plaintiff in file E008131. Later also in Oct. 2000, November 2000, November 2001, and January 2002 to ask why the court would allow another man to be listed as my child’s biological father in spite of said DNA and a child support order since June of 2000. I further addressed the same issues with Vital Stats and the Ministry of Health ongoing for five years. I suggest you do your homework on this in order to restore what little credibility you might still posses.
Heads up, in a letter I received from the Honorable Colin Hansen (Minister of Health) dated September 12, 2001, the Honorable Minister stated that a court order would be necessary to recognize my paternity. Which on November of 2001 when addressing this matter with Justice Slade of the Supreme Court of BC was denied such order. On that note when was the last time a biological mother was requested to present a court order recognizing her paternity with DNA evidence apparent?
So short of having the nine Supreme court of Canada Justices who presided over the Trociuk decision come here and order the same I believe such attempts of equal justice within the Supreme Court of BC to be in vain as the SCBC has already ruled that such discrimination is acceptable. Leaving the victims of said discrimination here in BC with no other alternative than to seek relief from the same clowns who have openly in public court endorsed such discriminations. Is that not any different then allowing the fox to guard the hen house?
As always I look forward to your reply:
R. Robinson
Discriminated Dad
R.R.
cc: BCHRT
_______________________________________________________________________________________
BC Human Rights Tribunal Nov.29/03
1170 – 605 Robson Street
Vancouver, BC V6B – 5J3
Complaint Form (1).
A. Who is making the complaint?
(1). Robert Robinson
B. Who is the complaint against?
(1). Ron J Danderfer, Former CEO/Director, BC Vital Statistics Agency
(2). Bill Moncur, Regional Manager, BC Vital Statistics Agency
(3). Iona Campagnolo, Lieutenant Governor General in council, Government house
(4). Her Majesty in right of the Province of BC as represented by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry responsible for seniors, vital Statistics Agency
(5). Corrina Helmer (Biological mother)
(6). Danny Sarmiento Nitura (originally listed as bio father on live birth registration # 1998-59-022258)
(7). Barry J Promislow (Counsel for the defense SCBC # E – 008131)
(8). Justice Harry A Slade (Supreme court of BC)
(9). Justice Francis W Cole (Supreme Court of BC)
C. In what area did the alleged discrimination happen?
(1). Publication
(2). Service
(3). Practice
(4). Legislation
(5). Retaliation
D. On what grounds did the alleged discrimination happen?
(1). Ancestry
(2). Family status
(3). Marital status
(4). Sex
E. What are the details of the alleged discrimination?
The BC Vital Statistics Agency has openly and repeatedly discriminated against me in their arbitrary disregard of my paternity on my daughter’s birth registration. I paid for them to do so TWICE, and provided them with conclusive DNA evidence of my paternity, and they still refused to recognize me as my daughter’s father. I have documented evidence from Vital Statistics showing their willful disregard of the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to suggest malfeasance.
Corrina Helmer, Dan Nitura and attorney Barry J Promislow have been added as parties to the action for their respective roles in supporting the same gender discrimination.
I have included with this submission a summary brief of my Vital Statistics file that will outline and clarify the acts of discrimination by the listed parties pursuant with the Trociuk decision. I will also provide a copy of all relevant documents.
You may also review www.geocities.com/who_s_my_daddy2000 click on Vital Stats link on Index Page, which may facilitate your understanding of the facts of my complaint.
F. Is your complaint filed on time?
(1). No – the recent SCC Trociuk decision is the long overdue recognition of a father’s rights. Pursuant to sections 24, 32 & 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
G. Request to file after time limit?
(1). Yes – see above
H. Is there any other proceeding dealing with the same details set out in section E?
(1). Yes – Supreme Court of BC, file # E - 008131
I. Are you making a complaint on behalf of another person?
(1). No
J. Are you making the complaint on behalf of a group or class of person?
(1). Not at this time
K. Please read the following statement and sign and date below:
(1). See bottom of form
L. How are you filling this form?
(1). In person
M. Would you like an early settlement meeting with the respondents to discuss resolving your complaint?
(1). Yes
N. What is the respondent’s address?
(1). Ron J Danderfer: (Assistant Deputy Minister), 7-1, 1515 Blanshard Street Victoria BC, V8W-3C8, Canada
(2). Bill Muncur: 7-1, 1515 Blainshard Street Victoria BC, V8W-3C8 Canada
(3). Iona Campagnolo : 1401 Rockland Ave. Victoria BC, V8S- 1V9
(4). BC Vital Statistics Agency, 7-1, 1515 Blanshard Street, Victoria BC, V8W-3C8
(5). Corrina Helmer (Last known address) – also via her attorneys office.(see # 7)
12269 112 A Ave. Surrey BC V3V-3K9
(6) Dan Nitura (Last known address) – also via Corrina’s attorney’s office(See # 7)
12269 112 A Ave. Surrey BC V3V-3K9
(7). Barry J Promislow (attorney) – MacQuarrie Hobkirk Barristers and Solicitors, 2020 – 777 Hornby Street Vancouver BC, (604) 684-6255, fax # (604) 684- 7575
(8). Justice Harry A Slade: Law Courts Begbie Square, New Westminster BC, V3M-1C9, Canada (604) 660-8599
(9). Justice Francis W Cole: 800 Smithe Street Vancouver BC, V6Z-2E1, Canada, (604) 660-8049
O. What is your postal address for delivery in BC?
(1). R.Robinson, xxxxxxx, Maple Ridge BC, V2X-3E8
(604) 230-xxxx – Contact number
Summary Brief: (BC VITAL STATS FILE)- LEGAL
Robert Robinson: (Supreme Court File # E- 008131)
Vital Statistics (Paternity Issue); This is an arm of the Government, which is self-serving, and I am of the firm belief ethically of ill repute. My paper trail with the same is extensive and to me clearly demonstrates derelict of duty on the part of its administrators as well as policy that discriminates against fathers based on their gender in the arbitrary disregard of a biological fathers particulars with regards to live birth registrations at the sole discretion of the biological mother contravening sections of the Constitution of Canada pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada decision Trociuk v British Columbia (Attorney General) June 6, 2003, SCC34, file # 28726.
One of the prime responsibilities of this agency is to provide the provincial government with accurate information regarding the numbers of its citizens, to assist in Revenue collection and distribution. The word “accurate” in the above sentence is a necessary requirement of their mandate. Based on my case file, documented evidence would conclude that the legislated definition of ‘accurate’ in regards to live birth registrations is solely determined by a biological mother’s whim. Fathers need not apply. It is my opinion that this agency is a statistical “Fraud”. In fact if the Vital Statistics Agency provided as much effort in the disclosure of facts as they have demonstrated in attempting to dispose of them, they might actually be an accurate source of data. To further learn that true and accurate facts are solely reliant on mom’s interpretation of them does not reflect favorably on an individual’s intellect or integrity. Which amendments do its administrators invoke when mom changes her mind? Furthermore, the directors and administrators of the Vital Statistics Act itself, knew, or should have known, that their actions were in conflict with the Constitution of Canada, and their actions were therefore malicious.
I base my position and belief on the following key points.
(A). Live Birth Registration; (original) – (See Vital Stats-Legal files): Danny Sarmiento Nitura is listed as the biological father. Registration # 1998-59-022258
As this birth registration will also reflect, Dan Nitura is from the Philippines. Rachel was born June 29/98, is Caucasian, Corrina Helmer is Caucasian, and I too am. .
(B) When Corrina and I married in March 25/99, registration # 1999-59-002405, I sent the required paper work, signed by Corrina along with the necessary fee to have a new birth registration form showing the correct information.
(C) I received a letter dated June 28 of 1999 from Assistant Regional Manager, Roberta L Moyer. This letter (File # 199918057) indicated that; in order to remove one father’s particulars and add another, they required. (1). “Medical proof, or proof through the courts”, clearly indicating that the person to be added is the natural father.
(2) “In addition”, they require Statutory Declaration from the mother, the father whose particulars are being added, as well as the person whose particulars are being removed, outlying why the error occurred.
(D) I immediately met this requirement by sending BC Vital Stats. An original copy of the DNA results dated, September 3 1998. These results were from Helix Biotech in Richmond BC. Conclusive results that definitively showed that I was the biological father of Rachel May Nitura. Therefore meeting the requirement of medical proof and eliminating the need for the courts direction. I further provided them with my sworn Statutory Declaration form dated March 13/2000; in the matter of AFS File # 19991808057 I provided my explanation of how this error occurred. Therefore meeting their second requirement. Corrina Helmer and Dan Nitura were not forthcoming with the same.
(E). I was completely derailed upon receiving a letter by Diane Pappas, Asst. Regional Manager for BC Vital Statistics Agency, dated March 24, 2000, that stated File # AFS 1999-1808057 was now officially closed as the required Statutory Declaration forms from Dan Nitura and Corrina Helmer were never provided, nor was the original Birth Certificate returned. I was now informed that in order to resolve this issue a New Live Birth Registration would need to be completed by both parents, two Statutory Declaration forms done by both mother and father indicating why the natural father was not listed at the time of birth, fee of $27.00 to amend the record, DNA testing, any large birth certificates be returned and that to change the name would require a legal change of name. I was further informed that “unfortunately”, they were unable to help me at this time and provided no new file number. I responded to this letter in a letter dated April 2/2000 informing Diane Pappas that Dan Nitura and Corrina Helmer were negligent in not having even attempted to set the record straight and had no intention of the same. I further informed her that to say my file was now closed was to say I received nothing for the first $27.00 I paid them. I further informed them that I would pursue this in the courts as well.
(F). After having contacted the former NDP Minister of Health Honorable Mike Farnworth, voicing my displeasure with the administrative actions of Vital Stats. I was to receive a letter dated August 10/2000; # 305421 from, R.J. Danderfer, CEO/Director for BC Vital Stats. On behalf of the Minister of Health informing me that I had raised a concern that “I was the father of Rachel May Nitura despite the fact that the record of birth reflects a different paternity”. I was further informed that this matter could be addressed by way of a formal application under section 29(4) of the Vital Statistics Act to the Director of the British Columbia Vital Stats. Agency. Further stating the birth mother would be contacted to allow her the opportunity of responding. As well another fee of $27.00 would have to be submitted.
(G). I immediately filed the necessary documents again which, Vital Stats already possessed for over a year and provided the $27.00 fee again and waited.
(H). After nearly a year and no effort on the part of Vital Stats to address this matter and having again stolen my $27.00 I contacted the now Liberal Minister of Health, Honorable Colin Hansen , in the form of a letter dated June 20/2001 outlining my grievances with the Vital Statistics Agency for having done nothing to address this matter and for once again having robbed me of the fee paid. I further explained my messy situation and provided documented evidence to support my claim. It should be further noted that I provided a copy of the June 16/2000 Interim order of Justice Cole of the Supreme Court of BC stating I was to pay child support based on this DNA evidence.
(I) In a letter dated September 12/2001; # 344421, from the Honorable Colin Hansen, BC Minister of Health, once more my issues were addressed. In his letter the Honorable Minister of Health stated that he was of the understanding that I was attempting to get a court order in this matter and that this would be necessary to address the issues I raised effectively.
(II) He further provided a copy of an Information Briefing Note, Cliff #346058 prepared for the Honorable Minister by R.J. Danderfer, CEO, and Bill Moncour, Regional Manager for, BC Vital Statistics, outlining the position of the Vital Statistics Agency and its requirements needed to resolve these issues.
(I). The key elements and points raised in this Briefing Note were;
(1). Robert Robinson had contacted the British Columbia Vital Statistics Agency to report that the “father” listed on the birth registration for Rachel May Nitura was in error.
(2). Robert Robinson has undertaken DNA testing of himself, Corrina Helmer (the birth mother) and the child (Rachel May Nitura).
(3). The results of the DNA testing confirm that Mr. Robinson “is NOT EXCLUDED” as the biological father of the child. (Interesting to note that they forgot to mention further as is written in this DNA evidence; 99.999% amongst a Caucasian race.)
As such, in order for the Vital Statistics Agency to address this matter fully would require;
(1). The birth mother to contact them or respond to their continual requests, which she had not or was about too.
Based on the information provided from the birth mother they could then;
(2). Amend the record to remove the existing father listed on the birth record.
(3). Amend the record to remove the existing father and add Mr. Robinson as the biological father.
(4). Leave the record unchanged based on evidence (Likely DNA testing) provided by the birth mother and the father currently listed on the registration. The last point made and probably the one that best shows the position of this Agency and its complete discrimination of “fathers.” It is important to note, that the decision to list any father on a birth registration is solely at the discretion of the birth mother. Further indicating that the Supreme Court had recently affirmed that the birth mother shall hold this sole right of consent in spite of the natural father being recognized by the courts as the father, that he is providing financial support for the children and that he is currently involved on an ongoing basis in the lives of the children.
(J). In outrage and insulted by the sheer malfeasance the Vital Statistics Agency I responded to the Honorable Colin Hansen’s letter in a letter I wrote Sept. 29/01. (This letter played a crucial role in the events to follow.) Ref# 344421
(K). In a letter dated November 26/01, # 357881, as a direct result of my last letter to the minister, the Honorable Colin Hansen informed me that the BC Vital Statistics held a hearing in accordance with section 28 of the Vital Statistics Act reviewing the registration. As a result the birth mother and father were being contacted by registered mail regarding the cancellation of the birth registration and that the birth mother will be requested to complete a new birth registration from the options available to her under the Vital Statistics Act. Needless to say Corrina Helmer and Dan Nitura never made an effort to address this matter and by the end of December 2001 Bill Moncour, Regional Manager of the BC Vital Statistics, informed me that, the birth registration of Rachel May Nitura was considered officially canceled.
(L). Five months later, April 16/2002; with my daughter still not having a valid birth registration due to Corrina and Dan’s negligence; I filed a Registration of Live Birth for my daughter Rachel pursuant to section 7 of the Vital Statistics act. Further submitting documented evidence clearly showing I was the biological father of Rachel May Nitura and the Legal spouse of Corrina Helmer.
(M). In a letter dated June 14/2002; (See Vital Stats file) Bill Moncour of the BC Vital Stats. Thanked me for applying and informed me to reapply when I had a court order, leaving Rachel May Nitura with an invalid birth registration.
(N). On June 20/02 I spoke to Edgar Storm of the Vital Statistics Agency who informed me my daughter was officially registered with Dan Nitura listed as the father. A short while after I received another informing me the registration was still cancelled. (Have on audiotape).
(O). On July 04/02 Bill Moncour informed me that my daughter was now officially registered after addressing this matter with Corrina Helmer’s attorney Barry J Promislow who counseled his client to officially unacknowledge the biological father as is permitted in the Vital statistics Act. (P). On May 12, 2003, I filed a complaint against Vital Statistics with the office of the “Ombudsman” and provided all the details of my case. Through their investigation I learnt that the biological mom’s attorney was contacted to address this matter and advised his client to the same. This was all for naught, as even today I am officially unacknowledged as my daughter’s natural father, and the fraud is perpetrated on my daughter as well during the vital formative years of her life.
Even after I jumped through all the hoops of their obstructive and injurious procedures, VITAL STATISTICS STILL REFUSE TO REGISTER MY DAUGHTER’S FATHER!
Furthermore Justices Harry A Slade and Francis W Cole of the Supreme court of BC permitted this discrimination to continue in their refusal to address my concerns regarding the paternity issue of my child and allowing another man to remain listed as my biological daughter’s father in spite of the DNA evidence and submission on my part to have the other man stricken from the birth registration in 2000, 2001 and 2002. In the SCBC file# E 008131 and are therefore added as parties to the discrimination.
Darrel Trociuk's case was major case for fathers. There is a GAG order on Darrell's case. These cases are the findings the human rights cases of Robert Robinson's application and Rob Stones and can be read on file at the link below to the BCHRT web site.
Rob Robinson's case:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050215184237/http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/down/decisions_2004/Robinson_v_Dan_Danderfer_and_others_2004_BCHRT_27.pdf
My (Rob Stone's) Case:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050215184237/http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/down/decisions_2003/stone_and_others_v_danderfer_and_others_2003_bchrt_75.pdf
Here is another one of the BC Liberals lame excuses and the latest submissions by the Attorney General's office of BC on discriminatory Patrice and service procedures and attempt to detract from the Supreme Court of Canada's Ruling.
ASK YOURSELVES AS FATHERS WHY YOU TRUST GOVERNMENT OR EVEN VOTE FOR THESE BASHERS OF FATHERS
BC Fathers Forum Index
Inbox :: Message
To: Dick Freeman
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:31 pm
Subject: Vital Statistics Fiasco
Dick, please post my e-mail to the appropriate forum for all to see:
To Hon. Sindi Hawkins,
Your reply was appreciated (shown below). Although it did not address the issue I was enquiring about it did give me some insight into the REALM OF PROBLEMS you are having in revising the Vital Statistics Act. The revisions I am referring to are the ones mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Trociuk v. BC (2003 SCC 34). Yes, I did say mandated.
The Supreme Court of Canada has mandated the province of BC to revise the Vital Statistics Act so it does not violate s.15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What I have have read from your response is that you plan on allowing the discrimination to continue. What you said is that the discrimination will continue and fathers will have to apply to the same system that has stripped them of these rights: only to have to beg again a second time for their right.
What you said in your response (shown below) is that fathers are now guaranteed NOT to have a right in the say of the naming of their child if the mother so chooses. Not only will fathers NOT have that right but your agency encourages it in your correspondence. Why should fathers now have to pay Supreme Court fees to have a hearing to have to prove their right. This does not guarantee that right either. Then the father will have this right only if one of the discriminatory advised judges under the rule of the province grants a begging fathers this right that has been guaranteed by the Supreme Court of Canada as referenced to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.15.
Fathers have already fought for this right only to have it denied by Supreme Court of BC Justices, Ron Danderfer, the rest of the Managers at the Vital Statistics Agency, Lieutenant Governor in council, Geoff Plant, Gordon Campbell etc....actually the entire government of BC.
In an attempt to abide by the mandated revisions your agency has amended parts of the Registration of Live Birth or "blacked out" part of the form. This form has the section for the statutory declaration "blacked out". What this does is enable mothers to unacknowledged the father even easier than before the Supreme Court Ruling. Now mothers do not have to swear a statement in front of an officer for swearing affidavits. All they do is check the box. No reason needed. The form facilitates the discrimination towards fathers and I believe this is what the Supreme Court of Canada told your agency to fix. Who is advising you? Who is rewriting the Act?
I have a complaint pending with the BC Human Right Tribunal and am filing a second complaint on Tuesday morning. This complaint will address he issue of your advertising (web) and literature (forms) facilitating mothers to unacknowledged a father in the registration process of a Childs birth and naming of said child.
Thanks for the e-mail response you sent as this will be added to this complaint, copies to the news papers and media as well. Why does your agency not consult with fathers who's rights were violated to receive input on the legislative changes. This would save the taxpayer some money and would look good on you as an MLA and Director. You could contact me for a list to start Then you could look at all the registrations that have the father marked as unacknowledged to contact the mothers to ask for the fathers names; big problem isn't it. How about those children now looking for their father that was unacknowledged. What about the rights of the children that your legislative system proclaims to protect.
How many registrations with the father marked as unacknowledged are actually a result of a mother being raped? Isn't that your defense. Better check with Hon. Mr. Plant for some stats. Are accused not innocent until proven guilty in Canada? The mother being raped is your agencies number one excuse for not acknowledging the father. As a result in 2002 over 2002 fathers were unacknowledged on birth registrations and not one of them were unacknowledged because of a convicted rape. What about when the children want to search out their father? Where will you be then. Probably on a government pension, not really caring as you are doing now. What about the children? Yes the children?
I am sure there have been some false allegations of rape as your agency facilitates this kind of accusation and is now actually promoting it. Hon. Mr. Plant should be aware of this. He will be if he reads his copy of this e-mail.
I have an idea. On the Registration of Live Birth in the declaration section #2 where it states "The father is unacknowledged by the mother" replace the word father with the word of another another racially discriminated against group. Then you could allow those groups to file for a court appearance to fight to have their names added to live birth registrations as well. If they are lucky in court they could do so. The victory in court would not eliminate the discrimination would it. Just add the word fathers to the historical discrimination list that Canada proclaims not to have.
Please read on, there is more....
I have just had a new child (born Aug 5, 2003). The mother mailed in a registration of live birth on august 12, 2003; which I did not sign. My child has not yet had her name registered. The registration was returned by Roberta Moyer of Vital Statistics. I have sent a reply to the letter I received from Ms. Moyer. In the reply I said that the Registration of Live Birth form we received is discriminatory because it has the phrase "The father is unacknowledged by the mother" on it. I have asked Ms. Moyer to revise the form and send us the revised version. As well I would ask that you look at this issue and revise all forms to be in accordance with the Supreme court of Canada Ruling. Then and only then will the the mother and I sign the form together.
If the mother signs the declaration at the bottom of the form she is violating a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. She should not be mandated by your agency to do so. You have less than 295 days to revise the Act and less that 10 days to register our child. You must register our child according to s.3(2) of the Vital Statistics Act.
Best wishes.
I would like a reply from you addressing the following issues and questions:
1. Is my child born August 5, 2003 registered in the birth registry? If so, under what name?
2. When will this child receive a birth certificate?
3. When will this child receive a C.A.R.E card?
4. How does your agency plan to address the problem of un-acknowledgement of fathers in the proposed legislative changes.
5.How does your agency plan to rectify the past and continuing discriminatory registrations on file at Vital Statistics and how to have those fathers that were unacknowledged put on the registrations.
6. If these fathers who were unacknowledged are to be placed on the registrations who is paying for it? I hope you are not going to charge fathers.
That would be an injustice. If you know what that means? Correspondence is requested and appreciated,