Peter F

Here's a case that was discussed here some years ago: Jane and John Doe vs. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta ( Doe v. Alberta, 2007 ABCA 50 ) I think I called this an 'eminently sensible decision' back then....I do now still.

It is the actions of the adult toward the child that determine the nature of the relationship. Not adult towards the other adult. A written agreement between adults is all fine and good for determining spousal support but means nothing for determining child support.

Rue's post seems in line with the court cases I've read on this issue. There is a lot of determining the specifics of the case at hand then determining how much if any child support must be paid. Blanket statements from TimG that 'this is what the courts do! " are very misleading. Courts come to all sorts of conclusions regarding child-support. Much like Rue said.

I'm not sure she had the opportunity to in the Florida courts. I gather they refused to hear her appeal. From my understanding - weak - of the USSC they could simply refuse to hear her appeal also.

It is you who considers co-habitation with the parent and the children of that parent as meaningless pap. You think such co-habitation does not in anyway at anytime involve any parental obligation. Your wrong. The courts are right.

No, You are talking about legally imposing parental obligations on random people. I'm not; Cybercoma's not; Jcee's not. Just you. I understand that we can talk endlessly about how living with the parent of the children in a conjugal relationship will inevitably result in a parental relationship with the children. I understand that you think thats a bunky reason to be considered a parent. I understand that you think a written agreement is necessary to assume the parental position. I say you are wrong. I say I hope that what you think should be the way never comes about. I say your view of how things should be in this regard is twisted, immoral and detrimental to the children involved. Personally I could not care less about the financial detriment in the co-habitating person who does not want to be parent but co-habitates anyways. Too bad for them. All Power to the Children!

Precisely!

OMG. Now it is a mistake to get this guy out of captivity at the hands of the Taliban. Can anyone imagine the absolute shit-storm of abuse the President would be subject to had he have abandoned this USArmy guy to the Taliban? Shady would be screaming blue-murder.

We are talking about parental obligations to thier children. There are no obligations of children to parents.

In addition to the above: If people believe that the sentence wasn't cruel or unusual, or that we should just accept US sentences then the refugee law - particularly sect 97 - must be changed to dump the cruel and unusual claim. Do we really want to do that? or do we only want to do that for americans?

As for the length of sentence issue: Apparently Florida sentencing guide lines required the 30 year sentence. According to the Federal Court the Florida court sentenced her to 5 counts of 15 years each; two of those 15 year sentences to be served consecutively , and the other three to be served concurrently. IE: four of the counts served at one time then 15 years more for the fifth account. I guess the specific nature of the crime determines wether a perp gets the minimum sentence or a maximum sentence or something in between. I would think that a 15 year sentence 5 times over would indicate some particularly nasty - though not murderous - sexual abuse. I would think that whatever she did with the boy, do deserve a 15 year sentence 5 times over, whatever happened would very probably have been illegal in Canada too. The Florida sentence tells me that this wasn't a mere matter of having a fling. All joking aside, these acts she committed must have been a horrendous experience for the boy. Yet the Federal Court judge makes no mention of this - only that the IRB found that her actions, had they been committed in Canada, would not have been a crime. I am quite sure, that had there have been some particularly nasty aspect to her crime, the IRB and the Judge would have made mention of it. But they didn't. The reviewing judge states that the Florida judge was guided by that states sentencing guidelines. Perhaps he had no choice but to sentence her to 5 counts of 15 years. or something close to that. Personally I'm stuck because there is no further information. We can all sit around and imagine the nature of her crime but until further information comes to light that is all we are doing is imagining things. So we are stuck with what evidence we do have before us to judge the IRB's decision. That evidence so far consists of only the Federal Courts review of the IRB decision as I have linked above. The IRB found, and according to the reviewing judge it was a reasonable finding, that the 30 year sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. The Minister of immigration did not dispute that finding either - only that the IRB should have considered accepted international standards to determine 'cruel and unusual' punishment. The reviewing judge agreed with them on that point. So it comes down to this: was the sentence beyond accepted international standards? If it was then sec 97 of the refugee act comes into effect and protected status is granted. If it wasn't then sec 97 of the refugee act does not come into effect and protected status will be denied. The judge sent the case back to the IRB and the IRB somehow somewhen concluded that she still gets protected status. And the government threw up their hands and accepted the decision. I am banking on that the IRB did something right and came to a reasonable decision thus allowing Harvey to claim protected status. I think people should be allowed to claim protected status due to cruel / unusual punishment. Even Americans. Of course they must show that the punishment they were sentenced to was indeed cruel and unusual by internationally accepted norms.

The Federal Court judge addressed this in her decision at paras 70-73. That was the exact issue raised by the minister for immigration; That all avenues of appeal in the US courts had not been taken. http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/62421/index.do As the judge says "The obligation on a refugee claimant to exhaust all domestic avenues of protection available to them prior to seeking refugee protection in Canada is not absolute. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that it is only in situations where state protection mightreasonably have been forthcoming that a claimant’s failure to seek protection will defeat his or her claim" Then the judge says that the IRB conclusion in this matter that all realistic mechanisms had been exhausted was a reasonable conclusion to make. This then raises the question about the procedures of the US supreme court: Must they hear all appeals put before it? or can they, like the Canadian Supreme Court refuse the appeal. If the USSC must hear appeals then I would agree that that appeal must be made before considerations for protected status continue. If, however, the USSC can refuse appeals, then I would say the IRB and Federal Court judge were right.

The IRB had the trial transcripts available. If there had have been anal sex with a sixteen year old then the crime she committed in Florida would also have been a crime in Canada. Wether the IRB saw that such a crime had been committed or not we'll never know. The Federal Court review however mentions at para 16 So if there had have been anal sex then the board would be in a precarious position to say no crime was committed. The Federal Court judge does not dispute this finding by the board.

Yes, thats a good point. People, even Americans, cannot just move into Canada without the proper paperwork. She apparently didn't have the proper paperwork so they would deport on that basis alone so then she made the refugee claim.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/62421/index.do Thats to the so-called 'first ruling'. It would seem there was a second one after that since the OP cbc article mentions 2 appeals by the government. The second appeal apparently never got to the Federal Court as far as my google skills can determine. No IRB records of decision either. One thing that bothers me about this whole discussion is the almost complete lack of information except by what is available in the linked decision.

There seems to be a contradiction here between what you say and what apparently happened. The RCMP arrested the woman in Pike Lake upon the request of the Florida govt. While in custody of the RCMP she filed the refugee claim and so the extradition was put on hold pending resolution of her claim. If "even if her sentence had been lowered we still would not have deported her. We do not deport to the US any US criminal whose offence is not considered a crime in Canada" then the RCMP would never have proceeded to Pike Lake to arrest her. Why would the IRB proceed with determining wether she should get the sec.97 protected status when there was no need for them to do so since she could not be extradited?

That would be para 22 and 23 of the Federal Court review (the first ruling). (underlining mine) I see that my statement of "All the way down to sex with 5 year olds." was an addition of memory. There is no basis for that statement to be made.

There is no 'accident'. A man marrying a woman with children (or vice-versa) and living with that woman/man and the children, will inevitably take on parental responsibility. I will quote the court again (that Cybercoma linked) regarding obligations explicitly agreed to: note the words following the bold text..."even if this intention is manifested expressly." IE: No pre-nup can exist that absolves anyone from being a parent. If you wish to have no responsibility to the children of the woman you love then don't get married and most certainly DO NOT live with them.

It seems that there are various issues in play. Perhaps its this that seems to be fuelling argument here. 1. A 16 year old can legally give consent for sex in certain circumstances. in Canada anyways but not Florida. One must be 18 to give consent in that state. Rue seems to acknowledge that but believes that Canada should raise the age of consent to 18 or 21 or something. Now why that belief in itself should lead to not granting Ms. Harvey protected status is beyond me since his belief is not the law in this country. 2. A 30 year sentence for Ms. Harvey's crime seems to be universally agreed to be 'excessive'. The IRB also came to the same conclusion. I am guessing that those against granting protected status while believing the Florida sentence to be excessive do not see it being cruel and unusual. I wish to point out to them that when the IRB considered the question of wether the Florida sentence fit cruel and unusual they compared the sentence to what a Canadian court would have reasonably sentenced her if what she did was also illegal in Canada. So they looked at sentences given in Canada to people who were found guilty of sex with a minor by Canadian law. All the way down to sex with 5 year olds. They determined that the Florida court imposed a sentence - for the crime of sex with a minor - of 15 times the norm compared to Canada. As Cybercoma and the Federal Court pointed out, If the Florida court had have sentenced her to somewhere within the range of a Canadian norm, irregardless of the fact that in Canada 16 year olds can give consent, then the Floridal sentence would not have fit into cruel and unusual and Ms. Harvey would not have been granted protected status. I for one am wondering why such a sentence, acknowledged to be excessive, does not fit 'cruel and/or unusual'. It seems to me that some believe cruel and unusual punishment can only apply to instances where actual physical harm is inflicted but not to length of sentence. To them a prison sentence can be excessive but can never be cruel and unusual. 3. It seems that Ms.Harvey should never have been granted protected status because then all murderers and child molesters can seek asylum in Canada. This is a false assumption. As was shown in the Federal Court all claims for protected status must meet certain criteria. Because protection is provided to one individual does not mean that protection must be provided to all individuals. The sentence must be cruel and or unusual. For Americans they must have availed themselves to the appeal process. That is to say that the Canadian courts have a hight opinion of the American justice system. Canadian courts believe that while lower courts can make mistakes from time to time, in the USofA there is a tried and true appeals process that corrects things. Only if that appeals process still fails to right the egregious wrong does any American have access to Protected Status in Canada. 4. I get the feeling that many believe this country should not grant protected status for cruel and unusual punishments at all for anyone. Except maybe those being punished under Sharia law. Certainly not Americans because Americans deserve whatever America dishes out. No matter the excess.

Why would the USofA consult with Canada? I cannot imagine why in the world the USofA would do so in this case. Not to mention all of the worst-of-the-worst they have been releasing from Guatanamo since 2006 or so, without consulting nations that have nothing to do with the release.

Thats correct TimG, it is hugely difficult to end a father role for children and escape child-support payments. Hugely difficult. Rightly so.

Be it resolved, then, That parents can absolve all responsibility to children. The state will pick up the responsibility for them. All in favour?

Im sorry Argus, but your imagination is running away with you. I saw it myself back in my day when the women's platoon even set the pace - much to our manly horror. And they were to be a bunch of admin non-combatant types! Women do have the strength and endurance - training does in fact make up for nature. How else do you get people to willingly kill, an abhorrent action by nature, other people except through training? You can see this in the hundreds of marathons run in this country every year. With training women and men are able to put in pretty impressive times. Women as police officer hasn't quite met the predictions of failure either. And when HMCS Protecteur fought its fire at sea you can bet your arse that women were in there like dirty shirts.

I don't follow. She took the risk so no abortion? how does one follow the other. The father isn't carrying it to term so why should the mother?

yes, extraordinary measures are taken so folks can have intercourse. Natures trickery knows no bounds. (referring to OnGuards post above)