While the VA Tech shootings have made top billing, the JW Blood Doctrine is also a top story in Canada. Canada press announces that the Sextuplet parents & JW lawyers are in court, fighting for the right of the parents to be granted a hearing before the children were taken away. Ex-JWs protesting outside the courthouse appear in the paper, a nice picture too. And, now, more stories come out...(see below). The case is on hold until this Summer.
Most importantly, we find out that the condition of the babies. I pray they live.
Also, it looks like Watchtower Attorney Brady is getting himself into deep doo-doo with Canadian legal ethics. Will he be disbarred?
Mon, 2007-04-16 19:42 National News
By: CAMILLE BAINS
VANCOUVER (CP) - A lawyer for the parents of sextuplets says his clients'constitutional rights were violated when their babies were seized by the B.C. government so they could be given blood transfusions against their parents' wishes.
Shane Brady wanted to cross-examine doctors, social workers and a government lawyer over their affidavits supporting the government's seizure decision.
Cross-examining those who provide affidavits in a case is not a usual practice and Chief Justice Donald Brenner of B.C. Supreme Court denied Brady's request on Monday.
The parents, whose names are under a publication ban, are Jehovah's Witnesses and their religion forbids the potentially life-saving medical procedure.
Brady argued the doctors'affidavits state their opinions on why the children needed blood transfusions but don't provide any evidence to back them up.
"There (are) facts that are at issue and cross-examination could help to resolve these issues," he said.
Brady's colleague, John Burns, said they may appeal the cross-examination issue.
The sextuplets were born at B.C. Children's Hospital on Jan. 7 - almost four months premature.
Two of them died within weeks while four others - two boys and two girls - survived.
Three are now at home, while one boy remains in hospital.
Outside court, he said the long-term effects of the babies' premature birth, when each weighed about 1.8 pounds, are unknown.
"The babies are healthy for babies who are born extremely premature but the long-term prognosis, the parents hope that it's positive but it's too early to tell."
The children's father was in court but did not wish to talk about the case.
He is asking for a judicial review on the decision of the director of child welfare to seize the children and an appeal of two provincial court orders that authorized blood transfusions.
Kris Chen, a lawyer for the Crown, told the court that cross-examinations don't apply to such appeals.
"I can't find any cases where a judge has ordered cross-examination involving the Child, Family and Community Service Act," Chen said.
Margo Fleming, another Crown lawyer, accused Brady of being in the "strongest conflict."
She told court Brady spoke to the provincial child welfare director and made assertions about the parents' rights.
Fleming suggested Brady then used the information he got from that conversation as the father's evidence, but those statements are "strongly contradicted" by a social worker.
"Is Mr. Brady going to continue to rely on that evidence, which is essentially his own evidence?
"It is a conflict that concerns the director," Fleming said, adding the parents have different accounts of their conversations with social workers involved in seizing their children.
The case has been put over for several months.
Brady is a Jehovah's Witness who often represents members of the denomination.
He has been sued by a Calgary man, who says Brady counselled his daughter to reject blood transfusions.
The case involving the death of Bethany Hughes will go before the Alberta Court of Appeal on June 28.
Burns said he and Brady are pursuing the sextuplets case on behalf of the parents to set a standard across Canada so others in their position would get a judicial hearing before blood transfusions are imposed.
Brenner suggested there were "some time sensitivities" involved in performing the potentially life-saving medical treatment.
But Burns said parents still need a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
Outside court, Brady said B.C. is among few provinces that haven't enacted legislation to allow parents to go to court before the government can seize their children for objectionable medical treatment.
He said some provinces put those provisions in place after a 1995 Supreme Court of Canada decision based on a similar case in Ontario.
"Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Newfoundland, Alberta, all of those provinces require that even if the state could apprehend, if there was a concern about safety, they can apprehend the child but they must go to court first," he said.
"Give the parents a fair hearing first before some objectionable treatment can be authorized."
He said the parents had expert opinions from three neonatologists - from New Mexico, California and Ontario - who said the babies' condition did not merit blood transfusions.
"Maybe not everyone agrees with the parents' religious views," Brady said.
"Well, that's not what this case is about. I think any parent would be upset if they learned that the government could apprehend their child and interfere with the parent relationship on important matters without having to justify it in advance."