Is There a Contradiction?

I was posed with a question mid to late last week, and for the life of me, I had no immediate answer! Dear Lord, I mused... Brudder had no answer, a rarity indeed.

The question “Is there an age restriction used by the Newfoundland and Labrador Justice system, defining when a child may or may not be used as a witness in a court case”?

The question was centered on the age at which a child would or could be used to give credible testimony in a court case. A fair question and an easy answer, one would expect, right? Not true!

Despite several searches, I have been unable to find a "definite" answer to that question. But I believe however, given a very large volume of information speaking to the issue, it is fair to say, that children under age 12 are not recognized as credible witnesses at least in most cases.

"The Court shall, in every application brought before it affecting the interest of a child, give the child an opportunity to be heard if his age and power of discernment permit it." (federal justice web site)

For the sake of the unknown, I will speak to what does appear to be a huge contradiction between our provincial and federal justice systems. Although not fully understood at this point, I will toss it out to my legal associates and redefine the reality soon. The debate relates to CYFS, their policies, children's freedoms and adult rights.

A local couple has been put under the watchful eye of Child Youth and Family Service, due to an incriminating statement submitted to them by the family doctor of this couple. CYFS has soft charged this couple for further investigation in relation to a statement given about their seven year old daughter.

This statement was by and large, generated from this doctor’s misinterpretation of the answer to a question she'd asked of the parents. By the way it was explained to me, the questions answer would not seem to have been investigation material period. Had this physician not misconstrued the answer to her question, the whole issue might have ended then and there. However, because of her error the situation proceeded as follows.

A couple of case workers knocked on the unsuspecting couples door, without notice, appointment or legal documentation, and for lack of better description unlawfully intimidated their way into the couples home. The couple was interrogated, and then separated from the child, whereupon the child was separately interviewed. In spite of the fact that, to my understanding thus far, a child appears to be unqualified to offer credible testimony in their own right, it is the normal policy of CYFS to interrogate such children away from the presence of parents or other persons acting on the parents behalf. In this case, however, the child and case workers were in earshot of the parents during the interview, and if the story as described to me is true, the questions were loaded, coercive and would have been mentally confusing and challenging for any seven year old.

A walk-about the couples home, which included a view and examination of a second child, was demanded and executed without warrant, legal representation or presence of the police; all without any legal consent of the couple. This family feels very victimized, especially when our justice system indicates a child under twelve cannot help to acquit them of a charge. Yet it seems the same child under twelve can be manipulated into putting them behind bars.

Your comments?

Brudder