1/2/02
Hello,
My name is Robert Arthur and I am writing you concerning the actions of
one of your Agents. The name of the Agent in question is Robert Gordon and he
works for the Ministry of Children and Family Services. As you know, I have very
strong paternal feelings for the child baptized Elizabeth Anne Elaine ******. In
my heart, I am her daddy and I always will be. I may not have legal rights, but
I am willing to bet I have as many legal rights concerning Elizabeth as you had
on Dec 05, 2000, the day you unlawfully effected what you called a ‘legal
removal’ and which I call ‘Kidnapping under color of Law’. I am assuming
by your silence that you have yet to find a document proving Elizabeth existed
legally in ‘The Province of British Columbia’ on that fateful day.
Back in October of this year, Megan *******, mother to Elizabeth, stated
that she wanted me to be a permanent part of Elizabeth’s life and towards that
ends, she wished for me to visit Elizabeth daily if possible and weekly on
Sundays for mass. She knows how much I love Elizabeth. She knows I am a decent
man and that I would have a positive influence on Elizabeth. Robert Gordon was
informed of this and the result was a visit for Elizabeth and me every two
weeks. Seeing as how I was looking forward to seeing Elizabeth on a daily basis
and weekly for mass, I was a little angry and asked whether a baptismal
certificate was a legal document evidencing a family in act and intent. (I know
now it is). His reaction was to phone Megan and using coercion, convince her to
cancel my visits. He told her that allowing me access
to Elizabeth would be viewed by The Ministry as a sign of poor decision-making
skills and would likely result in her not getting Elizabeth back.
Once he had unlawfully secured new instructions from Megan, he then left
a message on my machine informing me HE had cancelled the visit. He left no
reason why, nor did he mention it was at Megan’s request. It was not until
after many days that he informed me Megan had requested the cancellation. It was
not until I saw Megan at court that I found out about Robert Gordon’s
coercion, duplicitous actions and words spoken in bad faith.
I have been Megan’s friend since we met and I have never done anything
intentional to hurt her. Robert Gordon’s actions had a very negative effect on
Megan and our friendship. I have
been a source of support for her and now I can no longer do so. I worry a lot
about Megan and used to be able to call her and find out how she is doing and
offer moral and spiritual support. Due to Robert Gordon’s lies, I can no
longer do so. Elizabeth, Megan and I suffered harm because of his actions. Those
actions were made in bad faith and his words were lies.
Megan is his client. Because of your Ministry, she is in a fragile and
weakened state and he worsened that situation with an unlawful and bad faith
act. She needs emotional and spiritual support and he purposely and willfully
removed that support from her. I wish to know how your Ministry expects Megan to
recover when you are constantly removing from her the emotional and spiritual
support she needs. It appears that Megan’s failure is actually your goal. If
Megan’s failure is not the Ministry’s goal, please explain how removing
emotional support systems benefit her.
Many experts agree that unconditional love during the formative years is
vital to a developing child. I love Elizabeth unconditionally and have sworn
oath to God over her. I am dedicated to her. I was the first person to know of
her existence and I became her daddy before she was born and long before your
Ministry even knew of her existence. I have strong paternal instincts and
endless love for her and I cannot just turn them off. No one in your Ministry is
dedicated to her. The harm you have all allowed to happen to her and her mother
is Prima Facie evidence of this. I
do what I do without pay. Who in your mercenary Ministry can say the same?
I have to acknowledge that I believe not only does
a prenatal baby’s life begin at conception, but that there begins fatherhood
also. It is at conception that the father and mother are conjoined to produce
new life. It is at conception that the most beautiful thing on the planet, the
God-blessed spark of innocent human life, begins its journey through existence.
From that moment, every good father loves
his baby, and is moved by a need to protect, defend, and care for her from that
moment, through all the days of her life. This empathy, this compassion and
emotional investment, is a society builder. It is what gives fathers the
motivation to work, to build homes, and to try and make the world a safer place.
I have loved Elizabeth since before her mother knew and accepted she was
pregnant.
In
examining Robert Gordon’s actions, I have come to these logical conclusions.
Either,
A-
The
Ministry does not believe love is important to Elizabeth, or,
B-
The
Ministry does not believe I love Elizabeth, or,
C-
The
Ministry thinks that my love is not relevant because I am likely to harm
Elizabeth, or,
D-
The
Ministry knows how important love is, knows I am a great source of love for
Elizabeth, and is using access to her to punish me for mentioning facts of law.
If this is the case, it means the Ministry is acting in spite and against what
is clearly best for Elizabeth.
As you can see, I have very good reason to be concerned. If the case is A,
then you are actively harming Elizabeth through ignorance. If it is B,
then the Ministry is again blind to reality and unable to distinguish what is
best for Elizabeth and is harming her by depriving her the unconditional love I
feel for her. If it is C, then this means anytime I have a child in my
life, the Ministry will come in and remove that child, likely without
investigation, as they did with Elizabeth. (If anyone believes that I would harm
a child, let alone Elizabeth, they need to have their head examined.) Finally,
if it is D, then again I am in danger when I have another child. If you
people acted spitefully once, what’s to stop you from doing it again? And
again and again…
I seek a full, rational, logical, reasonable and
completely honest explanation for my visits being cancelled. Saying
Megan requested it will not suffice, as Robert Gordon subjected her to coercion.
So which is it? Why exactly did Robert Gordon unlawfully coerce Megan into doing
what is clearly not in Elizabeth’s best interest? Is coercion standard
operating procedure for your Ministry? Were his words to Megan indicative of his
Principle’s position? If so justify them. If not, please be aware that Robert
Gordon is guilty of professional misconduct. If you believe for any reason, that
I would harm Elizabeth or any child, I wish to know immediately. If you do not
think love is important, tell me in writing. If you were acting spitefully
knowing full well that your actions would harm Elizabeth, silence on your part
at this time will indicate that just fine.
Also, I have uncovered information which will one day be presented in a
court of competent jurisdiction proving one of your Agents said that if my age
was 21, they would have acknowledged my status of standing lawfully in place of
the father. Because of the difference however, they felt justified in denying me
the same rights they would have acknowledged existed for a younger man. This is
clearly an unlawful act and against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was
denied my lawful status as father for no other reason then age. Are your Agents
the determiners of morality now? Do these people who act so capriciously now
determine on the fly whether a family is a family based upon their own narrow
mindedness, skewed morals and ignorance of the law? God help us all, if this is
the case. In my opinion, and based on what I have seen of your Agents, a
Ministry worker determining morals is like a blind man determining color or a
deaf man determining tone.
I know this entire situation is far from the norm. I realize and accept
that. The difference in ages is not what I wanted or looked for. I didn’t find
out Megan’s actual age until seven months after agreeing to accept her child
as my own. At that time, I was torn on what the proper course of action should
be. I took me very little time however, to realize that Megan’s age had
nothing to do with my duty to Elizabeth. At
this point in time, I reaffirmed my previous oath and was accepted by Megan’s
parents as daddy to Elizabeth. My entire goal since meeting Megan was to see her
reach a point where she would be confident in her decisions, competent in her
actions and ready to venture forth with love and conquest aforethought. My
primary duty as Elizabeth’s daddy is to protect the mother and child
bond. I do not seek access to Elizabeth against the wishes of Megan. I know
however, that if successful in being a daddy, she would want me to be a part of
Elizabeth’s life. I strongly believe that Elizabeth misses me and her not
being able to see me must be hurting her as much as it does myself.
I spent many hours on a daily basis speaking to her in the womb. She
really responds to me. She loves me. Megan knows how good I would be for
Elizabeth and you put her in a horrible position.
Please justify using an unlawful act of coercion
to deny Elizabeth the love I have for her, which she needs.
One of my greatest fears is that Megan will not recover from her
present situation. The reason she will not is because she is unjustly burdened
with feelings of fear, anger and shame. These feelings rightfully belong to your
Ministry and certain Agents in it. Everyday you refuse to apologize to her is a
day she suffers. Everyday she suffers puts Elizabeth one step closer to growing
up not knowing her Natural Mother at her potential. If that happens, I promise,
you will never know peace.
Every morning I wake up and worry about those two. Not being able to
check on them is worse than torture. Is there even anyone in your organization
who is a ‘daddy’ and can understand what I am going through? Does anyone
care? Do you people love your children only because you have legal
documentation?
I have been doing some research on the effects of fathers on families and
the importance of fathers to developing children. I feel your Ministry either
knows or should know these following statistics. If you do not know these
statistics, you are negligent in your duties. If you do, then you disregarded
them and are therefore fully responsible and liable if any of these things
befall Elizabeth:
Daughters
of single parents are:
Children
from Fatherless households are:
You unlawfully took Elizabeth out of a family where she had two parents
and put her in a situation where she had only one. You then stressed that single
caregiver to the point of breaking. These were not rational acts and in light of
these statistics, they clearly and obviously posed an enormous potential for
danger to the infant, Elizabeth. Read those statistics again and know the
potential for harm you have visited upon Elizabeth.
This
is what I believe you know:
If
there are any points here, which you do not accept as truth, and you wish to
dispute or deny them, you must do so within fourteen (14) days. Failure to do so
means you accept and agree with all of the above claims.
I have been very patient with your Ministry throughout this situation.
Like all good daddy’s, I have sacrificed a great deal here. I am willing to
sacrifice much more, up to and including my very life. Is patience and sacrifice
not the hallmark of a good daddy? You continue to ignore me. Doing so harms
Elizabeth. I wish for us to sit down and discuss this situation. Before we
go to Court, we truly should seek mediation and I am hereby officially inviting
you to do so. This situation can be resolved if we all act in good faith and
identify what is best for Elizabeth. Your organization and it’s Agents are
clearly unfit to decide what is best for her. You have been deciding what is
best for her for the last year, and look at what you have wrought. Look at those
statistics and realize what you have done to her, an innocent, voiceless infant.
I urge you to immediately take the proper steps necessary to resolve this
situation, to my complete satisfaction.
If
the single man plant himself indomitably on his instincts, and there abide, the
huge world will come round to him.
Emerson (1803-1882)
There
is no cruder tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of Law and
in the name of justice.
Montesquieu (1689-1755)
Sincerely,
Lawfully
and, unlike Robert Gordon, Truthfully fighting
For
a positive outcome and a just society,
All
in the name of
Elizabeth
Anne Elaine
Robert
Arthur
P.S.
I don’t know if you realize this yet, but I am NOT going away.
