Canada - Lucas Fowler, Chynna Deese, and Leonard Dyck, all murdered, Alaska Hwy, BC, Jul 2019 #17

[FactFinder3000]

I completely agree Gina20. This is extremely disrespectful of AS, in my view. I can only hope then do show him the video before details are released to the public.

I'm also wondering: does anybody know if media could request this video under freedom of information act and actually get it?

 

[1987]

do we even know if the bodies have been returned to any family or local funeral home?

 

[missy1974]

For those that watched the 60 minutes show with AS... did they film when he got the call that they were found dead? Who did he get that call from? The RCMP?

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm not a lawyer, but...I don't think Canadian law is worded that way.

The custodial parent/next of kin is the person to be notified in case of death or injury. AS didn't have custody, so he wasn't notified.

As custodial parent DS can inform or not inform anyone about BS's death/funeral/burial.

And, there is nothing preventing AS from having a memorial service of his own.

Yes and in B.C. the age of majority is a child under the age of 19.

AS has no way of knowing if other family members held a memorial service and I really doubt they have. The reason funerals or memorials are held is for people can gather together and fondly reminisce, to pay their respects in honour of the deceased. Funeral homes can also be instructed to store ashes for a period of time, even scatter them in a natural environment if that’s what the family prefers.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Date of death on death certificates is sometimes given as the date a body was found, when the actual date of death is not known.

Further to someone's other statements about adoption rights, BS was not adopted, as far as we know.

It is my opinion that victimization and revictimization are taking place. What is the point? Common sense and mediation could go a long way. The RCMP has psychologist-mediators on staff. Whh not use them? Common sense, courtesy, respect, and dignity could go a long way.

MOO.

The law trumps common sense.

DS is the next of kin.

If AS wants to dispute access to the video, he needs to get a lawyer, which he has done. The lawyer says:

“My client is the biological father of Bryer so of course he does wish to view the video and see it before the public does” Leamon says. “As his father, he has the right to access this last will and testament. He is looking for closure, like any father would.”

So AS has a legal right to view a last will and testament, however:

"The only legal requirement is that the Will is written down – verbal, video, or audio Wills are not legal."

The Affidavit of Execution and signing your Will. What makes a Will legal?

That means the video is not a legal will, and therefore AS does NOT have a right to view it.

 

[Zella]

The law trumps common sense.

DS is the next of kin.

If AS wants to dispute access to the video, he needs to get a lawyer, which he has done. The lawyer says:

“My client is the biological father of Bryer so of course he does wish to view the video and see it before the public does” Leamon says. “As his father, he has the right to access this last will and testament. He is looking for closure, like any father would.”

So AS has a legal right to view a last will and testament, however:

"The only legal requirement is that the Will is written down – verbal, video, or audio Wills are not legal."

The Affidavit of Execution and signing your Will. What makes a Will legal?

That means the video is not a legal will, and therefore AS does NOT have a right to view it.

That's very interesting! Thank you!

Based on that information, I think if KM and BS had made outlandish or tasteless requests in their "last will and testament," RCMP could have just decided not to share with any of the family, under the argument that it was not a legal will, so they had no reason to see it.

It seems more like RCMP was extending a courtesy to them in letting them see the video footage since it is not a legally binding will. MOO

 

[Jen-Knee]

If Bryers mother still has an active restraining order, then it's understandable as to why she did not invite him to the funeral service. And as much as it sucks for AS, as it is very obvious he loved his son and is hurting more than I could imagine, I can understand why they have yet to show him the video. It appears as though he is going through this pain alone, and the media has taken complete advantage of that since the beginning.

Considering we do not know what was exactly said in the video, it may have even been Bryers request to not let his father see.

I believe that if his mom had sole guardianship, then Alan wouldn't have a say in anything. Other than name changes, though I could be wrong about that part. I'm in B.C. and have sole guardianship of my 17 year old, and her dad has never had a say in anything, nor been notified of anything by anyone (other than by me).

 

[Optics]

A funeral home/crematorium would have been involved at some point, because RCMP don't just hand bodies and human remains to families. Proper disposal is required by law.

This is the point at which arrangements could be made to accommodate both sides of the family. Sometimes remains are separated after cremation, so that various family members can make their own arrangements. Services can be held separately for different family members, if desired. There is no extra charge for walking into the funeral home privately. There is no extra cost for separating the ashes into separate containers. As DS is considered the only next of kin by RCMP, the decisions regarding funeral or memorial arrangements are hers alone. The RCMP has no involvement in that, unless some sort of security issue came up and a police presence was required. If security was an issue, the family may have sought advice from the RCMP. Is this what happened? We don't know.

However, why is the RCMP is now in charge of deciding who is next of kin? I would like to hear the explanation for that. They have a duty to let the father of a minor child know about his son going missing. The social worker who supervised AS's visits would have known how to get hold of him. The grandmother likely would have known how to get hold of him. Even the manager of the motel where he stayed might have known his phone number. As far as we know, no one made any effort to get hold of him. This is borne out by the situation now of not respecting his parental rights by not letting him see the video that they admit exists. Is he a person of interest or suspect? If not, there is no reason for the RCMP to deny him the basic rights which have been granted to all of the other parents of these two. This is a mistake that could be remedied by letting him see the video. He hasn't been charged in relation to anything his son did, or anything he did while his son was missing, as far as we know. Or has he? Nothing makes sense, IMO. JMO. MOO.

When a body is released by the RCMP - even though there may be both parents - the fact is only ONE is the key designated next of kin. Whether the parents are together or not. Someone has to be in a position to make the burial arrangements, among other things. It's NOT that AS isn't considered next of kin. It has to do with the one most capable person who can take the remains off the RCMP/Coroner's hands. In this case, it seems clear that Bryer's mother would have been in the better position to handle the 'affairs'. As for how the 'next of kin' decides to dispose of the body be it burial or cremated - that is solely on the hands of the family/relatives and has nothing to do with LE or Coroner. I'm sure in the case of Kam Mcleod his father was likely named 'next of kin', even though he also has a mother. It's all technical it's no conspiracy to hide things from family. The Coroner's office nor the RCMP don't need a plethora of family members who are related dealing with them, they only need one chief main spokesperson for the family.

 

[Gina20]

SnooperDuper, so this something for a judge to decide in a court of law, then, not the RCMP?

 

[KR72]

The law trumps common sense.

DS is the next of kin.

If AS wants to dispute access to the video, he needs to get a lawyer, which he has done. The lawyer says:

“My client is the biological father of Bryer so of course he does wish to view the video and see it before the public does” Leamon says. “As his father, he has the right to access this last will and testament. He is looking for closure, like any father would.”

So AS has a legal right to view a last will and testament, however:

"The only legal requirement is that the Will is written down – verbal, video, or audio Wills are not legal."

The Affidavit of Execution and signing your Will. What makes a Will legal?

That means the video is not a legal will, and therefore AS does NOT have a right to view it.

I think the RCMP may, and heavy on the may, let AS view the video after their report is finished and after the victims' famlies have been notified about what's in that report. It's possible that they asked DS if she wanted to invite the AS to see the video, and she said "no."
Who knows?

Like I said earlier, it's not RCMP's job to interfere with family disputes and arguments (yes, of course unless they're violent or court ordered), they've got way better things to do than that. For all we know at this point, DS may have an order against AS, so it'd be really unlikely that the Mounties would be pushing a victim to accommodate someone with criminal harassment charges against them. IMO, of course

 

[SnooperDuper]

Further to someone's other statements about adoption rights, BS was not adopted, as far as we know.

No, I wasn't saying that, only that being a biological parent doesn't automatically make you next of kin.

SnooperDuper, so this something for a judge to decide in a court of law, then, not the RCMP?

It is up to the RCMP to follow the law, which they have done, and AS can get a lawyer if he wishes to dispute the law.

 

[Gina20]

If Bryers mother still has an active restraining order, then it's understandable as to why she did not invite him to the funeral service. And as much as it sucks for AS, as it is very obvious he loved his son and is hurting more than I could imagine, I can understand why they have yet to show him the video. It appears as though he is going through this pain alone, and the media has taken complete advantage of that since the beginning.

Considering we do not know what was exactly said in the video, it may have even been Bryers request to not let his father see.

I believe that if his mom had sole guardianship, then Alan wouldn't have a say in anything. Other than name changes, though I could be wrong about that part. I'm in B.C. and have sole guardianship of my 17 year old, and her dad has never had a say in anything, nor been notified of anything by anyone (other than by me).

There is a separate issue of what happens to guardianship of a deceased person, if that person was a minor child vs. an adult at the time of death.

We don't know the custody arrangements and surrounding issues.

 

[FactFinder3000]

...

That means the video is not a legal will, and therefore AS does NOT have a right to view it.

DS does not have the legal right to see the video either, then. Which is what I suspected. They can do with it as they see fit. moo.

 

[KR72]

DS does not have the legal right to see the video either, then. Which is what I suspected. They can do with it as they see fit. moo.

Right. I'm guessing they only showed it to next of kin because they chose to, not because they were obligated.

 

[kmclaren]

It doesn't matter who has "custody" or who's a "birth parent" or "next of kin" - it is whomever was BS legal guardian(s) that the RCMP and coroner are obliged to release information to. Nobody else - for all we know that was the grandmother or his mother/step-father or some other unknown person but it is obvious it is not AS and it would be a breach of protocol and privacy to share details with anyone who asks (even if they are the birth parent).

 

[SnooperDuper]

That's very interesting! Thank you!

Based on that information, I think if KM and BS had made outlandish or tasteless requests in their "last will and testament," RCMP could have just decided not to share with any of the family, under the argument that it was not a legal will, so they had no reason to see it.

It seems more like RCMP was extending a courtesy to them in letting them see the video footage since it is not a legally binding will. MOO

I think DS's concern would be that AS is trying to make the video into some kind of legally binding document, and it is not that. He doesn't have grounds to see it because it is not in fact a will. No one is obligated to follow BS's direction, because it is not a will.

AS is also not the custodial parent, so he has no decision making authority.

I could see AS pushing DS to follow BS's requests when there was no obligation to do so, and he had no right to make those demands.

I could also see him taking the contents of the video to the press before the RCMP decide to selected parts, perhaps not including that which was shown to DS.

...

1. Sole Custody:
Sole custody provides one parent with the full bundle of rights and responsibilities with respect to a child. The sole custodial parent will have the ultimate decision-making authority for the child’s education, health and general well-being.

The non-custodial parent may have access rights but no decision-making authority.

https://www.bcheritagelaw.com/legal-services/vancouver-family-law/child-custody-law/

 

[Moriarty]

Sorry everyone...I hate to protract the whole custody debate, but I’m wondering if maybe we’re conflating the term “custody” for two different parts of child rearing post-divorce?

My understanding is, there is custodian and non-custodian status, dealing with where the child lives, and legal custodian and non-custodian rights, dealing with who gets to make legal decisions for the child.

For example, I am a non-custodian father who has my kids 50% of the time, but I have full, joint legal custodianship of my kids.

Someone posted a long way back a list of criminal and family court violations by AS that I believe led to him losing any visitation rights with respect to physical custody. My speculation is that it may also have led to loss of legal custodianship rights too.

Yes, common sense and decency would say the bio dad should get a chance to view the last known video of his son. If he violates a non-disclosure contract and runs to the press then he can be prosecuted.

But if the last known family court ruling states that AS has no legal custodian status, then I would think the RCMP would be bound by it.

The RCMP aren’t exactly known to think outside their very narrow box.

All JMO.

 

[Zella]

Sorry everyone...I hate to protract the whole custody debate, but I’m wondering if maybe we’re conflating the term “custody” for two different parts of child rearing post-divorce?

My understanding is, there is custodian and non-custodian status, dealing with where the child lives, and legal custodian and non-custodian rights, dealing with who gets to make legal decisions for the child.

For example, I am a non-custodian father who has my kids 50% of the time, but I have full, joint legal custodianship of my kids.

Someone posted a long way back a list of criminal and family court violations by AS that I believe led to him losing any visitation rights with respect to physical custody. My speculation is that it may also have led to loss of legal custodianship rights too.

Yes, common sense and decency would say the bio dad should get a chance to view the last known video of his son. If he violates a non-disclosure contract and runs to the press then he can be prosecuted.

But if the last known family court ruling states that AS has no legal custodian status, then I would think the RCMP would be bound by it.

The RCMP aren’t exactly known to think outside their very narrow box.

All JMO.

This is very helpful and makes sense--thank you!

 

[sandbar]

I don't think "Custodial parent", "next-of-kin", "spokesperson" are interchangable terms: they might have legal/common definitions that might change based on region, level of government (fed/prov), and even time-wise, some might be obselete...

 

[Gina20]

As an aside, one thing is clear. BS did not get to the end of his life without very many failures along the way to put his well-being first, IMO. This PDF report is for anyone who wants to read it.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0DtX3IktAsFuEoDU0PW6lG&cshid=1566753268951