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

[Gina20]

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.

And we know nothing about all that WRT BS's situation.

 

[sandbar]

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

I can download this file, but it won't open.

 

[MistyWaters]

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.

Exactly. That AS has apparently retained a lawyer to represent him I don’t understand why he blames still blames “authorities”.

I wonder because he wasn’t informed of a funeral or grave, if neither exist, did he then go on to conclude the information was withheld from him? By going to the media, if so this puts Bs other family member in the impossible position of proving something didn’t happen. At this point in time I’m certain informing the general public about the disposition of Bs body is the last thing on their mind.

“Schmegelsky told CHEK News Saturday that “I just want to lay flowers on my kids grave… I wasn’t invited to his funeral. I don’t even know where he is. Just another stab in my heart by authorities.”..”
Father of BC murder suspect fighting to see video of 'last will and testament'

 

[kmclaren]

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...

Yup, BC'er here and all things kids/school/permission related the term is "legal guardian". Never heard next of kin used except in a will. Custody, anyone can have custody but not necessarily any legal standing. RCMP and BC Coroner are not out to get AS, he simply doesn't have any legal rights to the child he was estranged from even thou they have been trying to reconcile and that he is trying to blame "authorities" well that is his own doing from his past actions.

 

[FactFinder3000]

So, to answer my own question from a few pages ago, it looks like the RCMP would not be compelled by a Access to Information Act request to release the video. My reading of this is that they have quite some leeway, and I think they would not release the video. I think we are quite unlikely to see any part of it.

Access to Information and Privacy | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

 

[kmclaren]

dbm duplicate

 

[Gina20]

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).

If the video was shown to anyone who does not fit into that category as guardian, then the protocol and privacy rules have been breached, IMO. I think spouses, siblings, grandparents, aunts. uncles, etc. of the legal guardian would constitute a breach of privacy.

Lawyers usually like to have all the ducks in a row before making public statements on social media, IMO, so this could get interesting.

 

[KR72]

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.

That thought has crossed my mind as well. Perhaps BS asked for a burial or said something like, "I want to be buried by the ocean," but due to the condition of his remains, expense, other factors, his mother decided to have him cremated. Something like that could set AS off, especially given his emotional state, and any deviance from BS's wishes could possibly be seen by AS as part of the "broken system" and his son being treated like a "football" and so on.

(FYI, did you know that nearly 70% of Canadians are cremated? There's not the same stigma surrounding it here as there is in other countries, even older people are going with it now, including Catholics.)

 

[MistyWaters]

I can download this file, but it won't open.

It’s a lengthy report titled Child Access, Custody and Parental Responsibility from UBC. It didn’t pertain to B directly.

Allegations of spousal abuse often arise but usually there’s not enough evidence to support criminal charges. AS’s history of Criminal Harassment makes this case somewhat unique, although we don’t know the details other than his ex-wife reportedly testified in court she feared for her life.

If this is true she very possibly has a No Contact order filed against him and AS would surely understand no contact means no contact under any circumstances.

I feel great empathy for the ex wife and grandmother of B, if by chance AS is attempting to use the media to reach them and cause greater heartbreak and grief, by his sharing of his personal grievances.

 

[FactFinder3000]

If the video was shown to anyone who does not fit into that category as guardian, then the protocol and privacy rules have been breached, IMO. I think spouses, siblings, grandparents, aunts. uncles, etc. of the legal guardian would constitute a breach of privacy.

Lawyers usually like to have all the ducks in a row before making public statements on social media, IMO, so this could get interesting.

I seriously doubt that the argument could be made that publishing the video violates anyone's privacy. It was probably meant to be public.

 

[Gina20]

Try searching:

CHILD CUSTODY,
ACCESS AND
PARENTAL
RESPONSIBILITY:
THE SEARCH FOR A
JUST AND EQUITABLE
STANDARD
Edward Kruk, M.S.W., Ph.D.
The University of British Columbia

 

[1987]

That thought has crossed my mind as well. Perhaps BS asked for a burial or said something like, "I want to be buried by the ocean," but due to the condition of his remains, expense, other factors, his mother decided to have him cremated. Something like that could set AS off, especially given his emotional state, and any deviance from BS's wishes could possibly be seen by AS as part of the "broken system" and his son being treated like a "football" and so on.

(FYI, did you know that nearly 70% of Canadians are cremated? There's not the same stigma surrounding it here as there is in other countries, even older people are going with it now, including Catholics.)

well if he is the only excluded parent it does look like he is being treated not very well

 

[Gina20]

I seriously doubt that the argument could be made that publishing the video violates anyone's privacy. It was probably meant to be public.

AS isn't asking for it to be made public, though. As far as I can tell, he wants to see it privately.

 

[sandbar]

well if he is the only excluded parent it does look like he is being treated not very well

Are you conflating:
AS' status under the law; and
what appears to be callous treatment?

I think that's what AS is doing too.

 

[Gina20]

It’s a lengthy report titled Child Access, Custody and Parental Responsibility from UBC. It didn’t pertain to B directly.

It is helpful background about the various types of child custody, some shocking statistics about what happens to children, and family violence under different types of child custody, written in B.C. by a B.C. researcher.

 

[1987]

I understand the rcmp might have concerns that AS would go to the media. I also think a person can not be punished for acts not yet done. prior acts are the best predictor of future acts, I understand all that. someone that did see or know about the video did leak info why be more concerned about AS.

 

[SovereignSnake]

In this CBC report they refer to “a letter” from the RCMP.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5259069?__twitter_impression=true

I had a feeling Alan was not shown the portion of the video. So I believe it's safe to assume that the RCMP will release a transcript first but reading this article tells me the likelihood of this video being leaked are almost certain. The transcript and the final report will come very soon and it may take a few months but I think the video will follow.

 

[1987]

Are you conflating:
AS' status under the law; and
what appears to be callous treatment?

I think that's what AS is doing too.

I think AS is asking for information about his son that he seems to have had some relationship with. I feel he should get equal information. as for equal rights to final decision for the body I think that does go to a legal appointed next of kin.

 

[SnooperDuper]

If the video was shown to anyone who does not fit into that category as guardian, then the protocol and privacy rules have been breached, IMO. I think spouses, siblings, grandparents, aunts. uncles, etc. of the legal guardian would constitute a breach of privacy.

Lawyers usually like to have all the ducks in a row before making public statements on social media, IMO, so this could get interesting.

Yes, they like to make sure they have a retainer first, lol.

Seriously, she's saying AS has a right to view the will and the law says a video is not a will. She's saying AS wants to see it before the public does. He has no standing to demand that, because he is not next-of-kin, DS is. He is, essentially, "the public". I don't think AS has any sort of case. That isn't going to matter much to the lawyer. The lawyer just wants to be paid.

They wouldn't even been able to get a court date in two weeks before whatever part of it becomes public, becomes public, so I don't see the benefit to AS of all this saber-rattling.

Can't AS just wait quietly for a couple weeks? Or must he take this to the media yet again? I think DS has a valid concern if she feels AS is going to take absolutely everything to the media and court of public opinion every time.

 

[FactFinder3000]

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5259069?__twitter_impression=true

I had a feeling Alan was not shown the portion of the video. So I believe it's safe to assume that the RCMP will release a transcript first but reading this article tells me the likelihood of this video being leaked are almost certain. The transcript and the final report will come very soon and it make take a few months but I think the video will follow.

I think releasing the video or even a transcript is not in the public interest. It could provide encouragement to future perpetrators of this kind of crime.

I expect the RCMP to characterize what was in the video and that's about it.

I also think there's a good chance they do show AS the video, but under controlled conditions and just before they do the public release of their findings.