Father denies abuse in appeal documents

(UPDATE: Sept 1. 2017 – The BC Court of Appeal has overturned this case, ruling evidence of child sexual abuse had been provided by an unqualified expert and that there was no evidence of misfeasance by the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD). A new family court case regarding J.P. and her ex-husband has been ordered.)

VANCOUVER – A father at the centre of a child abuse case that sparked intense criticism of the British Columbia government says a judge who ruled he molested his toddler was biased and relied on faulty expert evidence.

The man, who can only be identified as B.G., said in B.C. Court of Appeal documents that the judge should have recused himself from a civil trial after attacking his character in an earlier family court decision.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker ruled last July that social workers allowed B.G. unsupervised visits with his children despite a court order, ultimately enabling him to molest his youngest daughter.

The decision followed a 2012 family-court ruling in which Walker said B.G. had sexually abused his three older children and had a “vulgar mindset” and “a “distinct lack of regard for appropriate sexual boundaries.”

“The trial judge made sweeping comments throughout the (family-court ruling) indicating his opinion that B.G. was of low moral character,” the father said in appeal court documents.

“A properly informed, reasonable person would have the impression that, more likely than not, the trial judge — whether consciously or unconsciously — would not fairly decide the sexual abuse allegation against B.G.”

Walker’s bombshell ruling in July prompted Opposition New Democrats to call for the resignation of Children’s Minister Stephanie Cadieux. The province launched a months-long review of child welfare practices, led by former deputy minister Bob Plecas.

The province is appealing the ruling and B.G. is named as a third-party respondent. He is seeking an order setting aside the finding that he molested his toddler, and has also filed an application to extend the time limit to appeal the 2012 ruling.

A Vancouver police investigation concluded sexual abuse allegations were unfounded and no charges were laid.

B.G. argued in the appeal court documents that Walker erred when he refused to step aside from the civil trial. He filed an application to have the judge recused but Walker dismissed it, assuring he would “approach the second trial with the same open mind.”

The father also said the judge erred when he used findings of fact from the family court trial for the civil trial, alleging the findings were based in part on bad expert evidence.

B.G. said Walker allowed an American psychologist to testify in the first trial even though she did not interview him or his children before offering her opinion that he sexually abused them.

Claire Reeves’s testimony, which was “unqualified, uninformed and based on junk science,” coloured Walker’s approach to the evidence in the second trial, B.G. said.

He alleged Reeves holds “illegitimate” degrees, entered evidence on a discredited child sexual abuse syndrome and has lobbied in favour of laws permitting chemical castration of sex offenders.

Reeves, whose 2003 book “Childhood, It Should not Hurt” is listed as a resource on the American Bar Association’s website, did not immediately respond to a request for comment through her organization Mothers Against Sexual Abuse.

Jack Hittrich, lawyer for the mother, identified as J.P., said large portions of B.G.’s filing are “completely inappropriate” and should be struck because he is trying to re-argue evidence from the first trial.

Hittrich accused B.G. of “slandering” Reeves, adding she was only referred to in a handful of paragraphs in Walker’s 258-page judgment and the sexual abuse findings were not based on her report.

Walker also relied on the testimony of other experts, including nannies who said they saw the little girl engage in unusual sexual behaviour and recordings of the child’s comments and behaviour.