Just read an article in the Edmonton Journal this morning about a father being acquitted of battering his baby son. The child had been admitted to hospital with bruises, broken bones and head injuries. Xrays showed the child had broken ribs previously.
The father was charged but was acquitted because the judge found there was no conclusive evidence although the findings were that one or the other parent was guilty and it was suspected that one was covering up for the other. The judge ruled out the injuries being caused by someone other than either parent or from a fall on either occasion.
The Crown prosecutor asked for a guilty verdict.
Now Children's services is deciding whether or not to aprehend the child.
Nobody should be found guilty if they are innocent but just how much more does the judge need to rule that the child is in danger !!!
The father was charged but was acquitted because the judge found there was no conclusive evidence although the findings were that one or the other parent was guilty and it was suspected that one was covering up for the other. The judge ruled out the injuries being caused by someone other than either parent or from a fall on either occasion.
The Crown prosecutor asked for a guilty verdict.
Now Children's services is deciding whether or not to aprehend the child.
Nobody should be found guilty if they are innocent but just how much more does the judge need to rule that the child is in danger !!!