Alan Astudillo

Intervention Plan 2021

To BATSHAW YOUTH & FAMILY CENTRES Inc.
In the case numbers: 525-41-024093-114 & 525-41-024706-111
January 3rd, 2021
Dear Batshaw, the 3 days (72 business hours) I gave you to provide a Psychiatric Diagnosis by name & code for
treatment & rationale for your Current & Past Intervention Plan & False Statements made under oath in court in
February 2020, and multiple times in 2019 for applications originally filed with the Court of Quebec – Youth Division at
410 Bellechasse, in Montréal, in 2018.

This is my Intervention Plan:

Proving perjury under s. 131:

1. identity of accused as culprit

2. date and time of incident
3. jurisdiction (incl. region and province)
4. obtain evidence of prior hearings
a. obtain transcript of prior hearings
b. have transcript certified by presiding judge
c. provide notice to culprit of intention to produce
5. prove contents of hearings (through the clerk of the original trial)
a. jurisdiction, date and time of prior hearing
b. identity of culprit as a witness
c. the clerk swore the culprit
d. that the culprit gave testimony to a fact
<have all documents filed with the court>
6. there was a contradiction between the testimony in the prior hearing #1 and prior hearing #2
7. the culprit knew that they were contradictory at the time
8. the culprit intended to be contradictory at the time

Calder v The Queen, 1960 CanLII 73 (SCC), [1960] SCR 892, per Judson J
R v Akinyemi, 2014 ONCJ 213 (CanLII), per De Filippis J, at para 34

Tender Exhibits: Evidence of prior hearings: transcript of prior hearings; subpoena clerk of original trial to bring all
documents related to trial; provide notice to accused of intention to produce; any other documents in possession of
the clerk of original trial related to it. Note that in certain jurisdictions the judge may certify the record, while others
can be certified by a clerk or court reporter under provincial legislation.[1] e.g. Court Officials Act (NS)

Interpretation of the Offence: Perjury is an inchoate offence as it is an attempt to mislead through giving false
evidence.[1] Section 133 intends to prohibit the conviction of the accused on the basis of evidence from a single
witness claiming the accused lied. However, where the case is entirely circumstantial, the crown does not need to
corroborate the evidence.[2] False evidence includes dishonest or deliberate loss of memory. [3]

1. ↑ R v Akinyemi, 2014 ONCJ 213 (CanLII), per De Filippis J, at para 34

2. ↑ R v Reyat, 2012 BCCA 311 (CanLII), per Finch J
3. ↑ Wolf v The Queen, 1974 CanLII 161 (SCC), [1975] 2 SCR 107, per Laskin CJ

Droit de la famille — 101001, 2010 QCCS 1856 (CanLII), Dated: 2010-05-03 — Numéro de dossier: 235-04-000019-095
“[50] Dans Droit de la famille – 1738, la Cour d'appel refuse la demande de déchéance parentale d'un père, toxicomane,
possédant un dossier criminel chargé, ayant vécu en prison pendant de nombreuses années et ayant tenté de se suicider.”
https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2010/2010qccs1856/2010qccs1856.html

Protection de la jeunesse — 15156, Para [101]. En retirant aux parents tous les attributs de l'autorité parentale, cela équivaut à
une déchéance de l'autorité. parentale, ce qui n'est pas de la compétence de la Cour du Québec.
https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2015/2015qccs2952/2015qccs2952.html
NEWS

Daughter sues Orange County

after being taken from mom, who
got $9.6M in same case

Deanna Fogarty won $9.6 million against the County of Orange after social workers
wrongfully took her children away from her. (File photo: Mark Rightmire, Orange
County Register/SCNG)

By JORDAN GRAHAM | jgraham@scng.com | Orange County Register

January 18, 2017 at 10:22 a.m.
In the sequel to the costliest-ever liability lawsuit against Orange County, a
federal appellate court has affirmed that the county once again is not immune
from liability for a 2000 incident in which a woman alleges that two social
workers committed perjury to separate her from her mom when she was a
young girl.

The ruling issued Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals is based on the same events that caused a jury to award Deanna
Fogarty-Hardwick $9.6 million from Orange County in 2011 after she alleged that
social workers used fabricated evidence to cause a court to remove her two
daughters from her custody for six and a half years.

Now, Fogarty-Hardwick’s daughter, Preslie Hardwick, who was one of the two
girls separated from her mom, also is suing the county. And while the appellate
court’s ruling does not address the merits of Hardwick’s complaint, it suggests
the county could be on the hook to pay out once again.

“No official with an IQ greater than room temperature in Alaska could claim that
he or she did not know that the conduct at the center of this case violated both
state and federal law,” Judge Stephen Trott wrote in Tuesday’s opinion. “Perjury is
a crime under both federal and California state law, as is the knowing submission
of false evidence to a court. … Because they are supported by the record as a
whole, we construe the facts Preslie offers in support of her allegations in the
light most favorable to her.”

Hardwick’s allegations are the same as her mother’s: that in February 2000,
Orange County Social Services agents Marcie Vreeken and Helen Dwojak
fabricated testimony “that (Fogarty-Hardwick) had caused her daughters to skip a
mandatory visit with their father, when in fact the problem was caused by a
visitation monitor.”

Hardwick also alleges the social workers falsely advised the court that Fogarty-
Hardwick had turned her daughters – ages 6 and 9 at the time – against their
visitation monitor and that Fogarty-Hardwick had told her children that their
father was trying to take them away from her.

According to Tuesday’s opinion, county attorneys argued that it was not clearly
established in civil court at the time of the events in question that in situations
such as Hardwick’s, those involved had “the right to be free from deliberately
fabricated evidence.” The court disagreed with that assertion.

On Thursday, Preslie Hardwick’s attorney Robert Powell said he would let the
appellate court ruling “simmer with the county” over the weekend before
submitting a seven-figure settlement offer next week.
County attorneys declined to comment on whether they might recommend
settling the case. It wasn’t immediately known whether they would appeal the
ruling.

Orange County officials have maintained that its social workers never wronged
Fogarty-Hardwick or her family. Neither employee was disciplined and Vreeken
was later promoted to a position in which she trains other social workers. County
records show Vreeken was still employed in 2015, when she earned $132,466 in
total compensation.

County Supervisor Todd Spitzer said that social workers often face difficult
decisions when deciding when and whether to separate a child from their
parents and that it was important for those employees to know that the county
backs their decisions.

“Social workers have an immense responsibility to protect children, and I’d much
rather have a social worker err on the side of taking a child from the home than
leave a kid where there might be suspected child abuse,” Spitzer said. “It’s a
delicate balance, and social workers needs to know that if they do that the
county will back them up.”

In 2011, a jury awarded Fogarty-Hardwick $4.9 million in damages. The county

appealed the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear
it. During that time, interest and additional attorney fees increased her total
payout to $9.6 million. The county also incurred an additional $1 million for its
own legal costs on the case.

Contact the writer: 714-796-7960 or jgraham@scng.com

Newsroom Guidelines
News Tips
Contact Us
Report an Error

Tags:  Best of Orange County, SoCal Watchdog

Jordan Graham | Reporter