本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛According to the Child and Family Services Act, a child-protection worker can apprehend a child with a warrant if they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is no other course of action available that can protect the child. They can apprehend a child even without a warrant if they believe that there would be a substantial risk to the child’s health or safety while the warrant was being obtained. In circumstances similar to Rob Ford’s, a CAS will often take a very active role, up to and including seizing the children.
注意，法律说的是CAS " can " apprehend, it doesn't say "shall" apprehend, in which case the law enforcement officials are not allowed to exercise discretion.
这说明法律在这个问题上给了执法人员＂酌情＂处理的权力（exercise discretion）， 但CAS 却选择了＂从严处理＂。如果他们对所有群体都＂从严＂，那也罢了。 但事实是，对一个有屡次domestic disturbance 记录，公认的瘾君子并有酒驾历史的市长，CAS的执法人员则对他的小孩选择了不闻不问。请问，他们执的是那家的＂法＂？ 你并不懂法，却在这里充专家为这种行为帮腔，好意思吗？更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
注意，法律说的是CAS " can " apprehend, it doesn't say "shall" apprehend, in which case the law enforcement officials are not allowed to exercise discretion.
这说明法律在这个问题上给了执法人员＂酌情＂处理的权力（exercise discretion）， 但CAS 却选择了＂从严处理＂。如果他们对所有群体都＂从严＂，那也罢了。 但事实是，对一个有屡次domestic disturbance 记录，公认的瘾君子并有酒驾历史的市长，CAS的执法人员则对他的小孩选择了不闻不问。请问，他们执的是那家的＂法＂？ 你并不懂法，却在这里充专家为这种行为帮腔，好意思吗？更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net