Judge won’t delay trial of mom accused in her toddler’s death
The mother of a Calgary toddler facing charges in his death won’t be allowed to delay her trial, a move which could have greatly benefited her husband.
Justice Glen Poelman on Friday denied an adjournment application by Jennifer Clark, after her husband, Jeromie, refused to waive his right to argue unreasonable delay if the trial was postponed.
The couple are scheduled to face a three-week trial beginning June 5.
Jeromie Clark said he has already been without his two other children since being charged in December 2014, and a delay would extend that.
He said the two boys were three and seven when his youngest son died in November 2013, and with the possibility of appeals they could be 11 and 14 before he could be with them again.
“Being found innocent I would still have lost their childhood,” he told Poelman, in refusing to waive his charter right to having a trial in a timely fashion.
A condition of the couple’s bail is that they have no contact with their other two children.
Both Clarks are charged with criminal negligence causing death and failure to provide the necessaries of life to their 14-month-old son John, who died of an infection related to malnutrition.
Crown prosecutor Shane Parker has opposed Jennifer Clark’s request for a delay after she parted ways with her lawyer in February and hired new counsel in March.
Defence counsel Karen Molle said Wednesday she would be prepared to take on the woman’s case, but wouldn’t be ready for the start of the trial in June.
Parker said the next available time for a three-week trial in Court of Queen’s Bench is September 2018.
He said while the mother was waiving her right to argue delay, the same couldn’t be said for the husband.
“This court should have some deep suspicions of the way the defendant has conducted herself,” Parker told Poelman.
“There needs to be an assessment to determine if Ms. Clark is manipulating an adjournment, an adjournment which benefits her husband,” he said.
“There’s a real concern that Mrs. Clark is manipulating the system for the benefit of Mr. Clark.”
Poelman agreed the woman wasn’t being forthright with the court.
“In my view she has not acted reasonably and honestly and diligently as required in the cir- cumstances of this case to secure a replacement of counsel,” he said.
The woman will have to either represent herself, or find counsel available for the trial dates.