Mr. David French:

I want to separate where the children eventually end up living from the fact that the accused, or convicted at this point, has guardianship. There has been an abundance of research in this space that shows the best placement is with the victim's family. The next best is in neutral foster care and the worst case is with the family of the convicted. That is irrelevant to this consideration. People will have the children's best interests at heart. CFA-Tusla has expertise. The victim's family is a resource. It is possible that the killer's family is also helpful. The problem is that the convicted person in the room has rights. Where the children end up or who is their guardian could be sorted out much better if the convicted killer was not in the room and making problems by, for example, restricting the children from being cared for abroad, as was the case in our situation, or fighting against the notice party of the victim's family. That convicted person in the room is known to be someone who causes problems so removing that person would solve an awful lot of issues. It would mean CFA-Tusla not having to respect his guardianship. It would mean a more collegiate atmosphere rather than an adversarial one.