Note To The mother​​​

 

In the spirit of Clint Eastwood's iconic character in "Gran Torino," the Father and his sisters dedicate this website and the following thoughtful quote to you:​​

 

“Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while that you shouldn’t have fucked with?"

 

Well, that’s me.

 

Respectfully 😎,

 

​​​The Father and His Many Sisters​​​​​​​

​

​

12-Year Custody Battle:

False Allegations, System Failure, and a Father’s Fight for His Son

​

The purpose of this site is to document, in detail, how a woman's repeated false accusations of child sexual abuse have destroyed a man's life and damaged a child.

​

It serves as a record of injustice: despite the police, the courts and other authorities confirming her allegations were fabricated, she faces no consequences.

​​

Overview: How This All Started

On February 26, 2014 at 7:31 p.m., the mother told the Father she had “recurring dreams of being a pedophile in a past life.”

​

The Father was already recording an audio clip of their son to send to his family. The recording device was still running when the mother made this statement. The Father kept the recording and shared it with his lawyer.

​

After learning he had gone to a lawyer, the mother retaliated. She falsely reported to the police that the Father had sexually abused their son.

​

Knowing that the mother might later deny her words, the Father submitted the recording to a forensic lab on December 17, 2015 at 2:06 p.m.

​

On February 26, 2016, confronted with the evidence, the mother submitted a signed and dated letter to the court-appointed clinical psychologist. In that letter, she admitted that she had made the “pedophile in a past life” statement and tried to justify it as a recurring dream from childhood. The psychologist also signed and dated her confession to confirm its authenticity.

 

Despite this:

• The mother repeatedly accused the Father of child sexual abuse.

• The Father was investigated multiple times by the police and the Child Protective Services.

• The Father’s life, business, finances, and mental health were almost destroyed.

 

At the same time, in her court materials (November 2015, December 2, 2015, and March 2020), the mother falsely claimed that the Father had ADHD and that this supposedly made him an unfit parent.

 

The irony is clear:

• The mother submitted a letter to the court claiming that her “mental health has not been an issue since 2008.”

• This raises the question of what her mental health issues were before 2008.

• Her prescriptions show a long list of medications: Ativan, Lorazepam, Hydroxyzine, Amitriptyline, Venlafaxine, and Trazodone from 2003 to 2014.

• On her own dated and signed intake form (February 16, 2014), she reported drinking 10 ounces of alcohol daily, on top of these medications.

​​

These drugs were prescribed to manage her unstable, unhinged behavior. Despite this history and the obvious risk factors, the Father never once tried to use her mental health against her in court to block her parental rightsduring 11 years of litigation.

​

By contrast, the mother repeatedly attacked the Father’s character, mental health, and basic right to be a parent.

​

In 2021, after years of conflict and investigation, the truth finally came out. During a Voice of the Child assessment, their son disclosed that it was the mother who had been physically abusing him for years.

• The assessor reported this to the Child Protective Services.

• Child Protective Services investigated and “verified” that the mother had been abusing the child.

• Despite this verified abuse, the mother faced no meaningful consequences.

​

Later in 2021, the mother falsely accused her last live-in boyfriend of assault.

That man, the mother’s latest victim, was dragged through a three-year criminal trial based on her lies. Even with strong documentary evidence supporting his innocence, he had to endure years under serious criminal charges.

In December 2024, he was finally acquitted of all charges.

The pattern is clear: repeated false allegations, long investigations, and enormous damage to innocent people.

​

The mother is a psychopath.

​

Quick Summary (Short Version)

​

Key Numbers At a Glance

Over a four-year period, the mother made seven false child sexual abuse allegations against the Father and members of his family.

​

These lies resulted in:

• 5 police and Child Protective Services investigations in total

  • 4 investigations targeting the Father

  • 1 investigation targeting the Father and his sister after a diaper change on Christmas Day

​

In every single case, the Father and his family were cleared. Many of the investigations ended because of the mother’s own recorded videos, where she was seen interrogating their son.

​

Despite all the documentary evidence proving that the allegations were false, the Father was forced to spend years with only supervised visitation.

The nightmare only began to slow down after a judge openly criticized both the mother and her lawyer, Ms. L, for their behavior.

​

Timeline Snapshot by Year

​

2014

• The Father audio-recorded a conversation where the mother said she had “recurring dreams of being a pedophile in a past life” (7:31 p.m., February 26, 2014).

• Shortly after the Father informed the mother that he had spoken to a lawyer, she called the police. Two police cars arrived at the Father’s residence. She falsely alleged that he had sexually molested their son.

• In 2014, the mother made three false allegations that the Father had sexually assaulted their son.

• Child Protective Services and police investigations followed. Each one eventually ended in the Father’s favor.

​

2015

• The mother made her fourth false allegation that the Father sexually assaulted their son during supervised visits.

• She also filed additional false claims with Child Protective Services about physical abuse.

• The Father was again cleared, but the allegations were used to justify keeping his time supervised and limited

​

2016

• In 2016, the mother made her fifth and sixth false allegations that the Father sexually assaulted their son.

• On January 15, 2016, without the Father’s knowledge, the mother completed and signed a falsified School Transfer Form. She misled school officials into believing she had sole decision-making authority regarding their son. This was untrue. At that time, both parents had shared decision-making powers.

• Eight months later, just days before school started, the mother’s lawyer, Ms. L, informed the Father’s lawyer that their son had been moved to a new school in the mother’s area, outside the Father’s catchment area.

• The Father filed an emergency motion about the school transfer. The judge refused to treat it as an emergency and pushed the Father's court date to December.  That same judge stated that by December, it would likely be in the child’s “best interest” to leave him where he was in the new school, essentially rewarding the mother’s misconduct.

​​

2017

• The mother made her seventh false allegation, this time claiming that the Father and his family had sexually assaulted their son during Christmas and New Year’s visits.

• The Father and his family had already anticipated this risk. They had video-recorded every second of Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve. Those recordings, as well as Child Protective Services and police interviews, cleared the Father and his family.

• In January 2017, the child was interviewed by two police detectives between 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., January 10, 2017).

  • The child denied telling his mother that the Father touched him inappropriately.

  • He stated that no one was hurting him or making him uncomfortable.

  • He confirmed there was no inappropriate touching of his private parts.

• In November 2017, four years after the first false allegation, the Father finally obtained 50/50 custody and access to his son.

​

2018

• The mother continued her parental alienation tactics.

• She denied the Father access to his son on Father’s Day for the fourth time, despite a court order that specifically required Father’s Day to be spent with the Father.

​

2020

• The mother initiated yet another legal proceeding.

• She argued that because of the COVID-19 pandemic, she should receive full custody and their son should live with her 100% of the time for the entire duration of the pandemic (March 2020).

• She asked for conditions such as the Father proving he had not left his house or had any visitors since March 12, 2020.

• The arbitrator rejected these extreme demands and ordered that the existing 50/50 custody arrangement continue.

​

2021

IN 2021, THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VERIFIED THAT THE MOTHER HAD BEEN ABUSING THEIR SON FOR YEARS.

• The mother again launched legal proceedings, insisting that she should have full custody and full access to their son.

• By this time, their son was old enough to express his views. Both parents agreed to a Voice of the Child assessment (an interview by a trained professional who listens to the child’s wishes and experiences).

• During this assessment, their son disclosed that the mother had physically abused him for years.

• The assessor immediately reported this to Child Protective Services.

• Child Protective Services investigated and “verified” that the mother had been abusing the child all along.

• Despite this verified abuse and the mother confessing to the abuse, the mother faced no real consequences. 🤬

​

2023

• The mother once again initiated legal proceedings.

• Her ongoing demand is always the same: 100% custody and for the child to remain with her 100% of the time, regardless of the impact on the Father or on the child, and regardless of the history of verified abuse.

​

2024

• The three-year criminal trial of the mother’s ex-boyfriend, her last live-in partner, finally ended.

• In December 2024, he was acquitted of all charges.

• His life, reputation, and finances were severely damaged by the same pattern of false allegations that destroyed the Father’s life.

• The mother has a documented pattern of weaponizing false accusations to manipulate and control others.

​

The Father’s message to the mother:

​

For your repeated false accusations of child sexual abuse, you deserve the same prison sentence the Father would have faced if he had been wrongly convicted.

In January 2017, you claimed you “did what any vigilant mother would do” and insisted your false allegations “should not be used against in court” against you.

​

3. Full Story (Long Version)

The Father’s Descent Into Hell: Financial, Emotional, and Legal Impact

The Father’s custody and access nightmare began in 2013.

As many people know, long custody battles can break a person financially and emotionally. In this case, the conflict:

• Destroyed his business

• Put him at risk of prison

• Nearly Bankrupted the Father

​

Because of the ongoing legal battle, the Father could not keep up with his bills. His home was burdened with three separate liens.

​

In 2018, just months after the initial custody and access case ended, his house was two weeks away from being auctioned off. The Father managed to stop the auction at the last minute, but the debts from the custody battle are still not fully paid.

The federal tax department imposed “legal demands” on both his business and personal accounts. As a result, the Father still could not access those accounts as of winter 2025.

​

Total costs to date: approximately $473,500.

​

The mother consistently fed false information about the Father to:

• Police

• Child Protective Services

• Social services

• The city's children’s hospital

• Family Court judges

• The clinical psychologist who conducted the custody and access assessment

​

Every one of those cases and reports ended in the Father’s favor.

When that did not achieve her goal, she expanded her smear campaign to include:

• Family members

• Friends

• Professionals involved in the case

​

Her target list included:

• A police officer

• Their son’s doctor

• Their son’s babysitter

• A substitute teacher

• Professional supervisors who monitored visits

• The court-appointed clinical psychologist

​

Her ultimate goal was simple: prevent the Father from having any shared custody or meaningful parenting time with their son.

​

Her repeated false accusations led to one investigation after another. The Father’s life became a constant cycle of defending himself against lies.​​

​​

What This Website Is Based On (Evidence)

This site is built on documented evidence, including:

• 480 pages of Child Protective Services reports

• Court orders

• Court briefs submitted by the mother and her attorney

• Police reports initiated by the mother

• Medical reports initiated by the mother

• Letters from the mother’s attorney

• The clinical psychologist’s custody and access assessment report

• The mother’s dated and signed submissions to the court-appointed clinical psychologist

• Legally obtained audio and video recordings

• The mother's own Affidavits

​

All of these sources tell a consistent story: the allegations against the Father were false, and the mother was the one who was abusive and dishonest.

​

Professionals Targeted by the Mother’s False Allegations

The mother’s court submissions contained fabricated claims that put several professionals’ careers at risk.

​

1. Their son’s doctor

• The mother falsely claimed that the doctor had said that “COVID-19 was a hoax,” among other things.

• The arbitrator found this claim not believable and rejected it in the final arbitration report (March 28, 2020).

​

2. A police detective

• The mother claimed that a police detective had been hired by the Father to spy on her.

• This claim was dismissed by the court as unsupported (December 2, 2015).

​

3. The court-appointed clinical psychologist

• The mother filed a formal complaint against the clinical psychologist with his regulatory body.

• Her main complaint was her obsessive belief that the Father had ADHD and should be disqualified from 50/50 custody and access because of it. 🙄

• The regulatory body investigated and cleared the psychologist of any wrongdoing (April 29, 2020).

​

By the mother’s own logic, given her history of diagnoses, medications, and verified abuse, she would be the one disqualified from custody and access.

​

4. A substitute teacher

• The mother falsely accused a substitute teacher of sexually abusing their son (December 10, 2016).

• Tragically, that teacher has not returned to work in the seven years since the false allegation.

​

5. Court-Appointed Supervisors

• The mother accused the professional supervisors at the access center of allowing the Father to sexually abuse their son during supervised visits.

• In response, the supervisor organization issued a strong six-page defense letter.

• They attached 900 pages of detailed supervisor notes about the Father’s visits with his son and sent them to the mother and her attorney (May 10, 2016).

• The records clearly contradicted her claims.

​

6. The mother’s own lawyer, Ms. L (Ms. L is a piece of shit so she deserved it)

• Even Ms. L was criticized by the court.

• A judge chastised her for failing to stop the mother’s constant false accusations against the Father, calling out her role in enabling the behavior (November 22, 2017).

 

Impact on the Father’s career

The Father and the mother worked at the same organization. After her false allegations, the Father was immediately terminated.

He then lost his other consulting contracts, and eventually his entire consulting business collapsed.

​

How It Started: The “Pedophile in a Past Life” Confession (2014 – Part 1)

One day in 2014, around 5:00 p.m., the Father was recording a short audio clip of his son to send to his parents and siblings, who lived 500 kilometers away. While he was still recording, the mother wanted to talk to him about something.

The recording device stayed on during the entire conversation.

The device captured everything the mother said.

​

The conversation went like this:

• mother: “I've had recurring dreams of being a pedophile in a past life”

• Father: “In a past life?”

• mother: “Yeah... a pedophile... exactly, yes.” 

​

She then kept talking about how, in this “past life,” she was able to get access to children. (Time stamp: 7:31 p.m., February 26, 2014.)

​

The Father’s reaction

 

The Father was horrified.

​

Imagine this situation reversed: if a father said he had dreams of being “a pedophile in a past life,” and the mother reported him to authorities, the reaction from Child Protective Services, the police, and the courts would likely be immediate and harsh.

​

In this case, despite the recording and the seriousness of the statement, neither Child Protective Services nor the police took any action against the mother.

​

What happened next

After this recorded confession, the mother continued to make strange and disturbing statements.

​

One morning, the Father told her that he had spoken to a lawyer about her “pedophile in a past life” confession. Later that day, she emailed him claiming that she had gone into hiding with their son and that she feared for their safety.

Two police cars soon arrived at the Father’s home.

​

The mother had told the police that:

• The Father sexually abused their son

• The Father physically abused her

​

About ten days after she disappeared with their son, the maternal grandmother accused the Father of using intimidation to find out where his son was.

 

In reality, the mother was afraid that she would be investigated by Child Protective Services for her “pedophile in a past life” confession. To reduce the chances of that happening, she called both the police and Child Protective Services and falsely accused the Father of:

• Physically assaulting her

• Sexually abusing their son

 

Two days later, during a recorded phone call, the mother admitted that:

• The alleged sexual abuse never happened

• The alleged physical assault never happened

​​

Despite this recorded confession, the Child Protective Services and police still carried out a three-month investigation into the father.

​

During his Child Protective Services interview, the Father played the recorded phone call for the worker.

​

Eventually, both the Child Protective Services case and the police investigation were closed in the Father’s favor.

 

How the mother explained her “pedophile” comments

Fast forward two years into the custody battle.

By then:

• The court-appointed clinical psychologist had heard the recording.

• The psychologist gave the mother a copy of the audio and asked her to respond to it.

• This was the first time she heard herself on tape making the “pedophile in a past life” statements.

​

She did not deny making the statements.

​

Instead, she submitted a written, dated, and signed response to the psychologist on February 26, 2016. The psychologist also signed and dated her response.

In that document, she wrote:

“This is a recurring dream that I have had since early childhood, and it has no bearing on tendencies toward pedophilia.”

​

Let that sink in.

​

If the Father had written that sentence, Child Protective Services and the police would almost certainly have removed his access to his son and launched a full-scale investigation.

In this case, nothing was done to the mother by Child Protective Services or the police.

​

3.5 The Father’s 10-Year Descent into Hell – Year by Year

​

2014 – Part 2: Supervised Access and Limited Contact

During the first three-month investigation, the mother refused to allow the Father any unsupervised access to their son. She repeatedly used the ongoing Child Protective Services investigation as her excuse.

As a result, the Father could only see his son:

• For one hour at a time

• One to three times a week

• Always under the mother’s direct supervision

​

2014 – Part 3: Failed Mediation

Seeking joint custody and equal shared parenting, the Father proposed mediation. The mother agreed at first.

After two months, she suddenly walked away and stopped communicating with both the Father and the mediator.

​

2014 – Part 4: Going to Court

The Father filed a court application requesting:

• Joint custody

• Equal shared parenting of their son

​

2014 – Part 5: Temporary Order and ADHD Accusation

 

The judge issued a temporary court order.

 

Because the child had been living with the mother for the previous 200 days, the judge ordered that the child remain with her until evidence showed that a different arrangement would better serve the child’s needs.

​

The mother insisted that any time the Father had with his son had to be supervised.

In this temporary order:

• The judge set out a plan to gradually increase the Father’s supervised parenting time.

• In her written court documents, the mother falsely claimed that the Father had ADHD and argued that this made him unfit to parent.

• Both parents agreed to participate in a custody and access assessment by a clinical psychologist.

​

2014 – Part 6: Second False Child Protective Services Complaint

The mother made her second false report to Child Protective Services, claiming that the Father had sexually abused their son during a supervised visit at a professional center.

​

Child Protective Services interviewed both the Father and the professional supervisor. Both denied the allegation, and Child Protective Services closed the case in the Father’s favor.

​

Despite this, the mother and her lawyer, Ms. L, kept using this “investigation” as an excuse to deny the Father more time and to block unsupervised access, which went against the court order.

​

2014 – Part 7: Third False Child Protective Services Complaint

The mother made a third false Child Protective Services complaint about alleged sexual abuse during a supervised visit.

​

Again:

• Child Protective Services interviewed the Father and the supervisor.

• Both refuted the allegation.

• The case was closed in the Father’s favor.​

​

Yet again, the mother and her lawyer used the existence of the investigation as a tool to restrict the Father’s access, in violation of the court order.

​

2015 – Part 1: Fourth False Child Protective Services Complaint – Sexual Abuse

In 2015, the mother made her fourth false allegation to Child Protective Services, claiming that the Father had sexually abused their son during supervised visits.

Child Protective Services interviewed the Father and the supervisor. Both denied the allegation. The case was closed in the Father’s favor.

​

Still, the mother and her lawyer kept citing the investigation as a reason to keep the Father’s time supervised and limited.

​

2015 – Part 2: Fifth False Child Protective Services Complaint – Physical Abuse

The mother then made her fifth false allegation to Child Protective Services, this time claiming that the Father had physically abused their son during supervised visits.

​

Once again:

• Child Protective Services interviewed the Father and the supervisor.

• Both denied the allegation.

• Child Protective Services closed the case in the Father’s favor.

​​

Despite this, the mother and her lawyer continued to use the investigation to block increased access for the Father.

​

2015 – Part 3: False Break-in Allegation and More Police Investigations

On their son’s birthday, the Father went to the mother’s residence to drop off balloons and a card for his son. He brought two witnesses who video-recorded the visit to protect himself.

​

Shortly afterward, the Father learned he was under police investigation.

 

The mother had told the police that:

• The Father broke into her house

• He broke into her safe

• He installed surveillance devices

 

The Father gave the police the videos that showed exactly what happened. The police closed the case in his favor.

 

That same year, the Father became the subject of two additional police investigations because of more false allegations from the mother. Both were closed in his favor.

​

2016 – Part 1: Sixth False Child Protective Services Complaint

The mother made her sixth false allegation to Child Protective Services, again claiming that the Father had sexually abused their son during supervised visits.

​

Child Protective Services interviewed both the Father and the supervisor.

• Both denied the allegations.

• Child Protective Services closed the case in the Father’s favor.

 

Once again, the mother and her lawyer used the existence of the investigation to justify limiting the Father’s parenting time, against the court order.

​

2016 – Part 2: Illegal School Transfer

Several days before their son’s first day of elementary school, Ms. L (the mother’s lawyer) informed the Father’s lawyer that:

• The mother had already transferred their son to a new school

• The new school was now outside the Father’s area and close to the mother’s home

​

On January 15, 2016, without the Father’s knowledge or consent:

• The mother filled out and signed a School Transfer Form,

• She misled school staff into believing she had sole decision-making rights over the child.

• In reality, both parents had shared decision-making power at that time.

​

The Father filed an emergency motion to have their son transferred back, but the judge ruled it was not an emergency.

​

The Father was told he could not get a hearing until December, four months after the transfer. By then, he was told, it would probably be in the child’s “best interest” to stay at the new school.

​

In other words, the mother’s improper conduct was rewarded by the system.

​

2016 – Part 3: Custody and Access Assessment Report

The court-appointed clinical psychologist completed the custody and access assessment and concluded:

• “Joint custody and equal shared parenting.”

• The Father did not require supervised access.

• The Father posed no established or persuasive risk to the child.

• The child willingly went to the Father, stayed comfortably with him, and they had a positive, close relationship.

• There were no child protection concerns regarding the Father.

• The Father was a dedicated, responsible, and available parent.

• The assessor recommended increased parenting time for the Father so the child could benefit from a strong father-child relationship."

​

How the mother responded to the Father being granted 50/50 custody and access.

​

The mother rejected the report’s recommendations.

​

Without court approval or the Father’s consent, she hired another psychologist to criticize the original assessment.

​

The second psychologist, however, agreed with the original recommendation of 50/50 custody and access.

​

Not satisfied, the mother then filed a complaint with the first psychologist’s regulatory body, hoping to damage his career and discredit his report.

• The regulatory body investigated.

• On April 19, 2020, they cleared the psychologist of any wrongdoing.

​

She had two main goals:

1. Discredit and punish the court-appointed psychologist.

2. Somehow erase or undermine her own signed and dated confession in which she admitted to being a “pedophile in a past life” and tried to explain it as a recurring dream.

​

How the mother's lawyer responded

 

Ms. L wrote:

“To be clear, the clinical psychologist’s recommendations are not binding and have not been tested in court. We are not acquiescing to the clinical psychologist’s recommendations at this time.”

​

2016 Christmas Day / 2017 New Year’s Eve: Seventh False Allegation

Around this time, the Father no longer had to visit his son in a tiny supervised room, but his overall parenting time was still the same.

For the first time in nearly three years, he was allowed to have his son at his own residence:

• Christmas Day

• New Year’s Eve

​

Two days after New Year’s Eve, the Father got a call from the police.

The mother’s seventh false allegation claimed that the Father and his family members had sexually abused their son during those visits.

​

Because the mother had already shown she would make false allegations even when visits were fully supervised, the Father and his family had prepared for this possibility.

 

They video-recorded every second of Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve with the child.

​

Mid-January 2017: Police Interrogation

​

In mid-January 2017, a police investigator repeatedly phoned the Father, demanding that he and his sisters come in for questioning.

​

Under pressure, the Father agreed to a formal interrogation at the police station.

​

After nearly two hours of interrogation, the Father played his trump card: the complete 40+ hours of video recordings of Christmas and New Year’s Eve.

​

Once the detective saw the videos:

• The interview ended immediately.

• The Father was cleared of all suspicion.

• The detective gave the Father this advice:

  “Continue doing whatever you legally need to do to protect yourself from the mother.”

  ​

Settlement Conferences and Finally 50/50 Custody (2017)

​

Settlement Conference #1 (November 2017)

The Father and mother attended a settlement conference in front of a judge at the courthouse.

​

The Judge was clearly disturbed by the mother’s behavior. She stated that:

“the mother’s actions amounted to child abuse.”

​

The judge also criticized Ms. L (the mother’s lawyer) for enabling the false allegations.

 

The exchange went roughly as follows:

• Judge: “Why did you let her make so many false accusations? Why didn’t you stop her?”

• Ms. L: “I tried to stop her.”

• Judge: “You didn’t try hard enough.”

(Date: November 22, 2017.)

​

The Judge also said that the clinical psychologist’s reports were:

• “Glowing” for the Father

• “Not so great” for the mother’s interactions with their son

​

She strongly encouraged the mother to follow the recommendation of joint custody and equal shared parenting. The mother refused. She would only agree to:

• A gradual increase in the Father’s access time over a 7 year period 

• Capped at 30%

• With her keeping 100% custody

​

As a result, the questions of custody and access were scheduled to be decided at a trial in December.

​

Settlement Conference #2 (Later in 2017)

At a second settlement conference, the mother made a series of offers:

1. 50/50 equal shared parenting in seven years, with the mother keeping sole decision-making power until then (health, education, religion, and extracurricular activities).

   • The Father rejected this.

2. 50/50 equal shared parenting in four years, with the same conditions.

   • The Father rejected this.

3. 50/50 equal shared parenting in two years, again with the same conditions.

   • The Father rejected this.

​​​

Later that day, the judge told the mother that her position on custody and decision-making was unreasonable. The judge warned her about:

• What she could lose if the case went to trial

• How much the trial would cost

​

Under that pressure, the mother finally agreed to implement the 50/50 custody recommendations from the clinical psychologist, but only if the Father agreed to a long list of unreasonable conditions.

​

The Father refused her demands.

​

Eventually, the mother agreed to implement 50/50 custody and access without conditions.

​

After a four-year battle, the Father finally achieved 50/50 custody and access to his son.

​

2020 Arbitration – The COVID-19 Pandemic

In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the mother launched yet another legal proceeding.

​

Despite an existing 50/50 custody order, she:

• Withheld their son from the Father for 30 consecutive days at the beginning of the pandemic.

• Argued that she should have 100% custody and access for the entire duration of the pandemic.

​

She took her demands to a COVID-19 arbitrator. Her two “options” for parenting time were:

1. Their son would live with her for the entire duration of the pandemic. 🙄

2. Or, in her own words:

   “During the pandemic, I want to have our son remain with me 100% of the time until the following conditions are met:

   • The Father can confirm that he is not infected with the coronavirus.

   • The Father can demonstrate that he has not left his house since March 12, 2020.

   • The Father can demonstrate that he has not had any visitors at his house since March 12, 2020.

   • The number of cases in the community improves, as determined by authorities such as Chief Public Health Officers at the tri-level government.

   • The Father agrees to a provision for police enforcement should he not adhere to the access schedule.

   • The Father guarantees that no one other than their son will be allowed in his house until the pandemic is over.

   • During the COVID-19 pandemic, I want to have 100% decision-making authority regarding our son.”

   ​

One more example from her “evidence”:

She claimed that their son’s Pediatrician had said that “COVID is a hoax and the government is overreacting.”

​

The Arbitrator did not find this credible.

​

In the final report, the Arbitrator wrote:

"Firstly, the claim that the Doctor referred to the coronavirus as a 'hoax' is unlikely, especially considering her influential position as a Pediatrician in the community. Secondly, the mother's efforts to protect their son during the COVID-19 pandemic, which include her reluctance to shuttle their son between two households, raise questions about why she would seek further medical counsel from the same doctor who allegedly stated that COVID-19 was a hoax. The series of events suggests that the mother may be engaging in "doctor shopping," potentially to find a medical professional who would support her preference for their son to remain solely in her care for the entirety of the pandemic."

​

2021 Arbitration – Voice of the Child and Verified Abuse

In 2021, the mother again brought legal proceedings, demanding full custody of their son.

​

By now, the child was old enough to clearly express his views, so both parents agreed to a Voice of the Child assessment.

During the assessment:

• Their son disclosed that the mother had been physically abusing him for years.

• The assessor immediately reported this to the Child Protective Services.

• Child Protective Services investigated and “verified” that the mother had been abusing the child.

​

This confirmed the Father’s worst fears. His son really had been abused by the mother.

​

During an interview with the Child Protective Services, his son was asked how long the bruises from the mother’s abuse lasted.

• The child answered: “Two to three days.”

​

The Child Protective Services then told the Father that:

• The bruising did not last long enough to warrant police involvement.

​​

The Father’s reaction to this logic was disbelief.

​

If a man had been accused of abusing the child in the same way and leaving bruises for “two to three days,” the Child Protective Services would almost certainly:

• Involve the police

• Remove the man’s access to the child

​

In this case, the mother faced no consequences for her verified abuse. 🤬

​

2022–2025

2023

The mother once again initiated new legal proceedings.

​

Her pattern has not changed:

• She still seeks 100% custody.

• She still wants their son to live with her 100% of the time.

• She still fights shared parenting, despite her history of false allegations and verified abuse.

​

2024

The three-year criminal trial of the mother’s last live-in boyfriend came to an end.

• He had been falsely accused of assault by the mother.

• In December 2024, he was acquitted of all charges.

​

Even though he was found not guilty, the damage to his life, reputation, and mental health was enormous. His story mirrors the pattern that destroyed the Father’s life.

​​

2025

By 2025, the criminal trial of her last victim was over, and he had been acquitted.

​

The Father’s next step is to initiate new litigation against the mother regarding child custody and access, armed with:

• Years of documented false allegations

• CAS verification that the mother had abused their son

• Court and arbitration records showing her pattern of behavior

​

This is the true story of how one parent weaponized false allegations to try to erase the other parent from a child’s life, and how the system, even when it finally recognized the truth, often failed to protect the child or hold the liar accountable.