THE SHORT VERSION​

THE LONG VERSION

​

The Father’s Custody And Access Descent Into Hell began in 2013

 

As many know, protracted custody battles can inflict significant psychological and financial strain. In the Father's case, it nearly bankrupted him, destroyed his business, and almost landed him in prison. Unable to keep up with his bills due to the ongoing dispute, his residence was burdened with three separate liens. In 2018, mere months after the custody and access case concluded, his home was on the verge of being auctioned off, just two weeks away.  While the Father managed to prevent the auction, he has not yet paid off the debts accrued during the continuing custody struggle.  The federal tax department imposed "legal demands" on his business and personal accounts; consequently, he remains unable to access those accounts as of winter 2024.

​

TOTAL COSTS TO DATE - $401,500

 

The mother persistently and deliberately fed false information about the Father to various entities, including the police, the Children's Aid Society, social services, the children's hospital, court judges, and the clinical psychologist conducting the custody and access assessment. Despite her efforts, all cases and reports concluded in the Father's favour. Undeterred, the mother launched a smear campaign targeting family, friends, and professionals associated with the case, including a police officer, their son's doctor, their son's babysitter, a substitute teacher, professional supervisors, and the court-appointed clinical psychologist. Her ultimate goal was to prevent the Father from obtaining any form of custody or shared parenting of their son.

 

The mother's relentless false accusations against the Father triggered a barrage of police investigations.

 

This site relies exclusively on primary sources to document its journal entries. These include:  

• 480 pages of Children's Aid Society reports

• Court orders

• Court briefs submitted by the mother and her attorney

• Police reports

• Medical reports

• 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

• Affidavits

• The mother's dated and signed court submissions contained fabricated lies against the following professionals, jeopardizing their careers:  

  • The son's Doctor: The mother falsely claimed the doctor stated that "COVID-19 was a hoax," among other fabrications. This unfounded and dubious claim was dismissed by the arbitrator in the final arbitration report (March 28, 2020).

  • A Police Detective: The mother wrongfully alleged that the officer was hired by the Father to surveil her. The court dismissed this unsupported claim (December 2, 2015).​​

  • A Clinical Psychologist: The mother lodged a formal complaint against the court-appointed custody and access Clinical Psychologist with the psychologist's regulatory body.  The focus of her complaint? Her rabid belief that the Father suffers from ADHD—a condition she argued should have disqualified him from 50/50 custody and access 🙄. The regulatory body conducted an investigation and ultimately cleared the clinical psychologist of any wrongdoing (April 29, 2020).

    • Following the mother's logic, and given her various clinical diagnoses, she should be denied custody of and access to her son. The mother really does have two brain cells fighting for third place.

  • ​​A Substitute Teacher: The mother falsely accused the substitute teacher of sexually abusing their son. Tragically, the teacher has not returned to work in the seven years since the false allegation (December 10, 2016).

  • Professional Supervisors: The mother falsely accused the professional supervisors, who oversaw the Father's visitation, of allowing the Father to sexually abuse their son under their supervision. In a blistering counter-attack, the supervisor organization unleashed a vigorous six-page defence, aggressively refuting the mother's baseless allegations. They attached 900 pages of supervisor notes (about the Father's visits with their son) for the mother and her attorney to review (May 10, 2016).

  • The mother's lawyer:  Even her own lawyer, Ms. L., wasn't spared the Judge's wrath. He excoriated her for failing to restrain the mother's relentless false allegations against the Father (November 22, 2017).

  • The Father, a consultant, worked at the same organization as the mother. He was immediately terminated following the mother's false allegations of abuse. Subsequently, he lost his other consulting contracts and his own consulting firm was ultimately forced out of business.​

​

Here’s What That Horrible Excuse For A mother Did

​

2014 - Part 1

How Did This Mess Begin? One day, around 5:00 PM, the father was recording an audio clip of his son to send to his parents and siblings, who lived 500 kilometres away. While the recording was still in progress, the mother wanted to discuss something with the father.  

 

It’s important to note that the audio recording device was still running during their conversation.  

 

The recording device captured the entire conversation between the mother and the father.

 

Here’s how the mother initiated the recorded discussion:  

 

Mother: "In a past life, I was a pedophile."

Father: "In a past life?"

Mother: "Yeah... a pedophile... exactly, yes."

(The mother continued talking about this and how she was able to gain access to children) (7:31 PM on February 26, 2014)

​

How Did the Father React?  

To say this conversation freaked out the Father would be an understatement.

 

Consider this: what if a father declared he had dreams of being a "pedophile in a past life," and his wife reported him to the authorities? It's easy to envision the swift and severe reaction from the Children's Aid Society, the police, and the courts.

 

In the Father's case, however, neither the Children's Aid Society nor the police took any action, despite the mother's recorded "pedophile in a past life" statements.

 

What Happened Next?  

The mother continued making equally disturbing and bizarre statements after her recorded confession. One morning, the Father informed her that he had consulted a lawyer about her "pedophile in a past life" confession. Later that day, the mother emailed the Father, claiming she had gone into hiding with their son and feared for their safety. Two police cars showed up at the Father's house to investigate the mother's allegations that he had sexually abused his son and physically abused her 🙄. Ten days after the mother's disappearance with their son, the maternal grandmother levelled baseless accusations against the Father, claiming he had resorted to intimidation to find his son.

 

​In reality, the mother feared an inevitable Children’s Aid Society investigation that would have resulted from her “pedophile in a past life” confession.  To reduce the likelihood of being investigated herself, the mother called the Police and the Children’s Aid Society and falsely alleged that the Father had physically assaulted her and sexually abused their son.  Two days later, during a recorded telephone conversation, the mother confessed that the alleged sexual abuse and physical assault never happened.  But, her confession didn’t stop the 3-month Police and Children’s Aid Society investigation against the Father that resulted from the mother’s allegations.  During the Father’s Children’s Aid Society interview, he played the telephone recording for them, and the case, along with the Police case, was closed in the Father’s favour.

​​

How Did the Mother Explain Her Recorded "Pedophile" Statements to the Court-Appointed Clinical Psychologist?

First, let's fast forward two years into the almost four-year custody and access battle. At this point, the court-appointed clinical psychologist had heard the recording and given the mother a copy to respond to its contents. This was the first time the mother heard the recording of her "pedophile in a past life" confession. She never denied making the alarming statements. In fact, she submitted the following written, dated (February 26, 2016), and signed response to the clinical psychologist (who also signed and dated the mother's response):  

 

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

 

Let the mother's response sink in—and imagine what would have happened if the Father had written that! Children's Aid and the police would have removed all access to his son and conducted an aggressive investigation. But neither the Children's Aid Society representative nor the police did anything about her repeated "pedophile" statements.​

​

​

The Father's 10-Year Descent into Hell

 

2014 - Part 2  

During the three-month investigation, the mother refused to allow the Father unsupervised visitation with their son, repeatedly citing the ongoing Children's Aid Society investigation as justification. Consequently, the Father could only see his son for one hour, one to three times a week, always under the mother's watchful eye.  

 

2014 - Part 3

Seeking joint custody and equal shared parenting, the Father suggested mediation, to which the mother agreed. However, after two months, she abruptly withdrew, ceasing all communication with both the Father and the mediator.  

 

2014 - Part 4

The Father submitted an application to the court, requesting joint custody and equal shared parenting of their son.  

 

2014 - Part 5

The judge issued a temporary court order. Because their son had been living with his mother for the previous 200 days (status quo), the order stipulated that he would remain with her until evidence suggested a different arrangement would better serve his needs. The mother insisted on supervised visitation for the Father. In response, the judge outlined a plan in the temporary order, gradually increasing the Father's supervised parenting time. In her court submission, the mother falsely alleged that the Father had ADHD, claiming it disqualified him from being a suitable parent. Both parents agreed to a custody and access assessment by a clinical psychologist.  

 

2014 - Part 6

The mother lodged her second false accusation with the Children's Aid Society, asserting that the Father had sexually abused their son during a supervised visit at a professional facility. The Children's Aid Society interviewed both the Father and the supervisor, and both refuted the allegation. The case was closed in the Father's favour. Nevertheless, the mother and her lawyer, Ms. L, consistently cited the investigation as justification for not extending the Father's supervised time or granting unsupervised access, violating the court order.  

 

2014 - Part 7  

The mother made her third false accusation to the Children's Aid Society, again alleging sexual abuse during a supervised visit.  The Children's Aid Society interviewed both the Father and the supervisor, and both denied the claims. The investigation concluded in the Father's favour.  Despite this, the mother and her lawyer continued to use the investigation as an excuse to restrict the Father's access, violating the court order.  

 

2015 - Part 1

The mother made her fourth false allegation to the Children's Aid Society, again alleging sexual abuse during supervised visitation. The Children's Aid Society interviewed the Father and the supervisor, and both denied the allegation. The case was closed in the Father's favour. Yet again, the mother and her lawyer used the investigation as a pretext to limit the Father's access, violating the court order.

 

2015 - Part 2

The mother made her fifth false allegation to the Children's Aid Society, this time alleging physical abuse during supervised visitation. The Children's Aid Society interviewed the Father and the supervisor, and both denied the allegation. The case was closed in the Father's favour.  Despite this, the mother and her lawyer persisted in using the investigation as justification to restrict the Father's access, violating the court order.  

 

2015 - Part 3

The Father visited the mother's residence to drop off balloons and a card for his son's birthday, bringing two witnesses who video-recorded him doing so. Soon after, the Father found himself under police investigation. The mother had falsely claimed that he had broken into her home, broken into her safe, and installed surveillance devices. The videos, which clearly showed the Father's innocent actions, were provided to the authorities, leading to the closure of the case.  That year, the Father also became the subject of two additional police investigations due to further false allegations from the mother. Both cases were resolved in the Father's favour.

 

2016 - Part 1

The mother made her sixth false allegation to the Children's Aid Society, again alleging sexual abuse during supervised visitation. The Children's Aid Society interviewed the Father and the supervisor, and both denied the allegation. The case was closed in the Father's favour.  Yet again, the mother and her lawyer used the investigation as an excuse to limit the Father's access, violating the court order.

 

2016 - Part 2

Several days before their son's first day of elementary school, the mother's lawyer (Ms. L) informed the Father that their son had been transferred to a new school without his consent and outside of the Father's school district. The new school was conveniently located near the mother's home. The Father filed an emergency motion with the court to revert the enrolment, but the judge declared that the situation did not qualify as an emergency. The Father was informed that he would have to apply for a regular court hearing in December—four months after the illegal school transfer. He was later told that by December, it would likely be in their son's best interest to remain at the new school.

​​​​

2016 - Part 3

 

The clinical psychologist's custody and access assessment yielded the following conclusions:  

 

"Joint custody and equal shared parenting."

 

"The current assessment does not support the continued requirement for supervised access for the Father, as he poses no established or persuasive risk to the child. Furthermore, the child willingly goes to him and comfortably remains with him, and the two have a positive and close relationship."

 

"There is a strong bond between the Father and the child, and there are no child protection concerns. The Father is a dedicated, responsible, and available parent. This assessment supports increased parenting time for him so that the child can benefit from a strong father-child relationship."

 

 

How did the mother respond to the report recommending 50/50 custody and access?  

• The mother rejected the report's recommendations.

• Without the court's or the Father's permission, she hired another clinical psychologist to critique and contest the original assessment.  The second, unauthorized psychologist agreed with the 50/50 custody and access recommendation.  

• Undeterred, the mother lodged a complaint with the original clinical psychologist's regulatory body, putting his career at risk. The regulatory body conducted an investigation and ultimately cleared the psychologist of any wrongdoing in a report dated April 19, 2020.  

 

How did the mother's lawyer (Ms. L) respond to the custody and access report?  

 

Ms. L rejected the report, stating:

"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 Day  

The Father no longer had to endure supervised visits in a confined room. However, his parenting time remained unchanged. For the first time in almost three years, he could enjoy two days with his family and son at his own residence—Christmas Day and New Year's Eve. But just two days after New Year's Eve, the Father received a phone call from the police. This time, the mother's seventh false allegation claimed that the Father and his family members had sexually abused their son.  

 

Note:

At this point, several of the Father's sisters decided to create the websites https://fnckyou.com and https://CUSTODY.WTF as a defence against the overly litigious mother, who continued to make endless false accusations of child sexual abuse against them.  

 

Eight months before this seventh false allegation, shortly after the clinical psychologist submitted his report recommending 50/50 custody and access, the

Father had already reached the following conclusion:  

​

Given the mother's proven ability to make serious false allegations, even when visits were supervised in a confined space, it was highly probable that she would make similar allegations once the Father had unsupervised time with his son at his residence.  

 

With this in mind, the Father's family took the precaution of video-recording every second of Christmas Day and New Year's Eve.  

 

Mid-January 2017

For days, Mark, the police investigator, relentlessly harassed the Father with threatening phone calls, demanding he and his sisters submit to an interrogation regarding the mother's false allegations. Under duress, the Father agreed to be interrogated at the police station, hoping to end the intimidation.  After enduring a gruelling two-hour interrogation, the Father finally played his trump card: video recordings from Christmas Day and New Year's Eve. The effect was immediate. The interview abruptly ended, the Father was cleared of all suspicion, and the detective offered a parting piece of advice: "Continue doing whatever you legally need to do to protect yourself from the mother."

​​

2017 - Part 2

Settlement Conference #1 in front of a Judge at the Courthouse

 

The Father and mother attended a settlement conference before a judge at the courthouse. The judge expressed her disturbance at the mother's behaviour, stating that "the mother's actions amounted to child abuse."

 

The Judge also chastised the mother's lawyer (Ms. L) for enabling the mother's false allegations.

 

The exchange went 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."

(November 22, 2017)

 

The Judge remarked that the Clinical Psychologist's reports were "glowing" for the Father and "not so great" for the mother's interactions with their son. She strongly encouraged the mother to implement the joint custody and equal shared parenting recommendations, but the mother refused. She would only agree to a schedule that gradually increased the Father's unsupervised parenting time to 30%—no more. As a result, both access and custody issues would be decided at trial in December of that year.

 

​​

2017 - Part 3

A second settlement conference before a judge at the courthouse and the trial had been scheduled for November. The Father sought joint 50/50 custody and access, commencing on the date recommended in the clinical psychologist's custody and access assessment report. Because the mother refused to agree to the report's recommendations, the matter proceeded to another settlement conference.

​

​

2017 - Part 4

Settlement Conference #2

 

The mother made the following offers:

• 50/50 equal shared parenting in seven years, with her retaining sole decision-making authority regarding their son's health, education, religious activities, and extracurricular activities until then.
  The Father rejected this offer.

​

• 50/50 equal shared parenting in four years, with the same conditions as above. The Father rejected this offer.

​

• 50/50 equal shared parenting in two years, with the same conditions as above. The Father rejected this offer.

 

Later that day, the Judge informed the mother that her position on decision-making and shared parenting was unreasonable. The Judge advised her about what she could lose at trial, in terms of access and custody, and emphasized the enormous financial costs involved.

​

Influenced by the Judge's advice, the mother agreed to implement the recommendations outlined in the clinical psychologist's report—but only if the Father made a series of absurd concessions.

 

The Father rejected all of her requests.

 

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

 

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

​

​

2020 Arbitration - The COVID-19 Pandemic

Once again, the mother launched legal proceedings, insisting on obtaining 100% custody and access to their son.

​

The mother attempted to use the pandemic to gain full custody and access.

​

Despite the existing 50/50 custody arrangement, the mother withheld their son for 30 consecutive days at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

​

To illustrate her unreasonableness, consider the two custody and access options she proposed to the COVID-19 Arbitrator:

​

• Their son would reside with her for the entire duration of the pandemic 🙄.
   

OR
​

•  In the mother's 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 final example of the mother's not-so-creative evidence package follows:

​

The mother made a startling false allegation about their son's Pediatrician, stating that the Doctor "said something along the lines of COVID being a hoax and that the government was overreacting."

 

The Arbitrator did not believe this unsubstantiated claim.

 

In their final report, the Arbitrator wrote the following in response to the mother's blatant lie:

​

"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."

​

Ultimately, the arbitrator ruled that the original, court-ordered 50/50 custody and access arrangement would continue throughout the pandemic.

​

​

​

2021 Arbitration

• Yet again, the mother initiated legal proceedings, demanding full custody of their son. By this point, their son was old enough to express himself, so the mother and Father agreed to a Voice of the Child assessment.

• During the assessment, their son disclosed that the mother had physically abused him for several years. The assessor promptly notified the Children's Aid Society, who investigated and "verified" the abuse.

• The Children's Aid Society had confirmed my worst fears: my son was indeed being abused by his mother. 

• During an interview, my son was asked how long the bruises from his mother's abuse lasted. "Two to three days," he replied.

• The Children's Aid Society informed the Father that the bruising didn't last long enough for police involvement. The look on my face must have been priceless.

• What the hell is wrong with the Children's Aid Society?

​

• With 100% certainty, if a man had abused their son in the same way the mother had, the Children's Aid Society would have involved the police and removed access to the son.

​​​​

• The mother faced no repercussions for her verified abuse of my son 🤬.

​​​​​​

 2025 Trial

• Now that the trial of her last victim, in former live-in boyfriend, is over, the father will initiate litigation against the mother for child custody and access related matters.