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 resulted almost bankrupting him personally, succeeded in destroying his business, and almost landed him in prison.  Unable to keep up with his bills due to the ongoing custody dispute, his residence had three separate liens against it.  In 2018, a few months after the custody and access case concluded, his home was on the brink of being auctioned off, only two weeks away.  The Father gathered the necessary funds to pay off the debts accrued during the custody struggle.  The federal tax department imposed “legal demands” on his business and personal accounts; consequently, the Father is still unable to access his accounts as of the spring of 2024.

​

TOTAL COSTS TO DATE - $401,500

 

The mother continually and intentionally presented falsified 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.  All the cases and reports concluded in the Father’s favour.  Moreover, the mother initiated a smear campaign targeting family, friends, and professionals associated with this case, including a police officer, their son’s Doctor, their son’s Babysitter, a substitute Teacher, Professional Supervisors, and the court-appointed Clinical Psychologist.  The mother’s ultimate goal was to prevent the Father from obtaining any form of custody or shared parenting of their son.

 

Her numerous false accusations against the Father resulted in multiple police investigations.

 

Primary sources were exclusively used to document the journal entries on this site.  These include:

 

1. 480 pages of Children’s Aid Society Reports

2. Court Orders

3. Court Briefs submitted by the mother and her attorney

4. Police Reports

5. Medical Reports

6. Letters from the mother’s attorney

7. The Clinical Psychologist’s Custody and Access Assessment Report

8. The mother’s dated and signed submissions to the court-appointed Clinical Psychologist

9. Legally obtained audio recordings

10. Legally obtained video recordings

11. The mother’s dated and signed submissions to the Court, where she fabricated lies against the following professionals, jeopardizing their careers:  

    • ​​The Son’s Doctor: The mother falsely claimed that the Doctor stated that “COVID-19 was a hoax,” among other fabrications.  This unfounded and highly dubious claim was dismissed by the Arbitrator (in writing) 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)

    • The Court-appointed Custody and Access Clinical Psychologist, whom the mother lodged a formal complaint to the Clinical Psychologist’s regulatory body. The focus of her complaint was her rabid belief that the father suffers from ADHD and that ADHD should have been the deciding factor in denying him 50/50 custody and access 🙄.   The regulatory body carried out an investigation. The regulatory body wrote a report that cleared the Psychologist of the mother's false allegations.
      (April 29, 2020)

      • Following the mother's logic, and given her various clinical psychological diagnoses, she, herself, should be denied custody of and access to my son.

      • The mother really does have 2 brain cells fighting for 3rd place.​

    • A Substitute Teacher, whom the mother falsely accused of sexually abusing their son.  The Substitute Teacher has not returned to work in the 7 years since the false allegation.
      (December 10, 2016)

    • The Professional Supervisors who oversaw the Father’s visitation.  The mother falsely accused them of allowing the Father to sexually abuse their son under their supervision. In a blistering counterattack, the supervisor organization unleashed a vigorous six-page defense to aggressively refute the mother's baseless allegations.  The supervisor organization 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 Son's Babysitter, whom the mother falsely accused of overdosing their son while the mother slept.
      (October 11, 2012)

    • Her Own Lawyer, Ms L., who received that thrashing of her life from the Judge who ​​questioned Ms. L's inability to keep her lawyer from making false allegations against the father.
      (November 22, 2017)

    • The Father, a consultant, worked at the same company as the mother. He was immediately terminated after the mother made 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 residing 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 operating during their conversation.

​

The audio recording device captured the entire mother and Father conversation. 

​

Here’s how the mother initiated the recorded conversation:

 

• mother: “In a past life I was a pedophile”

• Father: “In a past life?”

• mother: “Yeah… a pedophile…exactly, yes.” (the mother continues to talk about this and how she was able to gain access to children)
  (7:31pm on February 26, 2014)

​

 

How Did The Father React?

To say that 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 how the Children’s Aid Society, the Police, and the Courts would have reacted.

​

In the Father’s case, however, neither the Children’s Aid Society nor the Police took any action, despite the mother’s recorded recurring dreams of being a “pedophile in a past life” statements. 

​

What Happened Next?

The mother continued making equally disturbing and bizarre statements after her recorded “pedophile in a past life” confession.  One morning before leaving for work, the Father informed the mother that he had called a lawyer to discuss, among other things, her “pedophile in a past life” confession.  Later that day, the mother emailed the Father stating that she had gone into hiding with their son and made the bizarre claim that she feared for their safety.  Two Police cars showed up at the Father's house to investigate the mother’s allegations that the Father had sexually abused his son and physically abused the mother. 🙄 Ten days following the disappearance of the mother with their son, the maternal grandmother levelled baseless accusations against the Father, claiming he had resorted to intimidation strategies in his efforts 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?

Let’s fast forward, for a moment, 2 years into the almost 4-year custody and access battle.  At this point, the Court-appointed Clinical Psychologist has heard the recording.  The Clinical Psychologist has given the mother a copy of the recording so that she can respond recording’s contents.  This is the first time that the mother heard the recording of her “pedophile in a past life” confession.  The mother never denied making the alarming statements in the recording.  In fact, the mother submitted the following written, dated (February 26, 2016), and signed response to the Clinical Psychologist (the Clinical Psychologist 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 signed and dated (February 26, 2016) response sink in -- and imagine what would have happened if the Father had written and signed a response like that!  Children’s Aid and the Police would have removed all access to the son from the Father and conducted a very aggressive investigation. 

 

But neither the Children’s Aid Society representative nor Police authority did anything about her repeated "pedophile" statements.

​

​

The Father’s 10-Year Journey From Hell 

 

2014 Part - 2

During the three-month investigation, the mother refused to allow the Father unsupervised visitation with their son, repeatedly referencing the ongoing Children’s Aid Society investigation to justify her decision.  Consequently, the Father could only see his son for one hour, one to three times a week, and always in the mother’s presence.

​

2014 - Part 3

In pursuing joint custody and equal shared parenting rights for his son, the Father suggested mediation, to which the mother agreed.  However, after two months of participating in the process, the mother abruptly ceased her involvement.  She stopped responding to all communication from the Father and the mediator regarding continuing mediation sessions.

​

2014 - Part 4

The Father submitted an application to the Court and stated that he wanted joint custody and equal shared parenting for 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 Judge’s temporary court order stated that their son would continue to live with the mother until there was evidence that a different parenting arrangement would better serve the child’s needs.  The mother insisted on permitting only supervised visitations for the Father with their son.  In response, the Judge set forth a plan in the Temporary Court Order, gradually increasing the Father’s supervised parenting time.  In her court submission, the mother falsely alleged that the Father had ADHD and that his alleged ADHD condition 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 supervised visitation at a professional facility for supervised visitations.  The Children’s Aid Society interviewed both the Father and the supervisor, and both refuted the abuse allegations.  The Children’s Aid Society concluded the case in the Father’s favour.  Nevertheless, the mother and her lawyer, Ms. L, consistently cited the ongoing Children’s Aid Society investigation as justification for not extending the duration of the father’s supervised time with his son or agreeing to unsupervised access.  The mother’s and lawyer’s actions violated the court order.

​

2014 - Part 7

The mother launched her third false accusation with the Children’s Aid Society, alleging that the Father had sexually abused their son during a supervised visit at a professional facility for supervised visitations.  The Children’s Aid Society interviewed both the Father and the supervisor, and they both denied the claims of abuse.  The Children’s Aid Society concluded the investigation in favour of the Father.  Nevertheless, the mother and her lawyer, Ms. L, consistently cited the ongoing Children’s Aid Society investigation as justification for not extending the duration of the father’s supervised time with his son or agreeing to unsupervised access.  The mother’s and lawyer’s actions violated the court order.

​

2015 - Part 1

The mother made her fourth false allegation to the Children’s Aid Society.  She alleged that the Father sexually abused their son while in the presence of a Supervisor at a professional facility for supervised visitations.  The Children’s Aid Society interviewed the Father and Supervisor, and both stated that the alleged abuse never happened.  The Children’s Aid Society closed the case in the Father’s favour.  Nevertheless, the mother and her lawyer, Ms. L, consistently cited the ongoing Children’s Aid Society investigation as justification for not extending the duration of the father’s supervised time with his son or agreeing to unsupervised access.  The mother’s and lawyer’s actions violated the court order.

 

2015 - Part 2

The mother made her fifth false allegation to the Children’s Aid Society and alleged that the Father physically abused their son in the presence of a Supervisor.  The Children’s Aid Society interviewed the Father and Supervisor, and both stated that the alleged abuse never happened.  The Children’s Aid Society closed the case in the Father’s favour.  Nevertheless, the mother and her lawyer, Ms. L, consistently cited the ongoing Children’s Aid Society investigation as justification for not extending the duration of the father’s supervised time with his son or agreeing to unsupervised access.  The mother’s and lawyer’s actions violated 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 the Father dropping off the birthday items.  Soon after, the Father found himself under a police investigation.  The mother had falsely claimed to the Police that the Father had broken into her home, broke into her safe, and installed surveillance devices throughout the house.  The videos showing the Father arriving by taxi, leaving the gifts, and departing in the same taxi 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 because of additional false allegations from the mother.  Both cases were resolved in favour of the Father.

 

2016 - Part 1

The mother made her sixth false allegation to the Children’s Aid Society and alleged that the Father sexually abused their son while in the presence of a Supervisor.  The Children’s Aid Society interviewed the Father and Supervisor, and both stated that the alleged abuse never happened.  The Children’s Aid Society closed the case in the Father’s favour.  Nevertheless, the mother and her lawyer, Ms. L, consistently cited the ongoing Children’s Aid Society investigation as justification for not extending the duration of the father’s supervised time with his son or agreeing to unsupervised access..  The mother’s and lawyer’s actions violated the court order.

​

2016 - Part 2

A few days prior to their son's first day of elementary school, the mother's lawyer (Ms. L) notified the Father that their son had been transferred from his current school to a new one, a decision made without the Father's consent.  The new school was conveniently within walking distance of the mother's home.  The Father quickly filed an emergency motion with the court to revert their son's enrollment to the school the parents had initially agreed upon.  However, the Judge declared that the situation did not qualify as an emergency and informed the Father that he would have to apply for a regular court hearing in December - four months after their son was illegally moved to the new school.  The Father was subsequently informed that by December, it would likely be in their son's best interest to stay in the new school.

​

2016 - Part 3

The results of the Clinical Psychologist’s Custody and Access Assessment are as follows:

​

“Joint Custody and Equal shared parenting.”

​

“The current assessment does not support the continued requirement for the Father’s access to be supervised in that he poses no established or persuasive risk to the child.  Furthermore, the child goes willingly 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, there are no child protection concerns.  The Father is a dedicated, responsible, and available parent.  There is reason in this assessment to support increased parenting time to him so that the child can benefit from having a Father-child relationship.”

​

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

• The mother rejected the report’s recommendations.

• Without the court’s nor the Father’s permission, the mother hired another Clinical Psychologist to critique and contest the work of the original court-appointed Psychologist.  The second, unauthorized Psychologist supported the 50/50 custody and access recommendations of the original court-appointed Psychologist.

• The mother, then, lodged a complaint with the court-appointed Clinical Psychologist’s regulatory body and put his career at risk.  The regulatory body investigated the court-appointed Clinical Psychologist.  The April 19, 2020 report, authored by the Clinical Psychologist's regulatory body, was written and the Psychologist was cleared of the mother's false allegations.  

​

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

The mother’s lawyer (Ms. L) rejected the custody and access report and responded with the following:

​

“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 spend time with his son in a supervised 20 x 40 square-foot room.  However, the amount of time he was allowed to spend with his son had not changed.  For the first time in nearly three years, the Father could enjoy two days with his family and son at his own residence.  These two special days were Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve.  However, 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 fnckyou.com and 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 had submitted his report recommending 50/50 custody and access, the Father had already reached the following conclusion:

 

Given the mother’s proven capability to levy severe and false allegations against him even while he visited his son in a supervised setting within a 20 x 40 square-foot room, it was highly probable that, from a threat and risk assessment perspective, the mother would make similar false allegations once the Father was with his son at his residence.

 

With this in mind, the Father’s family took precautions and video-recorded every second of Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve with his son.

 

Toward the end of the very intense, and sometimes aggressive, two-hour Police interview, the Father presented the Police with the video recordings from Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve.  Once they reviewed the video evidence, the interview concluded, and the Father was free to go.  The Police Detective’s parting advice to the Father was “to continue doing whatever he legally needed to do to protect himself from the mother.” The case was subsequently closed in the Father’s favour.

​

2017 - Part 2

Settlement Conference #1 in front of a Judge at the Court House

 

The Father and the mother attended a Settlement Conference before a Judge at the Court House.  The Judge stated that she “was disturbed” by the mother’s behaviour and that “the mother’s actions amounted to child abuse.” 

​

The Judge also chastised the mother’s lawyer (Ms. L) for allowing the mother to make so many false allegations.  The exchange between the Judge and the mother’s lawyer went as follows:

​

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

• mother’s lawyer (Ms. L) : “I tried to stop her.”

• Judge: “You didn’t try hard enough.”
  (November 22, 2017)

​

The Judge stated that the Clinical Psychologist’s reports were “glowing” for the Father and “not so great” for the mother’s interactions with their son.  The Judge strongly encouraged the mother to implement the joint custody and equal shared parenting recommendations outlined in the Clinical Psychologist’s report.  However, the mother refused to implement the recommendations.  The mother would only agree to implement an access schedule that, over time, would raise the Father’s unsupervised parenting time with their son to 30% -- she refused any more time than that.  As a result, both access and custody issues would be decided at trial in December later that year.

​

2017 - Part 3

A Second Settlement Conference before a Judge at the Court House and trial had all been pre-scheduled for November.

​

The Father wanted joint 50/50 custody and access to begin on the date detailed in the court-appointed Clinical Psychologist’s Custody and Access Assessment report.  Because the mother would not agree to the report’s recommendations, this matter would be taken up at another Settlement Conference in front of a Judge at the courthouse.

​

2017 - Part 4

Settlement Conference #2

​

The mother made the following offers:

1. The mother proposed that the Father be granted 50-50 equal shared parenting in 7 years and that she would remain the sole decision-maker regarding their son’s health, education, religious activities, and activities until then.
   The Father rejected her offer.
    

2. The mother then proposed that the Father be granted 50-50 equal shared parenting in 4 years and that she would remain the sole decision-maker regarding their son’s health, education, religious activities, and activities until then.
   The Father rejected her offer.
    

3. The mother then proposed that the Father be granted 50-50 equal shared parenting in 2 years and that she would remain the sole decision-maker regarding their son’s health, education, religious activities, and activities until then.
   The Father rejected her offer.

​

• Later that day, the Judge informed the mother that her position regarding decision-making and shared parenting was unreasonable.

• The Judge informed the mother about what she could lose, in terms of access and custody, by going to trial.

• The Judge informed the mother of the enormous financial costs of going to trial.

​

With the Judge’s advice in mind, the mother agreed to implement the recommendations outlined in the Clinical Psychologist’s Custody and Access Assessment Report — but only if the Father would make 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 strings attached.

​

After a 4-year custody battle, the Father finally received 50-50 custody and access to their son

​

2020 Arbitration

Once again, the mother launched legal proceedings, insisting that she should have 100% custody and access to their son.

 

The mother attempted to Use The Pandemic To Get 100% Custody and Access to Their Son.

​

Although the Father had 50/50 custody and access to their son, the mother held on to their son for 30 consecutive days at the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

​

To give you an idea of just how unreasonable she was, the mother proposed the following two custody and access choices to the COVID-19 Arbitrator:

​

1. For the entire duration of the Pandemic, their son would reside with the mother. 🙄
   
   OR
    

2. The mother’s Proposed Custody and Access Plan (in her own words)

   • “During the Pandemic, the mother wants to have their son remain with her 100% of the time until the following conditions are met:

     • The Father can confirm that he is not infected with 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 is better as established by authorities such as Chief Public Health Officers at the tri-level government

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

     • The Father guaranteed that no one, other than their son, would be allowed in his house until the Pandemic was over.

   • ​During the COVID-19 Pandemic, the mother wants to have 100% decision-making regarding their son.” 🙄

​

One final example of the mother’s not-so-creative COVID-19 evidence package follows below:

​

The mother made a startling false allegation about their son’s Pediatrician.  The mother stated that the Doctor “said something along the lines of COVID was a hoax and that the government is overreacting.” The Arbitrator did not believe the mother’s unsubstantiated false allegation.  

 

In their final report, the Arbitrator wrote the following damning statement 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 includes her reluctance to shuttle their son between two households, raises 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 the mother’s 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 would continue throughout the Pandemic.

​

2021 Arbitration

• Once again, the mother launched legal proceedings, insisting that she should have complete custody and access to their son.  At this point, their son was old enough to speak up for himself.  Consequently, the mother and Father agreed to conduct a Voice of the Child assessment.

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

  • The Voice of the Child Assessor promptly notified the Children’s Aid Society.  After investigating the mother, the Children’s Aid Society “verified” that she had been abusing their son all along.

  • However, the mother faced no repercussions for her verified child abuse. 🤬

​​

 2024 Arbitration

• Once more, the mother has initiated legal proceedings, asserting her desire for complete custody and access to their son.  As of May 2024, the litigation remains ongoing.

​