Year 4: January

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





The father and the mother attended a Settlement Conference in front of a Judge at the Court House. The mother had continually and intentionally provided false information to the Police, to the Children’s Aid Society, and to the Clinical Psychologist conducting the Custody and Access Assessment – all in an effort to deny the father joint custody and equal shared parenting of their son. 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 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 Lawyers: "I tried to stop her"

Judge: "You didn't try hard enough"





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 would eventually raise the father’s unsupervised parenting time with their son to 30% but refused anything more than that. As result, both access and custody issues would be decided at trial in December later that year.









Year 4:

Mediation, A Second Settlement Conference in front of a Judge at the Court House, and trial had all been pre-scheduled for November





Year 4: Early November

Mediation





The father wanted joint custody and equal shared parenting to begin on the date detailed in the court authorized 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 a second Settlement Conference in front of a Judge at the court house.







Year 4: Mid-November

Settlement Conference #2





The Mother made the following offers:





The mother proposed that the father be granted 50-50 equal shared parenting in seven 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





The mother then proposed that the father be granted 50-50 equal shared parenting in four 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





The mother then proposed that the father be granted 50-50 equal shared parenting in two 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





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 term of access and custody, by going to trial.

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





With the Judge’s advice in mind, the mother agreed to implement the recommendations as outlined in the Clinical Psychologist’s Custody and Access Assessment report — but only if the father would make a series of absurd concessions; for example, she wanted to purchase a cell phone for their 5 year old son so that she could speak to him when he was with the father.

The father rejected all of her requests.





Eventually, the mother agreed to implement the recommendations with no strings attached.





After a four-year custody battle, the father now has 50-50 custody and equal shared parenting of their son.









A FEW PARTING WORDS TO THE SYSTEM THAT LETS SH!T LIKE THIS HAPPEN

What kind of a system allows an individual to make the same false allegation (causing multiple investigations) over and over and over and over and over and over and over again without any repercussions?

In her own written and signed submission to the Court-appointed Clinical Psychologist, not only does the mother admit to making the "pedophile" statements, but she also admits to dreaming about being a pedophile since her childhood -- yet "the system" did nothing about her very disturbing confession.

In an audio recording, the mother admits that no physical abuse or assault ever took place -- again"the system" did nothing about her false allegations nor anything to stop her from making more false allegations.

Did anyone in the system care about the fact that the mother had a clinically diagnosed mental illness and was off work for almost two years because of it? The father discovered this after filing for joint custody and access, and after being given access to the mother's medical files.

Did anyone in the system stop to think that the mother may have been physically or sexually abusing my son? The system did nothing to investigate this horrific person who doesn't deserve to be called a mother.





What "the system" did was investigate multiple false allegations that the mother made against the father and never questioned her motive nor her egregiously disturbing behaviour.





What good is this section of the Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, Section 140 ) if it is not enforced against a parent who makes multiple false allegations of abuse against another parent?









A FEW PARTING WORDS FOR THE MOTHER'S LAWYER





You are a piece of shit!





When the Judge at Settlement Conference #1 chastised you for letting the mother make so many false accusations, your lame response was that you "tried to make her stop." Seriously, that's your excuse? Against the wishes of so many people, the father won't 'out' the lawyer because the father understands that the lawyer has a job to do -- but you know who you are.

It's clear that you have issues understanding the ethical, moral and legal boundaries of your job as a lawyer -- you need to do something about that, and,

you're still a piece of shit.









A FEW PARTING WORDS FOR THE PART-TIME MOTHER AND FULL-TIME THUG

The father is a security expert whose first police-related case took place in 1994. As a result, the father had implemented several legal countermeasures to stop or help minimize the impact of your destructive tactics. Without these countermeasures in place and a fantastic lawyer (Ms. G), the father surely would have been wrongly imprisoned because of the false allegations of your ruthless behaviour.





The following quote, from author Robert Ludlum, is a message to the unscrupulous mother who thought that her malicious acts would help her obtain 100% custody and no shared parenting for the father:





“The success of any trap lies in its fundamental simplicity. The reverse trap by the nature of its single complication must be swift and simpler still.”





...you tried to destroy my relationship with my son, destroy my family, destroy my career, and destroy my reputation. I will get back on my feet financially some day -- but I have my son and fighting for him was worth it.





...so mother, you know who you are. Like your lawyer, you're a piece of shit too -- feel free to contest any of the 100% factual statements on this site.





...and once again... FUCK YOU AND BETTER LUCK WITH YOUR NEXT VICTIM.