Found Safe Canada - O’Driscoll-Zak sisters, 2 & 5, abduction by aunt & grandmother, Cochrane, 12 Mar 2021

[Sprockett7701]

In Australia, this wouldn’t even be a criminal matter. You would have to go to family court and file a recovery order. My ex withheld my two chn last year, for 6 mths. And not a damn thing anyone would do unless I went to court. As I became homeless 4 weeks after he took them, I had no home to recover them to. My ex also used the mentally unstable line, unable to care for the chn.
Family break ups are messy, and sadly children can become weapons. And the damage being done to these poor wee ones just breaks my heart. They didn’t ask for this, what kind of relationships will they have in their future because of this, even when they are found and returned to dad, this is not going to end.
Praying for their safety, and that the parents both grow up and realise they only have a limited amount of time with their children...stop wasting it.

 

[Alice Ramnit]

It seems that the mother believes that the children are in danger if they spend time with their father. The oldest child is 5 years old, so the relationship between the parents is 6 years or longer. The marriage broke down in 2019, so 5 years into the marriage that produced two children.

If there were legitimate concerns about either parent spending time with the children, that would have been discovered when the first child was born. They didn't need 5 years to notice a problem.

Therefore, it's reasonable to believe that the allegations about the children being in danger with either parent are based solely on the individual goals of the parents to have sole custody.

Given that the mother's family has abducted the children, it seems evident that her family has aggravated her fear that the children are at risk when spending time with their father. The abduction has confirmed that the mother's family is willing to psychologically harm the children to get what they want. I base this on the fact that the children are now deprived of both parents, their homes, normal routines, friend contact and kindergarten for the 5 year old.

I have to respectfully disagree with the assumption that 'problems' or abusive behaviour would be noticed as soon as a child is born. Abuse can be covert and insidious. It can cause the victim to begin to doubt their own judgement and question their ability to cope without the abuser.
Further having babies can make a woman feel quite vulnerable and invested in trying to 'fix' the problems in order to keep the family unified.
As well...'Parental Alienation' has become a tactic that abusive men use when there are attempts to protect the children and prevent the mother from having to be placed in repeated danger during access visits.

Here is a very good blog post on the topic

Parental Alienation Exposed: Exploring The Stereotypes — Rachel Watson Insight

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

Parental Alienation: How and When Does It Start?

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

Treatment and Prevention of Parental Alienation

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

Parental alienation and Alberta family law - Kirk Montoute Dawson LLP

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

"Furthermore, what is clear from the evidence is that Colin is trying to have parenting time with the Children and his time is being interfered with to the extreme as earlier outlined. The parties both admit that the Children have been traumatized by recent events that occurred while Colin was attempting to access his parenting time. However, I find that Jacqueline has significantly contributed to this trauma. I would even say she ignited it, and now it is aflame.
To ensure the greatest possible protection of the Children's physical, psychological and emotional safety and considering their needs and circumstances, they need to be reunified with their father, and their mother needs to stop her obstructive, intrusive poisonous behaviour."

<modsnip> ... the judge found as a fact in a court hearing that the mother was engaging in this behaviour.

 

[Alice Ramnit]

Parental Alienation: How and When Does It Start?

I think that you posted this earlier. Is it the same article?

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

Parental alienation is a real thing IMO and was found to have occurred in this case, according to the judge. Suggesting "abusive men" use it as a weapon on this thread IMO takes away from the judge's decision in this case and encourages speculation that the father in this case somehow is a manipulative abuser - no basis for that here in the court documents. That is the point I was making. I was trying to take the discussion back to what actually happened in this case.

 

[rkendmar]

"Furthermore, what is clear from the evidence is that Colin is trying to have parenting time with the Children and his time is being interfered with to the extreme as earlier outlined. The parties both admit that the Children have been traumatized by recent events that occurred while Colin was attempting to access his parenting time. However, I find that Jacqueline has significantly contributed to this trauma. I would even say she ignited it, and now it is aflame.
To ensure the greatest possible protection of the Children's physical, psychological and emotional safety and considering their needs and circumstances, they need to be reunified with their father, and their mother needs to stop her obstructive, intrusive poisonous behaviour."

This isn't an academic debate - the judge found as a fact in a court hearing that the mother was engaging in this behaviour.

"...the Children have been traumatized by recent events that occurred while Colin was attempting to access his parenting time."

I have no idea as to what the referenced "recent events" are.
This lack of specific information makes it difficult to assess if the judge was being "biased" as alleged by the mother or if the judge was being protective of the children.

 

[otto]

"...the Children have been traumatized by recent events that occurred while Colin was attempting to access his parenting time."

I have no idea as to what the referenced "recent events" are.
This lack of specific information makes it difficult to assess if the judge was being "biased" as alleged by the mother or if the judge was being protective of the children.

The entire paragraph gives insight into what has been going on.

"In that [appeal] decision, the appeal court affirmed my decision, dismissed the appeal, and remitted the matter back to me for further determination.

Furthermore, what is clear from the evidence is that Colin is trying to have parenting time with the Children and his time is being interfered with to the extreme as earlier outlined. The parties both admit that the Children have been traumatized by recent events that occurred while Colin was attempting to access his parenting time. However, I find that Jacqueline has significantly contributed to this trauma. I would even say she ignited it, and now it is aflame.

To ensure the greatest possible protection of the Children's physical, psychological and emotional safety and considering their needs and circumstances, they need to be reunified with their father, and their mother needs to stop her obstructive, intrusive poisonous behaviour."
​

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2021/2021abqb80/2021abqb80.html

 

[Alice Ramnit]

Parental alienation is a real thing IMO and was found to have occurred in this case, according to the judge. Suggesting "abusive men" use it as a weapon on this thread IMO takes away from the judge's decision in this case and encourages speculation that the father in this case somehow is a manipulative abuser - no basis for that here in the court documents. That is the point I was making. I was trying to take the discussion back to what actually happened in this case.

I would never dispute that it is a real thing. Of course it is. I am just pointing out that in cases of abuse the accusation of 'Parental Alienation' can be used to manipulate the process. There is an accusation that the Judge was biased and they could very well be for all we know. We don't KNOW whether there hasn't been abuse occurring and we don't KNOW whether the children are being protected or are victims of parental alienation. I just think it's interesting to look at it from both perspectives.

 

[MyBelle]

No that is the judge’s decision you quote, not the judge providing a response. Her decision stands and doesn’t go any further unless the mother tries to appeal again. Hasn’t yet that I know.

The judge clearly states she is responding to a second application:

As stated above, in the current application the mother seeks to have me disqualified as case management justice. She alleges four specific instances of bias:

i. Findings made in my Oral Reasons for Decision given on August 13, 2020;


ii. The December 15, 2020 case management meeting;


iii. Dr. Froberg’s attendance at the December 15, 2020 case management meeting; and,


iv. Unwillingness to consider the schedule of experienced counsel.

[9] I will address each of these allegations in turn, after setting out the law in relation to allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias.

 

[otto]

There is parental alienation in this custody dispute, specifically it is alienation by the mother.

"There was ample evidence that the appellant [the mother] had breached the two previous parenting orders by unilaterally terminating the respondent’s access.
...

The parental alienation issue was fully argued and the case management judge’s finding of alienation by the appellant [the mother] is supported on the record. There is no basis for any suggestion of lack of impartiality."
​

2020-12-04
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2020/2020abca431/2020abca431.html

 

[Seattle1]

Legal advice could be the reason she suddenly changed lawyers, if she failed to heed it.

I agree. It also seemed to me that the mother may have terminated her former counsel as soon as she found one that was willing to tell her what she wanted to hear. (The former counsel was still attorney of record and had not yet been given court permission to withdraw).

Most disturbing was the account of the new attorney (Ms. Miller) misrepresentation of the facts that there was communication between the Judge and Dr. Froberg (Court-appointed therapist) when in fact the communication was between the Judge's judicial assistant and Dr. Froberg!

[53] In reply, counsel for the father, Ms. Pritchett, advised the Court that Ms. Miller had communicated with Dr. Froberg about my alleged communications with the expert and had been advised that the only contact was with my judicial assistant who asked her to appear.

[54] I asked Ms. Miller to confirm Ms. Pritchett’s comment, i.e. that she knew that the communications were only between my judicial assistant and Dr. Froberg. Ms. Miller replied to say “there was a telephone call followed by an email. I don’t have the contents of the telephone call.” I asked her to again confirm her understanding that the communications were just between my judicial assistant and Dr. Froberg to join the case management conference dealing with parenting. Ms. Miller responded: “Yes, my Lady, I appreciate that would have been on direction from the court.”

[55] I find Ms. Miller’s comments to be a concerning challenge of my judicial ethics. Despite having confirmed for herself that the communications were not with me, but rather with my judicial assistant, and that they were nothing more than an invitation to join the case management meeting, counsel still persisted in raising this issue in oral argument to support an allegation of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2021/2021abqb80/2021abqb80.html

 

[MistyWaters]

The judge clearly states she is responding to a second application:

As stated above, in the current application the mother seeks to have me disqualified as case management justice. She alleges four specific instances of bias:

i. Findings made in my Oral Reasons for Decision given on August 13, 2020;


ii. The December 15, 2020 case management meeting;


iii. Dr. Froberg’s attendance at the December 15, 2020 case management meeting; and,


iv. Unwillingness to consider the schedule of experienced counsel.

[9] I will address each of these allegations in turn, after setting out the law in relation to allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias.

Given the Judge has dismissed the Application, I don’t understand your point. The word “allegations” is not synonymous to “application”. One application can include several allegations. Rather than picking short phrases out of context, it seems to me the entire document flows very well from beginning to end.

The mother raises various issues in her Application/Motion to Disqualify the Judge, as mentioned in the document. The Judge has briefly summarized those issues and then proceeds to refute the allegations, plus explain why they don’t constitute her from being disqualified. The Judge’s ruling of the allegations is that the Application is dismissed (ie unsuccessful). Same as the Appeal, the mother failed to convince the Appeal Court prior rulings should be overturned. As a result, the two Judges did not support her allegations in either of the legal proceedings, the two decisions appearing on the Canlii website.


JMO

 

[otto]

I agree. It also seemed to me that the mother may have terminated her former counsel as soon as she found one that was willing to tell her what she wanted to hear. (The former counsel was still attorney of record and had not yet been given court permission to withdraw).

Most disturbing was the account of the new attorney (Ms. Miller) misrepresentation of the facts that there was communication between the Judge and Dr. Froberg (Court-appointed therapist) when in fact the communication was between the Judge's judicial assistant and Dr. Froberg!

[53] In reply, counsel for the father, Ms. Pritchett, advised the Court that Ms. Miller had communicated with Dr. Froberg about my alleged communications with the expert and had been advised that the only contact was with my judicial assistant who asked her to appear.

[54] I asked Ms. Miller to confirm Ms. Pritchett’s comment, i.e. that she knew that the communications were only between my judicial assistant and Dr. Froberg. Ms. Miller replied to say “there was a telephone call followed by an email. I don’t have the contents of the telephone call.” I asked her to again confirm her understanding that the communications were just between my judicial assistant and Dr. Froberg to join the case management conference dealing with parenting. Ms. Miller responded: “Yes, my Lady, I appreciate that would have been on direction from the court.”

[55] I find Ms. Miller’s comments to be a concerning challenge of my judicial ethics. Despite having confirmed for herself that the communications were not with me, but rather with my judicial assistant, and that they were nothing more than an invitation to join the case management meeting, counsel still persisted in raising this issue in oral argument to support an allegation of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2021/2021abqb80/2021abqb80.html

The new lawyer for the mother, since Dec 2020, implied that the Judge spoke privately with the psychologist. It seems clear in the documents that the lawyer ought to have known better than to imply there was a private conversation. An experienced lawyer should know that the Judge's assistant communicates with third parties, and that the attendance by a psychologist at a custody hearing is nothing strange.

Another interesting point - my impression in reading this is that the new lawyer presented new allegations against the father in Dec 2020 via the appeal. That is, as soon as the children had an overnight visit with their father, new allegations emerged regarding one of the children.

"However, although some of the evidence in the fresh evidence applications is inadmissible hearsay, the admissible evidence before the case management judge and in support of the fresh evidence applications raises a concern that one of the children may have experienced distress during the respondent’s parenting time and that the parenting schedule adopted by the case management judge may have been impractical or unworkable."
​

2020-12-04
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2020/2020abca431/2020abca431.html

 

[rkendmar]

The entire paragraph gives insight into what has been going on.

"In that [appeal] decision, the appeal court affirmed my decision, dismissed the appeal, and remitted the matter back to me for further determination.

Furthermore, what is clear from the evidence is that Colin is trying to have parenting time with the Children and his time is being interfered with to the extreme as earlier outlined. The parties both admit that the Children have been traumatized by recent events that occurred while Colin was attempting to access his parenting time. However, I find that Jacqueline has significantly contributed to this trauma. I would even say she ignited it, and now it is aflame.

To ensure the greatest possible protection of the Children's physical, psychological and emotional safety and considering their needs and circumstances, they need to be reunified with their father, and their mother needs to stop her obstructive, intrusive poisonous behaviour."
​

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2021/2021abqb80/2021abqb80.html

Yes, the paragraph provides insight from the judge's point of view but doesn't answer some basic questions I've had since first reading about this case.

1) The appeal court said more than just a simple affirmation of the judge's decision and dismissal of the appeal IIRC. It does make me wonder if the judge really 'heard' what else they had to say about the visitation plan, etc..

2) I still have no understanding of what the specific "recent events" could be.

I find that Jacqueline has significantly contributed to this trauma. I would even say she ignited it, and now it is aflame.
I must say this is a very good example of descriptive writing but I was troubled that this would appear as part of a legal document. It's quite subjective as opposed to an objective style, which I assumed was the accepted norm in legal writing.
However, I work in medical not in legal. Perhaps, a subjective style is acceptable in the courts? IDK.

3) "they need to be unified with their father"
If this means starting visitation, this is a good thing, IMO.
If this means turning full custody over to the father whom the kids haven't seen in months, that is pretty radical and will definitely be very traumatizing to the young children.

"...their mother needs to stop her obstructive, intrusive poisonous behaviour."
More troubling subjective writing, IMO.
It would be better to take out the words "intrusive poisonous" and let it read "their mother needs to stop her obstructive behavior." This would describe the actions in a factual manner. IMO using words such as "poisonous" sounds unprofessional and makes one think the judge is overly emotional (and possibly biased) about aspects of this case.

Just my opinion.

 

[otto]

Yes, the paragraph provides insight from the judge's point of view but doesn't answer some basic questions I've had since first reading about this case.

1) The appeal court said more than just a simple affirmation of the judge's decision and dismissal of the appeal IIRC. It does make me wonder if the judge really 'heard' what else they had to say about the visitation plan, etc..

2) I still have no understanding of what the specific "recent events" could be.

I find that Jacqueline has significantly contributed to this trauma. I would even say she ignited it, and now it is aflame.
I must say this is a very good example of descriptive writing but I was troubled that this would appear as part of a legal document. It's quite subjective as opposed to an objective style, which I assumed was the accepted norm in legal writing.
However, I work in medical not in legal. Perhaps, a subjective style is acceptable in the courts? IDK.

3) "they need to be unified with their father"
If this means starting visitation, this is a good thing, IMO.
If this means turning full custody over to the father whom the kids haven't seen in months, that is pretty radical and will definitely be very traumatizing to the young children.

"...their mother needs to stop her obstructive, intrusive poisonous behaviour."
More troubling subjective writing, IMO.
It would be better to take out the words "intrusive poisonous" and let it read "their mother needs to stop her obstructive behavior." This would describe the actions in a factual manner. IMO using words such as "poisonous" sounds unprofessional and makes one think the judge is overly emotional (and possibly biased) about aspects of this case.

Just my opinion.

Those comments were oral reasoning by the Judge that the mother pulled from the transcript and entered into the appeal. Essentially, the Judge was verbally reprimanding the mother for her behaviour, which apparently includes not only obstructive behaviour, but intrusive and poisonous behaviour. Three problems, not one.

Since the mother interfered with the children maintaining a healthy relationship with their father, it is understood that the children have been traumatized. It is further explained that the mother, who claims to be protecting the children, is participating in traumatizing them.

Indeed, the fact that her mother and sister abducted the children 10 days ago supports the belief that the mother's family are traumatizing the children because they do not want to share custody of the children with the children's father.

I have a difficult time doubting the Judge's understanding of the circumstances given the situation today.

 

[MyBelle]

No that is the judge’s decision you quote, not the judge providing a response. Her decision stands and doesn’t go any further unless the mother tries to appeal again. Hasn’t yet that I know.

It is a child custody matter. I doubt the appeal of the judge's February 1st decision--of which there most certainly has been an appeal--will be public record until the Appeals Court renders a decision.

 

[MistyWaters]

There is parental alienation in this custody dispute, specifically it is alienation by the mother.

"There was ample evidence that the appellant [the mother] had breached the two previous parenting orders by unilaterally terminating the respondent’s access.
...

The parental alienation issue was fully argued and the case management judge’s finding of alienation by the appellant [the mother] is supported on the record. There is no basis for any suggestion of lack of impartiality."
​

2020-12-04
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2020/2020abca431/2020abca431.html

That seems quite straightforward to me, which brings the situation to where it is today - The reason the children were abducted was to continue to prevent their father from having access. It’s now Day 10. If nobody knows where these four are hiding out at including the mother, I think its be fair to say the safety risk is unknown at this point in time especially as other people are believed to be involved. How can it be known others only have “good” intentions if their identity is unknown?

JMO