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

New Posts

MistyWaters said:
I think the Judge was wise to step down, as well as proving the one to replace her is no less “biased”.

From your link -
“I find that Jacqueline has failed to meet the high burden to provide cogent evidence in support of her allegations of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias to have me recused as the case management justice in this matter,” Price said.

“This said, I feel that it would be in the best interests of the children that I nonetheless step down as case management justice,” she wrote.

“I would much prefer that the parties focus and direct their attention on the needs and best interests of their children and come to a final resolution for their parenting arrangement.”
Click to expand...
Now if the Court of Appeals, the RCMP, children’s services, the psychologists, and the dad step down, she will be all set.
 
Unfortunately, hypothetically, the family can somehow publicly twist this judge’s attempt to put the focus back on a peaceful reunification of the children with their parents and resolving their differences as “a very deliberate strategizing by a collective of judges” to support bias in the courtroom, etc. etc.
JMO
 
Last edited:
The two latest documents are much more descriptive of the history, at total of 59 pages of it.

[URL='https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2021/2021abqb360/2021abqb360.html?resultIndex=6']
[URL='https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2021/2021abqb360/2021abqb360.html?resultIndex=6']Zak v Zak, 2021 ABQB 360
Court of Queen's Bench — Alberta
2021-05-07 | 28 pages
children — parenting — recusal application — contempt — bias


[URL='https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2021/2021abqb229/2021abqb229.html?resultIndex=7']Zak v Zak, 2021 ABQB 229
Court of Queen's Bench — Alberta
2021-05-07 | 31 pages
children — parenting time — matrimonial home — access — evidence[/URL]
[/URL]
[/URL]
 
everybodhi said:
The two latest documents are much more descriptive of the history, at total of 59 pages of it.


Zak v Zak, 2021 ABQB 360
Court of Queen's Bench — Alberta
2021-05-07 | 28 pages
children — parenting — recusal application — contempt — bias


Zak v Zak, 2021 ABQB 229
Court of Queen's Bench — Alberta
2021-05-07 | 31 pages
children — parenting time — matrimonial home — access — evidence
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2021/2021abqb360/2021abqb360.html?resultIndex=6
Click to expand...
Wow! She seriously tried every trick in the book and still failed. Conveniently grandma and auntie absconded with them. That section of the tree is diseased.
 
Anirtak said:
Wow! She seriously tried every trick in the book and still failed. Conveniently grandma and auntie absconded with them. That section of the tree is diseased.
Click to expand...
The only trick left is murder.
There’s a reason the family is now hidden under the auspices of the RCMP and children’s services.
After reading all that and knowing her lawyer was talking about finding bodies during the abduction, authorities have every reason to be alarmed and extra cautious regarding protection.
They are leaving a lot out of the docs they post on social media.
I wonder how the psyche evaluation is coming along.
 
everybodhi said:
The two latest documents are much more descriptive of the history, at total of 59 pages of it.


Zak v Zak, 2021 ABQB 360
Court of Queen's Bench — Alberta
2021-05-07 | 28 pages
children — parenting — recusal application — contempt — bias


Zak v Zak, 2021 ABQB 229
Court of Queen's Bench — Alberta
2021-05-07 | 31 pages
children — parenting time — matrimonial home — access — evidence
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for posting those links. The documents do provide extensive background. It’s almost unbelievable the obstacles intentionally set by JDZ and her family to prevent or discourage CZ from access to his children. I notice her mother and, not one, but two sisters were involved throughout and in less than a year she’s now on her 4th lawyer. It seems as if CZ was being maliciously baited, deliberate actions occurring with the intent to break him. Yet he didn’t walk away in defeat, says a lot about his character that he persevered through it for the sake of involvement in his children’s lives IMO.

I’m not surprised if the RCMP advise CZ to take the children into hiding, the antics from the maternal side are highly irrational, frightening even.

It’s interesting how the Judge has issued her decision via public court record, including extensive historical information which serves to counter any false and vindictive misinformation that’s circulating within the public realm. I’d assume that move was very intensional as well. JMO
 
Last edited:
MistyWaters said:
Wow, thanks for posting those links. The documents do provide extensive background. It’s almost unbelievable the obstacles intentionally set by JDZ and her family to prevent or discourage CZ from access to his children. I notice her mother and, not one, but two sisters were involved throughout and in less than a year she’s now on her 4th lawyer. It seems as if CZ was being maliciously baited, deliberate actions occurring with the intent to break him. Yet he didn’t walk away in defeat, says a lot about his character that he persevered through it for the sake of involvement in his children’s lives IMO.

I’m not surprised if the RCMP advise CZ to take the children into hiding, the antics from the maternal side are highly irrational, frightening even.

It’s interesting how the Judge has issued her decision via public court record, including extensive historical information which serves to counter any false and vindictive misinformation that’s circulating within the public realm. I’d assume that move was very intensional as well. JMO
Click to expand...
It’s sad to read what they put him through just to have little bits of time with his children. He showed incredible restraint and patience, only using a swear word once through it all, by their own account.
They continue to manipulate their fans with a twisted version of the public record.
 
One example of alleged intimidation tactics by one of the two sisters, a different sister than who was charged with abduction along with the grandmother -

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2021/2021abqb229/2021abqb229.html?resultIndex=7
[28] The evidence indicates that the supervision of Colin’s parenting access was extreme. Effectively, there was not a moment that Colin had with the children where any one of Jacqueline or her sisters were not within reach to hear and see exactly what they were doing. By all accounts, some of the more extreme behaviour includes the following as recited from one of Colin’s affidavits:

1. Caroline consistently refused to permit me to sit alone at the dining table to feed my daughters dinner and when asked to vacate the table would sit 3 feet away from the table facing me.

2. Caroline would also move her chair 1 or 2 feet or pivot it directly towards me as I played with my daughters in the family room and surrounding areas.
 
wow! guess this doesn't work both ways. It is okay for her family to abduct the girls for a month but he can't have an overnight visit.

“The applicant fails to put the children’s needs first. Our daughters have lived a very sheltered life which revolves around our family home where they are cared for by me and our nanny. The children have never spent a night away from me. The applicant is seeking overnight parenting time without allowing the children time to adjust and, most alarmingly, without following the recommendations set by Ms. Lux.”
 
 
From the above links:

"On Feb 20, 2021, Jacqueline O’Driscoll made a report of a disclosed event of child abuse with one of her children being the victim. At this time the RCMP opened an investigation. The Children’s Services at the Child Advocacy Centre (CAC) were consulted of the allegations. The CAC enables children a safe environment to tell their story using the most trauma aware approach which is in their best interests. Given the totality of the information at hand, a Child Forensic Interview (CFI) was utilized to interview both children. Subsequently, and based upon the testimony of the children an assessment was made respecting next steps. In this case no information was provided by either child to indicate any forms of abuse.

With no additional corroborative information we do not have any concerns at this time for the children’s safety with the father."
 
everybodhi said:
The two latest documents are much more descriptive of the history, at total of 59 pages of it.


Zak v Zak, 2021 ABQB 360
Court of Queen's Bench — Alberta
2021-05-07 | 28 pages
children — parenting — recusal application — contempt — bias


Zak v Zak, 2021 ABQB 229
Court of Queen's Bench — Alberta
2021-05-07 | 31 pages
children — parenting time — matrimonial home — access — evidence
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2021/2021abqb360/2021abqb360.html?resultIndex=6
Click to expand...

This is all even more awful than I imagined:
[42] Jacqueline vehemently opposed Colin’s application. Jacqueline’s affidavit was before Justice Jones. In every instance along the way since their separation, Colin has been compliant with the demands and requests of Jacqueline when it has come to parenting. He has consented to supervised visits in the matrimonial home. He consented to and submitted to a PN7 parent psychological evaluation. He consented to access in the matrimonial home even though he was permitted by court order to take the children elsewhere. He submitted willingly to random alcohol tests and drug tests and has indicated he was agreeable to a court-ordered clause prohibiting any consumption of alcohol, and there is no evidence to suggest that he has not abided by staying away from alcohol. Yet, this does not suffice for Jacqueline.

[43] Her evidence indicates that she is controlling. She has attachment and separation issues with the children. She does not trust Colin, no matter what he does to try to earn her trust. Every effort made by Colin has been ignored, downplayed, exaggerated, or misconstrued, all of which has impeded the relationship between the children and their father and has made their parenting relationship worse.

​
 
More:
[55] In Colin’s evidence he said that the children were at first thrilled about seeing their father and the opportunity to see his home. However, he noticed shortly thereafter that the children started making concerning comments to him that Colin felt indicated a pattern of parental alienation behaviours.

[56] Colin moved in permanently with his fiancé who is an EMS paramedic, and her 12-year-old daughter on or about May 30th, 2020. At the end of May 2020, on May 30th, 2020, Colin attended the matrimonial home and started to take the children to his car to transport them to his home. Leonine ran from him, grabbed a whistle that had been left for her in a flower pot outside the home by Jacqueline and screamed for help because she believed that Colin was not permitted to take her and her sister away from the matrimonial home. Jacqueline who was still parked at the time in the driveway of the matrimonial home ran into the street screaming for the neighbours to help. The police attended. Jacqueline’s mother also appeared at the scene. Colin, to his regret, admittedly called his mother-in-law an obscene name. To calm the matter, the RCMP asked Colin to leave; so he did leave.

​
 
This is also just straight up stalker behaviour. JMO of course.

In her June 22nd, 2020 affidavit, Jacqueline says that it became clear that Colin was not following the AHS protocols. She cites the following as evidence to support her allegations that Colin was not following the protocols:

A. Colin continued to frequent convenience stores. She says he was “making multiple trips to high-traffic convenience stores several times daily.” She was able to look at the credit card transactions that evidence this.

B. She further says that he refused to wash his hands and insisted on taking the children outside the matrimonial home.

C. She relies on hearsay evidence from neighbours that Colin was rummaging through the garbage bins outside with Leonine.

D. Also based on the geolocator of his breathalyzer, she believes that he was visiting third parties in the Bowness area.
​
 
It is awful, something is very wrong with this woman. Doesn’t she realize how psychologically damaging it is to young children to teach them to be afraid, to train them to hate?

Based on her behaviour the judge wasn’t given any option but to remove the children from her IMO. And her and her lawyer hope a different Judge will be compassionate toward her situation considering all this? Dream on!

Then the failed reunification plan, the unsubstantiated sexual assault allegations and the recent kidnapping. I really do believe the children’s father is in danger because I can’t think of another possibility for the mother to gain sole custody other than by his death. How can he ever trust her? There’s no easy solution, a terribly sad situation.

But I have great respect for he father of the children for persevering and not giving up, maybe even rescuing his children from someone who he aptly described during his earlier podcast as “unwell”. It would be my hope somebody, unfortunately probably not her immediate family nor her lawyer, but somebody encourages and supports her in seeking mental health treatment.

All my opinion.
 
MistyWaters said:
It is awful, something is very wrong with this woman. Doesn’t she realize how psychologically damaging it is to young children to teach them to be afraid, to train them to hate?

Based on her behaviour the judge wasn’t given any option but to remove the children from her IMO. And her and her lawyer hope a different Judge will be compassionate toward her situation considering all this? Dream on!

Then the failed reunification plan, the unsubstantiated sexual assault allegations and the recent kidnapping. I really do believe the children’s father is in danger because I can’t think of another possibility for the mother to gain sole custody other than by his death. How can he ever trust her? There’s no easy solution, a terribly sad situation.

But I have great respect for he father of the children for persevering and not giving up, maybe even rescuing his children from someone who he aptly described during his earlier podcast as “unwell”. It would be my hope somebody, unfortunately probably not her immediate family nor her lawyer, but somebody encourages and supports her in seeking mental health treatment.

All my opinion.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed that she is unwell. What I find interesting is that it seems her whole family is also unwell, from both sisters (supervision debacle, intense social media posts and obviously the abduction) and the grandmother as well. They also have a fierce and loyal base of people claiming that they are not unwell (see social media posts). Something is not quite adding up on the maternal side and I can’t figure it out.

My opinion of course!
 
concon19 said:
Totally agreed that she is unwell. What I find interesting is that it seems her whole family is also unwell, from both sisters (supervision debacle, intense social media posts and obviously the abduction) and the grandmother as well. They also have a fierce and loyal base of people claiming that they are not unwell (see social media posts). Something is not quite adding up on the maternal side and I can’t figure it out.

My opinion of course!
Click to expand...

The family pack is highly unusual, I agree. On the surface they appear to be well-respected ranching family, educated daughters in successful professional careers. Just my opinion, sometimes it’s easier for longtime neighbours and area residents to not rock the boat and seemingly appear to be supportive because that’s what’s expected. If they took an opposing stand they risk becoming ostracized, yet their lives are often very intertwined so then it becomes difficult. I’m now a happy urban dweller but I speak from experience in having removed myself from rural loyalty obligations several years ago. It’s just the way it is, a collective sticking together and it may never change. If for good reasons, it’s a good thing.

As for others who jumped on the support bandwagon, the maternal side appears to have perfected a one-sided story right down to the finest heart-rendering detail. I hope this might become a learning experience for those people - don’t automatically believe everything one reads on SM. JMO
 
MistyWaters said:
The family pack is highly unusual, I agree. On the surface they appear to be well-respected ranching family, educated daughters in successful professional careers. Just my opinion, sometimes it’s easier for longtime neighbours and area residents to not rock the boat and seemingly appear to be supportive because that’s what’s expected. If they took an opposing stand they risk becoming ostracized, yet their lives are often very intertwined so then it becomes difficult. I’m now a happy urban dweller but I speak from experience in having removed myself from rural loyalty obligations several years ago. It’s just the way it is, a collective sticking together and it may never change. If for good reasons, it’s a good thing.

As for others who jumped on the support bandwagon, the maternal side appears to have perfected a one-sided story right down to the finest heart-rendering detail. I hope this might become a learning experience for those people - don’t automatically believe everything one reads on SM. JMO
Click to expand...

Thanks for the rural perspective - I haven’t considered that. And absolutely, there is some bandwagoning happening on social media based on one-sided storytelling. JMO.
 
Cordelia Gray said:
wow! guess this doesn't work both ways. It is okay for her family to abduct the girls for a month but he can't have an overnight visit.

“The applicant fails to put the children’s needs first. Our daughters have lived a very sheltered life which revolves around our family home where they are cared for by me and our nanny. The children have never spent a night away from me. The applicant is seeking overnight parenting time without allowing the children time to adjust and, most alarmingly, without following the recommendations set by Ms. Lux.”
Click to expand...

That's... smothering. A disturbing level of smothering. How was she going to ever handle things like school if she can't let her daughters out of her sight for more than a second?
 
This is just the saddest situation. Mom needs to recognize real soon that they are only little kids for awhile and they absolutely grow up and figure out for themselves who the abusive parent is/was. What a shame that somebody hasn’t talked some sense into her by now ... and her whole family is following her lead. My heart goes out to the little girls dad ... and their paternal grandparents and family. I sure hope the authorities make decisions “in the best interest of the children” real soon. BTW...where are the kids? Do we know? MOO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 209 more.
Total: 3,396 (members: 210, guests: 3,186)

Online statistics

Members online
210
Guests online
3,186
Total visitors
3,396
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,826
Messages
17,959,637
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top