Sandra Levesque - OCL Investigator

[suzukiguy72]

Hi,

I am curious if anyone else has had contact with Sandra Levesque. She is a social worker that acts as a Clinical Investigator or Social worker Assist with the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

She works out of Ottawa.

Her testimony was creative.

Thanks!

[staysingle]

Was her testimony accurate in your view?

[Mess]

CanLII - 2011 ONSC 2101 (CanLII)

A very interesting case, the mother originally had sole custody and wanted to move to the US with the children to marry a man she had met online.

The father lived out of town, was NCP and had no car and had to take the train and a bus to have access to the kids. The father was unrepresented.

Sandra Levesque's OCL report came down hard on the mother and she recommended a change to joint custody and denial of mobility (moving the children to the US.)

The judge agreed with the OCL report and found in favour of the father.

[staysingle]

I would surmise the Sandra recommendation didn't come down hard on the mother or in favour of the father. Moving and/or uprooting the children from their indigenous city is always balked at by the courts( rightly or wronging in any given scenario). Even if she endorsed the mothers move a judge likely would have kept the children in the area.

What I see as a systemic problem with the OCL investigators is their clear lack of support for equal shared parenting. That seems to the common Gorilla in the room with those folks.

[Mess]

Before you surmise that, read the decision I linked to on Canlii. Her recommedation indeed came down hard on the mother. Sorry to burst your balloon.

The father wasn't seeking shared parenting, just joint custody. The shared parenting gorilla was at the zoo that day.

[CatvsLion]

Just had OCL complete an assesment from a social worker who also came down hard on the mother - and also went for shared parenting.

Now if only I can get that to stick and get x to agree to it...

[staysingle]

Are we a bit touchy today Mess? I don't invest much personal identity or ego strength in my comments on this forum, more of a free association thing.

Regardless of Sandra's displeasure with the mother( I will take your word on it) she recommended the children stay put and THAT is what is relevant. You are trying to frame her as either pro mom or dad and that is reckless. In that particular recommendation she was pro child.

Mess, seriously, can anything of real value be extrapolated from one recommendation from a OCL investigator?

Or howbout this... courts don't like to uproot children from thier neighborhood/school/friends/etc........OCL investigators knows this and does not like her recommendations thrown out by the courts , not good for the part time OCL career , besides baby needs new shoes. OCL recommends children stay put and while were are at it trow a little harmless vitriol on the mother as this gives the illusion the OCL is in fact gender neutral.

[Mess]

Don't throw stones from out of a glass house.

suzuki asked for info on the worker, I found some and provided it. I have no further agenda here.

You commented and made assumptions about her report without having read what I linked to, and the judge's decision refers directly to her report and quotes it and it is the opposite of what you claimed it to be?

I simply don't know what the hell you are talking about, and it seems like you simply came in here knowing nothing about Levesque but with a preconceived bias against the OCL and that you wanted to rage.

Nothing you've posted subsequently changes my mind about that.

[May_May]

CanLII - 2011 ONSC 2101 (CanLII).

Very interesting ! Is it common that the courts do not make both parties equally responsible for travel expenses ? I personally believe it is wrong that she isn't also responsible for half of the expenses for their dad to see the children when it is his turn for visitation. Both parents should be responsible to ensure a relationship is maintained with their ex (in the majority of cases...).

[23] However, the joint custody order is not without conditions. Ms. Levesque recognized that the applicant’s responsibilities for the children should not change. I find that the following conditions apply to the joint custody regime:
d. The respondent is responsible for all the travel involved in having the children in his care.

[Mess]

This is probably because it was originally his choice to move that distance away.

[staysingle]

Mess pal, buddy.
"....against the OCL and that you wanted to rage". Messatola you have a very low bar for defining rage. OCL has a pro mother bias, has no problem proclaiming it and will defend their position/bias if you ask them. This is well understood amongst lawyers. I personally didn't ask for your views about the OCL.

Having said that, I did say in other words how the fuck you can draw any useful conclusions about this worker from canLII? I don't have to waste my fuckin time reading CanLII to get the inside this womans world view.

Suziki,
If you get what you wanted from the OCL feel truly blessed, If you don't get what you want seek solace in the fact your case fell underneath the bell curve.

[suzukiguy72]

Perhaps I should clarify.

Sandra was engaged as a witness to testify on my child's behalf and didn't do the normal investigation.

She was acting in the capacity of a Social Worker Assist.

The process seems very strange, and she testified in court that it was normal to have the position of the OCL disclosed to her by the lawyer representing my child before she started her investigation. She also claimed that this did not impact her investigation. It is hard to believe.

Also... the original lawyer didn't forward the file to her or to the second lawyer. It was pretty botched and I let them have it in my closing argument.

She was content to draw wild conclusions about me and I am the custodial parent. My child has been with me primarily for over 5 years. She had almost nothing to testify about regarding my ex and didn't seem to know anything about the environment that my child would be going into.

I was surprised how intertwined the OCL was with my ex's lawyer. They bounced questions off of each other and were clearly working together.

The whole process seems strange to me. They don't do a report so you have no idea what they are going to say until you get into trial, when it is too late to call witnesses to rebut what they are saying.

Their disclosure meeting had little substance to it and was 5 days before the trial started.

She was very creative with her testimony at times and I am considering my options now.

[Pierre555]

First, readers should make sure they are referring to the right person.
Sandra Levesque is a common name, there are many of them in Ontario and Quebec in similar occupations with similar qualifications.


Any comments need to be clearly identified as to which Sandra Levesque they referring to.

The Sandra Levesque they are referring to is the
Sandra Levesque, MSW, RSW (Capital Choice) Ottawa and NOT one of the other numerous Sandra Levesque's that are also in Ottawa and Gatineau.

I've read that case, CanLII - 2011 ONSC 2101 (CanLII)




The case of Brown v. Brown, CanLII - 2011 ONSC 2101 (CanLII)
appears to be an advertisement for her rather than a report.
When you see such long winded words of praise by a judge
about someone who authored a report, it begs the question
as to WHY did the judge do that?

Odds are, he did it because he had concerns about the objectiveness
of the report and wanted to bury the matter.
That could be for "good" reasons or improper reasons.

So, What is in Brown v. Brown?


Sandra Levesque recommended "Supervised Access to the Father"
dressed up with "joint custody".

Now, these reports often have no resemblance to reality. But, IF,
we take some of the the judge said, I would not have given that
father anything more than supervised access either. But,
these reports are often a work of fiction dressed up to sound objective.
(That is, if I believed the entire report was correct)
From what I've read, I'd like to know a lot more before I drew the same conclusions.

There are some very disturbing aspects to the Brown v. Brown decision.
It's so disturbing that it begs the question as to if it was just another
fabrication to get rid of a father, or, it could all be very true.
The problem is, decisions are all often based upon false allegations that
could be nothing more that repetitions of "she said" without any corroboration.


Most of the reports like this are NEVER published.

My lawyer showed me several of her reports that were not published
and NONE Of them were favorable to the father.
I defy anyone to come up with ANY report by Sandra Levesque
that does not favour the mother.


Without exception, every report my lawyer could find out about
was favorable to mothers only. That makes her a great choice
if you are a woman.

At the end of the day, this report, Brown v. Brown, in effect made
serious allegations about the father, that somehow , warranted, that
draconian solution of "supervised access", the classic weapon of choice
used and justified with all the usual classic false allegations.

The mother most probably had her car and Trailer packed for the move to
Arkansas with the three children just as soon as the order was issued.

It's one of those remarkable "joint custody' decisions where the father was probably never ever going to be substantially involved with the children again. She had a lot at stake, three kids, child support, etc.

When the stakes are that high, lies and fabrications become the norm.


suzukiguy72 WROTE

Hi,

I am curious if anyone else has had contact with Sandra Levesque. She is a social worker that acts as a Clinical Investigator or Social worker Assist with the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

She works out of Ottawa.

Her testimony was creative.

Thanks!

[Pierre555]

The censorship on this forum
is unbelievable.

We are apparently not allowed to comment
about S.L. unless of course it paints her
as a mother terresa

[standing on the sidelines]

The censorship on this forum
is unbelievable.

We are apparently not allowed to comment
about S.L. unless of course it paints her
as a mother terresa

where the hell did you get that from?????