BC father accused of killing daughters pleads 'not guilty' at trial

[iona6656]

https://globalnews.ca/news/5179729/a...y-trial-day-2/

So. apparently- someone else maybe came into the home and killed the girls- and stabbed the dad. But instead of calling 911 or screaming for help- he jumped in the tub to take a bath.

This is insulting to the memories of those two girls.

This trial is going to be fascinating, in a macabre sense.

[iona6656]

also- reading that other thread about this case....wow.

[tilt]

What thread? I searched but didn’t find it.

[iona6656]

What thread? I searched but didn’t find it.

https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/...ad.php?t=21554

some of the comments in there are like 'whoa'...


but then again- there are people claiming that this process (family law) is pushing them to this point. yes- these people are monsters if they take their own child's life. but it's worth looking at what needs to change to stop this.

there's a quote that goes:

“There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river.

We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in.”

[tilt]

Thank you! Lots to read in that thread. I’ve read so many cases on Canlii where the Justice lists DV, controlling behaviours, emotional/physical child abuse and then at the end Orders unsupervised parenting time anyway. One case I was reading last night had the Judge Order the police to remove a one year old child from the mothers care while in a battered woman’s shelter to be put into the (documented) abusive father’s sole custody (who then immediately refused all access) WTF?

[iona6656]

Thank you! Lots to read in that thread. I’ve read so many cases on Canlii where the Justice lists DV, controlling behaviours, emotional/physical child abuse and then at the end Orders unsupervised parenting time anyway. One case I was reading last night had the Judge Order the police to remove a one year old child from the mothers care while in a battered woman’s shelter to be put into the (documented) abusive father’s sole custody (who then immediately refused all access) WTF?

Can you share a link to those cases? I've only ever found one case where abuser got sole custody- and in that case it was because the mom left the child there in order to flee the situation. And the OCL fond that the child was not being abused. Though- I think there is a case to be made where one parent is abusive- and shown to be abusive- EVEN IF it's the case that they never abused the child(ren)- then it is NOT in the best interest of the children for the abusive parent to get custody of any kind. Why are we putting children in the care of individuals who use violence as a means to control others?

I've looked into both adoption and fostering- and the screening that is done is intense...and you can't help but think- shouldn't parents have this kind of screening too?

[tilt]

This was the case:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/do...19oncj266.html

The father brought an emergency motion when the mother left for the shelter, the Judge obviously did not hear the mother’s side and clearly never thought to ask about prior police involvement for DV. Fortunately in the end the mother recieved final sole custody but the child should never have been taken from her while in the shelter to begin with.

Witnessing their parent be abused is considered even more traumatic for children than them experiencing abuse themselves. Which makes sense, vicarious trauma and the feeling of powerlessness is devastating

[iona6656]

UGH@ the timeline to that matter.

It's so PAINFULLY obvious that the father was the one who escalated it. Mom wasn't a flight risk- the police checked and said mom & kid were fine. The emergency motion made sense if you look at what the father knew. THe conversion to a temporary sole custody arrangement though- that was dumb. And brutal for an 18 month old child to be removed from his mom- who both parties acknowledged was pretty much his only caregiver up to that point.

AND while the decision ultimately is decided fairly (except spousal support- I generally think a lot of spousal support decisions are dumb- and completely unfair. this one is no exception)- you can just see the judiciary closing ranks around each other. The first Judge who heard the emergency motion totally fucked up imo. That judge way overreached in turning a simple motion to prevent the infant from leaving Ontario into a sole custody order. Why? Trinidad and Tobago is part of the Hague Convention.When they returned after the motion- 6 days later- it should NOT have resulted in a sole custody situation. And the judge in this decision went out of their way to say "OH that judge was justified, nothing to see here folks!". Brutal.


But the mother also fucked up. If he threatened your life- you report it, ffs. Worse- if he raped you- you report it. I know leaving an abusive situation is hard- I know going to the police is difficult. But if you're going to rely on this as part of the reason you are the suitable parent for custody during litigation- then you have to report it.

This judge seemed hell bent on somehow justifying the fathers actions. Just look at paragraphs 79 & 80.

Clearly the father was very invested in the child having a good time and frustrated by the child’s lateness, sleepiness and general upset. The mother attended very reluctantly. It would have made much more sense for the mother to drop the child off at the temple where all the father’s family and friends were and pick the child up after the party. Instead she came inside and clutched on to the child. Athan may well have felt the tension between his two parents.

Um, it was the mother's weekend. She should be allowed to stay with her son. The fact that the judged used the term "clutched" is so inflammatory. And 100% unecessary. He could've simply left it at, " It would have made much more sense for the mother to drop the child off at the temple where all the father’s family and friends were and pick the child up after the party."....

I doubt this is the end of this case.

[tilt]

Oh totally agree. I was soooo frustrated after reading that decision. The father used his financial power over her and the proceedings, and she will never be as economically wealthy as he is so she can’t even sponsor her family to come help her. The father manipulated the system; the mother didn’t even know what the system was. The Judge seemed super impressed by how successful (financially/business) the father was and biased based just on that.

I understand your point about needing to involve the police, but I, a very privileged white person have had a very difficult time getting the police to believe me about documented criminal matters (not even DV, which is even more challenging). The mother came from a culture where police do NOT take DV (or women) seriously. So, I understand why she did not think of them as being someone “on her side”, especially after her Sask experience. But then the lack of support from the police was held against her. Gahhhh. Frustrating.

[StillPaying]

I didn't read the whole thing, but definitely disagree. My take away was that the dad did exactly what he should have done. If your ex takes off with your child with no warning, you go to the police and then file an emergency ex-party motion. That's how the judge keeps the child safe and gets everyone together to figure out what to do next. End result was that child gets both parents 50/50. Had he not done that, he would be fighting for an overnight/unsupervised access. The parents don't have to like each other but the child still deserves both parents.

[iona6656]

I didn't read the whole thing, but definitely disagree. My take away was that the dad did exactly what he should have done. If your ex takes off with your child with no warning, you go to the police and then file an emergency ex-party motion. That's how the judge keeps the child safe and gets everyone together to figure out what to do next. End result was that child gets both parents 50/50. Had he not done that, he would be fighting for an overnight/unsupervised access. The parents don't have to like each other but the child still deserves both parents.

Read the decision. In its entirety. Dad sucks. Mom- despite her allegations of abuse- always said kid should be 50/50. Kept and maintained the position. Dad wanted to move the kid to NYC- and send him on a plane back to mom once a month.

Dad- and lawyer did the the understandable thing at the beginning. Though- once he got word from Police mom was at a shelter. And his counsel ONLY filed for an order child couldn't leave province...why then did his lawyer agree to convert the motion? the Judge overreached. And they went along for strategic advantage. Mom was never a flight risk. Like I said- it takes all of 5 seconds to figure out T&T is part of the Hague Convention.

Dad threw his money around trying to secure an advantage. It worked- but not for long.

My previous lawyer- though sucky- did provide me with one piece of advice I think was great. In the immediate week after separation, I wanted to file an emergency motion for interim sole custody of D2. She told me not to do that- because the bail conditions amounted to the same thing- and if I did it- in the future it would look like I made up the allegations of DV to be strategic because I immediately filed a motion for interim sole custody. Hindsight? She was probably spot on.

[iona6656]

Also - sort of keeping this thread on track- the latest from the trial:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5229376/a...eek-3-defence/

Reasonable Doubt. He might skate on it.

[StillPaying]

You can think everyone is in on it or you can take it for what is said. The judge didn't overreach. He made an order that got everyone back and safe. How does she want 50/50 when she takes off and hides the child?

Your situation is completely different and didn't need an emergency motion. This dad, myself, and many others parents in this situation do.

[tilt]

The judge didn't overreach. He made an order that got everyone back and safe. How does she want 50/50 when she takes off and hides the child?

The judge was a woman, she was asked to make a non-removal Order (which is reasonable) and would have led to access for the father at the next court date in six days. Instead she gave sole custody to a father who didn’t live or work in Canada (he bought a house in NYC over the mother’s objections; moved there to work 12 hour days and unilaterally decided their child would move there too - effectively cancelling the mother’s PR status in Canada) and the Judge ordered the police to apprehend the child from the shelter where the child was safe.

The father had a history of abuse/police involvement, calling him the “safe” choice is a bit of a stretch as he was more likely to remove the child (as he stated, it was his plan to bring the child permanently to NYC where the mother had no legal status). The mother always said 50/50 custody, which doesn’t mean 50% of every day. Her spending a few days in the shelter while looking for housing doesn’t make her a bad person trying to alienate the father - that is what the father was doing when denying access for the year.

If she had gone to court the day she left the house she would have gotten sole custody, CS and SS and has a very different year.

[StillPaying]

If she had gone to court the day she left the house she would have gotten sole custody, CS and SS and has a very different year.

I agree, as that would be reasonable. When one spouse takes off without notice, hides the child, and is not communicating then that would make the order made here reasonable as well.

Don't look at it like trial where the parties are supposed to know their stuff. This was an emergency motion where people are thrown into the system and don't know anything. The judge didn't create the situation. She listened, asked questions and made the appropriate order needed.