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

[iona6656]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by tilt

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.

[iona6656]

He was found guilty.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...dict-1.5296462

Every now and then, I google the trial...and read about the testimony. And almost every time it brings me to tears (and it takes a lot to make me cry).

[gettingexpensive]

Originally Posted by iona6656

Every now and then, I google the trial...and read about the testimony. And almost every time it brings me to tears (and it takes a lot to make me cry).

These things are always difficult to read. There was one in Montreal not long ago. I'd be curious to see what percentage is related to mental illness. Anyone that has seen something like a borderline having a "borderline rage" episode, or psychotic episode will understand. This is truly scary, and the person acts completely differently. The look in their eyes. It's intense. It's predatory. You can see that they aren't there. Similar thing for the covert narcissist that "levels up" when they become dysregulated. Going from the hypersensitive introvert to becoming a scapegoater.. Sometimes leading to the "punitive avenger". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dynUwh1qu3o

In most cases, neighbours say that these mothers or father were great parents and then they just seem to snap. I've had a neighbour do this to his family.. kids were something like 4 and 7. The guy was a firefighter, no one saw it coming. No one ever sees it coming. There was a good documentary on amazon prime about this (from Ireland I think?). It makes me scared for my kids because the ex has had such borderline rage episodes. Yes she loves the kids but how far can an they go when they don't control themselves?

It's not just depression and the fact that they have to pay CS or won't see the kids as much where "if family law was fair and it would be 50-50, all would be avoided".

I really wish there was more focus on prevention but that would have to start at a young age. BPD / NPD / ASPD for example develop at around age 3 due to what you could consider a bad home environment.