Sole Custody - Controlling ex,mental health

[hopefull]

...who gets to oversee you and make sure you are doing everything right i.e. not being on facebook when you are supposed to be watching child, going on a date, etc?????

Elaineb....I don't personally know you, but your first post comes across as manipulating, that you are better than your ex, and the child is just your and yours only

As Tayken has pointed out to you eloquently in the quotes, hearsay / BS / am a woman hear me roar mentality, is not good enough to get what you are chasing.

Bottom line....get over your emotions and think long term with regards to the child and their well-being

If I allow my lo to be put in a situation where harm comes to him, I can be held liable and charged with neglect. If I have concerns as a parent, whether I was the mother or the father, I have a responsibility to ensure those concerns are addressed. I would consider myself a very irresponsible parent if I didn't.

I don't see myself as a gatekeeper but a responsible parent. I need to make sure that safeguards are in place. So yes, thank you to the person that suggested having a parenting plan.

[Tayken]

Thank you. And yes, that is quickly evident that people automatically assume the worst of the other parent..

That is why you are going to get resistance on your statements from many on this forum. We have read what you have posted thousands of times.

If I didn't have concerns about safety, I would not be seeking sole custody with supervised visits.

You may have personal anxieties but, those are not evidence. Courts make orders on evidence and not assumptions drawn from personal fears/worries (anxieties). See my previous links.

I am a firm believer of both parents being involved in a child's life.

Then move forward with a joint custody and equal residency agreement and stop the nonsense before it gets any worse.

My ex loves his son, in that there is no doubt.

If the court sees this they will order joint custody and equal access. If you press to hard on your allegations you could end up being a every other weekend parent. Your concerns need cogent and relevant evidence to back them up. Your words are not evidence. Your fears transformed into words are not evidence.

If I hadn't witnessed his complete lack of control of his actions when he gets angry, would be different (5 year old can't defend themselves).

Again, review the other case I provided in this thread. Despite the other parent's "anger" issues a lot of it stemmed from the conduct of the other parent. For example, withholding access due to unfounded fears.

The suicide aspect is another issue again, same with history of depression I was unaware of.

The suicide attempt needs a lot of evidence. Someone having a anxiety attack requiring medical attention for a single (or even 2 time) occurrence does not change the tide of a court claim.

Also, if the "history of depression" went unnoticed by you it isn't good evidence. Even worse if you present it. This is why: A judge will question why you didn't notice it and its impact on the parent in question. It will be seen as slanderous evidence to try and "win" in court. Judges are very well versed in how negative evidence is used. Evidence without real purpose and just to create emotional reactions often fails.

It was a child counselor that recommended no overnight visits until my son was older.

A crappy one. Any "child counselor" worth their weight will know that this recommendation is dangerous and advantageous. In fact most managed professional clinicians have code of conduct that prevents them from making these statements. They are required by law to report any concerns to the CAS. So a "child counselor" telling you their opinion without acting on it in accordance with the law is one you should fire immediately and find a more respectable one that acts within their governing bodies requirements.

I have been doing public drop offs/pick up since the last incident.

Another nail in your coffin. If you are able to change the child without incident then what is the problem? Oh, you calling the RCMP.

Also did the interim order to make sure my son saw his father, had telephone contact between visits.

So, is there an actual order in place? You stated in your original message that the first case conference is coming up. So, what is your story now?

I also have a responsibility to ensure my son's safety as well while trying to ensure my lo has a relationship with his father. If I didn't have safety concerns, it would be much different situation.

Actually, you don't have this responsibility. Both parents have the responsibility regarding their child until such time a court orders otherwise. You may have "safety concerns" but, nothing here you have provided gives me any reason to believe you. Your allegations are baseless and quite common.

He has acknowledged that he has mental health issues to his lawyer.

How do you know this? This is such a silly statement. The conversation between a client and lawyer is privileged.

Obviously there is a record from the ambulance, police, hospital records as well, just hasn't been provided.

Nor will you get an order for the medical records. Nor are they probably relevant. You have a very weak case.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Tayken]

You can't assume that Mom is only saying that Dad has mental health issues because she is trying to keep the kid from Dad.

Actually, you can make this assumption as we are all humans and have free will. Furthermore, the assumption is less of an assumption if you test the poster's evidence. (Which I am doing.) With every response the argument and story breaks down. So, it isn't wrong to assume that this poster is just testing out tactics and not relying on real evidence.

Dad may be a loving, concerned parent. Or Dad may be a crazy, dangerous parent.

Based on my time on this forum and how many of these types of threads I have responded to... I am of the opinion that data is a loving and concerned parent. In fact, the poster states this.

You don't know, and I don't know.

The urgency criteria for someone with a true problem is absent from the original poster's communications. The emotional score that I get on it from standard off the shelf tooling scores very low which gives me the impression they are calculating. (PS: This is the same tool that OFW uses.)

That's why objective third-party professional reports are so important - because they come from people who have objective knowledge of the situation and who don't jump to conclusions about parents' motives.

Actually, that is the problem with Section 30 and OCL reports and why judges constantly rip them apart. (See my most recent post and others.) That was the major issue that WD's file had and why he slaughtered the OCL reporter. Because the OCL failed to think objectively that the other parent was trying to disrupt the status quo with false allegations. Thankfully, WD's IQ is well over 180 and was able to demonstrate how truly frail these "experts" are.

Reports only form a small portion of the evidence. Most judges these days don't rely upon them deeply.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[LovingFather32]

You can't assume that Mom is only saying that Dad has mental health issues because she is trying to keep the kid from Dad. Dad may be a loving, concerned parent. Or Dad may be a crazy, dangerous parent. You don't know, and I don't know. That's why objective third-party professional reports are so important - because they come from people who have objective knowledge of the situation and who don't jump to conclusions about parents' motives.

Stripes, the dad has an order from another judge that he's to have daily, unsupervised access to another child. What great evidence that he's no harm.

He has no record at all, no CAS reports, etc. I'm formulating my opinions and suggestions around the info OP posted and quite frankley, it looks like he's only dangerous to his child for "sole custody" purposes in court. The evidence so far (previous court order, etc) actually illustrates there is "no" problem with his parenting (in combination with no CAS, no record, .. no nothing).

She's quick to use the words "visit's", "supervised" and "not allowing overnight access" ... with nothing to back her claims up.

Reminds me of my situation a bit. I hope he's collecting daily access denials from her. The Maximum Contact Principle should be in full effect here by the sounds of it. The gate keeping needs to stop. The child deserves both parents in his/her life .. not one trying to call the shots .. not how it works. Hopefully they get a justice to make yet another example of how this needs to stop.

[Janus]

If I allow my lo to be put in a situation where harm comes to him, I can be held liable and charged with neglect.

And the harmful situation would be time with father?

If I have concerns as a parent, whether I was the mother or the father, I have a responsibility to ensure those concerns are addressed. I would consider myself a very irresponsible parent if I didn't.

So, if he ever has concerns about you, it would be appropriate for him to keep the child until such a point that he is satisfied that you no longer present a threat?

I don't see myself as a gatekeeper

Perhaps, but you are

Also...

When his son was 7 years old, he moved to another province to be closer to the mother who moved there 2 months earlier but there was an order in another province that had given him day to day care. After seven months living there, the other son was living with the mother with weekend access to him, he fled across the country with him during the weekend access. He was not convicted of abduction bc the province he fled to, there was a court order giving him day to day care.

I'm genuinely curious, courts in Canada at the same level don't generally override each other. How did this happen?

[stripes]

Not every woman is your ex.

Not all concern for children's safety is "gatekeeping".

Not all mental health concerns are bogus.

Not all mothers make things up to get back at fathers.

If there are genuine safety issues, the poster has been given useful advice - get proper documentation and think about alternatives to a bid for sole custody. All the other judgments I've seen so far - that Mom is irresponsible, that she is harming or abusing the child, that she doesn't want Dad in the kid's life - are purely speculative.

I have no idea whether Mom's concerns are well-founded or not because all I know about her situation is the same as all you know - a few hundred words on an internet forum. I find it more than a little bit ironic that a group of men on the internet lecturing Mom about the importance of evidence see no problem with jumping to their own conclusions about Mom's character and motives on the basis of biases, stereotypes and fantasies.

[Tayken]

I'm genuinely curious, courts in Canada at the same level don't generally override each other. How did this happen?

The previous location where the order was made was the court of competent jurisdiction. Unless the parents consented or had an order the time frame (<6 months) was not long enough to establish a new residential location status quo. The parent moving back with the child to the habitual residential location reset the status quo. The court of competent jurisdiction would remain with the original ordering court. The moving parent would be SOL.

The only way a move can be established is through:

1. Consent
2. Order
3. >6 months of unchallenged residency in another jurisdiction

Other parent played a very smart card. Moved closer. Got child. Went back in time (<6 months) and enforced the current order. The court in the new residential location wouldn't probably hear the matter and would lob the matter back to the court of competent jurisdiction. Even if it was >6 months the court would have lobbed it back to the court with the most experience with this family situation to make the residential location determination.

Its a strategy parents often use when a child is moved in contravention of a court order. Gain access to the child and return them to the jurisdiction. It isn't a bad thing to do. In fact, it is the right thing to do. So long as you didn't consent to the move. Never consent to a move. Ever.

Cheers,
Tayken

[Tayken]

Not every woman is your ex.

Not everyone has an ex.

Not all concern for children's safety is "gatekeeping".

Every concern that is not reported and verified by the CAS and acted upon under the Family Service Act that results in a self-help remedy filled with excuses (like the doctor told me to do it) is in fact gatekeeping.

Not all mental health concerns are bogus.

Mental health does not mean someone is "violent" or a "danger" to children. Most forms of mental health are a form of disability. Not every mental health condition (especially depression) are dangerous to children. In fact, most are not and very few cases turn on mental health issues. WDs case is an example of this. Despite very odd conduct the mental health aspect of the matter isn't the focus. The parental conduct is!

Not all mothers make things up to get back at fathers.

Not all posters are suggesting this. But, many parents do use the court to gain false status quo. Coe v. Tope, Izyuk v. WD, do you need me to name them all?

If there are genuine safety issues, the poster has been given useful advice - get proper documentation and think about alternatives to a bid for sole custody.

Actually that is bad advice. The advice and only advice that should be given and is required by law is to contact the CAS!!! No clinician in this matter has done so. The doctors treating the parent for mental health issues chose not to call the CAS. I have no doubt that it was disclosed that a child was present in the home at the time of admission. It is very standard practice!

So, the odds are... There are no problems other than with this parent's personal anxieties and miss information about mental health. The fact that you and the original poster call it "mental illness" demonstrates to me and many others how little understanding you have of "mental health". (Mental illness is a very derogatory term to use and clinicians do not use this term. Just lay people who are uninformed.)

All the other judgments I've seen so far - that Mom is irresponsible, that she is harming or abusing the child, that she doesn't want Dad in the kid's life - are purely speculative.

Really? WD's case was purely speculative? Coe v. Tope was speculative? That case that I just posted where the judge made on the finding of facts was speculative? You do realize that a decision in CanLII is based on the consideration of evidence and a judgement on facts right? That is why it is a judgement and not a speculative finding based on emotion.

I have no idea whether Mom's concerns are well-founded or not because all I know about her situation is the same as all you know - a few hundred words on an internet forum.

The challenge is that they are the same few hundred words that often get repeated on this forum. The words are independent of gender too. AbusedDad makes the same bogus claims and I challenge them in the same way. Stupidity / bad parenting is not limited to a single gender identity. It is universal.

I find it more than a little bit ironic that a group of men on the internet lecturing Mom about the importance of evidence see no problem with jumping to their own conclusions about Mom's character and motives on the basis of biases, stereotypes and fantasies.

You would be wise to keep your gender wars out of the conversation. This matter isn't about gender. It is about parents and if you are reading it with a gender twist you should re-read it all without a gender bias.

You clearly have issue with respondents to this thread. I am sorry you do. But, your position is not one I support in this matter. If you would like to debate this a different thread would be more appropriate.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Tayken]

If I allow my lo to be put in a situation where harm comes to him, I can be held liable and charged with neglect.

Actually, you wouldn't be. Your assumption is incorrect. You are obligated to report your claim to the CAS. Have you done this? As well, any clinician that the other parent comes in contact with has to address this with every medical encounter. In fact, if they are in the GTA then the CPOE system in the hospital will make them explicitly state (and records) that there are no concerns with access to children upon admission!

So, there are a slew of professionals on the hook should there be an issue. Clinicians that have had more intimate and medical contact with the person in question.

If I have concerns as a parent, whether I was the mother or the father, I have a responsibility to ensure those concerns are addressed.

With the Children's Aid Society! They are the responsible organization for investigating your concerns and acting in the best interests of the children. If you have serious concerns then call them and have them investigate. But, be warned... If they find nothing your hearsay evidence will crumble the house of cards you are building.

I would consider myself a very irresponsible parent if I didn't.

Have you called CAS yet? If your concerns are genuine you will as that is what is legally required. If you haven't then you are just waxing poetic on a public message forum.

I don't see myself as a gatekeeper but a responsible parent.

The court and most of the people on this forum don't care how you see yourself. The only consideration is what is in the best interests of the children.

I need to make sure that safeguards are in place. So yes, thank you to the person that suggested having a parenting plan.

Again, a parenting plan is only valid if ordered or agreed upon by both parents. Suffice to say it is doubtful that any offer to settle and proposed parenting plan of sole custody and supervised access will be accepted. More than likely it will be rendered into toilet paper by the other party. That would be my recommendation to them.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[trinton]

Allow me to make this simple.

Are you concerned with your child being abused under the other parents care?

Have you contacted CAS and reported your concerns.

Has the CAS placed any restrictions against the other parent?

Has the CAS closed your file?

CAS will involve the Police if necessary.

You should contact the Police if your child is in immediate danger.

How can you allow the other parent to see your child and claim that he is abusing your child at the same time? CAS/Police wouldn't allow for that to happen.

Have you filed any emergency motion to gain sole custody due to any of the aforementioned items?

Be advised that unfounded CAS/Police allegations will ruin your relationship with the child's other parent - and you could be charged if you make false allegations.

Getting the Police involved is not good for your kids - they will remember it forever.

[stripes]

Not everyone has an ex.




Mental health does not mean someone is "violent" or a "danger" to children. Most forms of mental health are a form of disability. Not every mental health condition (especially depression) are dangerous to children. In fact, most are not and very few cases turn on mental health issues. WDs case is an example of this. Despite very odd conduct the mental health aspect of the matter isn't the focus. The parental conduct is!


So, the odds are... There are no problems other than with this parent's personal anxieties and miss information about mental health. The fact that you and the original poster call it "mental illness" demonstrates to me and many others how little understanding you have of "mental health". (Mental illness is a very derogatory term to use and clinicians do not use this term. Just lay people who are uninformed.)

Really? WD's case was purely speculative? Coe v. Tope was speculative? That case that I just posted where the judge made on the finding of facts was speculative? You do realize that a decision in CanLII is based on the consideration of evidence and a judgement on facts right? That is why it is a judgement and not a speculative finding based on emotion.


The challenge is that they are the same few hundred words that often get repeated on this forum. The words are independent of gender too. AbusedDad makes the same bogus claims and I challenge them in the same way. Stupidity / bad parenting is not limited to a single gender identity. It is universal.


You would be wise to keep your gender wars out of the conversation. This matter isn't about gender. It is about parents and if you are reading it with a gender twist you should re-read it all without a gender bias.

You clearly have issue with respondents to this thread. I am sorry you do. But, your position is not one I support in this matter. If you would like to debate this a different thread would be more appropriate.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Lots of things to respond to here, but I'll be selective:

1. Mental illness: Tayken, you know nothing about my professional background but I can assure you from my work experience that "mental illness" is indeed a term in current use by professionals. It isn't bandied about to describe transient states of low mood, but is used to describe persistent conditions which interfere significantly with reality-testing, the functions of everyday life, or social interaction. Schizophrenia and personality disorders are examples of mental illnesses, and there's debate about whether substance abuse should be classified as such. The Public Health Agency of Canada, whose job is to track epidemiological trends, categorizes and classifies "mental illnesses":

Mental Illness - Public Health Agency Canada

I don't know if the original poster's ex is mentally ill or not, but use of the term "mental illness" is not evidence of ignorance.

2. Speculation vs evidence: The cases you posted use evidence. The judge in WD's case didn't rely on dissecting the phrasing of two internet postings to determine that WD's ex was bad news, he used the extensive information compiled by WD to come to that conclusion. That's what makes a (real) judgment different from the rush to judgment I see on this thread.

3. Gender bias: It's impossible not to notice the gender skew in the makeup of the forum regulars who jumped all over the OP, including some who fill up other threads with their sexually derogatory generalizations about women - booty calls, gold-diggers, etc. Some people here clearly have Girl Problems and will spin anything into a woman bad/man good scenario. (I should say that I don't think this is the case with you or LF, even though you've been the most active on this thread).

4. CAS. If there is immediate risk of abuse or neglect to the child, CAS should be involved and Mom ought to make that call right away if she believes the child is in danger. However, there's a grey area in which risk is not immediate or direct, but still exists. This is where letters from treating clinicians can come in. I am aware of a file right now in which CAS has determined that the conditions in the household "do not fall within our mandate at present", but a treating psychiatrist has provided a letter recommending that the children in the household reside with another parent because the risk of exposure to violence is "non-trivial". This letter does not have the legal force of a CAS directive, but it is not insignificant. There seems to be an assumption on this forum that if CAS isn't actively intervening, therefore there are no issues and anyone with concerns is making things up. Things are not so black and white in real life.

[LovingFather32]

Stripes, the only one even bringing up gender here are you and Links. I've also had words with fathers on this forum about this type of gate keeping rubbish. It's "not" a gender thing at all. Its simply an analysis of the situation based on the facts given by the OP.

We give her the benefit of the doubt regarding her own subjective interpretation of this situation, including her thoughts on what mental illness entails. But we're also painting the reality of the situation as we see it and hopefully providing some useful insight for the OP moiving forward.

We're not a bunch of cavemen chanting and grunting about women here. Our advice is backed up by an extraordinary amount of caselaw and many of us have either been through it, or know somebody who has. Denying parenting time to another loving parent or hiding a child in the absence of any significant evidence should not be encouraged in any context, including here on these forums.

Us "group of men" are loving father's and are in it for the best interests of the child. I'm not afraid to treat the situation the exact same if it were a father denying access in the same manner. Frankly Stripes I'm surprised that you're not on the same page given the facts she gave. If it were a father claiming mom was depressed and blocking access you'd have a problem wouldn't you?

Just wondering how others fared in getting sole custody? I have no issue with visitation but have concerns on overnight visits, behavioral issues following visits.

Why not say that she's concerned about safety here in her opening? Because she's not concerned about safety, only about some lingering transition anxiety that most children experience. No reason to block access and control the "visits".

He was not convicted of abduction bc the province he fled to, there was a court order giving him day to day care.

This is quite significant. A judge already examined dad's parenting quality and determined it was fine. I wonder why OP disagrees with this justice, whose already studied the father's ability to act as a parent.

My ex loves his son, in that there is no doubt.

Indeed he does, and the child loves him right back. This whole thing is about the child.

If I didn't have safety concerns, it would be much different situation.

Then why no CAS? Why no police? Nothing relate to his parenting at all. If there are still genuine safety concerns, why agree to unsupervised"visitation" in court?

If I allow my lo to be put in a situation where harm comes to him, I can be held liable and charged with neglect.

But there's no evidence to back this up, you agreed to unsupervised access in court and a judge has already been through his file and found him fit to parent. Do you understand the amazing evidence this is for your ex in court? And all you're doing is digging for a depression diagnosis for sole custody? Just trying to understand here.

I need to make sure that safeguards are in place.

CAS should have been your "safeguard" a long time ago if you had any concerns about your child's safety. Why agree to unsupervised access in court and why did a judge in a previous case feel no need for safeguards of any kind?

We're just going by the facts given, not gender.

[Janus]

Its a strategy parents often use when a child is moved in contravention of a court order. Gain access to the child and return them to the jurisdiction. It isn't a bad thing to do. In fact, it is the right thing to do. So long as you didn't consent to the move. Never consent to a move. Ever.

The way I read it was that there were two court orders.

A: First court order (says Dad has primary residential)
B: Second court order (says Mom has primary residential)

Upon reread it might be possible that only court order A existed, and that mother ran away with kid in contravention of court order and father just returned kid to proper location.

I was confused because the OP had described it as a wrong by the father, which implied to me that there was a court order giving the mother day to day care that the father has sneaked around.

[Janus]

Not every woman is your ex.

Not all concern for children's safety is "gatekeeping".

Not all mental health concerns are bogus.

Not all mothers make things up to get back at fathers.

I won't speak for other people, however it would make me feel very icky indeed if I helped a parent keep a child away from another parent.

I agree, not all concern for children's safety is gatekeeping, but in this particular case it probably is.

I agree, not all mental health concerns are bogus, but in this case it probably is.

I agree, not all mothers make up things to get back at fathers, but in this case that is probably exactly what is happening.

I agree, posts about sexual exploits in a divorce forum are juvenile, likely untrue, and annoying, but that doesn't make the posters wrong.

Many women post in this forum and get helpful advice. Elaine sounds like a gatekeeping mother who will do anything to keep the father away from her children. I'm not surprised that she got a mostly negative reaction.

If there are genuine safety issues, the poster has been given useful advice - get proper documentation and think about alternatives to a bid for sole custody.

Agreed, that was solid advice.

All the other judgments I've seen so far - that Mom is irresponsible, that she is harming or abusing the child, that she doesn't want Dad in the kid's life - are purely speculative.

Maybe, but in this case I speculate that the speculation is correct

[Tayken]

1. Mental illness: Tayken, you know nothing about my professional background but I can assure you from my work experience that "mental illness" is indeed a term in current use by professionals.

You work in the military from what I recall. Not in health care.

It is a term that is being changed and has two vastly different meanings. Mental health "issues" (or illness) is a current state. Here is some education for you on the difference.

What?s the difference between mental health and mental illness?

Illnesses are acute in nature. Health is the view of one's long term state. You and the OP are inaccurately stating that the illness is not accute in nature and omnipresent. That is not how it works. (Or you are assuming that illness persists for a life time which is an issue that SickKids is addressing with their most recent ads.)

It isn't bandied about to describe transient states of low mood, but is used to describe persistent conditions which interfere significantly with reality-testing, the functions of everyday life, or social interaction.

That by definition is "mental health". Read the above article. Mental illness is an acute state classification.

Schizophrenia and personality disorders are examples of mental illnesses, and there's debate about whether substance abuse should be classified as such.

Actually personality disorders are not an illness and in DSM are Access II disorders. They are disorders of the personality and not classified as an illness in any clinical ontology.

If you need evidence to this fact you can read this:

Overview - Personality disorders - Mayo Clinic

The Public Health Agency of Canada, whose job is to track epidemiological trends, categorizes and classifies "mental illnesses":

Mental Illness - Public Health Agency Canada

Again, you would be advised to read the actual document that this is summarizing as it provides the full details:

The Human Face of Mental Health and Mental Illness in Canada 2006 - Public Health Agency of Canada

"The Human Face of Mental Health and Mental Illness in Canada 2006"

The content is from 2006. It is 10 years old. A lot has changed since then and this is reference information that was reliable in 2006.

It is ignorant to rely upon dated materials is ignorant because it explicitly states:

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of CanadaExternal link, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

I don't know if the original poster's ex is mentally ill or not, but use of the term "mental illness" is not evidence of ignorance.

You may be correct. I may be too strong in saying you are ignorant. Ill informed maybe is a better term.

2. Speculation vs evidence: The cases you posted use evidence. The judge in WD's case didn't rely on dissecting the phrasing of two internet postings to determine that WD's ex was bad news, he used the extensive information compiled by WD to come to that conclusion. That's what makes a (real) judgment different from the rush to judgment I see on this thread.

Actually, the judge worked with the evidence presented. Just like posters here are working with the opinion evidence provided here. If the OP chooses not to address the gaps in the "story" they are presenting then it isn't any of our fault. They can respond and fill in the gaps. But, if they are unable to fill in those gaps here then they are likely going to have a challenge in a court of law. They would be advised to heed the criticism of their story and fill those gaps or drop their ill advised sentiments to avoid costly and prolonged court actions.

3. Gender bias: It's impossible not to notice the gender skew in the makeup of the forum regulars who jumped all over the OP, including some who fill up other threads with their sexually derogatory generalizations about women - booty calls, gold-diggers, etc.

The ignore feature of this site works very well. Yes, this is noise that is a pain to deal with but, it is a public form which we do not have control over. We have to take the good with the bad with the Donald Trump of it all.

Some people here clearly have Girl Problems and will spin anything into a woman bad/man good scenario. (I should say that I don't think this is the case with you or LF, even though you've been the most active on this thread).

It is indeed unfortunate that some see gender before evidence and claim that our "biased" court system does too. I see their conduct as defeatism more than anything. It is unfortunate because some appear to contain the smarts to not be this way. But, family law is emotionally draining.

4. CAS. If there is immediate risk of abuse or neglect to the child, CAS should be involved and Mom ought to make that call right away if she believes the child is in danger.

Agreed.

However, there's a grey area in which risk is not immediate or direct, but still exists. This is where letters from treating clinicians can come in.

Again, these letters are not admissible evidence. I have outlined this a number of times and provided the case law. For any clinician to be a witness they have to testify (by affidavit) and be cross examined. A letter would not make it into record for a trial.

I am aware of a file right now in which CAS has determined that the conditions in the household "do not fall within our mandate at present", but a treating psychiatrist has provided a letter recommending that the children in the household reside with another parent because the risk of exposure to violence is "non-trivial".

That clinician should be only sending that letter to CAS and they should be the ones dealing with it. How that letter has come to your attention is odd as it contains personal health information. So either the clinician has violated their standards of practice or someone has removed that record in contravention of the law. CAS would react to any clinician (registered and in good standing) asserting such things. They would move under the family services act and call the clinician as a witness. That is the protocol.

This letter does not have the legal force of a CAS directive, but it is not insignificant. There seems to be an assumption on this forum that if CAS isn't actively intervening, therefore there are no issues and anyone with concerns is making things up. Things are not so black and white in real life.

The clinician, if you are correctly asserting the situation, is in violation of their clinical practices and procedures. They are obligated to report their concerns and to work with the CAS on the matter. It isn't evidence in a family court matter but a matter that needs to be addressed by the CAS under the family services act. Unless, the CAS has reviewed the content, interviewed the clinician and the clinician is providing an opinion having not met with or treated the person in question. The only person that can give such an opinion is a treating physician. Everything else is hearsay bullshit from an "expert" that is way out of line and their standards of practice.

Furthermore, the patient may have left this clinican's care and transferred to a more competent clinician who has done a more detailed analysis and has insured CAS and others that the views are not reflected in the patient.

Good Luck!
Tayken