Tweet
It is my understanding there is a law that indicates one parent cannot purposely turn a child against the other parent by telling lies about the other parent, saying degrading or demeaning things in essence untruths etc. Am I correct and if so how do I find that law and what is the ramifications of someone doing this? This is in regard to my daughter whos estranged husband has temporary physical custody of their 10 year old daughter so she can go to the school system she is familiar with. They have joint legal custody and my daughter was originally given physical custody but agreed to let her daughter stay with her father because of her school. It is a lot more involved then I can go into here.
-
-
re: alienation (telling lies about the other parent)
That is true. A judge will oder the parent not to say anything bad if need be; i.e. if a real problem exists. And violation of that order can cause a fine or even worse if it continues. -
re: alienation (telling lies about the other parent)
Its just a matter of time that eventually the law makers, governments, politicians will get it and see the light!!
Friday, June 12, 2009.
TORONTO SUN - BAD MOM REALLY NEEDED JAIL TIME
Columnists / Mindelle Jacobs
ONTARIO, CANADA
Most fathers who've been denied access to their kids by demented ex-wives give
up the fight rather than bankrupting themselves in lengthy court battles.
A Toronto surgeon had the money -- and the persistence -- to keep going. He won
sole custody of his three daughters because his ex-wife spent more than a
decade brainwashing the children to hate him. She was subsequently fined
$35,000 for contempt for ignoring repeated orders to get counseling. And on
Tuesday, an Ontario judge imposed an even harsher punishment, ordering her to
pay more than $250,000 of her ex-husband's court costs. The father's expenses
were "a litigant's worst nightmare," declared Ontario Superior Court Justice
Faye McWatt. "She has acted deceitfully and in bad faith throughout the
litigation." If the mother in this case had been jailed the first time she
ignored court-ordered access, everyone would have been better off. The mother
would have learned the courts don't take kindly to breaches of court orders,
the father would have been able to bond with his children much earlier and
court resources could have been used for more worthwhile purposes. It's a
pleasant surprise that the mother was actually punished; better late than
never. Still, the father likely faces a huge challenge winning over his kids.
Reversing the damage done by a parent who spends years alienating the children
from the other spouse is a long-term process. These girls, now aged 14, 11 and
10, may forever be damaged by their mother's sick, selfish actions -- behaviour
McWatt bluntly described as "emotional abuse." The couple split up in 1999 but
K.D., as the mother is known, denied A.L., her ex, virtually any access. At the
same time, she was over-protective of the kids to the point of infantilizing
them. The oldest child wasn't even toilet-trained at the age of five. The
middle girl was still using a bottle at night when she was three. One
psychologist warned as early as 2000 that the children were at "significant
risk" of being alienated from the father. A.L. gave up fighting for access for
about six years because his ex warned that if he pressured her, he wouldn't get
anything. But it didn't matter what he did. He still didn't get to see his
daughters. He only saw them for two weekends between 2000 and 2006. Then K.D.
wouldn't even allow him to speak to them. For a while, there was still a bond
between father and daughters. Early on, one daughter would hug him and
warn: "Don't tell mommy I did this." By 2006, though, the bond seemed broken.
The oldest showed no affection, the middle daughter stopped looking at him and
the youngest only spoke to him in a monotone. It's been 11 years since the
release of the parliamentary report on child custody and access, with its
dozens of recommendations, including the proposal that the terms "custody and
access" be replaced with "shared parenting" in the Divorce Act.
A NUTBAR
But that assumes both parents are reasonable. In this case, the mother is
clearly a nutbar who used her kids as weapons against her ex. Jail might have
taught her a lesson a lot sooner. A.L. is "exhausted but very, very happy. He
has his children," says his lawyer, Harold Niman. "This kind of case will
hopefully send a message to those people who think it's OK to undermine a
relationship between the children and the other parent."Comment
Comment