Flouting custody orders to cost mother $35,000
A 42-year-old Toronto mother has been fined more than $35,000 for
systematically alienating her three daughters from their father after the
couple's marriage broke down.
In making the unusually harsh ruling, Madam Justice Faye McWatt of the
Ontario Superior Court said that the woman - a chiropodist identified only
as K.D. - blithely flouted a series of court orders aimed at restoring her
children's relationship with their father.
"The respondent came to this court time and time again and consented to
orders in question," Judge McWatt said. "Once she left this building, she
ignored the orders, believing that she could escape scrutiny. The evidence of
her contempts is overwhelming."
The ruling was the second stage of a decision Judge McWatt started last year
when she ordered that the three girls be seized, sent to a parental alienation
centre in the United States for deprogramming and prevented from communicating
with their mother.
The children - aged 14, 11 and 9 - now live in the sole custody of their
"At the end of the day this was a case about a parent who did not care about
what was best for her children," the father's lawyer, Harold Niman, said in an
interview yesterday. "The contempt findings and penalties will hopefully make it
clear to other like-minded parents that orders are to be taken seriously - and
there are consequences to those parents who ignore them."
Soon after the couple met in 1993, K.D. became pregnant. While K.D. attempted
to keep the father from seeing his first daughter, she eventually agreed to
marry him. The couple soon split up, but had two more children during brief
periods of reunification.
Judge McWatt categorically rejected the mother's assertion that she was not
to blame for anything, and that the children had unilaterally refused to
associate with their father, a 56-year-old vascular surgeon identified as A.L.
"There is really only one explanation for the children's attitudes," she
said. "It is their mother's consistent negative influence on them from their
early childhood about A.L., and her persistence in excluding them from his
Judge McWatt noted that a total of six judges had issued orders in the
long-running case - and virtually none of them were honoured.
As early as 2000, she said Madam Justice Mary Lou Benotto of the Ontario
Superior Court had warned that "each day that goes by creates more and more risk
that these children will be further alienated from their father and consequently
However, K.D. carried right on cancelling sleepovers that were planned at the
father's house, or vacation trips to New York, Quebec City and Niagara Falls.
K.D. even refused to let him drive the children to school unless she was in the
car as well, Judge McWatt said.
She said the children lost the capacity to make independent decisions about
interacting with their father. In her 2008 order, Judge McWatt said K.D. must
turn over the children's clothing, passports and possessions. K.D. was also
ordered not to harass the children or go within 300 metres of them.
Judge McWatt described the mother as immature, evasive and completely lacking
credibility. She said K.D. precipitated physical confrontations with her husband
and berated him in front of the children. Eventually, the father was reduced to
shouting good night to his children through a door at his estranged wife's home
in the hope that they were there and could hear him.
Commentary by the Ottawa Mens Centre
A very RARE decision that makes headlines, because it is so rare. Note that
the father can afford to litigate, most fathers cannot.
This matter was litigated because the father could afford to and lower court
(Ontario Superior Court) judges knew he could and would appeal successfully the
usual anti father decisions.
The Citizens of Ontario Need To Know, that our judges generally have a
pathological hatred towards men, they generally have a willingness to do
indirectly what they cannot do directly.
Example, the Government won't appoint sufficient judges so, nudge nudge wink
wink, we hire you , do what you have to do, make cases go away.
In Ottawa some 70 odd cases were set down for trial in February, ONLY 4 made it
to trial, and 3 were dealt with by "summary judgment" a draconian measure giving
generally a mother "everything" she asks for and, permanently preventing the
father from ever asking for a variation of that order.
Two Ottawa Judges make more of those sorts of corrupt orders than hundreds of
other judges combined, they are Justice Allan Sheffield and Denis Power. Their
decisions are dealt with at the Ontario Court of appeal by their Madam Justice
Katherine Feldman who makes MORE Anti-Father decisions than any other judge in
the Ontario Court of appeal.
There are a variety of "dirty judges" in Ontario, they are used by "supervisory
judges" just like Criminal organizations use "hit men" to dispose of "problems".
You can't complain to the judicial council, they have a set of Rules that means
virtually all complaints will be not even accepted or decided in the judges
The number of such judges also referred to as, "dirty judges" or "the worst of
the worst" or "the worst judge ever" exceeds One Per Cent by a large margin yet,
its unheard of for a judge to be dismissed or removed.
A Fairy Tale that shows
the tip of an Iceberg.
Every day, thousands of men in Ontario are totally destroyed with court orders
that mean absent a lottery win, they are destined to be repeatedly incarcerated
without being able to go to court and seek a variation or enforcement.
Ontario Judges make orders that are guaranteed jail sentences.
For example, if a male has a genuine case for spousal support from a woman,
Ontario Judges just see Feminist Red Blood and will make any order, ANY order to
make sure the case never gets to trial.
The judges oblige by making orders for child support that cannot be paid based
on incomes that did not exist and in some cases ordering retroactive child
support going back 12 years or more when the mother had numerous opportunities
in even recent court hearings to ask for child support but did not simply
because she knew she had a spousal support obligation.
The legal commentators clearly state, Ontario Judges are biased and there is NO
justification for that bias, its wrong in law and a direct result of a Feminist
controlled and generally feminist appointed Judiciary.
Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Ottawa Home of the Corrupt Judge Allan
Sheffield, Canada) wrote: A Legal Presumption of Equal Parenting - is
the only solution - Quebec leads Canada in applying the principle that absent
evidence to the contrary, children are best served after separation by equal
time with both parents. Quebec also figures in the incomes of both parents.
Quebec is the only safe province for a man to live in.
Ontario for example is a province where Men have no legal rights unless of
course you earn several hundred thousand dollars a year and can afford to
litigate with the best lawyers who have "close relationships" with judges.
Trouble is Ontario Family Court is nothing more than a very sick illusion of
justice, the entire system is set up to fail, its set up to prevent matters from
being heard, from using every rule possible to make sure cases don't get to the
After a year or years of litigating, cases may finally get put on the trial
list, In Ottawa, around 70 were on the February Trial list.
Only 4 made it to Trial and 3 were thrown out on "summary judgment" = a
draconian judges solution that simply decides against one party without any
evidence being heard at trial, it could all be fabricated and "untested by
examination" but, thats not the point, judges want to "get rid of cases"
especially vulnerable are "self represented litigants", judges are unlikely to
do something dirty to a well heeled lawyer who makes the right donations to
their food bank drive or by tickets to see them at judicial celebrity dinners
that run $100 a plate or more.
Self Reps wont be seen at those dinners, you will find many of them disappearing
, some end up homeless, many end up in Jail, repeatedly and endlessly
incarcerated for doing nothing more than asking one of feminist judges to make
an order for a child to have a relationship with their father.
Remember, Real Crime Starts in Family Court and it takes a Dead Beat Judge to
create a Dead Beat Dad.
- Posted 03/04/09 at 1:46 PM EDT
GUESS Which judge will
oversee Ontario's Reform of Family Law?
Word is that it will be Justice Mary Jane Hatton - thats a bit like getting a
wolf to look after the chicken coup. Check out what we know about her at
INFORMATION Wanted ! This judge obviously has a troubled background, If you have
information about this judge's background please email us.
Congratulations to all the posters on all the hard work being done on these
- Posted 03/04/09 at 3:24 PM EDT
D A D - The word DAD is Canada's Dirtiest word - The word D A D is a dirty
word because we have "dirty judges", specifically, the underbelly of the
population who are not behind bars for child abuse or fraud, they engage in
child abuse and fraud on a habitual daily basis.
The legal expression is called "the process of justification" thats the same
justification that Criminal Gangs use for the "elimination" of those that they
"decide" to "remove". Also known as murder and assassination.
The worst practitioners of revolting illegal acts are Ontario Family Court
Judges, appointed because of their probability of making politically correct
Ask any Family Lawyer who qualifies as a "specialist in family law" and IF they
trust you, in confidence they will tell you Family Court Judges do NOT make
"Legal decisions" according to law, they make
Most property decisions, custody and or access decisions, spousal support
decisions are made on GENDER and of course "STATUS".
Judges are generally born with silver spoons protruding from their rear ends,
brought up to have a contempt for anyone who is not of "their class". They are
in general, (with many exceptions) the most unsuitable personalities to be
appointed to the bench where once issued with "absolute power" abuse that power
by; "not reading the pleadings" they become "LAZY JUDGES", they have a hatred
towards litigants FEMALE OR MALE who are "POOR" or who can't afford to pay a
lawyer, which in their mind is the worst sin of all deserving of draconian
orders to "get rid of them" in the say way one would approach removing RATS from
Fathers are in their view VERMIN to be exterminated.
Now again, if you doubt these words, just ASK any experienced family lawyer who
has "the scores on the board" and they will confirm the accuracy of these
Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from WARNING JUSTICE MARY JANE HATTON IN CHARGE
OF ONTARIO'S REVIEW OF FAMILY LAW - MAN HATER EXTRADONAIR !, Canada) wrote:
Mary Jane Hatton is the judge who the previous post refers to; she is
probably one of a small group of Ontario Jurists who is entirely UNSUITABLE to
chair this reform group or even be a judge.
She has a contemptuous attitude towards anyone "not of her class" that means
specifically "poor mothers" and of course fathers of any income with a few
exceptions amongst the very wealthy who she feels an affinity with.
She is described by her associates as "mean spirited" "unbecoming of a judge",
"a lightweight when it comes to reasoning".
Good Judges, Good lawyers, have in common, "core values" that win respect and
Justice Mary Jane Hatton is at the extreme opposite, her comments in the court
room are almost like a 1-10 of a MacDonald's cash register, such as "I think
these two people should just get along with each other" - that gets the "Oh my
god, is this a judge talking" response;
Sorry, yep, its a judge, be a pitiful example of a human being abusing absolute
End Part 1 of 2 parts
- Posted 03/04/09 at 9:02 PM EDT
Cont - 2-2
Now, there is NO record of Mary Jane Hatton's employment history, other than a
CAS lawyer in an area know for its contempt of legal rights that still lives in
the "old school" of abusing power and authority, hardly the background deserving
of being appointed to the bench.
Judges like Mary Jane Hatton typically have no where to hang their hat, they
have next to zero reported cases in case law, they were "helpers" with other
lawyers and never really showed ability or the responsibility to be given
serious cases on their own.
If you have info on Mary Jane Hatton's employment or personal background, please
email us, it will probably explain why she has such a snobby arrogant attitude
Word is that she is on to her second marriage and there is precious little
information on what happened to her first marriage. Apparently she is married to
another judge who this writer will not mention.
Part 2 - 2
- Posted 03/04/09 at 9:03 PM EDT
Flouting is a judges term for a conclusion justifying
an order. It is used generally against men. Before we simply agree with the
judge, its wise to remember that most Ontario Superior court Family Division
decisions have NOTHING to do with law, its all about being politically correct
and in many cases, siding with the "same class", that is, if your income is in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, then guess what, you may just
belong in the same social group as many of the judges.
Very often the draconian decisions are directed against anyone who does not have
money. For example, its not uncommon for them to target the poor, the single
mothers on welfare and legal aid or target a self represented unemployed parent
who by accident of birth was born with testicles, something many judges lack
when it comes to the ability and sense of duty to make legal decisions rather
than class or political decisions.