Live Free or Die Trying
Home Forum Articles
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!

Search

Main Menu

Who is Online
23 user(s) are online (5 user(s) are browsing Article)

Members: 1
Guests: 22

EugenioMun, more...



PHP File Browser for the Web
JavaScript Tree Menu
Article :: Simple Overview

Factual Analysis of Evidence


Ex-wife's allegations of abuse of her and children by husband unsupported by anything but hearsay, allegations on her behalf repeated by those who witnessed none of the allegations. Ex-wife lying. All of husband's allegations regarding ex-wife in the areas of total irresponsibility, unfit parent and addictions supported by credible witnesses, including professionals. Husband told truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. Besides, time reveals the truth of everything. Husband, despite opposition of courts DID raise daughter's to be personally responsible and successful. Once money gone, ex-wife and courts lost all interest in children. Ex-wife cried fake wolf and, law impoverished family by "pretending to help". They do "help", but, only themselves, as part of a system designed to prey on Canadians and destroy families.

Summary: Facts established, based on evidence

  • These are the major facts proven in this section, based on the merits of both spouses evidence:
  • Since prosperity is a consequence of personal responsibility and divorce courts do not punish perjury, thus rewarding lies: By providing unlimited legal aid (a major strategic advantage) to the least prosperous spouse and rewarding lies, what the state is really doing is "unnatural selection", in the darwinian sense, in favor of personal irresponsibility and dishonesty in the selection of which parent gets to teach values to our children. This diminishes personal responsibility and honesty which are fundamental to freedom, a threat to arbitrary authority. This goes a long way to explaining why all measures of social health and civilized values are declining and irresponsibility is increasing. This has been going on since 1968 when "no fault" divorce laws were first put in place. This appears to be part of a larger strategy to "evolve" more stupid, docile and controllable populations, more willing to tolerate "slavery" and rule by "experts" who cannot be refuted because everybody is too stupid to know that fact and reason are supreme.
  • These "no fault" laws, and the legal bias in favor of the irresponsible create an opportunity for unscrupulous spouses to marry for profit, and the legal profession to profit from the inevitable conflict. This is the root cause of domestic conflict, irresponsible, entitled spouses with no legal remedy or way to hold them to account.
  • Ex-wife has never behaved as a partner. She married for entitlements and to be on easy street post divorce, "just like her mother", per her sisters.
  • Ex-wife financially preyed on husband and daughters for entire marriage.
  • Ex-wife was completely irresponsible, in all areas including as a mother, partner, financial.
  • Ex-wife consistently acted against family interests and has never considered her daughters needs, except as a means to an end.
  • Ex-wife was proven to be a chronic alcoholic and prescription drug addict.
  • All of Ex-wife's allegations of abuse, being a harsh disciplinarian, etc, against husband are proven FALSE or lacking evidence.
  • The families entire social network, including ex-wife's step father and two sisters provide evidence fully supporting husbands position.
  • Husband is proven to have been the children's primary caregiver during the entire marriage, ex-wife negligent mother.
  • Husband is proven to be telling the truth. Ex-wife is a proven LIAR.
  • The facts are irrefutable and indicate that husband is the only viable choice to raise his daughters and that an unequal division of family property should occur, in husbands favor.

Analysis Perspective: Environmental factors determine choices in ALL AREAS, including this conflict

Spouses are assumed to be rational players. As such, they MUST consider the environmental factors and choices they must make to achieve their goals. This allows some insight into their motivations. Note that analysis from the perspective of goal seeking is highly discouraged and stated to be invalid by the intellectual stakeholders in this matter. They insist over and over that motives cannot be determined. This mantra is misleading, mostly LIE.

Motives (defined as internal thoughts, reasons) cannot be determined, but the goals that are achieved by choices/actions in the real world can be and are well understood by the laws of reality (action leads to consequence). If the choices rational players make, are pursuing, are in support of or achieve a goal, that is the motive. If I stick a knife in your heart or shoot you, my real motive was to have you dead, no matter how many shrinks make excuses (and a living, sucking on the state tit) rationalizing and speculating on what I was thinking that led to this act. The only question is, did I have a lawful reason, such as self-defense? Any excuses of my abused childhood, mental competence, etc are irrelevant.

The law, in its pure form is an instrument of applied reality, relating action to consequence to protect civilization from criminals. The only valid concern of law is actions and their consequences, whether acts are criminal and what the lawful self-defensive response (the only moral justification for violence by anyone) of society should be.

  • Fact: Both spouses face what they perceive as survival threatening action from the courts. Ex-wife faces losing face, her daughters, her home and paying child support versus gaining the same. Husband faces the same risks/benefits. Each is determined that the other will not prevail. Spouses have a history of inability to compromise which has grown to being unable to tolerate each other.
  • Assumption: Since spouses are in conflict, each will, if possible to do without legal detriment, and allowed by their moral restraints, assuming they have any, be prone to behave in a manner that is detrimental to the other.
  • Fact: Husband has already proven himself a rational player, in control of himself, and will not act against his perceived self-interest or goals intentionally.
  • Fact: Husband has far more in the way of values, skills and ability to economically survive, on his own. Ex-wife has limited skills and is less willing/able to achieve her wants in life without external assistance.
  • Fact: For the above reason, assuming neither parent cares about the children, the economic stakes are far higher for ex-wife than husband who can just leave and be welcomed by any country on the planet that has respect for the values and rights of innovative, economically productive people (ie; not Canada).
  • Fact: If husband chooses fight over flight, it is certainly not for economic reasons, since a world of opportunity is open to him.
  • Fact: Ex-wife is on free legal aid (courtesy of taxpayers) and is therefore unconcerned regarding any personal cost or amount of litigation. It is therefore not in ex-wife's interest to compromise. Ex-wife can win any legal war of attrition, due to infinite legal aid resources. Husband must pay his own legal fees and any legal conflict is a personal cost, from an already impoverished state. It is in husband economic interests to compromise, to save as much as he can, if possible. The legal balance of power is overwhelmingly in ex-wife's favor, independent of the relative merits of spouses factual/legal positions, an uneven playing field, at taxpayers expense. This state of affairs is called "discrimination on the basis of being productive, a contributing member of society" or, "reverse discrimination in favor of the unproductive", with an overall statistical result that productive people do not achieve custody and children are raised and taught by the parent least able to be self-sufficient. The state calls this "Social Policy". It is really, in evolutionary terms, "unnatural selection favoring personal irresponsibility" in the area of who teaches children values and survival skills.
  • Fact: Husband has stated four legal goals: Custody of his daughters, Child support, The marital home and unequal division of family property.
  • Fact: Failure to compromise on husbands part is an indication that he perceives the financial cost to be less than the cost of compromise. Of husband's goals, at some point, due to impoverishing legal fees, his financial objectives of child support ($800.00 per month), the marital home (a dump), unequal division of property (minor) or even avoiding paying child support would become uneconomical, making him prone to compromise if these were his objectives. By process of elimination, it must be his daughters that husband values more than money.
  • Since husband values daughters enough to impoverish himself on a very non-level (unfair) legal field of conflict, the major question is WHY? Is husband a pervert, a sexual predator? This area requires VERY close scrutiny. If it is proven that husband is not a pervert, his goal can only be to secure his daughters best interests.
  • Fact: Both parties have stated their goals. The attention of the courts is a new environmental factor. Both spouses will adapt and attempt to appear to be on their best behavior, to provide the court with a positive impression.
  • Fact: Because the spouses are now under observation in a very high stakes game, the strong possibility exists that post separation behavior is an act, a sham, atypical behavior, not indicative of natural behavior to be expected once judicial scrutiny is removed. This behavior is intended to influence the court.
  • Fact: Because the spouses have now ceased association, their environmental influence on each other has also ceased. Both spouses will attempt to use this fact both to blame evidence to their detriment during marriage and evidence to their credit post separation as due to influence of spouse during marriage and relief that influence has ceased. Such claims must be thoroughly examined for factual veracity.
  • Assumption: For above reason, less weight should be given to post separation evidence and observations that is to the credit of either spouse if it is inconsistent with their pre-separation (in their natural environment) behavior established by witness accounts unless there are proven influences from one spouse during marriage preventing the other spouse from behaving in a positive manner.
  • Assumption: For the same reason, post-separation observations to the detriment of either spouse that are not in their self-interest are therefore highly suspect and a strong possibility exists that either the observer is lying or the facts are being spun (manipulation). If the observations survive factual scrutiny and remain detrimental, the possibility exists that it is reaction to stress of conflict or compulsive behavior, an indication that the spouse is not in control and is acting to their own detriment.
  • Summary of Environmental Considerations:
    • The spouses will try to make matters appear to the detriment of the other
    • Neither spouse will act against their perceived self-interest, unless they are not in control of themselves
    • Ex-wife has ZERO reason to compromise or limit the scope of the legal conflict, since taxpayers are paying her legal fees. For ex-wife non-compromise is not a sure sign of personal determination or willingness to sacrifice, since there is no personal cost.
    • Husband has every reason to compromise, if possible, since legal fees are a direct and crippling cost. This means that non-compromise is very costly for husband, a sure sign of determination and willingness to sacrifice.
    • Economic stakes are far higher for ex-wife than husband since she has limited earning capacity should she lose.
    • If husband chooses fight over flight, it is not for economic reasons, he can flee anywhere else and prosper.
    • Failure to compromise on husbands part is an indication that he perceives the financial cost to be less than the cost of compromise.
    • Since daughters are only non-financial goal of husband, lack of compromise and lack of concern for financial dissipation proves it is really his daughters motivating him.
    • Close attention must be paid to whether husband is a sexual predator.
    • If husband is not a sexual predator, is a rational player, does not compromise, does not flee and is willing to impoverish himself by legal fees, it can only be out of concern for his daughters.
    • Ex-wife's motives are not so easy to discern. Custody of children brings major financial benefits. It costs ex-wife nothing to litigate.
    • The state encourages this conflict by promising rewards from conflict with no cost of conflict for ex-wife, who also initiated legal action. This cost is borne by children, husband, taxpayers and a general increase in social violence. This is not a problem for lawyers. Our cost is their profit, a good thing. It's a simple matter of perspective.
    • The state is selecting against the social value of self sufficiency by favoring the least productive (free legal aid, a major advantage) in the legal choice of the parent whose values influence children. Whether the courts actually deems this or the productive parent is forced to flee due to no legal hope is irrelevant, the result is that our children are raised by the least personally responsible parent.
    • The state is selecting against the social value of honesty since there is no penalty for perjury, meaning lies are rewarded by the courts in the legal choice of the parent whose values influence children.
    • The fact that courts are biased in favor of unproductive liars in the choice of who teaches our children values goes a long way towards explaining rapidly declining measures of social health, which are very probably being vastly underreported by the sate and media.
    • Husbands Conclusion: This appears to be part of an overall state strategy to keep citizens dependent and ignorant slaves, for the benefit of our "masters" who prosper enormously from social problems that they themselves have illegally created and maintain. Their stated reasons of fairness, etc are manipulative lies and pretexts. Their motive is the goal their choices achieve. Any excuses otherwise, such as "unintended consequences" are an admission of incompetence, lack of rationality and disqualifies them from any further say in critical, survival of civilization matters such as these.

Parenting Ability: Who was primary caregiver during marriage, earned love and trust of daughters

Support Ex-wife's Oppose Husbands Claims

  • Dr. Selwyn Smith (never met husband or children) - husband a mortal danger to ex-wife and daughters, all ex-wife's negatives reaction to husbands abuse, no addictions
  • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith attesting to husband's abuse, ex-wife's perfection (June 20, 1994)

    • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
    • Has not met husband or children, making this report entirely hearsay, all information originates with ex-wife.
    • First seen ex-wife on April 22, 1994, seen her several times subsequently
    • Has seen Police Report "Confirmation of Domestic Occurrence" dated June 10, 1994
    • Cites TWO police reports, the second is fictional and does not exist.
    • Claims ex-wife seems to enjoy her work. Surprise to husband, ex-wife hates any work, considers it beneath her, something only lowlife's do.
    • Ex-wife claims to relate well with colleagues and superiors. Another surprise. Husband never met or heard of friends from work.
    • Claims that ex-wife is studying psychology on a part time basis at University of Waterloo. Yes, in a desultory manner. All of her educational endeavors petered out and failed. Husband forced to conclude it was not educational improvement ex-wife sought, but for ex-wife to be able to claim she was better and smarter than others, because she was in university.
    • Ex-wife has low self-esteem because brother suicided when he was 17.
    • Ex-wife describes marriage as emotionally abusive and that husband does not "trust her". Husband: for ex-wife, "trust" is a pre-requisite to ripping someone off. Been burnt too many times, so have our daughters. Trust must be earned and maintained. It was not.
    • Notes that there have been two police incidents regarding husbands "abuse".
    • Ex-wife claims marriage counseling "unhelpful" and wants divorce.
    • Ex-wife claims that husband of the opinion that they should reconcile.
    • Ex-wife on tranquilizers (Alprazolam) due to tension in home.
    • Ex-wife has in recent past, resorted to excessive quantities of alcohol, due to tension in home.
    • Ex-wife feels not in control of her life, mistreated and misused by husband and has remained in marriage due to feelings of dependency.
    • Ex-wife wants to overcome her dependency and not remain in an abusive home.
    • Claims: previously, ex-wife had hoped by remaining in marriage that further abusive incidents would not occur. Husband: This is odd, prior to filing for divorce, no "abuse" incidents reported by ex-wife. Of the "abuse" incidents subsequently reported by ex-wife, husband was not there and played no part, making these "reports" hearsay.
    • Concludes: No evidence of mental illness or depression in ex-wife.
    • Concludes: No evidence that ex-wife has alcohol problems. Previous short term problems due to anxiety and fear of husband.
    • Claims: Ex-wife has cut back on alcohol considerably and currently consumes one glass of wine with meals.
    • Concludes: Ex-wife shows no sign of stigma of alcoholism, performs social and work functions well.
    • Claims ex-wife is fearful that further assaults by husband will occur.
    • Concludes: Ex-wife has experienced physical, emotional and verbal abuse and threats from husband.
    • Concludes: Exposure of ex-wife and children to clearly hazardous presence of husband is not in their best interests.
    • Claims: ex-wife has been principle caregiver of the children and no reason she cannot continue.
    • Concludes: Ex-wife is a credible lady. She has not feigned, exaggerated or malingered any symptomology.
    • Husband: Ex-wife is excellent liar and manipulator. She convinced husband during courtship that she was honest, personally responsible, interested in partnership and working together for a good life and future. Empty words, actions speak the truth.
    • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
    • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGIOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.

    Dr. Selwyn Smith disputing Dr. Mclean's conclusions (November 21, 1994)

    • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
    • Claims to have reveiwed the custody assessment report of Dr. Mclean.
    • Disputes Dr. Mclean's conclusion that ex-wife is an addict
    • Reiterates that ex-wife has been under overwhelming stress due to her "abusive" husband who has made rape and other threats, neccessitating ex-wife to call police twice.
    • Adds that ex-wife's stress further compounded by children's behavioral difficulties and a very messy untrained dog.
    • Note: Dr. Mclean observed ex-wife's ineptness and inability to deal with her daughters here. Note also that none of ex-wife's submissions make any mention of having to deal with, or even admitting that daughters had behavioral difficulties, although, ex-wife did allege that husband was having difficulties and that she had to calm children down after husband consistently upset them during his access time. Note also, the dog was a litter of untrained puppies which ex-wife refused to keep outside in the yard, preferring instead to attribute puppy mess to husband's irresponsibility, in photographic splendour.
    • States that ex-wife used tranquilizers slightly more than prescribed. Makes no mention of ex-wife going into withdrawl or becoming addicted to tranquilizers, as concluded by Dr. Mclean, based on his personal observations and hearing ex-wife's description of withdrawl. Ex-wife also admits she became addicted in her affidavit.
    • Claims that tranquilizers can be withdrawn at end of custody proceedings, implying that they are required to deal with the conflict.
    • Claims that ex-wife has no need of addiction assessment or medical referral.
    • Claims that ex-wife has a number of significant issues (unstated what) in her background which require further assistance, but pointless to explore until the conflict is over.
    • Claims ex-wife is on a managed reduction schedule for tranquilizers.
    • Claims ex-wife has not consumed nor abused alcohol since coming under his care (April 22, 1994).
    • Husband: This is a LIE. Dr. Smith states in his previous "expert opinion" (June 20, 1994) that "her (ex-wife, alcohol) intake hs been reduced considerably. Currently she consumes (ie; claims to) approximately one glass of wine with meals."
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands mental health, due to invalid MMPI results.
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands general negative bias in his perceptions of females and effect on daughters.
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands acceptance of viable role for mother in children's lives.
    • States that he does not feel Dr. Mclean has justified his recommendation of husband as custodial parent.
    • Speculates that, in the absence of Dr. McLeans alleged addiction conclusions, custody may well be recommended for mother.
    • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
    • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGEOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.
  • Kathy SaintHill - excellent mother, husband controlling, manipulative and harsh disciplinarian, visited family at most 3 times during early years of marriage, opinion 3 years old
  • Affidavit of Kathy Sainthill acquaintance of ex-wife (November 18, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Kathy Sainthill
    • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1976, visited often at marital home during this period.
    • Husband: Finally, a person he actually knows. Met Kathy S. at the same party that ex-wife came to and never left. During the early years of the marriage, ex-wife went out with Kathy socially at most once per year and Kathy and her partner came over for dinner at most three times. During the latter three years of the marriage, ex-wife and Kathy were estranged due to a major difference of opinion. Claims to be a friend, but actually an acquaintance with limited insight.
    • Claims ex-wife to be an excellent mother and teacher, focused with her children.
    • Claims that ex-wife does discipline daughters by discussion and "time out".
    • Claims that she witnessed husband's harsh punishment by removing all of daughters possessions from room for a minor infraction and then making her earn them back by good behavior.
    • Husband: Kathy S. was not present for this "incident" of husbands "child abuse".
    • Claims that ex-wife is a very open, forthright individual, contrasts to husband as controlling and manipulative individual.
    • Recounts phone call from husband in the spring (ie; at time of divorce initiation) where husband told her that ex-wife was drinking a lot and needed a friend. Interprets goal of husband to be manipulative, an attempt to hurt ex-wife. States that husband called several more times asking her to be ex-wife's friend and help her. States that she advised ex-wife to get a lawyer.
    • Husband: Did call Kathy S. ex-wife needed a friend and was committed to a course that would hurt our children, myself and ex-wife very badly, and was beyond anyone's but her flakey mother's, corrupt lawyer's and corrupt shrink's influence. Kathy S. at this time must have been aware that divorce had started and would not have advised ex-wife to get a lawyer. Even so, it was very bad advice, as subsequent events have shown.
    • Husband: This is a typical manipulative absurdity. There were problems, husband is a problem solver and took real steps such as hoping that an old acquaintance may be able to help stabilize ex-wife, to provide some balance. To have this interpreted, or even to think that this act could be part of some Machiavellian plot on part of husband to hurt ex-wife is non-rational. If the intent was hurt, the best strategy on husbands part would have been to isolate ex-wife, deny her social support and weaken her, prior to moving in for the kill (ie; do what the law tried and failed to do to husband). This act was intended to help ex-wife and Kathy S. did not even try and failed miserably both to be the friend she claims to be and as a human being who are morally obligated to try to assist others in times of distress.
    • Alleges she witnessed a minor dispute between husband and ex-wife, where husband dismissed ex-wife's opinion by: "I'm a man, I'm and engineer, I've been around the world, what have you done?". Paraphrased: The arrogant, insensitive brute of a man and poor little ex-wifey, denied any respect.
    • Alleges she witnessed another incident where husband refused to change diapers: "Don't try to stuff that off on me, ...don't think you can get away with that in front of your friends".
    • Is "shocked" by any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol difficulties that may interfere with her parenting.
    • Considers it to be "incomprehensible" that custody has been recommended to brute of a husband. Wonders what misinformation this can be based on.
  • Lisa Kennedy - not member of family social network, husband doesn't know, hearsay, all observations post separation
  • Affidavit of Lisa Kennedy friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Lisa Kennedy
    • Claims to have known ex-wife for nine years, little contact with her during this period.
    • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
    • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
    • Claims her observations based on last four to five months (ie; since June/July 1994)
    • Claims also to have had several lengthy phone conversations with ex-wife in above interval
    • Invokes "expert" status with undergraduate psychology and M.Ed. in counseling. Claims specialty in treatment for female survivors of childhood trauma and other abuse. Currently employed at Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Social Services department.
    • Claims to be "appalled" at deterioration and condition of ex-wife who had lost 30 pounds after not seeing her for years.
    • Claims that ex-wife on the verge of tears and trembling and, when asked, indicated it was due to the stress she was under and the enormous difficulties she had to deal with during marriage.
    • Claims that ex-wife expressed concern about the harsh forms of discipline her children had to "endure" at the hands of their father.
    • Repeats older daughter's diaper incident, but this time it is for wetting her pants, as opposed to intentionally urinating on the floor in protest.
    • Expresses "expert" opinion of the profoundly negative long term effects that such humiliation and trauma can have on a sensitive little girl.
    • Repeats ex-wife's description of her helplessness to intervene against her brute of a husband and subsequent attempts to comfort her distraught daughter after this (proven) jointly arrived at and agreed to consequence for an intentional act.
    • Repeats ex-wife's version of cold shower punishment if the girls accidentally "spilled" water on the floor during bath
    • Husband: as opposed to the truth that they were having water fights, destroying the ceiling below, were pre-warned and reason had failed. After a while, this became a game for the girls, experimenting to see if father's threshold of "too much" water on the floor was consistent. It was.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That husband would not let her bath the girls or take care of the children and instead demanded that ex-wife be doing cleaning and cooking, which were ex-wife's sole responsibilities, contradicting ex-wife's contention that she was the primary caregiver during entire marriage since husband was not interested.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That she was afraid to disobey husband out of fear that he would take his wrath out on the children.
    • Re-iterates ex-wife's abuse and rape allegations against husband, except rape threats are now multiple.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That husband has threatened to completely destroy her, physically and emotionally, leaving her unable to function.
    • Repeats ex-wife's allegations that husband has threatened to leave her penniless and that husband has stolen property, including her bed (husbands pre-marital property).
    • Repeats ex-wife's allegations that she had to sleep on the floor (OH?, husband left the couch, proven by ex-wife's photos of "missing property").
    • Claims that husband deprived her of child support. Claims this caused hardship, necessitating ex-wife to borrow money.
    • Husband: September, October, November 1994, $700.00 per month, since children were back in school and daycare costs reduced by same amount and ex-wife refused to negotiate. Meanwhile, husband continued to pay all of ex-wife's major expenses including housing and utilities, per consent. Ex-wife also made substantially more than this selling the puppies which were half husbands and she refused to share the proceeds, or even admit there were any.
    • Repeats ex-wife's allegations regarding husband and feces, alleges that husband "forced" older daughter to feed puppies.
    • Claims that she had to give away these puppies and beloved family pets due to husbands actions. This contradicts ex-wife's diary entries that she sold puppies on at least three occasions.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, husband displayed a complete disregard for her sexual wishes and forced her to engage in sexual acts that were "abhorrent" to her.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, husband threatened to abandon her and the children, from the time they were babies.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, husband would frequently make sexual advances to her in front of the children.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, her fear of husband made her powerless to prevent his inappropriate behavior.
    • Claims she has observed ex-wife with children and, except for slight impatience and lack of discipline, feels that ex-wife is a nurturing, caring parent.
    • Claims to believe that children are more inclined to act out with ex-wife since they feel safe and are not afraid of her.
    • Claims to believe that children are more obedient with father (has never observed father with daughters) because they fear harsh punishments for even the most minor infractions.
    • Claims ex-wife has a good relationship with her own two children and engages in games and other appropriate activities.
    • Claims she trusted ex-wife enough to allow her to babysit her own two children.
    • Claims that ex-wife frightened by tranquilizer addiction and had dealt with problem promptly.
    • Claims that ex-wife claimed that she had dealt with her fear, stress and loneliness by abusing alcohol.
    • Claims that ex-wife claimed that husband had criticized and berated her during entire marriage for being financially dependent and this criticism, coupled with her low self-esteem left her feeling powerless.
    • Claims that ex-wife claimed since separation, she has found the strength and resources to stop abusing alcohol.
    • Believes that, once husbands abuse is stopped by removing him, that ex-wife will experience a renaissance and flower to her full potential.
    • Believes that ex-wife would benefit by joining a support group for abused women.
    • Believes that children require help to recover and deal with husbands "harsh" discipline.
    • Believes that Children's Aid should monitor husbands contact with children, should he foolishly be allowed to see them.
    • Husband: Children's Aid was called in, seven times, by various third parties and professionals, ALL times to investigate complaints against ex-wife. They are as useless as any other beurocracy, primarily focused on covering their own asses.
    • Husband: An "expert" has spoken, GOD help us all. Lisa is the kind of "professional" that courts rely upon for "plausible deniability" and scapegoats when caught in their machinations.
  • Marlon Kennedy - not member of family social network, husband doesn't know, hearsay, all observations post separation
  • Affidavit of Marlon Kennedy husband of friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Marlon Kennedy
    • Claims to have known ex-wife for nine years, seen her on occasion during this period. Friend of ex-wife's mother.
    • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
    • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
    • Claims that observations primarily over last few months, has observed ex-wife for many hours each week.
    • Claims that ex-wife is intelligent and capable, more than able to care for her children.
    • Was appalled to see in summer, after many years of not seeing ex-wife to observe her loss of weight, state of anxiety and unconsciously expressed fear.
    • Compares ex-wife to a cowering dog after years of ill treatment, expecting to be beaten at any moment, in contrast to the strong, self confident woman he first met nearly ten years ago.
    • Husband: Proved the facts on her, all of ex-wife's chickens were coming home to roost, the culmination of years of husband warning (oops - being abusive) that her irresponsibility and self-destructive behavior could end only one way. She had seen the evidence, knew it was true, and was terrified. Her master plan of marrying a sucker, tolerate the jerk, bleed him dry for as long as she could then use the law to go for the jugular and be on easy street for life, just like her mother was failing. Of course, husband did not anticipate that the courts would ignore the evidence, not apply the law and worse, break the law. Do not believe for a moment that the courts bought that ex-wife's self-abuse was due to husband, they just pretended to. It is a fact that ex-wife appeared abused. It is assumption and manipulation to attribute it to husband without proof. Judges should know this. The real game is "pass the parasite" created by illegal laws which destroy families, honesty and the work ethic and husband was expected to pay. Husband will not apologize to anyone he may have disappointed by not fulfilling the role or fate arbitrarily deemed for him and his daughters. Husband, like all free and aware people is master of his own destiny and woe to those who act otherwise and refuse to get out of the way.
    • Describes ex-wife's recounting of the constant state of terror and fear of husband.
    • Claims to have observed a dramatic change in ex-wife's state of mind after each encounter with husband. Concludes this is the result of years of criticism, humiliation and being put down.
    • Claims that ex-wife had to struggle to maintain her self-control and composure, every time husband had to be, was or had been dealt with. Claims at other times, ex-wife's strength and composure back.
    • Claims that ex-wife had called on several occasions in a state of despair. Recounts allegations that husband wrote "the great reckoning" on the court date, on the calendar. Recounts allegations that husband had threatened to "rape her", "strip her bare of everything" and "cast her out as worthless".
    • Husband: What the courts do on a daily basis is worse than "rape", since at least the rapist goes away. They daily "strip men bare of everything", including their children and enslave them, forced to pay with no influence with their children. This is exactly what ex-wife was demanding the courts do to husband and this is exactly what the courts tried and failed to do.
    • Recounts allegations that husband had threatened to "punch her out", recounts ex-wife's terror of husband and concludes this can only come from sustained persecution.
    • Claims that, based on a few observations that ex-wife is a caring, nurturing mother.
    • Claims that he has discussed the children with ex-wife and she is concerned about their well-being and is seeking professionals.
    • Claims that he was present during several phone conversations between ex-wife and children when they were with husband who was claimed to be sleeping during the day while children ran amok.
    • Believes that ex-wife is able to put aside her feelings and foster a loving relationship between children and their father. States that on one occasion, the children said something negative about their father and ex-wife defended father.
    • Recounts new allegation by ex-wife: Observes that oldest daughter grabbed ex-wife's breasts in an extremely sexual way, totally shocking mother. Ex-wife alleges that daughter is mimicking husband, who constantly grabbed her breasts, making her feel like a toy.
    • Husband: This was at least four months after separation. Husband and ex-wife in each others presence, apart from turnovers was not a factor. If husband's behavior had been this crude during marriage and daughter was mimicking it, this is not the point in time that mimicking would first occur, "shocking" ex-wife, if true, an indication this was the first time. Daughters were starved for female attention, a fact remarked upon and noticed by many, including teachers. If husband had engaged in this behavior post separation, a police report would certainly have been made, since ex-wife was on hair-trigger alert, reporting even imaginary incidents.
    • Claims to have discussed with ex-wife the possibility of counseling to address daughters sexualized behavior and possibility that husband was sexually abusing daughters.
    • Husband: Both the affidavits of Marlon and his wife Lisa directly address and attempt to counter key issues raised in the McLean Report, such as ex-wife's unconcern with children's behavioral problems. It appears these two are not recounting observations, but trying to "help" their friends daughter, as indicated by their awareness of issues that could have only have come from the report. Raising the issue of husband sexually abusing his daughters is pure manipulation, raising a closed issue. Ex-wife admitted to Dr. Mclean the possibility was ridiculous and further, sexual abuse is such a hot button that many shrinks had interviewed the children looking for this.
    • Claims that ex-wife is such a wonderful mother that he entrusted the care of his own children to her.
    • Husband: Marlon was so impressed with ex-wife, that several months later husband found out ex-wife and Marlon were bed buddies and Marlon and Lisa's marriage was over. One can only speculate on whether there was a cost for this affidavit. With ex-wife, the costs are always hidden and high.

Support Ex-wife's Neutral To Husbands Claims

  • Diane Nicol - excellent daycare, based on pickup/dropoff, not member of family social network, opinion 3 years old
  • Affidavit of Diane Nicol for ex-wife re: quality daycare provided by ex-wife (June 7, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Diane Nicol
    • Statement of Diane Nicol (May 11, 1994), sworn as affadavit.
    • Diane attests to quality daycare for her daughter by ex-wife. Opinion three years old, based on ex-wife's child dropoff and pickup illusions, marketing for clients.
    • The reality was, daycare was an excuse for ex-wife not to work and to stay home and drink rum. There were no child activities except safety and feeding, during day, while drinking rum on job. This is evidenced by statements of Richard Beange, Garry Browne and Affidavit of Dianna Drynan.
    • Diane initially believed ex-wife and was hostile to "abusive" husband.
    • Adds that, ex-wife is very good mother, any suggestions otherwise: ridiculous.
    • Adds that, she has socialized with ex-wife, on occasion, any suggestion of alcohol problem: ridiculous.
    • Husband: If Diane has socialized with ex-wife, it was not during marriage, since husband's attempts in encouraging ex-wife to get friends and a life and go out were consistently unsuccessful. It appears that ex-wife put successful effort into manipulating Diane's perceptions, after divorce started, to achieve this affidavit.
    • Diane subsequently became roommates with ex-wife and was morally compelled to call Child Protection Services on April 13, 1995 to protect daughters from ex-wife.
    • Diane subsequently approached husband and insisted on providing husband an affidavit in support (June 19, 1996) of his bid for custody. Note the date of the second affidavit. It is in the future and thus, could not have been considered in 1994.
    • Ex-wife ended up living with Diane Nicol after being granted by the courts full possession of home (kicking husband out of his home that was achieved by loans from his parents and paid for by himself, despite ex-wife's financial irresponsibility, including after he was forced out), which ex-wife was incapable of managing and chose to leave, another symptom of ex-wife's general incompetence, in all areas, including parenting.
  • Donna Clement - shocked at allegations, could not have observed daycare much, opinion 3 years old
  • Affidavit of Donna Clement ex tenant and neighbor of Rosses (June 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Donna Clement
    • Lived in duplex next door from Ross's for fifteen months during time ex-wife was running daycare
    • Donna moved out in 1991, opinion three years old
    • Donna carpooled with ex-wife to work until 1993. Claims that children always happy to see ex-wife when picked up from daycare
    • Husband: Family only had one car, ex-wife was in Donna's car. It was husbands responsibility to drop off/pick up children from daycare, while ex-wife got an early start on supper (ie; start drinking rum, after a stressful day at work). There were occasional times, due to schedule that Donna/ex-wife picked up children, since ex-wife enjoyed "her space" before children got home and discouraged this.
    • Claims to have observed ex-wife and daycare children during the day.
    • Husband: above claim cannot be true, since Donna worked full time during the day and no daycare on weekends.
    • Disputes any opinion that ex-wife was not providing quality care or excellent environment for children.
    • Disputes and considers ridiculous any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol problems
    • Claims to have not seen ex-wife drink alcohol during day or inebriated at any time.
    • Doesn't want to be involved, but so shocked at husbands allegations against ex-wife, feels she must.
  • Susan Perry - excellent daycare, based on pickup/dropoff, not member of family social network, opinion 3 years old
  • Statement of Susan L. Perry for ex-wife re: quality daycare provided by ex-wife (May 10, 1994)

    • Statement of Susan L. Perry (May 10, 1994)
    • Ex-wife cared for her two daughters one, before and after school, the other full time from September 1990 to June 1991
    • Considered ex-wife reliable, responsible and caring.
  • Lorene Rolfe - excellent daycare, based on pickup/dropoff, not member of family social network, opinion 3 years old
  • Statement of Lorene Rolfe for ex-wife re: quality daycare provided by ex-wife (May 11, 1994)

    • Statement of Lorene Rolfe
    • Ex-wife cared for her daughter from August 1989 to August 1991
    • Husband: Lorene was the last client, daycare ended at this time, ex-wife went to work full time. All opinions regarding daycare at least three years old.
    • Considered ex-wife reliable and was happy with care.
  • Nancy Campbell - not member of family social network, husband doesn't know, all observations post separation
  • Affidavit of Nancy Campbell friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Nancy Campbell
    • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1982, seen her with children on occasion at their grandmother's during this period.
    • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
    • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
    • Claims to be "shocked" that ex-wife may lose custody. Claims mother and daughters inseparable and very close.
    • Claims and enumerates qualities that ex-wife has the right motherhood stuff.
    • Claims that she has never observed any disipline problems with the children and they listened to her.
    • Cannot believe that ex-wife has any alcohol problems.
  • Victoria Ruitter - not member of family social network, husband doesn't know, all observations post separation
  • Statement of Victoria Ruitter friend of ex-wife's mother (November 18, 1994)

    • Statement of Victoria Ruitter
    • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1980 (ex-wife: age 23)
    • Claims to have seen ex-wife develop from a shy girl to a mature, responsible woman.
    • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
    • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
    • Claims, to the best of her knowlege that ex-wife has always been loving caring and supportative mother
    • Believes ex-wife fit parent and essential to children's healthy development.
    • Husband: Never met this woman and doubt she had seen ex-wife with children much, if at all.
    • Husband: Victoria was a friend of ex-wife's mother, called in to do a favor, with no insight.
    • Husband: This was necessary since ex-wife did not invest in personal relationships, was unable/unwilling to earn trust, was in denial of the need for reciprocity in healthy relationships and had only acquaintences, no close friends.
  • Kathy Nihei - not member of family social network, glowing character reference, opinion, no observations
  • Affidavit of Kathy Nehei friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Kathy Nihei
    • Claims to have known ex-wife for twenty four years.
    • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
    • Husband: Have met and do not know this person. Believe she was at the wedding. Has never been to home during marriage. Doubt that she has seen ex-wife with children prior to divorce initiation.
    • Claims to be a friend of ex-wife.
    • Claims that ex-wife's strong points are energy, enthusiam, honesty, loyalty and common sense.
    • Claims that ex-wife is inclined to avoid confrontation and readily gives in to avoid hurting others and prefers that she, rather than others be hurt.
    • Claims that ex-wife has a strong sense of family and is a sensitive, supportive and nurturing mother.
    • Claims that ex-wife is stable, very personally responsible, strong, courageous, determined and caring.
    • Claims that children are ex-wife's life and very unjust to take them away.
    • No mention of alcohol.
    • Recommends custody to ex-wife.
  • Bernard Wilson - ex-wife's past and future boyfriend, excellent mother, very little contact with family during marriage, minutes at most
  • Statement of Bernard Wilson ex and future boyfriend of ex-wife (November 21, 1994)

    • Statement of Bernard Wilson
    • Claims to have known ex-wife for eleven years, mostly, and now living in England
    • Claims, during 1994, to have communicated with ex-wife by telephone once every six to eight weeks. Claims that, since September 1994, frequency of calls increased to once per week.
    • Claims to have lived together with ex-wife for several months and to have shared costs equally with the exception of rent which was shared proportional to income.
    • Husband: During entire marriage, while attempting to deal with ex-wife's financial irresponsibility, ex-wife refused both to share financial information or to agree to an equalization of discretionary income (allowance, budgeting) for spouses, with all else going into family expenses and investments. Ex-wife repeatedly contracted debt against husbands will, to which he was illegally obligated, by faulty law. Husband fought long and hard for any sort of financial discipline or compromise from ex-wife and failed miserably. Ex-wife of the opinion that she can do and spend according to whim and any restriction was interfering with her "freedom", and it was up to husband to deal with the consequences. Husbands position (demanding that ex-wife consider and behave consistent with family survival and her marriage vows) appeared to be later interpreted by the courts as "abuse" on husbands part. It appears that ex-wife was being reasonable with Bernard until she lured him into marriage when the gloves come off and demands for entitlements come into play. Husband experienced the same thing during courtship and "test" living together. Ex-wife was very reasonable and a "good" partner during courtship, until she became pregnant shortly after marriage, consummating her trap. Husband expected the same after marriage (and ex-wife made promises and marriage vows stating this) and was VERY unpleasantly surprised with this bait and switch tactic by both his ex-wife, and later the courts switching law and children's best interests to child abuse, tyranny and slavery.
    • Husband: During marriage, Bernard visited at most twice, when he and ex-wife went out for dinner, without the children. Any encounters between Bernard and ex-wife with children very brief.
    • Claims that ex-wife very responsible, and a loving mother, who tried very hard to keep the marriage together. Claims ex-wife was compassionate and cared for himself when he was ill and was helping her mother out financially.
    • Claims that ex-wife has shown no signs of alcohol or drug dependency. Claims the first he heard of substance problems was when husband called him in September, 1994.
    • Claims that during husbands call, husband asked if he had ever suspected alcoholism or of ex-wife being a "moneygrabber".
    • Claims that is aware of ex-wife's financial hardship when husband stopped paying support..
    • Husband: In fact, ex-wife used this claim of hardship and pity credit to get substantial financial support from Bernard over the years, including living with him for a year or so post separation (until he learned the truth and fled back to England, once subpoenaed by husband) and an all expense paid trip to England for herself and daughters.
    • Claims that ex-wife very upset due to the state of the children after being with husband.
    • Claims that cannot comment on children's environment, but did find the children "wonderfully bright and lively", a credit to their parents.
    • Claims that to recall that husband spent a lot of the time away from home working, concludes most childcare responsibility borne by ex-wife.

Support Ex-wife's and Husbands Claims

  • Jacqueline Bonnar - excellent mother, could not have observed daycare much, father a controlling jerk but has quality time with daughters, opinion 2 years old.
  • Affidavit of Jacqueline Bonnar ex tenant and neighbor of Rosses (June 20, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Jacqueline Bonnar
    • Lived in duplex next door from Ross's for one year, moved out in September 1992. Opinion two years old.
    • Claims to have heard fights through the walls (one foot thick, impossible) between Rosses's, on a weekly basis.
    • Husband: Not denying that fights occurred, on a regular basis. Ex-wife's irresponsibility was destroying family ability to survive. If survival threatened, fight or die. That's reality. If husband did not fight, courts would have claimed it was evidence of husband not caring for children as opposed to interperting it as spousal "abuse". It is a no win situation when judges are able to treat interpretation as FACT, in support of whatever agenda they may have.
    • Claims that ex-wife confided that husband was threatening to leave her and take the children, leaving ex-wife penniless.
    • Believes husband is very opinionated, controlling man who believes himself superior, making relationships difficult.
    • Believes any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol problems to be ridiculous.
    • Believes that having to deal with husband would drive many to drink.
    • Disputes and considers ridiculous any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol problems
    • Claims that ex-wife is excellent mother.
    • Claims that ex-wife did the bulk of childcare activities, husband occasionally participated.
    • Admits that husband is a good father and spends quality time with children.
    • Husband: Jacqueline was not around much and worked days, not present during daycare hours.
    • Husband: Ex-wife did not socialize with tenants, since ex-wife was lady of the manor and they were inferior serfs, in her opinion.
    • Husband: Later, after ex-wife managed to use the courts to kick husband out, she did become friends with one female tenant, mainly because tenant was friendly, liked children and was some one that ex-wife could "dump" the children on.
    • Husband: Jacqueline and husband were in a rental dispute, email records available, leaving Jacqueline bitter and biased against husband.
  • Carol Taylor - excellent mother, father "relatively good" parent, visited family at most 3 times during early years of marriage, opinion 3 years old.
  • Affidavit of Carol Taylor acquaintance of ex-wife (November 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Carol Taylor
    • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1980, met her while working for the Federal Government (student loans)
    • Claims to see ex-wife frequently and talks often on phone. Claims to have seen ex-wife interact with her children.
    • Claims to have visited ex-wife often at home and has seen her with the children there.
    • Husband: Yes, he actually knows this person. Met Carol at the wedding (1985) or shortly before. She was a maid of honor. During the early years of the marriage, ex-wife went out with Carol socially at most once per year and Carol and her partner came over for dinner at most three times. During the latter three years of the marriage, ex-wife refused to go out socially with any of her "friends" or invite them over, despite husband encouraging (oops - abusing) her to "get a life". Only friends that the spouses saw regularly or had over were initially husband's friends. Of those, only Dianna Drynan and ex-wife had what could be called friendship. Carol claims to be a friend, but actually is an acquaintance with limited insight.
    • Claims her motives for speaking up is her "shock" that ex-wife may have addiction problems and that custody has been recommended to the children's father.
    • Claims that she has never seen ex-wife drunk and has had numerous social opportunities to observe both out and at ex-wife's home when alcohol was being consumed.
    • Recounts ex-wife stating that her drinking increased in the months preceding separation, that she became concerned and intended to stop.
    • Claims that, from every indication she has, ex-wife has stopped drinking.
    • Claims the suggestion that ex-wife simply switched her addiction from alcohol to tranquilizers to be "ridiculous"
    • Regurgitates ex-wife's previous allegations against her brute of a husband, running amok, stressing ex-wife.
    • Recounts ex-wife claiming new allegation against husband: That he does not return the children at agreed time, nor call with new schedule, forcing ex-wife to track her daughters down.
    • Claims to have seen ex-wife interacting with children, a wonderful mother, who dotes on her daughters.
    • Husband: Carol did not see or communicate with ex-wife for at least three years, prior to being called to service for ex-wife's "dog and pony show" which started once ex-wife realized that success in court may not be as automatic as she had assumed.
    • Claims to have seen husband interact with the children and claims husband is a "relatively good" parent who plays games with and has fun with his children.
    • Claims that division of child labor was that husband got to do all the fun, interacting stuff, while ex-wife doing all the organizing work.
    • Husband: To have seen and concluded this, it would have been, at latest 1990.
    • Believes it to be "incomprehensible" that ex-wife is not able to discipline her children. Claims to have seen the contrary.
  • Marguerite Day - ex-wife's mother, excellent mother, recommends maximal child contact for husband, saw husband and daughters (but not ex-wife) on a weekly basis.
  • Affidavit of Marguerite Day ex-wife's mother (June 17, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Marguerite Day
    • Claims to see children more than anyone else, except for parents
    • Claims ex-wife is organized, efficient, dependable and manages all aspects of the children's dietary, health, clothing and social needs.
    • Claims ex-wife is focussed on the reward, rather than punishment aspects of disipline
    • Claims that ex-wife "faciliatates" children's attendance at their activities. Meaning, someone else (husband) takes them.
    • Claims that ex-wife teaches children co-operative, rather than competetive methods of solving disputes
    • Husband: How can someone teach skills they do not have. Marriage failed die to lack of co-operation or reason. See what ex-wife's sisters said in this area.
    • Claims ex-wife has earned the children's trust and love is evident.
    • Claims husband unsuitable parent because he regards children and ex-wife as possessions, which is unhealthy for them.
    • Claims husband is inept at communication. does not listen to the opinions of others.
    • Claims husband regards his opinion as fact and all dissenting opinions as mistakes in the judgment of others.
    • Claims husband demands strict, unquestioning obedience and that disipline equals punishment.
    • Claims husband imposes severe, non-negotiable punishments on his children.
    • Claims husband's punishments are erratic, imposed without forethought and confuse the children who do not know what to expect from him.
    • Claims husband is teaching children to mistrust everyone, including each other and even questions whether they are cheating at games. Unwittingly admits that husband actually plays games with his daughters
    • Claims husband is teaching children to be overly competetive with each other and other people.
    • Claims husband does not understand the concept of co-operation
    • Claims husband treats children as if they must be controlled.
    • Claims husband lacks the organizational skills, consistency, dedication and focus required to manage a family in a short or long term.
    • Claims, despite her opinions indicating father bad, that children should spend as much time as their father as possible.
    • Husband: This is all opinion, with no examples, from a woman who is just as flakey as her daughter, her creation.
    • Husband: This woman knew full well that her daughter was incapable of parenting and was privy to many alcohol and personal responsibility related disputes of the spouses during the entire marriage, to which she advised husband that he was interfering in ex-wife's "freedom" and being "intolerant" by having alcohol issues. Mother stood to financially benefit from child support when her daughter's affairs fell apart due to mismanagement and ex-wife inevitably came running home again. This is exactly what happened.
    • Note that she does not mention her daughter with respect to alcohol.
    • Husband: do appreciate the fact that this woman insulated his daughters from some of the the worse effects of their mother's alcoholism and irresponsibility, in the early years before children matured enough to choose survival and live full time with father.

Support Husbands Oppose Ex-wife's Claims

  • Dr. David Mclean - Six month study by team of forensic psychiatrists, including discussions with other professionals including marriage counselor. Ex-wife addict, incompetent parent, needs help, husband has been primary caregiver
  • Family Court Clinic Report recommending custody to father (November 16, 1994)

      University of Ottawa Family Court Clinic

      • Family Court Clinic
      • Multidisciplinary team of forensic psychiatrists, headed by Dr. David Mclean.
      • The purpose of this investigative unit is to objectively consider issues pertaining to the intersection of psychiatry, law and children's best interests.
      • Services were agreed to and paid for by both parties, to insure unbiased results.
      • This clinic is the premier institution of its type in the region, with the best reputation for objectivity and accuracy.
    • Family Court Clinic Report
    • Custody recommended to father (Page 27).
    • Addiction treatment and psychiatric help recommended for mother (Page 27).
    • McLean Report Overview

      • Counseling help recommended for father to help deal with his hurt and to provide support (Page 27).
      • Ex-wife admits that violence was not an issue during the marriage. Admits that she would hit husband out of frustration and he would simply leave. Husband admits that when ex-wife hit him, he would just restrain her wrists in self-defense. Ex-wife repeats rape threat allegation she made to police against husband in June 1994 as now happening during marriage, as opposed to after separation (Page 5)
      • Marriage counseling since 1992, issues centered around control, finances and ex-wife's drinking. Counselor under the impression that ex-wife may have felt emotionally abused (implied, but not stated: by husband's issues with her irresponsibility and drinking) (Page 5).
      • Ex-wife caught in a lie by Dr. Mclean about her daily consumption of tranquilizers. Pharmacist cuts her off for abuse. Dr. Mclean recounts ex-wife's description of going into withdrawal with "shakes, fears and lightheadedness" (Page 7).
      • Ex-wife admits to drinking 9 to 10 ounces of alcohol per day. Ex-wife claims that her drinking started in January 1989, after birth of second daughter. Ex-wife claims to have cut back on drinking in April 1994, once she became aware husband was measuring her consumption. Ex-wife claims that she can be a controlled drinker and thus is in denial that there is a problem. Dr. Mclean concurs with husbands opinion that ex-wife is on tranquilizers to try to hide alcoholism (Page 8).
      • Ex-wife prone to emotional thinking and misperceiving situations. Ex-wife has considerable anger which she has trouble expressing and may project on other people. Ex-wife can be somewhat naive and self-centered, with a need to view herself positively. Ex-wife tends to be indirect and manipulative in meeting her needs. Ex-wife has difficulties in intimate and long term relationships due to immaturity and self-centerdness. No sign of any mental illness in ex-wife (Page 9)
      • Dr. Mclean describes disastrous one on one encounter between ex-wife and children, where ex-wife had no clue how to deal with them, from which he later concludes no meaningful interaction between ex-wife and daughters for at least several years (Page 10).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife has serious alcohol and/or drug addiction problems, which, if anything, she is downplaying the amount and period of consumption and does not admit it as a problem. Dr. Mclean concludes that primary focus in ex-wife's life at this time must be dealing with her addictions and would be happy to make a professional referral (Page 10).
      • Dr. McLean concludes that ex-wife's alcoholism has negatively affected her parenting and nurturing her daughters for at least the last several years (Page 10).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife's "free spirit" and lack of structure approach to parenting is not in children's best interests (Page 11).
      • Husbands natural mother is in long term care for schizophrenia and has been since husband very young (Page 11).
      • In discussing husbands childhood, husband indicated he associated with the "thinking crowd" and described himself as the "class delinquent" (Page 11).
      • Husband left home at age 16 and worked way through high school (Page 11).
      • Husband quit college electronics course because it was "far too easy" (Page 11)
      • Husband enrolled in University of Waterloo, Electronics Engineering, but failed third year due to frustrated "love" (Page 12).
      • Husband spent several years working in Africa and California, then returned to complete Engineering Degree (Page 12).
      • Husband moved to Ottawa to work for Norpak and was soon promoted to project leader (Page 12)
      • In 1985, husband moved to Nortel to date and keeps refusing management positions, since he is "happier that way" and has no intention of leaving current employment. (Page 12)
      • Dr. Mclean describes husband as down-to-earth and one "who tells it like it is" (Page 12).
      • Husband describes step-mother and acknowledges debt to her for not protecting him from bullies, forcing him to learn how to defend himself (Page 13)
      • Husband describes childhood with no one to intelligently answer his questions, making him feel stupid (Page 13)
      • Husband admits that, in rebellious teens he had minor difficulties with the law including impaired and several drunk and disorderlys (Page 14).
      • Dr. Mclean describes results of one of husbands personality tests (MMPI) as invalid, "characteristic of people who have an almost pathological intense need to present a perfectionist view of themselves" (Page 14).
      • Dr. Mclean elaborates on invalid test: "They are naively defensive and may use considerable repression to maintain their self-image. They may also be rigorously moralistic and self-rightous in a way which could be uncompromising." (Page 14)
      • Husbands profile was suggested to reflect a conventional and controlled man who can be self-centered, immature and manipulative in his relationships (Page 14).
      • Husband is likely to be hard working, achievement oriented, practical and easy-going in many aspects of his life. He is also likely to be friendly and outgoing in relationships (Page 14).
      • Husband does not show an above average potential to be an abusive parent. Responses did indicate unhappiness in relationships and lack of emotional support (Page 14).
      • Husband is able to express warmth and a good range of emotions. Husband appears to have a general negative bias coloring his perception of females (Page 15).
      • While major psychopathology cannot be ruled out because of husband's invalid MMPI test results, husband did present as a generally well functioning person whose authoritarian tenancies are exacerbated by the current conflict situation.
      • Dr. Mclean suggests that husband step back psychologically and consider his own contributions to family problems (unstated what they may be) (Page 15)
      • Dr. Mclean describes one on one interaction between daughters and father. Both daughters appeared comfortable, relaxed and far less aggressive than with mother. Father appears to have the skills to deal with his daughters behavior in a positive manner (Page 15).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband suffers from no major psychiatric illness, but is showing some stress of conflict related symptomology which is expected to dissipate, once matters are resolved (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband perceives ex-wife as the one to blame, or, the guilty party. Husband and ex-wife's personalities are so different that they tend to confuse each other (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that while under considerable stress, husband does have far more in the way of resources to deal with the demands. Husband certainly demonstrated better resources and skills than mother in dealing with his daughters at the clinic (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband would be open to any straightforward parenting suggestions and that husband was more nurturing with his daughters when observed in interaction. (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean has concerns about how husbands tenancy to paint things black and white extends to the potential role he could see the mother playing with the girls (Page 16).
      • Husband admits, that for first two years of oldest daughter's life he was "not the best father" (Page 17).
      • Ex-wife admits that sexual abuse of daughters "not possible" (Page 18).
      • Ex-wife admits that she is more of a "screamer" for discipline, while husband more in control (Page 19).
      • Ex-wife states that back and forth's under consent agreement going "relatively well" and then swears in Affidavit to court that husband has been very disruptive, conflictual and she is in terror and needs protection from him (Page 20).
      • Oldest daughter is noted to have very good intellectual resources (Page 20).
      • Oldest daughter notes that if she had a lot of money, she would live in a tree house (father built one), with no adults, just kids (Page 21).
      • Oldest daughter, when asked who she wanted to live with, stated "Mommy, because she buys them popsicles" (Page 21).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that oldest daughters stated preference to live with her mother is not based on any reasons that are in her long term best interests. (Page 22).
      • Dr. Mclean recommends that oldest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 22).
      • Husband and ex-wife disagree regarding youngest daughter's motor development. Ex-wife states normal, husband states delayed because of being kept in the playpen too much.(Page 22).
      • Youngest daughter states she wants to live with both parents in Dunrobin and, when asked to choose one said "mother" because father was bad and took mothers bed (Page 24).
      • Youngest daughter, when asked who loves her the most said father, then changed to mother and then back to father (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean is surprised, given that mother spent most time caring for youngest daughter while running a daycare, that youngest daughter does not have a strong preference for her mother. Speculates may be an indication that husband has been the one spending time with his daughters (Page 25).
      • Husband was more aware of and concerned by youngest daughter issues (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean recommends that youngest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean summarizes discussions with spouses regarding access arrangements . (Page 25).

      Husband's Response To Report

      • Despite the fact that Dr. Mclean agreed with the facts and husband, still have major misgivings regarding the intellectual validity of the psychiatric profession in general. This profession appears to be in strategic denial of the basic fact that human motivation is to survive in the physical world which is ruled by the laws of action and consequence. To survive requires meeting goals. Further, they refuse to admit that insanity is CONTAGIOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and, if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane from outside point of views. Husband, during the marriage had to deal with his ex-wife, who was insane by refusal to choose survival and husband and daughters were trapped by corrupt law. In husband's humble opinion, the strong possibility exists that this profession was historically created to prevent social and scientific acceptance of the logical implications of evolution and Charles Darwin. Besides, this report netted the psychiatric profession $10,000, who have a very large income by claiming they are "necessary" to provide insight into issues such as this. There was no discussion of motivation on the part of either parent. This is very similar, although far less profitable than current judge's strategic denial of legal equality between persons, requiring judges and politicians to construct elaborate rationalizations "explaining" why people cannot be treated equally in terms of rights and responsibility, making their very costly "services" appear "necessary" to deal with the inevitable conflict between perfectly legitimate and peaceful viewpoints. None of this social conflict would exist if people were free to peacefully live as they see fit, without having their survival threatened if they fail to comply with the demands of whichever political viewpoint has manipulated itself to the "top dog" position, able to wield the apparatus of state as a weapon against the people. When rationalizations fail and the public starts to become aware of the survival of civilization importance of the law being restrained to treat all persons equally and the mortal social danger of special privilege for some, other methods are used, as Martin Luther King Jr. and others have repeatedly proven, at great personal cost and honor to self and loss to civilization.
      • Dr. Mclean failed to consider (and husband suspects, lacked the courage to address) the crucial fact and effects on husband and his parenting ability of being in a trap, prevented from exercising his basic legal rights of not associating with ex-wife AND associating with his daughters to fulfill his parental obligations, of having to deal with and being married to an alcoholic who refused to be responsible as a mother, a partner or contribute, a nemesis, whose self-destructive behavior and financial irresponsibility was destroying the family's and her own daughters ability to survive. Current (illegal) judicial interpretations of law provide no way to hold this mad woman to account, or of influencing her behavior to allow family survival. When the law provides no remedies for very real, survival threatening problems, what is one to do? Husband suggests that domestic abuse statistics indicate the choices that lesser intellects conclude it is "necessary" to make. The fact that husband had issues with ex-wife's destructive behavior appeared to be interpreted by the courts as "abuse" on the husbands part. This was truly a trap, as subsequently proven by the courts. The basic problem is that corrupt courts have upset the balance of power between equal persons in relationships, making reasonable division of labor or compromise impossible in any relationship that has been mis-defined and thus, subverted as has marriage, with the effect of destroying families. Husband could have tolerated ex-wife if she had kept her marriage vows (verbal contract), behaved responsibly, as an equal partner, focused on family and common interest. The only way out is to legally impoverish self and STILL, with irrefutable evidence and law on your side, have the courts take away your children, place them in an environment detrimental to their development and learning survival skills, and attempt to make you a slave using the false pretext of "children's best interests". Husband suspected this during marriage, by equally bizarre legal experiences of family and friends. He was thus biding his time, teaching his daughters, so that when they became more aware, they would choose to leave with him thus avoiding ALL litigation. This they chose, when they became aware, despite the courts "considered opinion" to the contrary. In other words, daughters also disagree with the judicial definition of "in their best interests", and, in a sense, are just as guilty of defiance as their father.
      • Lessor minds choose beating some sense into or killing their spouses, which husband rejected as unjust since ex-wife was a pawn, tricked into lying to provide plausible deniability for the real guilty parties.
      • Regarding Dr. Mclean's statement that husband can be manipulative. Yes, so can we all. Husband realized at a very young age that use of force or fraud (manipulation is a method of fraud) can achieve goals, but the cost is too high to defend from the response of your victims and further, manipulation is antisocial, alienating potential friends and allies. Husband claims to be an honest man and is willing to be judged by his fellow persons on that basis.
      • Husband is in full compliance with the unstated, but very real social contract among rational people, the very basis of civilization "If you refrain from using force and fraud against me, I promise to do the same". Well, force and fraud has been used against husband and his daughters, causing major damage, releasing him from his promise. Husband's response has thus far been restrained, since he wants civilization back and, unrestrained by reason, conflict risks spiraling out of control, sending mankind back to barbarism and living in caves, or worse.
      • Regarding Dr. McLean's speculation on the meaning of husbands personality test (MMPI) being invalid characterizing a pathologically intense need to project perfection, use self-repression and be uncompromising: Or, perhaps some people actually exist who seek the reality, as opposed to the illusion of "being the best they can be" and hold themselves to that standard? (Page 14).
      • Further to the invalid MMPI, indicating defensiveness: How can anyone, when under major assault in a state created conflict whose outcome is determined by those who actually created and profit from the the conflict (for their "profession's" financial benefit), with his children's future and perpetual economic enslavement as stakes be anything but defensive? Besides, husband may be more intelligent than the test writers and saw patterns he was not supposed to be able to see.
      • The fact that husband is intelligent was a major point against him in court, since judges appeared to feel threatened and wary of the possibility husband was manipulating them, as opposed to their view of the natural order, where judges are, by divine right, the manipulators. Husband stuck to the facts and truth, because facts cannot lie and objective minds are easily able to differentiate between fact and manipulation (biased interpretation of fact, posing as fact). For example, police reports in which husband played no part, being presented as a fact that husband was abusive and ex-wife terrified of him, in need of protection and preemptive justice. The only fact is that ex-wife called police and made allegations, which they documented.
      • Regarding husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females may affect his daughters: Had issues with one female in particular and irresponsibility in general. As sexist as it may sound, in husband's experience, irresponsibility and demanding special treatment statistically seems to be mostly female traits, a product of misguided socialization, which keeps females subservient. Husband has, despite major state opposition, raised his daughter's and they can and will successfully hold their own in life, without whining or demanding special consideration. Daughters are about as subservient as their father and woe to all who dare cross them.
      • Things have not changed much for husband since childhood. He is still surrounded by mental midgets who act as if they have the moral right to forcefully compel him to behave to the detriment of himself, family, fellow citizens, civilization and species for their minority gain and majority loss. The only thing that has changed is that opponents are far more larger, powerful, dangerous and isolated from objective reality. They will be defeated by their own actions, by refusal to acknowledge the undeniable principle of physical reality, that all actions have consequences. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. History is very clear on this point. Husband will not even feel remorse, he always warns of the consequences of actions prior to reluctantly engaging in defensive conflict. From a very detached perspective, the sheer folly of this is amusing.

      Ex-wife's Response To Report

      • Ex-wife's response taken from her affidavit.
      • Ex-wife asks the court to ignore the conclusions of the Family Court Clinic Report, for the following reasons:
      • Reason 1: It would be disruptive to the children if they were transferred from her care and control to the husbands. Ex-wife further states that due to the behavior she has ALLEGED against husband (ZERO proof or witnesses), it would stress her daughters too much to give a brute such as him custody.
      • Husband: Ex-wife and husband had EXACTLY the same amount of non-school and awake time with the children on an alternating day basis per consent agreement, later turned into a court order by Justice Sirois. Ex-wife LIES in this sworn affidavit, stating that the children were mostly under her care. It appears to be assumed by judges that women do and should have primary care and control of children (and men should be wallets and slaves, with no parental influence), although, no democratic assembly would DARE (and did not) pass a law that actually states this.
      • Reason 2: Ex-wife strongly BELIEVES she is the best custodial parent and re-iterates allegations that husband has been stealing from home, neglecting children by sleeping instead of caring for them. States that she has been mindful of daughters needs. Repeats claim that she has been children's primary caregiver throughout the entire marriage.
      • Husband: This contradicts all of husbands witness statements including ex-wife's two sisters and father in-law. Since the observations of "civilians" appears to be judicially irrelevant, read the Mclean Report above, describing Dr. Mcleans observations of ex-wife's inept interactions with her own daughters. Dr. Mclean was forced to conclude, that, for at least the last several years, ex-wife and children have had no meaningful interaction and ex-wife's attempts to deal with her daughter's on a one to one basis were pathetic. Dr. Mclean concluded husband relevant parent with far better skills for dealing with his daughters.
      • Reason 2: Ex-wife has lost job, and since November 11 (for 2 weeks) has been able to be with children on a full time basis. Claims to have more time to care for children, as a result.
      • Husband: In other words, ex-wife claims a competitive advantage by not working and husband strongly believes loss of employment was arranged, a strategic legal move, to gain this time as well as economic advantage (the more needy ex-wife is, the more husband has to pay, a major disincentive against ex-wife being employed). This is a major point, which judges buy, claiming to equate parental time (with no consideration of whether or not it is quality time) with children's best interests. The social result is several generations of children of divorce who have minimal exposure to a working role model parent and thus, believe they are entitled to survival without effort (and vote for politicians who make this anti-survival, illegal promise) and learn no work ethic or economic survival skills. The corollary of this false argument is ex-wife previously alleged husband worked too hard (disproved), making a family survival virtue into a legal disadvantage for the husband. Who benefits from this, and how?
      • Ex-wife claims to have "issues" with Dr. Mclean and his report recommending custody to husband.
      • Issue 1: Ex-wife disputes that she has an addictive personality and claims tranquilizer addiction is being medically dealt with, was caused by husbands abuse and the effective remedy is for the court to smite husband.
      • Issue 2: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her mother also has an addictive personality. Ex-wife admits that mother was long term addicted to Valium, requiring medical assistance. Claims Dr. Mclean has not met her mother and cannot conclude this, based on lack of evidence.
      • Issue 3: Ex-wife disputes report contention that youngest daughter suffered from delayed development, in the area of walking. Submits series of photos of youngest daughter from creeping to walking.
      • Husband: During early years, youngest daughter (a very good natured child) confined to playpen by ex-wife too much, to keep her out of ex-wife's "space", a point ex-wife and husband argued about a lot. Dr. Mclean and husband discussed this and husband is still of the opinion that this slightly delayed walking development did occur, as a consequence.
      • Issue 4: Ex-wife disputes report contention she is unconcerned (based on discussions between ex-wife and psychological team) about oldest daughter's sexualized acting out behavior. Claims she is looking for a counselor to assist. Admits she does not "believe it is possible" that husband was sexually abusing daughters.
      • Husband: When it comes to fathers and daughters, he is guilty of being a sexual abuser until proven innocent. Dealing with professionals in this area was like the Spanish Inquisition, they (especially females) appeared to husband as a bunch of anally retentive perverts who saw everything only in terms of predatory males and innocent young girls to protect, all of course, at very high, state funded wages. The truth is, that sexual (or any) abuse of children has highly visible effects that are immediately recognized by caring family friends, teachers, and neighbors. The reason abuse is so prevalent is that anyone who reports it is immediately sucked into a bureaucratic quagmire, legal liability issues and major hassle, reducing the likelihood of reporting it, increasing work for those who pretend to care and have have seized a monopoly in dealing with this and other social problems. This makes social problems far worse, since problem solvers in monopoly positions realized long ago that solved problems equals loss of income and it is far more prifitable to pretend to be solving problems while actually making them worse.
      • Issue 5: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her disciplinary (lack of) and parenting methods are to the detriment of the children's proper development. Claims to have started a task list and that it is husband who is lax in the area of discipline (contradicting her previous allegations that husband is a "harsh disciplinarian"
      • Issue 6: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's comment that husband may have difficulty seeing any positive role that ex-wife can play in the children's lives and claims (LIES) that Dr. Mclean does not deal with this issue in his conclusions.
      • Husband: Dr. Mclean does deal with this and states that once ex-wife cleans up her act, deals with her addictions and other issues and actually behaves in a positive manner and is capable of playing a viable role, that husband may be more supportative of ex-wife's parental role.
      • Issue 7: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's observation that husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females and yet does not explain how this may affect young daughters under his care.
      • Issue 8: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean not addressing effect of husband's alleged "harsh disciplinary" measures on daughters, contradicting her allegation above that husband has become lax in discipline.
      • Issue 9: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating the children have no parental preference and states that daughter's, when asked, tell her that they want to live with mother. Presents a "love her mom" note from daughter's school work as evidence. Claims daughters have closer bond with her than father.
      • Issue 10: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating that one of husbands battery of personality tests came back as "invalid", a possible indication of defensiveness and did not address how this may affect the children.
      • Issue 11: Ex-wife claims that Dr. McLean is lying when he states the amount and period of alcohol consumption reported by her when asked. Ex-wife claims that she answered the alcohol consumption question with "I don't know"

      Dr. Selwyn Smith's Response To Report (November 21, 1994)

      • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
      • Claims to have reveiwed the custody assessment report of Dr. Mclean.
      • Disputes Dr. Mclean's conclusion that ex-wife is an addict
      • Reiterates that ex-wife has been under overwhelming stress due to her "abusive" husband who has made rape and other threats, neccessitating ex-wife to call police twice.
      • Adds that ex-wife's stress further compounded by children's behavioral difficulties and a very messy untrained dog.
      • Note: Dr. Mclean observed ex-wife's ineptness and inability to deal with her daughters here. Note also that none of ex-wife's submissions make any mention of having to deal with, or even admitting that daughters had behavioral difficulties, although, ex-wife did allege that husband was having difficulties and that she had to calm children down after husband consistently upset them during his access time. Note also, the dog was a litter of untrained puppies which ex-wife refused to keep outside in the yard, preferring instead to attribute puppy mess to husband's irresponsibility, in photographic splendour.
      • States that ex-wife used tranquilizers slightly more than prescribed. Makes no mention of ex-wife going into withdrawl or becoming addicted to tranquilizers, as concluded by Dr. Mclean, based on his personal observations and hearing ex-wife's description of withdrawl. Ex-wife also admits she became addicted in her affidavit.
      • Claims that tranquilizers can be withdrawn at end of custody proceedings, implying that they are required to deal with the conflict.
      • Claims that ex-wife has no need of addiction assessment or medical referral.
      • Claims that ex-wife has a number of significant issues (unstated what) in her background which require further assistance, but pointless to explore until the conflict is over.
      • Claims ex-wife is on a managed reduction schedule for tranquilizers.
      • Claims ex-wife has not consumed nor abused alcohol since coming under his care (April 22, 1994).
      • Husband: This is a LIE. Dr. Smith states in his previous "expert opinion" (June 20, 1994) that "her (ex-wife, alcohol) intake hs been reduced considerably. Currently she consumes (ie; claims to) approximately one glass of wine with meals."
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands mental health, due to invalid MMPI results.
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands general negative bias in his perceptions of females and effect on daughters.
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands acceptance of viable role for mother in children's lives.
      • States that he does not feel Dr. Mclean has justified his recommendation of husband as custodial parent.
      • Speculates that, in the absence of Dr. McLeans alleged addiction conclusions, custody may well be recommended for mother.
      • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
      • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGEOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.
  • Alan and Marion Kidd - Ex-wife's step father, ex-wife irresponsible, unfit parent, husband far better
  • Statement of Alan and Marion Kidd ex-wife's stepfather and his spouse (May 17, 1994)

    • Statement by Alan and Marion Kidd
    • Both very opposed to ex-wife (and supportative of husband) having custody of daughters for children's best interests by reasons/observations outlined within.
    • Husband first described to them by ex-wife as "A rich university graduate with a Corvette, whom she intended to marry", both were firmly convinced marriage was for money and status.
    • Husband has common sense and appears to think of children before self. Husband has good sense of humor and not abusive.
    • Ex-wife extremely selfish and irresponsible. Has adopted her mother's misguided, irresponsible parenting methods (expect rewards without effort) which produced ex-wife and will destroy children in the same way.
    • Ex-wife seems to have no emotional or any other connection with daughters, treats them as things, inconveniences in her life.
    • Ex-wife behaves as if she is special, better than other people, deserving and demanding of special consideration with no basis in reality.
    • Ex-wife a lavish spender, totally financially irresponsible, spending faster than husband can earn.
    • During children's early years, both parents negligent, too busy bickering and arguing. Husband's parenting has substantially improved over the years, ex-wife has not.
    • Witnessed ex-wife smoking cigarettes and consuming alcohol during both pregnancies.
    • Both strongly believe ex-wife is not mother material and strongly suspect her interest is purely child support and the house. Believe husband far better parent.
    • Both believe husbands patience, ability to communicate with children and personal responsibility values will assure good future for children. Believe ex-wife will achieve the opposite.
    • Believe that, if ex-wife achieves custody, she will drive husband out of children's lives, to their detriment (just like her mother), waste any settlement she may get and end up on social services.
    • Have observed no abuse of ex-wife, husband or children.
    • Strongly suspect ex-wife of alcohol problems for years, she always has a drink on the go. She is antisocial and goes off and drinks alone.
    • Suspect that ex-wife's claimed debt to her mother is a fabrication, since her mother is incapable of accumulating such an amount or retaining it.
  • Anita Cox - Ex-wife's sister, ex-wife irresponsible, unfit parent, not ex-wife's nature to marry husband, why?, husband far better
  • Statement of Anita Cox one of ex-wife's two sisters (May 18, 1994)

    • Statement by Anita Cox
    • Seen no evidence that ex-wife has changed or learned anything since adolescence
    • Ex-wife is a prima donna, believing she is special, unable to compromise, be a team member, or acknowledge the point of view of others.
    • Ex-wife is completely and utterly selfish and antisocial
    • Ex-wife shares her mothers contempt for establishment beliefs and objective people (such as doctors, engineers...), considering them smug, arrogant and unable to see beyond "reality"
    • Could never understand why ex-wife would marry an engineer, given her utter contempt and disdain for people of the logical persuasion, whom husband certainly is.
    • Ex-wife is extremely adept at skirting around issues and blame shifting to others. She is a very good actress and liar in the short haul when she is trying to get something.
    • Ex-wife's sense of self-worth appears to be based on what she has, who she is superior to or can dominate.
    • Ex-wife appears to have no connection with daughters and treats them as annoyances, with no interaction.
    • Ex-wife unstable, incompetent and incapable of parenting, dooming children's future. Believes husband's stability, skills and responsibility values will result in children being successful adults.
    • No opinion on whether ex-wife has alcohol problems, but unfit parent, even if not.
  • Laura Harris - Ex-wife's sister, ex-wife irresponsible, unfit parent, husband far better
  • Statement by Laura Harris other of ex-wife's two sisters (May 17, 1994)

    • Statement by Laura Harris
    • Husband and ex-wife, tense relationship, arguments usually initiated by ex-wife. Husband did not back down
    • Appears that ex-wife has replaced Laura with husband as "sparring partner"
    • Ex-wife very territorial, always insists on having things her way, unwilling to compromise.
    • Initially, both parents disasters and negligent, too busy arguing.
    • Husband has improved over the years, has quality times, activities with daughters, treats them as people and plays with them.
    • Ex-wife has no connection or quality interaction with daughters, pushes them away, needs a great deal of alone time.
    • Ex-wife is very irresponsible in all areas, including financial.
    • Ex-wife assumes that her opinions and desires are more valid than anyone else's.
    • No opinion on whether alcohol being abused, but did see ex-wife smoking and consuming alcohol, during both pregnancies.
    • Ex-wife seems to be mimicking what she observed during her parents divorce: Trying to drive husband out of children's lives.
    • Strongly opposed to sole custody for ex-wife or children living together with ex-wife and her mother (children's grandmother), since they will not acquire life survival skills in this environment.
  • Dianna Drynan - Closest to friend that ex-wife would allow, observations span marriage, ex-wife alcoholic, irresponsible, unfit mother, liar. Husband primary caregiver
  • Affidavit of Dianna Drynan the closest person to a friend ex-wife would tolerate (October 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Dianna Drynan
    • Met ex-wife in 1985 at same party as husband did
    • Visited with family at least once a month from prior to marriage through entire marriage, often staying overnight. Observations current, to present
    • Likes ex-wife and wants to help her. Claims to be the closest person to a friend ex-wife has, to the best of her knowledge.
    • States that she never has and never will have any relationship apart from friends with husband.
    • States she has tried, ever since she met ex-wife to be her friend, but ex-wife unwilling to communicate openly.
    • States it was her that lent ex-wife the money to buy a car (May 1994), after marriage failed.
    • States she has tried and wants to be there for ex-wife as a friend, since ex-wife has no one she is close to.
    • States that ex-wife is unwilling/unable to honestly be open with herself, husband, Dianna or anyone.
    • States that ex-wife is unwilling/unable face the reality of her life and family.
    • Is well aware that ex-wife will view this statement as a sign of betrayal, leaving her all alone, with no one to talk to. Believes no other choice, ex-wife's and children's best interests can only be served by having the truth come out and ex-wife dealing with it.
    • It is now clear that ex-wife will never talk openly with her, since Dianna knows too much of the truth ex-wife is trying so desperately to avoid.
    • Claims another motivation for this statement is to counter ex-wife's lies, accusations of abuse and control she is making against husband. States that this is the exact opposite of what she has observed during the entire marriage.
    • Claims that husband is a reasonable person and that he and his children have done nothing to deserve the hell the family is experiencing.
    • Claims that, by her observations the relationship was characterized by verbal abuse and hostility (especially when drinking) on ex-wife's part versus blind love, giving in and reasonableness on husbands part. In general, husband was dominated, used and abused by ex-wife.
    • Describes ex-wife as refusing to contribute and consistently worked against all of husbands goals and efforts on behalf of the family.
    • Has never observed ex-wife make a compromise or attempt to work on the relationship or deal with her problems. Claims that it was always husband giving in to ex-wife's demands, verbal and non-verbal hostility, withdrawal and coldness.
    • Claims that ex-wife confided to Dianna early in the marriage that she could get husband to do anything for her, just by using sex..
    • Claims that ex-wife would go out of her way to be mean and selfish with husband. Provides example.
    • Recounts evening in 1989 when husband and her partner surprised her and ex-wife with a limo and one of those "once in a lifetime" romantic experiences. Describes how ex-wife consumed alcohol to excess, completely ruined the evening by her abuse of husband and concludes "I have never seen a meaner, more ungrateful display from anyone in my life"
    • Recounts similar evening in 1990 when went out to the opera and ex-wife did the same, but this time ex-wife's goal was to get husband to buy her a fur coat like one she had borrowed, which he was refusing for financial reasons.
    • Claims that after evening above, Dianna challenged ex-wife on her treatment of husband over the coat. Ex-wife considered lack of a fur coat as an indication that husband does not love her. Ex-wife and Dianna had a falling out over this.
    • Claims that this is consistently the method that ex-wife uses to achieve what she demands: Ex-wife just abuses and makes people miserable until they give in. Claims that she observed the exact same abuse until ex-wife got husband to agree to major renovations which they definitely could not afford and husband was adamantly opposed to.
    • Claims that Dianna and her partner sometimes found it very embarrassing to be out with or visiting the Rosses, due to ex-wife's abuse of husband.
    • Claims that at Christmas 1992, husband asked Dianna to help him pick out gifts for ex-wife and husband was very particular, it took two shopping outings. At Christmas, ex-wife didn't like the gifts and insisted they take them back and get something better. States that ex-wife very ungrateful, but exchanged gifts and husband always generous to ex-wife for Christmas and birthdays.
    • Claims that during relationship, husband did his best to give ex-wife what she asked, if he could.
    • Claims that whenever she visited, ex-wife was always verbally abusive to husband, in front of the children, especially after her first drink. Ex-wife often called husband a "no good, stupid, cheap asshole"
    • Claims that Ex-wife always insisted on often going out to expensive restaurants they could not afford, until two years ago, at which point husband refused since they could not afford it and stuck to his position.
    • Claims that in September 1994, ex-wife confided that she had never loved her husband.
    • Claims that Dianna his consistently failed and met denial when trying to communicate with ex-wife in any area of reality and that ex-wife refuses to discuss anything or see that different perspectives than her own may have any validity.
    • Claims that from her observations, it has been husband who does all child related activities and is the principal caregiver while ex-wife pretends to be busy with other housework which she does very slowly and drags out, taking many rum and smoke breaks.
    • States that ex-wife uses the illusion that she is busy doing cooking or cleaning to shift complete care of the children to husband, except that ex-wife does feed the children.
    • States that ex-wife refused to participate in any of the children's activities, provides a very long list of activities husband did with children.
    • States that ex-wife did not even communicate with her daughters except to tell them to eat or to stay out of her "space".
    • Has never observed ex-wife being affectionate with her daughters, have them on her lap or give them a goodnight kiss although husband does.
    • States that ex-wife did do some of the organizing and shopping for the children, but it was up to husband to do all of the work.
    • States that Dianna could never convince ex-wife to go anywhere, for any activity with the children and that it was always husband who came with her and her son for activities.
    • States that when ex-wife around children, ex-wife was very particular about nap and bedtime schedules. If the children were out with husband, schedule did not seem to matter to ex-wife.
    • States that her seven year old son does not like the way ex-wife treats him. States that ex-wife made children eat alone in other room, while adults ate later. States that ex-wife was always rapping the children on their heads and telling them to eat. States that ex-wife called herself "the wicked witch of the west"
    • States that she and her son did not like it when the Ross children visited their home, due to their lack of respect, lack of discipline, destructiveness and unruliness.
    • States that ex-wife locked the children (her own and daycare) in their room during naptime and when they misbehaved.
    • Recounts spouses reactions to oldest daughters psychological evaluation: Ex-wife relieved that daughter did not have ADS, was fine and had no problems. Husband devastated regarding daughters social and attention problems and begged Dianna to influence ex-wife to cooperate for daughters sake. Dianna talked to daughters teacher and ex-wife who still saw no problem and refused to attend a joint meeting with husband and psychologist. Ex-wife agreed once it was pointed out how bad her non-cooperation would look. Meeting took place, but no followup.
    • States Dianna tried to talk to ex-wife regarding the importance of cooperating with husband for children's sake. Ex-wife replied "It is a good idea to inform husband about what is happening to the children".
    • States that during first two years of marriage, both parents negligent, always arguing about who would change diapers, etc. Both appeared to want to get out of dealing with the kids.
    • States that whenever she was there husband would have total responsibility for the children and share his time between company and children.
    • States that over the years, husband has vastly improved as a parent and treats his daughters as little people and cares for their needs and is patient with them.
    • States that ex-wife's parenting has not improved at all and ex-wife remains selfish, lazy and neglectful of the children's non-physical needs. States she has never observed ex-wife exhibit patience or tolerance for her children.
    • States that when ex-wife decided to have a second child, Dianna was shocked because it is obvious that ex-wife has no patience for children and she told ex-wife this. Why would she want another?
    • States that Dianna was just as shocked, for the same lack of patience for children reason when ex-wife wanted to start a daycare. States that Dianna told ex-wife that she thought it was a way for ex-wife to avoid working and ex-wife admitted it was true.
    • States that ex-wife is lazy and does not want to work.
    • States that during daycare, ex-wife did no activities with the children. There were no walks or any involvement of ex-wife with children except feeding and safety.
    • States that on some occasions that Dianna took the children to the park and ex-wife refused to come, preferring to stay home and drink rum under the pretext she had to make dinner.
    • States that Dianna has never observed ex-wife discipline or have any expectations of her daughters except to tell them to eat and stay out of her "space".
    • States that she has observed many arguments between the spouses regarding ex-wife's debt, spending and lack of partnership.
    • States that her view of husband as a person is reasonable, take it easy, nothing usually seems to bother him.
    • States that she has never observed any abusive behavior on part of husband, but notes that ex-wife certainly gave him reason with her unreasonableness and lack of compromise.
    • States that husband is firm, gentle and kind with his daughters and has more expectations from the children than ex-wife, who has none.
    • States that ex-wife has confided in her that ex-wife hates her job and considers it beneath her.
    • States that ex-wife would rarely agree to go out with anyone, except to restaurants with husband to be pampered.
    • States that husband was always encouraging ex-wife to go out, make some friends and "get a life". States that husband often encouraged Dianna to go out with ex-wife and make some friends.
    • Describes ex-wife as very anti-social, always saying "I need my space". Describes ex-wife as always going off alone to another room to drink rum and that the children were not even allowed in the same room as ex-wife.
    • Describes ex-wife as very lazy, never wanting to do any work. Describes when Dianna and her partner came over to help with renovations and ex-wife insisted they bring a sitter "so we can all work". Describes ex-wife pretending to make dinner, sitting outside having rum and smoke breaks every few minutes while adults worked. States it was the same for housework in general, except cooking and cleaning. Husband did everything, including all child related activities, while ex-wife lazy, pretending to be busy.
    • States that husband did most of the work and ex-wife would appear near the end, do some minor finishing touch and then claim she did it all. States that when ex-wife challenged on this, she becomes unwilling to communicate. States that husband reciprocated for their renovation help, but ex-wife refused.
    • Describes what happens when Dianna tries to talk to ex-wife realistically, on any topic. Ex-wife tries to evade the issue or change the topic. If ex-wife's evasions are unsuccessful, ex-wife appears to be about to cry, her voice cracks and she starts to shake. As soon as topic changes, ex-wife recovers immediately. This issue evading response on part of ex-wife is concluded to be fake by Dianna.
    • States that ex-wife refuses to communicate on any topic where there may be disagreement and that ex-wife has a blind spot for any views but her own.
    • States she has never observed ex-wife go out of her way for anybody, including her own children due to being self-centered and selfish.
    • States that when ex-wife drunk (always) she went out of her way to be mean to husband. Ex-wife's arguments were emotional, in terms of character assaults on husband. Has never seen husband emotionally angry with ex-wife, husband used reason, and a lets work it out manner, which infuriated ex-wife even more.
    • Dianna has never seen ex-wife treat either husband or the children with love. Ex-wife has two methods of dealing with husband, either demanding or demeaning. Whenever Dianna talked to ex-wife about husband, ex-wife always spoke about husband in terms of how she needed things and how it was up to him to provide them.
    • States that ex-wife did not care whether the children were present or not. Ex-wife would just "fly off the handle at husband with no apparent provocation", whether the children were present or not. It was usually not clear to Dianna what ex-wife's issue or point was.
    • States that ex-wife was definitely well looked after, but not with husbands approval. Ex-wife made husband give her half of his overtime money when he had to work and her debt with nothing to show for it, makes it even worse.
    • Dianna did not know how much ex-wife drank until 1986 when she followed ex-wife to the kitchen many times and observed ex-wife making double rum and cokes each time. States that ex-wife holds her alcohol really well.
    • States that when she went to restaurants with spouses, her and her spouse never wanted to split the bill due to ex-wife's excessive alcohol purchases (4 to 5 double rums, sometimes more).
    • States that Dianna visited the daycare unexpectedly three times, in the late morning. Ex-wife already had a rum and coke on the go and immediately poured another when done.
    • Describes, often when stayed for dinner, ex-wife would sometimes serve dinner, be unable to eat and go up to bed, intoxicated. Other times, ex-wife would pass out in her chair, intoxicated, in the middle of dinner. States the first time this happened was shortly after the wedding.
    • Recounts incident in January 1991 when ex-wife called her up and stated "that bastard dumped all my rum down the sink" and ex-wife demanded that Dianna deliver alcohol to her, as a birthday present, which she foolishly did. Describes a typical alcohol/daycare day and verbal abuse when husband got home from work.
    • States that during marriage, husband asked her many times to try to talk some financial sense into ex-wife, and Dianna tried and failed, since ex-wife would not admit her spending, demands and debt as a problem and expected husband to deal with it.
    • States that the financial relationship was very unfair, in ex-wife's favor, since husband paid for all of the big things and ex-wife only paid for groceries, children's clothing and daycare. States that husband was always sacrificing, not buying clothes for himself while ex-wife was living high and making no personal sacrifice.
    • Elaborates on ex-wife's demand that husband pay her half of any extra income he may earn, to pay her to look after her own children and to allow him to work. States that ex-wife used this money on herself, while husband used it for joint things. States that ex-wife discussed this unfair arrangement with her as early as 1989.
    • Recounts another incident in 1991 when husband again asked Dianna to talk to ex-wife about money management, since ex-wife was $9,000.00 in debt, had nothing to show for it and refused to discuss it with husband. Ex-wife stated to Dianna that things cost a lot, debt was not a problem, husband made enough to care for her, husband expected too much from her and he was cheap. In pursuing this topic, ex-wife became very cold and started shaking.
    • Again Recounts renovations and all of the heated arguments and abuse of husband until he agreed. Describes how ex-wife refused to help with the work, sitting around drinking rum and being lazy.
    • States, after marital breakdown ex-wife is not buying the quality or quantity of food she used to, nor feeding the children healthy food.
    • States, after marital breakdown ex-wife is even worse at discipline, now the children do not even have to finish their meals and candy and treats are now unlimited.
    • States, after marital breakdown that children are much better behaved when ex-wife absent.
    • Describes, after marital breakdown that Dianna babysat children while ex-wife out and tried to put some structure in the evening, to which oldest daughter responded "You're just like my dad - a slave driver".
    • Describes confrontation with ex-wife in September 1994 where Dianna blasted ex-wife on various points:
    • Issue 1: Why she wants the kids and why she thinks husband wants them. Answer: Because she loves them and husband wants to control them
    • Issue 2: That husband loves his daughters, will never give in and is prepared to lose everything.
    • Issue 3: That ex-wife will not be on easy street with any settlement.
    • Issue 4: That husband and her are saying completely opposite things and she has been caught in lies.
    • Issue 5: That the abuse and control allegations against husband are the exact opposite of Dianna's observations.
    • Issue 6: That eventually, ex-wife will have to deal with the reality of the situation
    • Issue 7: That, on present course, everything will be lost to lawyers and what happens to the children and their friends and school.
    • Issue 8: That her current financial demands of husband are unfair. Ex-wife cannot expect husband to pay all of his historical expenses (which by themselves are unfair), an extra $700.00 per month to ex-wife and for husband to somehow find money for rent and living expenses.
    • Dianna states that ex-wife's reaction to the above was that she became very cold and refused to discuss it. Dianna concluded that ex-wife is blind to the facts and not facing reality.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife is simultaneously accusing husband of being a slave driver and making the children clean the house and do chores while simultaneously trashing the home every time he is there. Both cannot be true.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife is accusing husband of stealing groceries and other stuff. She checked with her ex-spouse (husband's roommate) and is convinced this is another lie.
    • Dianna notes that she visits the marital home often and ex-wife does not appear to be doing any cleaning or housework.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife appears to be taking the children to activities and seems to have turned around compared to the marriage.
    • Dianna claims that ex-wife confided she is wearing her magic crystal for luck and reading her tarot cards every night for guidance and to figure out what to do.
    • Dianna concludes that ex-wife is lying regarding husbands abuse and control, since, if true, ex-wife would have been afraid to abuse husband or act contrary to his stated wishes and family interests as Dianna has observed during the marriage and stated herein.
  • Gary Browne - Husband's nephew, stayed for several weeks in 1991, caught ex-wife inebriated and yelling at children, after she claimed to have quit
  • Statement by Gary Browne husbands nephew (June 14, 1994)

    • Statement by Gary Browne
    • Stayed with spouses for several weeks in summer 1991.
    • No interaction or activities by ex-wife with daycare children.
    • No rules for children, except don't go upstairs
    • Ex-wife screamed at children often
    • No opinion regarding alcohol, wasn't paying attention

    Affidavit of Garry Browne nephew of husband (October 14, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Garry Browne
    • Husband's nephew
    • Claims that went to matrimonial home with his brother on October 6, 1994, looking for husband, to get grandfathers camcorder
    • Claims that ex-wife asked them in and she was very intoxicated, describes ex-wife's state.
    • Claims to have gone upstairs with ex-wife to get camcorder. Oldest daughter (nephews cousin) opened her bedroom door and asked mother who was there. Ex-wife screamed "It's just your cousins...Shut up and get back to bed!"
    • Claims that daughter did not even see him or know which cousins were there and was not allowed to say hello or anything, oldest daughter crying and carrying on throughout until ex-wife went back upstairs and yelled at daughter some more.
    • Claims that ex-wife gave him a tour of the house and said "husband took everything", to which he replied "you've got the house and kids" to which she replied "not for long"
    • Claims that ex-wife desperately wanted someone to talk to, and wanted sympathy, so he stayed for another half hour and listened to all of her allegations regarding his uncle's "abuse"
  • Brian Alexson - Social friend, entire marriage, ex-wife lazy, irresponsible alcoholic, disinterested in children, husband primary caregiver
  • Statement by Brian Alexson friend and engineering classmate of husband (May 26, 1994)

    • Statement by Brian Alexson
    • Known ex-wife as long as husband. Met at same time.
    • Ex-wife has serious alcohol problem, some times passed out at the dinner table, during dinner.
    • Ex-wife drank double rum and cokes.
    • Ex-wife was often yelling at children to "keep out of her space"
    • It was husband who had all childcare duties when not working.
    • Worked on a project in summer 1993 with husband which ex-wife demanded a "cut" in exchange for taking over husbands childcare responsibilities.
    • While at Ross residence working for a month, ex-wife ignored and refused to take care of children so husband could work
    • Husband was constantly being interrupted to deal with children, which ex-wife refused to do.
    • Ex-wife spent weekends in bed watching TV, yelling out instructions to husband to deal with kids and refused to let them in the room with her.
    • Ex-wife was constantly demeaning and verbally abusive to husband, for entire project.
    • Have never observed ex-wife affectionate, playing with or paying attention to children.
    • Husband is the one that pays attention to children's emotional, attention and social needs.
    • Witnessed a very bad argument / verbal abuse on ex-wife's part against husband in January 1994.
    • Ex-wife always complaining husband is poor provider, an insane opinion, because their lifestyle met or exceeds his peers.
    • Very bad partnership. Ex-wife wants to be lazy, consume and be pampered, husband wants to build for his family and the future.
  • Garry Hammond - Social friend, entire marriage, ex-wife alcoholic, disinterested in children, husband primary caregiver
  • Statement by Garry Hammond family friend and co-worker of husband (May 18, 1994)

    • Statement by Garry Hammond
    • Ex-wife always drank double rums and refused husbands pleas to take it easy, since she refused to share paying restaurant bills.
    • When out, ex-wife always wanted to go home early and husband always drove, due to ex-wife's inebriated state.
    • On weekends, when stayed over, ex-wife refused to get up and was husband's responsibility to feed children and organize their day.
    • Did not observe what he would call abuse, but much arguing between spouses.
    • Only interaction observed between ex-wife and children was when she fed them. Ex-wife kept children out of "her space".
    • Ex-wife very annoyed if children persisted in asking for her attention.
    • Husband did all quality interaction with children, treating them as little people and meeting their needs and taking them to activities.
    • Husband did bath and story time with children, each evening and bike rides during the day.
    • Never observed husband angry with children.
  • Sherry Skater - husband's sister in law, ex-wife confided in her. Ex-wife alcoholic, unfit mother, disinterested in children, husband primary caregiver
  • Statement by Sherry Skater husband's common law sister (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by Sherry Skater
    • Ex-wife and Sherry got along well and confided in each other.
    • Decide bias or not yourself.
    • Ex-wife drinks to excess
    • Ex-wife demands that husband do all childcare responsibility, refused to participate
    • Ex-wife was a terrible mother, insensitive to children's needs
    • Ex-wife referred to husband as a possession providing money and security.
    • Ex-wife did not play or interact with children and pushes them away. She won't let children play in dirt "you're young ladies" or be kids.
    • Ex-wife confided she couldn't handle motherhood, which was why she drank so much alcohol.
    • Ex-wife claimed children "really get on her nerves". She blamed husband for having children and "it was his responsibility to deal with them"
    • Ex-wife confided she had bottles hidden all around house, unknown to husband. Admitted to drinking at least two 1.75 Liter bottles of rum per week.
    • Observed on weekends that ex-wife would get up in the morning and make several half rum / half coffee's, which she took to her room to drink alone.
    • Ex-wife confided that some friends were getting divorced, with similar economic circumstances. She claimed that $1000.00 per month per child was a fantastically good deal. When Sherry pointed out that it is unfair to impoverish the father, leaving him unable to care for his children, ex-wife's response was: "its the man's job to pay".
  • Bernice Ross - Husbands step mother. No alcohol opinion. Ex-wife unfit mother, husband primary caregiver
  • Statement by Bernice Ross husbands step-mother (May 31, 1994)

    • Statement by Bernice Ross
    • From the perspective of a woman who cared for many children from Children's Aid, helping 42 in all. Read and decide whether biased for yourself.
    • Husband was the one caring for daughters - ex-wife disinterested
    • Ex-wife would not let anyone, including husband correct or discipline her daughters
    • Children very easy to manage in ex-wife's absence
    • Only one rule enforced by ex-wife: children stay away from her.
    • Other grandchildren do not like ex-wife at all.
    • Ex-wife is inconsistent, threats, but no follow-through. Children ignore her
    • Ex-wife does not attend to children's emotional needs or treat them as little people. She does adequately meet their physical needs.
    • Ex-wife admitted she was not being financially honest with husband.
    • Considers husband far more attentive to children's needs and better parent.
  • Garnet Ross - Husbands father. Ex-wife alcohol abuse, verbally abusive environment, ex-wife disinterested in children, ex-wife treated husband with contempt, husband did all childcare
  • Statement by Garnet Ross husband's father (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by Garnet Ross
    • Many valid and true observations, but, assume to be biased, since is husband's father
    • Ex-wife treated husband with contempt, not liked by entire family for this reason.
    • Believed ex-wife was an opportunist, due to lack of respect for husband, her children, lack of partnership awareness, unreasonableness and financial irresponsibility, impoverishing her family.
    • Spent 3 day weekend with family in 1993, Ex-wife inebriated entire weekend, husband did all childcare.
    • Father made the mistake of trying to reason with ex-wife
    • Ex-wife stated "I pretend to be what men want enough to keep them happy and take what I want from them and that is how it is and should be"
    • Very concerned about granddaughters due to verbally abusive ex-wife, tense environment, alcohol abuse and ex-wife's complete lack of attending to daughters emotional and environmental needs.
    • Ex-wife completely unfit mother and unable to compromise with husband (or anyone) on any issue, including raising children in a joint custody situation.
  • John Ross - Husbands brother. Ex-wife alcohol and verbally abusive, neglects children's personal needs, husband primary caregiver.
  • Statement by John Ross husband's brother (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by John Ross
    • Many valid and true observations, but, assume to be biased, since is husband's brother
    • Did not like ex-wife due to verbal abuse of husband, neglect of children's emotional and social needs
    • Ex-wife is not open and acts like a prima donna, better than everyone else
    • Ex-wife would not help out, refused to be a partner and expected husband to do everything
    • Ex-wife constantly accused husband of being an asshole, with a useless career that was unable to meet her needs, and being an engineer was "beneath the dignity of quality people, such as herself"
    • Claims tried to talk some sense into husband regarding being used by ex-wife and was met with "I'm trying to be patient, win to her over to reason and also have the children to consider".
    • All arguments were started by ex-wife who used vindictive character assaults and emotional bickering, while husband stuck to the facts, which infuriated ex-wife even more.
    • Both parents attentive to children's physical needs.
    • Husband better parent because he treats girls as little people, attentive to their emotional and interaction needs. Ex-wife negligent/incompetent in this area.
    • Ex-wife expected others to relieve her of the burden of childcare (while she became inebriated) when husband not around.
    • Ex-wife really likes to drink alcohol.
  • Richard Beange - Contractor, month at home in 1991 during daycare, Ex-wife no personal interaction or activities for children, drinking rum during daycare, excessive alcohol, husband primary caregiver
  • Statement by Richard and Beth Beange contractor, spent extensive time at Ross's (May 11, 1994)

    • Statement by Richard and Beth Beange
    • Did extensive renovations at spouses home in 1991
    • Spent a month and a half plus more weekends at Ross residence. There during daycare hours.
    • Ex-wife never interacted or did activities with daycare or her own children.
    • Right after lunch (children napping) ex-wife would start drinking rum and cokes and sometimes offered to share.
    • Ex-wife and husband argued a lot.
    • At times, when over socially, ex-wife drank to excess and passed out right after dinner.
    • When not working, husband did all child activities, including taking them shopping and for their activities on the weekend.
    • They could have saved substantial renovation costs if husband had helped with renovations and ex-wife cared for the children, rather than husband.
  • Robert Southby - neighbor, spent a day assisting with renovations in 1991. Ex-wife extremely verbally abusive, no child interaction, husband cared for children
  • Statement by Robert Southby neighbor of Ross's (June 14, 1994)

    • Statement by Robert Southby
    • Described day/evening he was over helping with renovations in 1991
    • Ex-wife extremely verbally abusive to and demanding of husband, treated him like a puppet, in front of his children.
    • Husband did all childcare, don't remember ex-wife interacting with children at all
    • Balance of visit much more pleasant after ex-wife went to bed early
  • Jan Ladiges - Friend of husband, describes Halloween 1992. Ex-wife refused to participate with children, very liberal with alcohol, husband did it all
  • Statement by Jan Ladiges describes Halloween 1992 visit of Ross's and children (June 8, 1994)

    • Statement by Jan Ladiges
    • Describes Halloween 1992 visit of Ross's and children
    • Ex-wife refused to participate or help in child activities and very detached from everyone, missing the the whole social point of the evening
    • Ex-wife very liberal with helping herself to alcohol
    • Ex-wife expected husband to do all child stuff, including packing them up to go.

Conclusion Husband has been primary caregiver, ex-wife lying

  • Ex-wife has no friends, only acquaintances from the distant past and has rejected overtures from a potential friend, Dianna Drynan. Many, including ex-wife's own family describe ex-wife as "antisocial". It can be factually concluded that ex-wife has social problems in interacting with people, earning trust and making and keeping friends. This is a large negative, since children need to be taught these social skills to fit into society and ex-wife is proven incompetent in this crucial area.
  • Husband has friends and has managed to build and maintain trust with his supporters, including ex-wife's step father and mother, two sisters and even ex-wife's mother recommends maximal contact of father with children. This is a large positive, husband has demonstrated the ability to socialize daughters to fit into society.
  • It can also be concluded that, since ex-wife lacks these social skills and husband does not, the trust that husband believed was present prior to his consenting to marriage was a pretense on ex-wife's part. This makes the entire marriage null and void, a fraud and entrapment, on ex-wife's part. It also makes divorce laws inapplicable because the marriage should be annulled on the basis that ex-wife refused to be a partner, the essence of marriage. This antisocial behavior is encouraged by illegal laws which promise entitlements and inevitable conflict with spouses who can only conclude they have been entrapped and are now being deprived of their children and enslaved under false pretexts. Innocent children are caught in the crossfire, while the state and their cronies get rich feeding from the proceeds of child abuse, conflict and slavery, pretending to "help" by fueling the fires of conflict, at taxpayers and society's expense.
  • All witnesses that ex-wife presents attesting to the love and trust that her daughters have for ex-wife and ex-wife was primary caregiver are her mother, very infrequent visitors during marriage, with no insight and friends of her mother, called to service to repeat hearsay against husband and recount ex-wife's "dog and pony show" of "good motherhood" that she began once litigation started and she was under observation. For now, investigation regarding whether husband's behavior during marriage discouraged ex-wife from being a "good mother" and she was now free to be so will be deferred. Dr. Smith's opinion regarding parenting ability is irrelevant, since he never met husband or children and has not seen any parental interactions.
  • Most of husbands witnesses have often socially interacted with the family, many over the entire course of the marriage and support, with detailed observations husbands position that ex-wife was a disinterested mother, negligent of her daughters emotional, social and interaction needs and treated her children as "troublesome intrusions in her life" and expected husband to care for the children, which he did, as primary caregiver, whenever he did not have to work. These witnesses include ex-wife's step father, two sisters and many family friends. Further, when Dr. Mclean observed the spouses in one on one interaction with their daughters, ex-wife demonstrated absolutely no ability to interact with or control her daughters, a pathetic performance. Husband demonstrated far greater skills and his daughters were calm, comfortable and happy. From this, Dr. Mclean was forced to conclude that ex-wife had no meaningful interaction with her children for at least several years and husband was indeed the primary caregiver. In addition, given ex-wife's inability to present one true friend as witness, it seems apparent that this evidence is a general indication and demonstration of ex-wife's social incompetence and inability to earn love and trust, from anyone, including her own daughters, making ex-wife's claims in this area dubious at best and lies at worst.
  • None of ex-wife's witnesses with the exception of Dr. Selwyn Smith, Kathy SaintHill and Lisa and Marlon Kennedy have stated anything negative about husband and his parenting ability. Smith has never met husband or children making his opinion irrelevant. Lisa and Marlon Kennedy have never met husband or seen him in interaction with the children and all of their issues are hearsay, originating with ex-wife and all of their opinions are post separation. Kathy SaintHill claims she was present during an incident of husbands "harsh" punishment of daughter, when he removed all of older daughters possessions from her room for a minor infraction, which she was not. Even if she was and if true, parents need to discipline their children, to teach them personal responsibility. Kathy SaintHill is also the only witness who describes ex-wife as "open and forthright", not a very insightful opinion.

Alcoholism: Husband's claims of ex-wife's addictions

  • A negative (absence of a fact) cannot be proven, only positive (presence of fact) can be proven and verified.
  • Ex-wife is in the position of proving a negative, which is impossible. The onus is on husband to prove a positive, ie; witnesses whom have actually seen long term and consistent abuse of alcohol on part of ex-wife.

Support Ex-wife's Oppose Husbands Claims

  • No matter how many witnesses with minimal exposure ex-wife has stating how shocked and disbelieving they are regarding her addictions, it can never be enough to offset ex-wife's own admission to Dr. Mclean that, since 1989, ex-wife was consuming 9 to 10 ounces of alcohol per day, backed up by witness statements observing alcohol abuse, spanning the entire marriage. Ex-wife swore, in subsequent affidavit (November 21, 1994) that Dr. Mclean was lying and she answered the question with "I don't know".
  • Dr. Selwyn Smith's "professional opinion" is that all of ex-wife's negatives are in reaction to husbands abuse, no addictions.
  • Smith can be and is refuted in "Husbands Abuse" factual analysis section.
  • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith attesting to husband's abuse, ex-wife's perfection (June 20, 1994)

    • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
    • Has not met husband or children, making this report entirely hearsay, all information originates with ex-wife.
    • First seen ex-wife on April 22, 1994, seen her several times subsequently
    • Has seen Police Report "Confirmation of Domestic Occurrence" dated June 10, 1994
    • Cites TWO police reports, the second is fictional and does not exist.
    • Claims ex-wife seems to enjoy her work. Surprise to husband, ex-wife hates any work, considers it beneath her, something only lowlife's do.
    • Ex-wife claims to relate well with colleagues and superiors. Another surprise. Husband never met or heard of friends from work.
    • Claims that ex-wife is studying psychology on a part time basis at University of Waterloo. Yes, in a desultory manner. All of her educational endeavors petered out and failed. Husband forced to conclude it was not educational improvement ex-wife sought, but for ex-wife to be able to claim she was better and smarter than others, because she was in university.
    • Ex-wife has low self-esteem because brother suicided when he was 17.
    • Ex-wife describes marriage as emotionally abusive and that husband does not "trust her". Husband: for ex-wife, "trust" is a pre-requisite to ripping someone off. Been burnt too many times, so have our daughters. Trust must be earned and maintained. It was not.
    • Notes that there have been two police incidents regarding husbands "abuse".
    • Ex-wife claims marriage counseling "unhelpful" and wants divorce.
    • Ex-wife claims that husband of the opinion that they should reconcile.
    • Ex-wife on tranquilizers (Alprazolam) due to tension in home.
    • Ex-wife has in recent past, resorted to excessive quantities of alcohol, due to tension in home.
    • Ex-wife feels not in control of her life, mistreated and misused by husband and has remained in marriage due to feelings of dependency.
    • Ex-wife wants to overcome her dependency and not remain in an abusive home.
    • Claims: previously, ex-wife had hoped by remaining in marriage that further abusive incidents would not occur. Husband: This is odd, prior to filing for divorce, no "abuse" incidents reported by ex-wife. Of the "abuse" incidents subsequently reported by ex-wife, husband was not there and played no part, making these "reports" hearsay.
    • Concludes: No evidence of mental illness or depression in ex-wife.
    • Concludes: No evidence that ex-wife has alcohol problems. Previous short term problems due to anxiety and fear of husband.
    • Claims: Ex-wife has cut back on alcohol considerably and currently consumes one glass of wine with meals.
    • Concludes: Ex-wife shows no sign of stigma of alcoholism, performs social and work functions well.
    • Claims ex-wife is fearful that further assaults by husband will occur.
    • Concludes: Ex-wife has experienced physical, emotional and verbal abuse and threats from husband.
    • Concludes: Exposure of ex-wife and children to clearly hazardous presence of husband is not in their best interests.
    • Claims: ex-wife has been principle caregiver of the children and no reason she cannot continue.
    • Concludes: Ex-wife is a credible lady. She has not feigned, exaggerated or malingered any symptomology.
    • Husband: Ex-wife is excellent liar and manipulator. She convinced husband during courtship that she was honest, personally responsible, interested in partnership and working together for a good life and future. Empty words, actions speak the truth.
    • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
    • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGIOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.

    Dr. Selwyn Smith disputing Dr. Mclean's conclusions (November 21, 1994)

    • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
    • Claims to have reveiwed the custody assessment report of Dr. Mclean.
    • Disputes Dr. Mclean's conclusion that ex-wife is an addict
    • Reiterates that ex-wife has been under overwhelming stress due to her "abusive" husband who has made rape and other threats, neccessitating ex-wife to call police twice.
    • Adds that ex-wife's stress further compounded by children's behavioral difficulties and a very messy untrained dog.
    • Note: Dr. Mclean observed ex-wife's ineptness and inability to deal with her daughters here. Note also that none of ex-wife's submissions make any mention of having to deal with, or even admitting that daughters had behavioral difficulties, although, ex-wife did allege that husband was having difficulties and that she had to calm children down after husband consistently upset them during his access time. Note also, the dog was a litter of untrained puppies which ex-wife refused to keep outside in the yard, preferring instead to attribute puppy mess to husband's irresponsibility, in photographic splendour.
    • States that ex-wife used tranquilizers slightly more than prescribed. Makes no mention of ex-wife going into withdrawl or becoming addicted to tranquilizers, as concluded by Dr. Mclean, based on his personal observations and hearing ex-wife's description of withdrawl. Ex-wife also admits she became addicted in her affidavit.
    • Claims that tranquilizers can be withdrawn at end of custody proceedings, implying that they are required to deal with the conflict.
    • Claims that ex-wife has no need of addiction assessment or medical referral.
    • Claims that ex-wife has a number of significant issues (unstated what) in her background which require further assistance, but pointless to explore until the conflict is over.
    • Claims ex-wife is on a managed reduction schedule for tranquilizers.
    • Claims ex-wife has not consumed nor abused alcohol since coming under his care (April 22, 1994).
    • Husband: This is a LIE. Dr. Smith states in his previous "expert opinion" (June 20, 1994) that "her (ex-wife, alcohol) intake hs been reduced considerably. Currently she consumes (ie; claims to) approximately one glass of wine with meals."
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands mental health, due to invalid MMPI results.
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands general negative bias in his perceptions of females and effect on daughters.
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands acceptance of viable role for mother in children's lives.
    • States that he does not feel Dr. Mclean has justified his recommendation of husband as custodial parent.
    • Speculates that, in the absence of Dr. McLeans alleged addiction conclusions, custody may well be recommended for mother.
    • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
    • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGEOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.
  • The following individuals have stated "disbelief" or "shock" to allegations that ex-wife has substance abuse problems. None had regular social contact with family and none had recent contact, and their opinions were several years old:
  • Diane Nicol, Donna Clement, Jacqueline Bonnar, Kathy Sainthill, Carol Taylor, Bernard Wilson
  • The following individuals were recent recruits, once litigation started and have no pre-separation experience, opinions formed recently:
  • Nancy Campbell

Neutral or No Opinion Ex-wife's alcoholism

  • The following individuals expressed no opinion regarding alcohol:
  • Marguerite Day, Lorene Rolfe, Susan Perry, Anita Cox, Laura Harris, Robert Southby, Bernice Ross
  • The following individuals were recent recruits, once litigation started and have no pre-separation experience, opinions formed recently:
  • Lisa Kennedy, Marlon Kennedy, Victoria Ruitter, Kathy Nihei

Support Husband's Oppose Ex-wife's Claims

  • The following individuals expressed strong opinions, backed up by observations that ex-wife has chronic, long term alcohol/substance abuse problems:
  • Family Court Clinic Report recommending custody to father (November 16, 1994)

      University of Ottawa Family Court Clinic

      • Family Court Clinic
      • Multidisciplinary team of forensic psychiatrists, headed by Dr. David Mclean.
      • The purpose of this investigative unit is to objectively consider issues pertaining to the intersection of psychiatry, law and children's best interests.
      • Services were agreed to and paid for by both parties, to insure unbiased results.
      • This clinic is the premier institution of its type in the region, with the best reputation for objectivity and accuracy.
    • Family Court Clinic Report
    • Custody recommended to father (Page 27).
    • Addiction treatment and psychiatric help recommended for mother (Page 27).
    • McLean Report Overview

      • Counseling help recommended for father to help deal with his hurt and to provide support (Page 27).
      • Ex-wife admits that violence was not an issue during the marriage. Admits that she would hit husband out of frustration and he would simply leave. Husband admits that when ex-wife hit him, he would just restrain her wrists in self-defense. Ex-wife repeats rape threat allegation she made to police against husband in June 1994 as now happening during marriage, as opposed to after separation (Page 5)
      • Marriage counseling since 1992, issues centered around control, finances and ex-wife's drinking. Counselor under the impression that ex-wife may have felt emotionally abused (implied, but not stated: by husband's issues with her irresponsibility and drinking) (Page 5).
      • Ex-wife caught in a lie by Dr. Mclean about her daily consumption of tranquilizers. Pharmacist cuts her off for abuse. Dr. Mclean recounts ex-wife's description of going into withdrawal with "shakes, fears and lightheadedness" (Page 7).
      • Ex-wife admits to drinking 9 to 10 ounces of alcohol per day. Ex-wife claims that her drinking started in January 1989, after birth of second daughter. Ex-wife claims to have cut back on drinking in April 1994, once she became aware husband was measuring her consumption. Ex-wife claims that she can be a controlled drinker and thus is in denial that there is a problem. Dr. Mclean concurs with husbands opinion that ex-wife is on tranquilizers to try to hide alcoholism (Page 8).
      • Ex-wife prone to emotional thinking and misperceiving situations. Ex-wife has considerable anger which she has trouble expressing and may project on other people. Ex-wife can be somewhat naive and self-centered, with a need to view herself positively. Ex-wife tends to be indirect and manipulative in meeting her needs. Ex-wife has difficulties in intimate and long term relationships due to immaturity and self-centerdness. No sign of any mental illness in ex-wife (Page 9)
      • Dr. Mclean describes disastrous one on one encounter between ex-wife and children, where ex-wife had no clue how to deal with them, from which he later concludes no meaningful interaction between ex-wife and daughters for at least several years (Page 10).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife has serious alcohol and/or drug addiction problems, which, if anything, she is downplaying the amount and period of consumption and does not admit it as a problem. Dr. Mclean concludes that primary focus in ex-wife's life at this time must be dealing with her addictions and would be happy to make a professional referral (Page 10).
      • Dr. McLean concludes that ex-wife's alcoholism has negatively affected her parenting and nurturing her daughters for at least the last several years (Page 10).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife's "free spirit" and lack of structure approach to parenting is not in children's best interests (Page 11).
      • Husbands natural mother is in long term care for schizophrenia and has been since husband very young (Page 11).
      • In discussing husbands childhood, husband indicated he associated with the "thinking crowd" and described himself as the "class delinquent" (Page 11).
      • Husband left home at age 16 and worked way through high school (Page 11).
      • Husband quit college electronics course because it was "far too easy" (Page 11)
      • Husband enrolled in University of Waterloo, Electronics Engineering, but failed third year due to frustrated "love" (Page 12).
      • Husband spent several years working in Africa and California, then returned to complete Engineering Degree (Page 12).
      • Husband moved to Ottawa to work for Norpak and was soon promoted to project leader (Page 12)
      • In 1985, husband moved to Nortel to date and keeps refusing management positions, since he is "happier that way" and has no intention of leaving current employment. (Page 12)
      • Dr. Mclean describes husband as down-to-earth and one "who tells it like it is" (Page 12).
      • Husband describes step-mother and acknowledges debt to her for not protecting him from bullies, forcing him to learn how to defend himself (Page 13)
      • Husband describes childhood with no one to intelligently answer his questions, making him feel stupid (Page 13)
      • Husband admits that, in rebellious teens he had minor difficulties with the law including impaired and several drunk and disorderlys (Page 14).
      • Dr. Mclean describes results of one of husbands personality tests (MMPI) as invalid, "characteristic of people who have an almost pathological intense need to present a perfectionist view of themselves" (Page 14).
      • Dr. Mclean elaborates on invalid test: "They are naively defensive and may use considerable repression to maintain their self-image. They may also be rigorously moralistic and self-rightous in a way which could be uncompromising." (Page 14)
      • Husbands profile was suggested to reflect a conventional and controlled man who can be self-centered, immature and manipulative in his relationships (Page 14).
      • Husband is likely to be hard working, achievement oriented, practical and easy-going in many aspects of his life. He is also likely to be friendly and outgoing in relationships (Page 14).
      • Husband does not show an above average potential to be an abusive parent. Responses did indicate unhappiness in relationships and lack of emotional support (Page 14).
      • Husband is able to express warmth and a good range of emotions. Husband appears to have a general negative bias coloring his perception of females (Page 15).
      • While major psychopathology cannot be ruled out because of husband's invalid MMPI test results, husband did present as a generally well functioning person whose authoritarian tenancies are exacerbated by the current conflict situation.
      • Dr. Mclean suggests that husband step back psychologically and consider his own contributions to family problems (unstated what they may be) (Page 15)
      • Dr. Mclean describes one on one interaction between daughters and father. Both daughters appeared comfortable, relaxed and far less aggressive than with mother. Father appears to have the skills to deal with his daughters behavior in a positive manner (Page 15).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband suffers from no major psychiatric illness, but is showing some stress of conflict related symptomology which is expected to dissipate, once matters are resolved (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband perceives ex-wife as the one to blame, or, the guilty party. Husband and ex-wife's personalities are so different that they tend to confuse each other (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that while under considerable stress, husband does have far more in the way of resources to deal with the demands. Husband certainly demonstrated better resources and skills than mother in dealing with his daughters at the clinic (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband would be open to any straightforward parenting suggestions and that husband was more nurturing with his daughters when observed in interaction. (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean has concerns about how husbands tenancy to paint things black and white extends to the potential role he could see the mother playing with the girls (Page 16).
      • Husband admits, that for first two years of oldest daughter's life he was "not the best father" (Page 17).
      • Ex-wife admits that sexual abuse of daughters "not possible" (Page 18).
      • Ex-wife admits that she is more of a "screamer" for discipline, while husband more in control (Page 19).
      • Ex-wife states that back and forth's under consent agreement going "relatively well" and then swears in Affidavit to court that husband has been very disruptive, conflictual and she is in terror and needs protection from him (Page 20).
      • Oldest daughter is noted to have very good intellectual resources (Page 20).
      • Oldest daughter notes that if she had a lot of money, she would live in a tree house (father built one), with no adults, just kids (Page 21).
      • Oldest daughter, when asked who she wanted to live with, stated "Mommy, because she buys them popsicles" (Page 21).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that oldest daughters stated preference to live with her mother is not based on any reasons that are in her long term best interests. (Page 22).
      • Dr. Mclean recommends that oldest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 22).
      • Husband and ex-wife disagree regarding youngest daughter's motor development. Ex-wife states normal, husband states delayed because of being kept in the playpen too much.(Page 22).
      • Youngest daughter states she wants to live with both parents in Dunrobin and, when asked to choose one said "mother" because father was bad and took mothers bed (Page 24).
      • Youngest daughter, when asked who loves her the most said father, then changed to mother and then back to father (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean is surprised, given that mother spent most time caring for youngest daughter while running a daycare, that youngest daughter does not have a strong preference for her mother. Speculates may be an indication that husband has been the one spending time with his daughters (Page 25).
      • Husband was more aware of and concerned by youngest daughter issues (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean recommends that youngest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean summarizes discussions with spouses regarding access arrangements . (Page 25).

      Husband's Response To Report

      • Despite the fact that Dr. Mclean agreed with the facts and husband, still have major misgivings regarding the intellectual validity of the psychiatric profession in general. This profession appears to be in strategic denial of the basic fact that human motivation is to survive in the physical world which is ruled by the laws of action and consequence. To survive requires meeting goals. Further, they refuse to admit that insanity is CONTAGIOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and, if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane from outside point of views. Husband, during the marriage had to deal with his ex-wife, who was insane by refusal to choose survival and husband and daughters were trapped by corrupt law. In husband's humble opinion, the strong possibility exists that this profession was historically created to prevent social and scientific acceptance of the logical implications of evolution and Charles Darwin. Besides, this report netted the psychiatric profession $10,000, who have a very large income by claiming they are "necessary" to provide insight into issues such as this. There was no discussion of motivation on the part of either parent. This is very similar, although far less profitable than current judge's strategic denial of legal equality between persons, requiring judges and politicians to construct elaborate rationalizations "explaining" why people cannot be treated equally in terms of rights and responsibility, making their very costly "services" appear "necessary" to deal with the inevitable conflict between perfectly legitimate and peaceful viewpoints. None of this social conflict would exist if people were free to peacefully live as they see fit, without having their survival threatened if they fail to comply with the demands of whichever political viewpoint has manipulated itself to the "top dog" position, able to wield the apparatus of state as a weapon against the people. When rationalizations fail and the public starts to become aware of the survival of civilization importance of the law being restrained to treat all persons equally and the mortal social danger of special privilege for some, other methods are used, as Martin Luther King Jr. and others have repeatedly proven, at great personal cost and honor to self and loss to civilization.
      • Dr. Mclean failed to consider (and husband suspects, lacked the courage to address) the crucial fact and effects on husband and his parenting ability of being in a trap, prevented from exercising his basic legal rights of not associating with ex-wife AND associating with his daughters to fulfill his parental obligations, of having to deal with and being married to an alcoholic who refused to be responsible as a mother, a partner or contribute, a nemesis, whose self-destructive behavior and financial irresponsibility was destroying the family's and her own daughters ability to survive. Current (illegal) judicial interpretations of law provide no way to hold this mad woman to account, or of influencing her behavior to allow family survival. When the law provides no remedies for very real, survival threatening problems, what is one to do? Husband suggests that domestic abuse statistics indicate the choices that lesser intellects conclude it is "necessary" to make. The fact that husband had issues with ex-wife's destructive behavior appeared to be interpreted by the courts as "abuse" on the husbands part. This was truly a trap, as subsequently proven by the courts. The basic problem is that corrupt courts have upset the balance of power between equal persons in relationships, making reasonable division of labor or compromise impossible in any relationship that has been mis-defined and thus, subverted as has marriage, with the effect of destroying families. Husband could have tolerated ex-wife if she had kept her marriage vows (verbal contract), behaved responsibly, as an equal partner, focused on family and common interest. The only way out is to legally impoverish self and STILL, with irrefutable evidence and law on your side, have the courts take away your children, place them in an environment detrimental to their development and learning survival skills, and attempt to make you a slave using the false pretext of "children's best interests". Husband suspected this during marriage, by equally bizarre legal experiences of family and friends. He was thus biding his time, teaching his daughters, so that when they became more aware, they would choose to leave with him thus avoiding ALL litigation. This they chose, when they became aware, despite the courts "considered opinion" to the contrary. In other words, daughters also disagree with the judicial definition of "in their best interests", and, in a sense, are just as guilty of defiance as their father.
      • Lessor minds choose beating some sense into or killing their spouses, which husband rejected as unjust since ex-wife was a pawn, tricked into lying to provide plausible deniability for the real guilty parties.
      • Regarding Dr. Mclean's statement that husband can be manipulative. Yes, so can we all. Husband realized at a very young age that use of force or fraud (manipulation is a method of fraud) can achieve goals, but the cost is too high to defend from the response of your victims and further, manipulation is antisocial, alienating potential friends and allies. Husband claims to be an honest man and is willing to be judged by his fellow persons on that basis.
      • Husband is in full compliance with the unstated, but very real social contract among rational people, the very basis of civilization "If you refrain from using force and fraud against me, I promise to do the same". Well, force and fraud has been used against husband and his daughters, causing major damage, releasing him from his promise. Husband's response has thus far been restrained, since he wants civilization back and, unrestrained by reason, conflict risks spiraling out of control, sending mankind back to barbarism and living in caves, or worse.
      • Regarding Dr. McLean's speculation on the meaning of husbands personality test (MMPI) being invalid characterizing a pathologically intense need to project perfection, use self-repression and be uncompromising: Or, perhaps some people actually exist who seek the reality, as opposed to the illusion of "being the best they can be" and hold themselves to that standard? (Page 14).
      • Further to the invalid MMPI, indicating defensiveness: How can anyone, when under major assault in a state created conflict whose outcome is determined by those who actually created and profit from the the conflict (for their "profession's" financial benefit), with his children's future and perpetual economic enslavement as stakes be anything but defensive? Besides, husband may be more intelligent than the test writers and saw patterns he was not supposed to be able to see.
      • The fact that husband is intelligent was a major point against him in court, since judges appeared to feel threatened and wary of the possibility husband was manipulating them, as opposed to their view of the natural order, where judges are, by divine right, the manipulators. Husband stuck to the facts and truth, because facts cannot lie and objective minds are easily able to differentiate between fact and manipulation (biased interpretation of fact, posing as fact). For example, police reports in which husband played no part, being presented as a fact that husband was abusive and ex-wife terrified of him, in need of protection and preemptive justice. The only fact is that ex-wife called police and made allegations, which they documented.
      • Regarding husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females may affect his daughters: Had issues with one female in particular and irresponsibility in general. As sexist as it may sound, in husband's experience, irresponsibility and demanding special treatment statistically seems to be mostly female traits, a product of misguided socialization, which keeps females subservient. Husband has, despite major state opposition, raised his daughter's and they can and will successfully hold their own in life, without whining or demanding special consideration. Daughters are about as subservient as their father and woe to all who dare cross them.
      • Things have not changed much for husband since childhood. He is still surrounded by mental midgets who act as if they have the moral right to forcefully compel him to behave to the detriment of himself, family, fellow citizens, civilization and species for their minority gain and majority loss. The only thing that has changed is that opponents are far more larger, powerful, dangerous and isolated from objective reality. They will be defeated by their own actions, by refusal to acknowledge the undeniable principle of physical reality, that all actions have consequences. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. History is very clear on this point. Husband will not even feel remorse, he always warns of the consequences of actions prior to reluctantly engaging in defensive conflict. From a very detached perspective, the sheer folly of this is amusing.

      Ex-wife's Response To Report

      • Ex-wife's response taken from her affidavit.
      • Ex-wife asks the court to ignore the conclusions of the Family Court Clinic Report, for the following reasons:
      • Reason 1: It would be disruptive to the children if they were transferred from her care and control to the husbands. Ex-wife further states that due to the behavior she has ALLEGED against husband (ZERO proof or witnesses), it would stress her daughters too much to give a brute such as him custody.
      • Husband: Ex-wife and husband had EXACTLY the same amount of non-school and awake time with the children on an alternating day basis per consent agreement, later turned into a court order by Justice Sirois. Ex-wife LIES in this sworn affidavit, stating that the children were mostly under her care. It appears to be assumed by judges that women do and should have primary care and control of children (and men should be wallets and slaves, with no parental influence), although, no democratic assembly would DARE (and did not) pass a law that actually states this.
      • Reason 2: Ex-wife strongly BELIEVES she is the best custodial parent and re-iterates allegations that husband has been stealing from home, neglecting children by sleeping instead of caring for them. States that she has been mindful of daughters needs. Repeats claim that she has been children's primary caregiver throughout the entire marriage.
      • Husband: This contradicts all of husbands witness statements including ex-wife's two sisters and father in-law. Since the observations of "civilians" appears to be judicially irrelevant, read the Mclean Report above, describing Dr. Mcleans observations of ex-wife's inept interactions with her own daughters. Dr. Mclean was forced to conclude, that, for at least the last several years, ex-wife and children have had no meaningful interaction and ex-wife's attempts to deal with her daughter's on a one to one basis were pathetic. Dr. Mclean concluded husband relevant parent with far better skills for dealing with his daughters.
      • Reason 2: Ex-wife has lost job, and since November 11 (for 2 weeks) has been able to be with children on a full time basis. Claims to have more time to care for children, as a result.
      • Husband: In other words, ex-wife claims a competitive advantage by not working and husband strongly believes loss of employment was arranged, a strategic legal move, to gain this time as well as economic advantage (the more needy ex-wife is, the more husband has to pay, a major disincentive against ex-wife being employed). This is a major point, which judges buy, claiming to equate parental time (with no consideration of whether or not it is quality time) with children's best interests. The social result is several generations of children of divorce who have minimal exposure to a working role model parent and thus, believe they are entitled to survival without effort (and vote for politicians who make this anti-survival, illegal promise) and learn no work ethic or economic survival skills. The corollary of this false argument is ex-wife previously alleged husband worked too hard (disproved), making a family survival virtue into a legal disadvantage for the husband. Who benefits from this, and how?
      • Ex-wife claims to have "issues" with Dr. Mclean and his report recommending custody to husband.
      • Issue 1: Ex-wife disputes that she has an addictive personality and claims tranquilizer addiction is being medically dealt with, was caused by husbands abuse and the effective remedy is for the court to smite husband.
      • Issue 2: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her mother also has an addictive personality. Ex-wife admits that mother was long term addicted to Valium, requiring medical assistance. Claims Dr. Mclean has not met her mother and cannot conclude this, based on lack of evidence.
      • Issue 3: Ex-wife disputes report contention that youngest daughter suffered from delayed development, in the area of walking. Submits series of photos of youngest daughter from creeping to walking.
      • Husband: During early years, youngest daughter (a very good natured child) confined to playpen by ex-wife too much, to keep her out of ex-wife's "space", a point ex-wife and husband argued about a lot. Dr. Mclean and husband discussed this and husband is still of the opinion that this slightly delayed walking development did occur, as a consequence.
      • Issue 4: Ex-wife disputes report contention she is unconcerned (based on discussions between ex-wife and psychological team) about oldest daughter's sexualized acting out behavior. Claims she is looking for a counselor to assist. Admits she does not "believe it is possible" that husband was sexually abusing daughters.
      • Husband: When it comes to fathers and daughters, he is guilty of being a sexual abuser until proven innocent. Dealing with professionals in this area was like the Spanish Inquisition, they (especially females) appeared to husband as a bunch of anally retentive perverts who saw everything only in terms of predatory males and innocent young girls to protect, all of course, at very high, state funded wages. The truth is, that sexual (or any) abuse of children has highly visible effects that are immediately recognized by caring family friends, teachers, and neighbors. The reason abuse is so prevalent is that anyone who reports it is immediately sucked into a bureaucratic quagmire, legal liability issues and major hassle, reducing the likelihood of reporting it, increasing work for those who pretend to care and have have seized a monopoly in dealing with this and other social problems. This makes social problems far worse, since problem solvers in monopoly positions realized long ago that solved problems equals loss of income and it is far more prifitable to pretend to be solving problems while actually making them worse.
      • Issue 5: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her disciplinary (lack of) and parenting methods are to the detriment of the children's proper development. Claims to have started a task list and that it is husband who is lax in the area of discipline (contradicting her previous allegations that husband is a "harsh disciplinarian"
      • Issue 6: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's comment that husband may have difficulty seeing any positive role that ex-wife can play in the children's lives and claims (LIES) that Dr. Mclean does not deal with this issue in his conclusions.
      • Husband: Dr. Mclean does deal with this and states that once ex-wife cleans up her act, deals with her addictions and other issues and actually behaves in a positive manner and is capable of playing a viable role, that husband may be more supportative of ex-wife's parental role.
      • Issue 7: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's observation that husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females and yet does not explain how this may affect young daughters under his care.
      • Issue 8: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean not addressing effect of husband's alleged "harsh disciplinary" measures on daughters, contradicting her allegation above that husband has become lax in discipline.
      • Issue 9: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating the children have no parental preference and states that daughter's, when asked, tell her that they want to live with mother. Presents a "love her mom" note from daughter's school work as evidence. Claims daughters have closer bond with her than father.
      • Issue 10: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating that one of husbands battery of personality tests came back as "invalid", a possible indication of defensiveness and did not address how this may affect the children.
      • Issue 11: Ex-wife claims that Dr. McLean is lying when he states the amount and period of alcohol consumption reported by her when asked. Ex-wife claims that she answered the alcohol consumption question with "I don't know"

      Dr. Selwyn Smith's Response To Report (November 21, 1994)

      • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
      • Claims to have reveiwed the custody assessment report of Dr. Mclean.
      • Disputes Dr. Mclean's conclusion that ex-wife is an addict
      • Reiterates that ex-wife has been under overwhelming stress due to her "abusive" husband who has made rape and other threats, neccessitating ex-wife to call police twice.
      • Adds that ex-wife's stress further compounded by children's behavioral difficulties and a very messy untrained dog.
      • Note: Dr. Mclean observed ex-wife's ineptness and inability to deal with her daughters here. Note also that none of ex-wife's submissions make any mention of having to deal with, or even admitting that daughters had behavioral difficulties, although, ex-wife did allege that husband was having difficulties and that she had to calm children down after husband consistently upset them during his access time. Note also, the dog was a litter of untrained puppies which ex-wife refused to keep outside in the yard, preferring instead to attribute puppy mess to husband's irresponsibility, in photographic splendour.
      • States that ex-wife used tranquilizers slightly more than prescribed. Makes no mention of ex-wife going into withdrawl or becoming addicted to tranquilizers, as concluded by Dr. Mclean, based on his personal observations and hearing ex-wife's description of withdrawl. Ex-wife also admits she became addicted in her affidavit.
      • Claims that tranquilizers can be withdrawn at end of custody proceedings, implying that they are required to deal with the conflict.
      • Claims that ex-wife has no need of addiction assessment or medical referral.
      • Claims that ex-wife has a number of significant issues (unstated what) in her background which require further assistance, but pointless to explore until the conflict is over.
      • Claims ex-wife is on a managed reduction schedule for tranquilizers.
      • Claims ex-wife has not consumed nor abused alcohol since coming under his care (April 22, 1994).
      • Husband: This is a LIE. Dr. Smith states in his previous "expert opinion" (June 20, 1994) that "her (ex-wife, alcohol) intake hs been reduced considerably. Currently she consumes (ie; claims to) approximately one glass of wine with meals."
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands mental health, due to invalid MMPI results.
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands general negative bias in his perceptions of females and effect on daughters.
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands acceptance of viable role for mother in children's lives.
      • States that he does not feel Dr. Mclean has justified his recommendation of husband as custodial parent.
      • Speculates that, in the absence of Dr. McLeans alleged addiction conclusions, custody may well be recommended for mother.
      • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
      • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGEOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.

    Affidavit of Diane Nicol regarding ex-wifes alcholism, irresponsibility and child neglect (January 19, 1996)

    • Affidavit of Diane Nicol
    • An acquaintance, used Ex-wife's daycare services in past, previously provided positive affidavit, alleging husbands alcholism and negligent parent claims against ex-wife ridiculous.
    • Attempted to help ex-wife by allowing her and Ross daughters to live with Diane from Decenber 1994 to June 1995 inclusive.
    • Diane initially believed ex-wife and was hostile to "abusive" husband.
    • Diane recounts by first hand experience that her life and family was extremely disrupted by ex-wife's alcholism, irresponsibility, disinterest in and neglect of Ross daughters.
    • Retracts her previous affidavit and cronicles, from personal experience all that husband and his witnesses allege and, the courts denied.
    • Diane was morally compelled to call Child Protection Services on April 13, 1995 to protect daughters from ex-wife.
    • Diane subsequently approached husband and insisted on providing husband this affidavit. Note the date of this affidavit. It is in the future and thus, could not have been considered in 1994.

    Affidavit of Dianna Drynan the closest person to a friend ex-wife would tolerate (October 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Dianna Drynan
    • Met ex-wife in 1985 at same party as husband did
    • Visited with family at least once a month from prior to marriage through entire marriage, often staying overnight. Observations current, to present
    • Likes ex-wife and wants to help her. Claims to be the closest person to a friend ex-wife has, to the best of her knowledge.
    • States that she never has and never will have any relationship apart from friends with husband.
    • States she has tried, ever since she met ex-wife to be her friend, but ex-wife unwilling to communicate openly.
    • States it was her that lent ex-wife the money to buy a car (May 1994), after marriage failed.
    • States she has tried and wants to be there for ex-wife as a friend, since ex-wife has no one she is close to.
    • States that ex-wife is unwilling/unable to honestly be open with herself, husband, Dianna or anyone.
    • States that ex-wife is unwilling/unable face the reality of her life and family.
    • Is well aware that ex-wife will view this statement as a sign of betrayal, leaving her all alone, with no one to talk to. Believes no other choice, ex-wife's and children's best interests can only be served by having the truth come out and ex-wife dealing with it.
    • It is now clear that ex-wife will never talk openly with her, since Dianna knows too much of the truth ex-wife is trying so desperately to avoid.
    • Claims another motivation for this statement is to counter ex-wife's lies, accusations of abuse and control she is making against husband. States that this is the exact opposite of what she has observed during the entire marriage.
    • Claims that husband is a reasonable person and that he and his children have done nothing to deserve the hell the family is experiencing.
    • Claims that, by her observations the relationship was characterized by verbal abuse and hostility (especially when drinking) on ex-wife's part versus blind love, giving in and reasonableness on husbands part. In general, husband was dominated, used and abused by ex-wife.
    • Describes ex-wife as refusing to contribute and consistently worked against all of husbands goals and efforts on behalf of the family.
    • Has never observed ex-wife make a compromise or attempt to work on the relationship or deal with her problems. Claims that it was always husband giving in to ex-wife's demands, verbal and non-verbal hostility, withdrawal and coldness.
    • Claims that ex-wife confided to Dianna early in the marriage that she could get husband to do anything for her, just by using sex..
    • Claims that ex-wife would go out of her way to be mean and selfish with husband. Provides example.
    • Recounts evening in 1989 when husband and her partner surprised her and ex-wife with a limo and one of those "once in a lifetime" romantic experiences. Describes how ex-wife consumed alcohol to excess, completely ruined the evening by her abuse of husband and concludes "I have never seen a meaner, more ungrateful display from anyone in my life"
    • Recounts similar evening in 1990 when went out to the opera and ex-wife did the same, but this time ex-wife's goal was to get husband to buy her a fur coat like one she had borrowed, which he was refusing for financial reasons.
    • Claims that after evening above, Dianna challenged ex-wife on her treatment of husband over the coat. Ex-wife considered lack of a fur coat as an indication that husband does not love her. Ex-wife and Dianna had a falling out over this.
    • Claims that this is consistently the method that ex-wife uses to achieve what she demands: Ex-wife just abuses and makes people miserable until they give in. Claims that she observed the exact same abuse until ex-wife got husband to agree to major renovations which they definitely could not afford and husband was adamantly opposed to.
    • Claims that Dianna and her partner sometimes found it very embarrassing to be out with or visiting the Rosses, due to ex-wife's abuse of husband.
    • Claims that at Christmas 1992, husband asked Dianna to help him pick out gifts for ex-wife and husband was very particular, it took two shopping outings. At Christmas, ex-wife didn't like the gifts and insisted they take them back and get something better. States that ex-wife very ungrateful, but exchanged gifts and husband always generous to ex-wife for Christmas and birthdays.
    • Claims that during relationship, husband did his best to give ex-wife what she asked, if he could.
    • Claims that whenever she visited, ex-wife was always verbally abusive to husband, in front of the children, especially after her first drink. Ex-wife often called husband a "no good, stupid, cheap asshole"
    • Claims that Ex-wife always insisted on often going out to expensive restaurants they could not afford, until two years ago, at which point husband refused since they could not afford it and stuck to his position.
    • Claims that in September 1994, ex-wife confided that she had never loved her husband.
    • Claims that Dianna his consistently failed and met denial when trying to communicate with ex-wife in any area of reality and that ex-wife refuses to discuss anything or see that different perspectives than her own may have any validity.
    • Claims that from her observations, it has been husband who does all child related activities and is the principal caregiver while ex-wife pretends to be busy with other housework which she does very slowly and drags out, taking many rum and smoke breaks.
    • States that ex-wife uses the illusion that she is busy doing cooking or cleaning to shift complete care of the children to husband, except that ex-wife does feed the children.
    • States that ex-wife refused to participate in any of the children's activities, provides a very long list of activities husband did with children.
    • States that ex-wife did not even communicate with her daughters except to tell them to eat or to stay out of her "space".
    • Has never observed ex-wife being affectionate with her daughters, have them on her lap or give them a goodnight kiss although husband does.
    • States that ex-wife did do some of the organizing and shopping for the children, but it was up to husband to do all of the work.
    • States that Dianna could never convince ex-wife to go anywhere, for any activity with the children and that it was always husband who came with her and her son for activities.
    • States that when ex-wife around children, ex-wife was very particular about nap and bedtime schedules. If the children were out with husband, schedule did not seem to matter to ex-wife.
    • States that her seven year old son does not like the way ex-wife treats him. States that ex-wife made children eat alone in other room, while adults ate later. States that ex-wife was always rapping the children on their heads and telling them to eat. States that ex-wife called herself "the wicked witch of the west"
    • States that she and her son did not like it when the Ross children visited their home, due to their lack of respect, lack of discipline, destructiveness and unruliness.
    • States that ex-wife locked the children (her own and daycare) in their room during naptime and when they misbehaved.
    • Recounts spouses reactions to oldest daughters psychological evaluation: Ex-wife relieved that daughter did not have ADS, was fine and had no problems. Husband devastated regarding daughters social and attention problems and begged Dianna to influence ex-wife to cooperate for daughters sake. Dianna talked to daughters teacher and ex-wife who still saw no problem and refused to attend a joint meeting with husband and psychologist. Ex-wife agreed once it was pointed out how bad her non-cooperation would look. Meeting took place, but no followup.
    • States Dianna tried to talk to ex-wife regarding the importance of cooperating with husband for children's sake. Ex-wife replied "It is a good idea to inform husband about what is happening to the children".
    • States that during first two years of marriage, both parents negligent, always arguing about who would change diapers, etc. Both appeared to want to get out of dealing with the kids.
    • States that whenever she was there husband would have total responsibility for the children and share his time between company and children.
    • States that over the years, husband has vastly improved as a parent and treats his daughters as little people and cares for their needs and is patient with them.
    • States that ex-wife's parenting has not improved at all and ex-wife remains selfish, lazy and neglectful of the children's non-physical needs. States she has never observed ex-wife exhibit patience or tolerance for her children.
    • States that when ex-wife decided to have a second child, Dianna was shocked because it is obvious that ex-wife has no patience for children and she told ex-wife this. Why would she want another?
    • States that Dianna was just as shocked, for the same lack of patience for children reason when ex-wife wanted to start a daycare. States that Dianna told ex-wife that she thought it was a way for ex-wife to avoid working and ex-wife admitted it was true.
    • States that ex-wife is lazy and does not want to work.
    • States that during daycare, ex-wife did no activities with the children. There were no walks or any involvement of ex-wife with children except feeding and safety.
    • States that on some occasions that Dianna took the children to the park and ex-wife refused to come, preferring to stay home and drink rum under the pretext she had to make dinner.
    • States that Dianna has never observed ex-wife discipline or have any expectations of her daughters except to tell them to eat and stay out of her "space".
    • States that she has observed many arguments between the spouses regarding ex-wife's debt, spending and lack of partnership.
    • States that her view of husband as a person is reasonable, take it easy, nothing usually seems to bother him.
    • States that she has never observed any abusive behavior on part of husband, but notes that ex-wife certainly gave him reason with her unreasonableness and lack of compromise.
    • States that husband is firm, gentle and kind with his daughters and has more expectations from the children than ex-wife, who has none.
    • States that ex-wife has confided in her that ex-wife hates her job and considers it beneath her.
    • States that ex-wife would rarely agree to go out with anyone, except to restaurants with husband to be pampered.
    • States that husband was always encouraging ex-wife to go out, make some friends and "get a life". States that husband often encouraged Dianna to go out with ex-wife and make some friends.
    • Describes ex-wife as very anti-social, always saying "I need my space". Describes ex-wife as always going off alone to another room to drink rum and that the children were not even allowed in the same room as ex-wife.
    • Describes ex-wife as very lazy, never wanting to do any work. Describes when Dianna and her partner came over to help with renovations and ex-wife insisted they bring a sitter "so we can all work". Describes ex-wife pretending to make dinner, sitting outside having rum and smoke breaks every few minutes while adults worked. States it was the same for housework in general, except cooking and cleaning. Husband did everything, including all child related activities, while ex-wife lazy, pretending to be busy.
    • States that husband did most of the work and ex-wife would appear near the end, do some minor finishing touch and then claim she did it all. States that when ex-wife challenged on this, she becomes unwilling to communicate. States that husband reciprocated for their renovation help, but ex-wife refused.
    • Describes what happens when Dianna tries to talk to ex-wife realistically, on any topic. Ex-wife tries to evade the issue or change the topic. If ex-wife's evasions are unsuccessful, ex-wife appears to be about to cry, her voice cracks and she starts to shake. As soon as topic changes, ex-wife recovers immediately. This issue evading response on part of ex-wife is concluded to be fake by Dianna.
    • States that ex-wife refuses to communicate on any topic where there may be disagreement and that ex-wife has a blind spot for any views but her own.
    • States she has never observed ex-wife go out of her way for anybody, including her own children due to being self-centered and selfish.
    • States that when ex-wife drunk (always) she went out of her way to be mean to husband. Ex-wife's arguments were emotional, in terms of character assaults on husband. Has never seen husband emotionally angry with ex-wife, husband used reason, and a lets work it out manner, which infuriated ex-wife even more.
    • Dianna has never seen ex-wife treat either husband or the children with love. Ex-wife has two methods of dealing with husband, either demanding or demeaning. Whenever Dianna talked to ex-wife about husband, ex-wife always spoke about husband in terms of how she needed things and how it was up to him to provide them.
    • States that ex-wife did not care whether the children were present or not. Ex-wife would just "fly off the handle at husband with no apparent provocation", whether the children were present or not. It was usually not clear to Dianna what ex-wife's issue or point was.
    • States that ex-wife was definitely well looked after, but not with husbands approval. Ex-wife made husband give her half of his overtime money when he had to work and her debt with nothing to show for it, makes it even worse.
    • Dianna did not know how much ex-wife drank until 1986 when she followed ex-wife to the kitchen many times and observed ex-wife making double rum and cokes each time. States that ex-wife holds her alcohol really well.
    • States that when she went to restaurants with spouses, her and her spouse never wanted to split the bill due to ex-wife's excessive alcohol purchases (4 to 5 double rums, sometimes more).
    • States that Dianna visited the daycare unexpectedly three times, in the late morning. Ex-wife already had a rum and coke on the go and immediately poured another when done.
    • Describes, often when stayed for dinner, ex-wife would sometimes serve dinner, be unable to eat and go up to bed, intoxicated. Other times, ex-wife would pass out in her chair, intoxicated, in the middle of dinner. States the first time this happened was shortly after the wedding.
    • Recounts incident in January 1991 when ex-wife called her up and stated "that bastard dumped all my rum down the sink" and ex-wife demanded that Dianna deliver alcohol to her, as a birthday present, which she foolishly did. Describes a typical alcohol/daycare day and verbal abuse when husband got home from work.
    • States that during marriage, husband asked her many times to try to talk some financial sense into ex-wife, and Dianna tried and failed, since ex-wife would not admit her spending, demands and debt as a problem and expected husband to deal with it.
    • States that the financial relationship was very unfair, in ex-wife's favor, since husband paid for all of the big things and ex-wife only paid for groceries, children's clothing and daycare. States that husband was always sacrificing, not buying clothes for himself while ex-wife was living high and making no personal sacrifice.
    • Elaborates on ex-wife's demand that husband pay her half of any extra income he may earn, to pay her to look after her own children and to allow him to work. States that ex-wife used this money on herself, while husband used it for joint things. States that ex-wife discussed this unfair arrangement with her as early as 1989.
    • Recounts another incident in 1991 when husband again asked Dianna to talk to ex-wife about money management, since ex-wife was $9,000.00 in debt, had nothing to show for it and refused to discuss it with husband. Ex-wife stated to Dianna that things cost a lot, debt was not a problem, husband made enough to care for her, husband expected too much from her and he was cheap. In pursuing this topic, ex-wife became very cold and started shaking.
    • Again Recounts renovations and all of the heated arguments and abuse of husband until he agreed. Describes how ex-wife refused to help with the work, sitting around drinking rum and being lazy.
    • States, after marital breakdown ex-wife is not buying the quality or quantity of food she used to, nor feeding the children healthy food.
    • States, after marital breakdown ex-wife is even worse at discipline, now the children do not even have to finish their meals and candy and treats are now unlimited.
    • States, after marital breakdown that children are much better behaved when ex-wife absent.
    • Describes, after marital breakdown that Dianna babysat children while ex-wife out and tried to put some structure in the evening, to which oldest daughter responded "You're just like my dad - a slave driver".
    • Describes confrontation with ex-wife in September 1994 where Dianna blasted ex-wife on various points:
    • Issue 1: Why she wants the kids and why she thinks husband wants them. Answer: Because she loves them and husband wants to control them
    • Issue 2: That husband loves his daughters, will never give in and is prepared to lose everything.
    • Issue 3: That ex-wife will not be on easy street with any settlement.
    • Issue 4: That husband and her are saying completely opposite things and she has been caught in lies.
    • Issue 5: That the abuse and control allegations against husband are the exact opposite of Dianna's observations.
    • Issue 6: That eventually, ex-wife will have to deal with the reality of the situation
    • Issue 7: That, on present course, everything will be lost to lawyers and what happens to the children and their friends and school.
    • Issue 8: That her current financial demands of husband are unfair. Ex-wife cannot expect husband to pay all of his historical expenses (which by themselves are unfair), an extra $700.00 per month to ex-wife and for husband to somehow find money for rent and living expenses.
    • Dianna states that ex-wife's reaction to the above was that she became very cold and refused to discuss it. Dianna concluded that ex-wife is blind to the facts and not facing reality.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife is simultaneously accusing husband of being a slave driver and making the children clean the house and do chores while simultaneously trashing the home every time he is there. Both cannot be true.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife is accusing husband of stealing groceries and other stuff. She checked with her ex-spouse (husband's roommate) and is convinced this is another lie.
    • Dianna notes that she visits the marital home often and ex-wife does not appear to be doing any cleaning or housework.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife appears to be taking the children to activities and seems to have turned around compared to the marriage.
    • Dianna claims that ex-wife confided she is wearing her magic crystal for luck and reading her tarot cards every night for guidance and to figure out what to do.
    • Dianna concludes that ex-wife is lying regarding husbands abuse and control, since, if true, ex-wife would have been afraid to abuse husband or act contrary to his stated wishes and family interests as Dianna has observed during the marriage and stated herein.

    Statement by Brian Alexson friend and engineering classmate of husband (May 26, 1994)

    • Statement by Brian Alexson
    • Known ex-wife as long as husband. Met at same time.
    • Ex-wife has serious alcohol problem, some times passed out at the dinner table, during dinner.
    • Ex-wife drank double rum and cokes.
    • Ex-wife was often yelling at children to "keep out of her space"
    • It was husband who had all childcare duties when not working.
    • Worked on a project in summer 1993 with husband which ex-wife demanded a "cut" in exchange for taking over husbands childcare responsibilities.
    • While at Ross residence working for a month, ex-wife ignored and refused to take care of children so husband could work
    • Husband was constantly being interrupted to deal with children, which ex-wife refused to do.
    • Ex-wife spent weekends in bed watching TV, yelling out instructions to husband to deal with kids and refused to let them in the room with her.
    • Ex-wife was constantly demeaning and verbally abusive to husband, for entire project.
    • Have never observed ex-wife affectionate, playing with or paying attention to children.
    • Husband is the one that pays attention to children's emotional, attention and social needs.
    • Witnessed a very bad argument / verbal abuse on ex-wife's part against husband in January 1994.
    • Ex-wife always complaining husband is poor provider, an insane opinion, because their lifestyle met or exceeds his peers.
    • Very bad partnership. Ex-wife wants to be lazy, consume and be pampered, husband wants to build for his family and the future.

    Statement by Garry Hammond family friend and co-worker of husband (May 18, 1994)

    • Statement by Garry Hammond
    • Ex-wife always drank double rums and refused husbands pleas to take it easy, since she refused to share paying restaurant bills.
    • When out, ex-wife always wanted to go home early and husband always drove, due to ex-wife's inebriated state.
    • On weekends, when stayed over, ex-wife refused to get up and was husband's responsibility to feed children and organize their day.
    • Did not observe what he would call abuse, but much arguing between spouses.
    • Only interaction observed between ex-wife and children was when she fed them. Ex-wife kept children out of "her space".
    • Ex-wife very annoyed if children persisted in asking for her attention.
    • Husband did all quality interaction with children, treating them as little people and meeting their needs and taking them to activities.
    • Husband did bath and story time with children, each evening and bike rides during the day.
    • Never observed husband angry with children.

    Statement by Sherry Skater husband's common law sister (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by Sherry Skater
    • Ex-wife and Sherry got along well and confided in each other.
    • Decide bias or not yourself.
    • Ex-wife drinks to excess
    • Ex-wife demands that husband do all childcare responsibility, refused to participate
    • Ex-wife was a terrible mother, insensitive to children's needs
    • Ex-wife referred to husband as a possession providing money and security.
    • Ex-wife did not play or interact with children and pushes them away. She won't let children play in dirt "you're young ladies" or be kids.
    • Ex-wife confided she couldn't handle motherhood, which was why she drank so much alcohol.
    • Ex-wife claimed children "really get on her nerves". She blamed husband for having children and "it was his responsibility to deal with them"
    • Ex-wife confided she had bottles hidden all around house, unknown to husband. Admitted to drinking at least two 1.75 Liter bottles of rum per week.
    • Observed on weekends that ex-wife would get up in the morning and make several half rum / half coffee's, which she took to her room to drink alone.
    • Ex-wife confided that some friends were getting divorced, with similar economic circumstances. She claimed that $1000.00 per month per child was a fantastically good deal. When Sherry pointed out that it is unfair to impoverish the father, leaving him unable to care for his children, ex-wife's response was: "its the man's job to pay".

    Statement by John Ross husband's brother (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by John Ross
    • Many valid and true observations, but, assume to be biased, since is husband's brother
    • Did not like ex-wife due to verbal abuse of husband, neglect of children's emotional and social needs
    • Ex-wife is not open and acts like a prima donna, better than everyone else
    • Ex-wife would not help out, refused to be a partner and expected husband to do everything
    • Ex-wife constantly accused husband of being an asshole, with a useless career that was unable to meet her needs, and being an engineer was "beneath the dignity of quality people, such as herself"
    • Claims tried to talk some sense into husband regarding being used by ex-wife and was met with "I'm trying to be patient, win to her over to reason and also have the children to consider".
    • All arguments were started by ex-wife who used vindictive character assaults and emotional bickering, while husband stuck to the facts, which infuriated ex-wife even more.
    • Both parents attentive to children's physical needs.
    • Husband better parent because he treats girls as little people, attentive to their emotional and interaction needs. Ex-wife negligent/incompetent in this area.
    • Ex-wife expected others to relieve her of the burden of childcare (while she became inebriated) when husband not around.
    • Ex-wife really likes to drink alcohol.
  • The following individuals expressed suspicions, backed up by observations that ex-wife has chronic, long term alcohol/substance abuse problems:
  • Statement of Alan and Marion Kidd ex-wife's stepfather and his spouse (May 17, 1994)

    • Statement by Alan and Marion Kidd
    • Both very opposed to ex-wife (and supportative of husband) having custody of daughters for children's best interests by reasons/observations outlined within.
    • Husband first described to them by ex-wife as "A rich university graduate with a Corvette, whom she intended to marry", both were firmly convinced marriage was for money and status.
    • Husband has common sense and appears to think of children before self. Husband has good sense of humor and not abusive.
    • Ex-wife extremely selfish and irresponsible. Has adopted her mother's misguided, irresponsible parenting methods (expect rewards without effort) which produced ex-wife and will destroy children in the same way.
    • Ex-wife seems to have no emotional or any other connection with daughters, treats them as things, inconveniences in her life.
    • Ex-wife behaves as if she is special, better than other people, deserving and demanding of special consideration with no basis in reality.
    • Ex-wife a lavish spender, totally financially irresponsible, spending faster than husband can earn.
    • During children's early years, both parents negligent, too busy bickering and arguing. Husband's parenting has substantially improved over the years, ex-wife has not.
    • Witnessed ex-wife smoking cigarettes and consuming alcohol during both pregnancies.
    • Both strongly believe ex-wife is not mother material and strongly suspect her interest is purely child support and the house. Believe husband far better parent.
    • Both believe husbands patience, ability to communicate with children and personal responsibility values will assure good future for children. Believe ex-wife will achieve the opposite.
    • Believe that, if ex-wife achieves custody, she will drive husband out of children's lives, to their detriment (just like her mother), waste any settlement she may get and end up on social services.
    • Have observed no abuse of ex-wife, husband or children.
    • Strongly suspect ex-wife of alcohol problems for years, she always has a drink on the go. She is antisocial and goes off and drinks alone.
    • Suspect that ex-wife's claimed debt to her mother is a fabrication, since her mother is incapable of accumulating such an amount or retaining it.
  • The following individuals observed ex-wife and alcohol abuse, but not over an extended period:
  • Statement by Richard and Beth Beange contractor, spent extensive time at Ross's (May 11, 1994)

    • Statement by Richard and Beth Beange
    • Did extensive renovations at spouses home in 1991
    • Spent a month and a half plus more weekends at Ross residence. There during daycare hours.
    • Ex-wife never interacted or did activities with daycare or her own children.
    • Right after lunch (children napping) ex-wife would start drinking rum and cokes and sometimes offered to share.
    • Ex-wife and husband argued a lot.
    • At times, when over socially, ex-wife drank to excess and passed out right after dinner.
    • When not working, husband did all child activities, including taking them shopping and for their activities on the weekend.
    • They could have saved substantial renovation costs if husband had helped with renovations and ex-wife cared for the children, rather than husband.

    Statement by Garnet Ross husband's father (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by Garnet Ross
    • Many valid and true observations, but, assume to be biased, since is husband's father
    • Ex-wife treated husband with contempt, not liked by entire family for this reason.
    • Believed ex-wife was an opportunist, due to lack of respect for husband, her children, lack of partnership awareness, unreasonableness and financial irresponsibility, impoverishing her family.
    • Spent 3 day weekend with family in 1993, Ex-wife inebriated entire weekend, husband did all childcare.
    • Father made the mistake of trying to reason with ex-wife
    • Ex-wife stated "I pretend to be what men want enough to keep them happy and take what I want from them and that is how it is and should be"
    • Very concerned about granddaughters due to verbally abusive ex-wife, tense environment, alcohol abuse and ex-wife's complete lack of attending to daughters emotional and environmental needs.
    • Ex-wife completely unfit mother and unable to compromise with husband (or anyone) on any issue, including raising children in a joint custody situation.

    Affidavit of Garry Browne nephew of husband (October 14, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Garry Browne
    • Husband's nephew
    • Claims that went to matrimonial home with his brother on October 6, 1994, looking for husband, to get grandfathers camcorder
    • Claims that ex-wife asked them in and she was very intoxicated, describes ex-wife's state.
    • Claims to have gone upstairs with ex-wife to get camcorder. Oldest daughter (nephews cousin) opened her bedroom door and asked mother who was there. Ex-wife screamed "It's just your cousins...Shut up and get back to bed!"
    • Claims that daughter did not even see him or know which cousins were there and was not allowed to say hello or anything, oldest daughter crying and carrying on throughout until ex-wife went back upstairs and yelled at daughter some more.
    • Claims that ex-wife gave him a tour of the house and said "husband took everything", to which he replied "you've got the house and kids" to which she replied "not for long"
    • Claims that ex-wife desperately wanted someone to talk to, and wanted sympathy, so he stayed for another half hour and listened to all of her allegations regarding his uncle's "abuse"

    Statement by Jan Ladiges describes Halloween 1992 visit of Ross's and children (June 8, 1994)

    • Statement by Jan Ladiges
    • Describes Halloween 1992 visit of Ross's and children
    • Ex-wife refused to participate or help in child activities and very detached from everyone, missing the the whole social point of the evening
    • Ex-wife very liberal with helping herself to alcohol
    • Ex-wife expected husband to do all child stuff, including packing them up to go.

Conclusion Ex-wife IS an alcoholic, irresponsible, incompetent parent and is lying (in denial)

  • It seems pretty definitive that ex-wife admitted to Dr. McLean that she was drinking 9 to 10 ounces of alcohol per day since 1989, and he concluded from this and other stated evidence, such as consultation with the spouses marriage counselor regarding issues, that ex-wife was a chronic alcoholic, who, if anything was underestimating the amount and period of consumption. Unless it is credible to believe ex-wife that Dr. Mclean was lying (for absolutely no possible gain) and risking losing credibility for himself, The University of Ottawa and risk a very lucrative gig for himself and team?
  • Dr. Mclean also concluded ex-wife was using tranquilizers in an attempt to hide her alcoholism and, true to the addictive personality Dr. Mclean concluded that ex-wife had, rapidly became addicted to tranquilizers as well. Dr. Mclean recounts ex-wife's description of withdrawal after the pharmacist cut ex-wife off for consuming her tranquilizers too fast (Ie; abuse).
  • As well as Dr. Mclean, there is extensive witness accounts of ex-wife's alcohol abuse spanning the entire marriage.
  • Ex-wife has been unable to present a single witness who socialized regularly with the family, to dispute witness accounts, apart from her mother. Her mother chose to remain mute on the topic of alcohol. There were many witnesses who expressed shock at the alcohol allegations, but they were either very infrequent acquaintances from years ago or recent recruits, none of whom were members of the family social network.
  • Of course, Dr. Selwyn Smith disagrees. That is his job, a paid shill, to solely consider ex-wife's allegations and be a whore, discrediting his entire profession, introducing doubt. This allows lawyers to endlessly speculate and judges to have a scapegoat to pretend to blame when they are caught doing what they are biased to do in service of whomever is pulling their strings.

Abuse and Harsh Discipline: Ex-wife's alleged terror of husband, mistreatment of daughters

  • A negative (absence of a fact) cannot be proven, only positive (presence of fact) can be proven and verified.
  • On this issue, the shoe is on the other foot. Husband is now in the position of proving a negative, which is impossible. The onus is on ex-wife to prove a positive, ie; witnesses whom had actually seen abusive acts on part of husband.
  • Although these two issues were not explicitly linked in the submissions, proof that husband mistreated EITHER ex-wife or daughters can be and is used by courts as an indication of a persons "abusive" nature. Of course, this opinion is logically incorrect and absurd since it has the implication that if a person abuses one person then it is their "nature" to abuse all persons. Perhaps husband disliked ex-wife enough to "abuse" her but loved his daughters enough not to?
  • In general, assigning a "nature" to a person is flawed thinking because it implies the person is doomed to act according to their nature and completely neglects that fact that people adapt and choose according to their perception of their environment and opportunities presented. "Nature" at best, is a bias towards certain choices.
  • Establishing the veracity of husbands abuse is important for two reasons, pertaining to ex-wife's claims:
  • First: Ex-wife claims that her observed neglect of her daughters and alcoholism were reactions to husbands abuse during marriage.
  • Second: Ex-wife claims that removal of husband as a stressor was a renaissance, an instant removal of her problems (ie; the husband), allowing her to act according to her "true" nature, become a good mother and quit drinking.

Support Ex-wife's Oppose Husbands Claims

  • Dr. Selwyn Smith's "professional opinion" is that all of ex-wife's negatives are in reaction to husbands abuse, no addictions. Smith's opinions derive solely from ex-wife, thus are hearsay with an an "expert" seal of approval.
  • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith attesting to husband's abuse, ex-wife's perfection (June 20, 1994)

    • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
    • Has not met husband or children, making this report entirely hearsay, all information originates with ex-wife.
    • First seen ex-wife on April 22, 1994, seen her several times subsequently
    • Has seen Police Report "Confirmation of Domestic Occurrence" dated June 10, 1994
    • Cites TWO police reports, the second is fictional and does not exist.
    • Claims ex-wife seems to enjoy her work. Surprise to husband, ex-wife hates any work, considers it beneath her, something only lowlife's do.
    • Ex-wife claims to relate well with colleagues and superiors. Another surprise. Husband never met or heard of friends from work.
    • Claims that ex-wife is studying psychology on a part time basis at University of Waterloo. Yes, in a desultory manner. All of her educational endeavors petered out and failed. Husband forced to conclude it was not educational improvement ex-wife sought, but for ex-wife to be able to claim she was better and smarter than others, because she was in university.
    • Ex-wife has low self-esteem because brother suicided when he was 17.
    • Ex-wife describes marriage as emotionally abusive and that husband does not "trust her". Husband: for ex-wife, "trust" is a pre-requisite to ripping someone off. Been burnt too many times, so have our daughters. Trust must be earned and maintained. It was not.
    • Notes that there have been two police incidents regarding husbands "abuse".
    • Ex-wife claims marriage counseling "unhelpful" and wants divorce.
    • Ex-wife claims that husband of the opinion that they should reconcile.
    • Ex-wife on tranquilizers (Alprazolam) due to tension in home.
    • Ex-wife has in recent past, resorted to excessive quantities of alcohol, due to tension in home.
    • Ex-wife feels not in control of her life, mistreated and misused by husband and has remained in marriage due to feelings of dependency.
    • Ex-wife wants to overcome her dependency and not remain in an abusive home.
    • Claims: previously, ex-wife had hoped by remaining in marriage that further abusive incidents would not occur. Husband: This is odd, prior to filing for divorce, no "abuse" incidents reported by ex-wife. Of the "abuse" incidents subsequently reported by ex-wife, husband was not there and played no part, making these "reports" hearsay.
    • Concludes: No evidence of mental illness or depression in ex-wife.
    • Concludes: No evidence that ex-wife has alcohol problems. Previous short term problems due to anxiety and fear of husband.
    • Claims: Ex-wife has cut back on alcohol considerably and currently consumes one glass of wine with meals.
    • Concludes: Ex-wife shows no sign of stigma of alcoholism, performs social and work functions well.
    • Claims ex-wife is fearful that further assaults by husband will occur.
    • Concludes: Ex-wife has experienced physical, emotional and verbal abuse and threats from husband.
    • Concludes: Exposure of ex-wife and children to clearly hazardous presence of husband is not in their best interests.
    • Claims: ex-wife has been principle caregiver of the children and no reason she cannot continue.
    • Concludes: Ex-wife is a credible lady. She has not feigned, exaggerated or malingered any symptomology.
    • Husband: Ex-wife is excellent liar and manipulator. She convinced husband during courtship that she was honest, personally responsible, interested in partnership and working together for a good life and future. Empty words, actions speak the truth.
    • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
    • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGIOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.

    Dr. Selwyn Smith disputing Dr. Mclean's conclusions (November 21, 1994)

    • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
    • Claims to have reveiwed the custody assessment report of Dr. Mclean.
    • Disputes Dr. Mclean's conclusion that ex-wife is an addict
    • Reiterates that ex-wife has been under overwhelming stress due to her "abusive" husband who has made rape and other threats, neccessitating ex-wife to call police twice.
    • Adds that ex-wife's stress further compounded by children's behavioral difficulties and a very messy untrained dog.
    • Note: Dr. Mclean observed ex-wife's ineptness and inability to deal with her daughters here. Note also that none of ex-wife's submissions make any mention of having to deal with, or even admitting that daughters had behavioral difficulties, although, ex-wife did allege that husband was having difficulties and that she had to calm children down after husband consistently upset them during his access time. Note also, the dog was a litter of untrained puppies which ex-wife refused to keep outside in the yard, preferring instead to attribute puppy mess to husband's irresponsibility, in photographic splendour.
    • States that ex-wife used tranquilizers slightly more than prescribed. Makes no mention of ex-wife going into withdrawl or becoming addicted to tranquilizers, as concluded by Dr. Mclean, based on his personal observations and hearing ex-wife's description of withdrawl. Ex-wife also admits she became addicted in her affidavit.
    • Claims that tranquilizers can be withdrawn at end of custody proceedings, implying that they are required to deal with the conflict.
    • Claims that ex-wife has no need of addiction assessment or medical referral.
    • Claims that ex-wife has a number of significant issues (unstated what) in her background which require further assistance, but pointless to explore until the conflict is over.
    • Claims ex-wife is on a managed reduction schedule for tranquilizers.
    • Claims ex-wife has not consumed nor abused alcohol since coming under his care (April 22, 1994).
    • Husband: This is a LIE. Dr. Smith states in his previous "expert opinion" (June 20, 1994) that "her (ex-wife, alcohol) intake hs been reduced considerably. Currently she consumes (ie; claims to) approximately one glass of wine with meals."
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands mental health, due to invalid MMPI results.
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands general negative bias in his perceptions of females and effect on daughters.
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands acceptance of viable role for mother in children's lives.
    • States that he does not feel Dr. Mclean has justified his recommendation of husband as custodial parent.
    • Speculates that, in the absence of Dr. McLeans alleged addiction conclusions, custody may well be recommended for mother.
    • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
    • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGEOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.
  • The following "official sources" lend credence to ex-wife's allegations. Note that husband was not involved in these "incidents" and all information originates with ex-wife, making them hearsay. Note also, during litigation, when presenting arguments to judges, it was sufficient for ex-wife's lawyer to state "we have a police report", which judges refused to read and considered the mere existence of said report to be enough to establish husbands guilt. Since then, police response to allegations of domestic abuse has changed. The mere allegation is sufficient for the spouse (husband) to be hauled off to jail (pretext: to cool off) and a report is generated. This allows a false record of abuse to be generated and presented to courts which rule predictably and the poor slob of a husband is traumatized by "justice", deprived of his children and a slave. This is when the real "abuse" starts, for very good (self-defensive) reasons.
  • Police Report of Ex-wife Alleging physical abuse and rape threats by husband (June 8, 1994)

    • Police Report of Ex-wife's Allegations
    • Ex-wife claims to have bruises on her inner arms - no medical report
    • Ex-wife claims that husband woke her up, restrained her wrists and made repeated rape threats
    • Ex-wife claims that husband was trying to talk to her and making allegations
    • Husband: we did argue that night. Ex-wife has a habit of hitting people when they do not agree with her position and she becomes frustrated. Admits that he did restrain ex-wife by wrists, in self-defense. This was not an unusual incident, ex-wife is unable to deal with facts or reason rationally and becomes very frustrated and physically lashes out at those who do. No rape threats, this LIE was intended to push judicial hot-buttons, big bad brute husband abusing poor little innocent and helpless wife, and it is part of judges job it is to protect the weak from psychopaths such as husband.
    • Why should ex-wife not have lied? These LIES achieve major financial results and perjury is encouraged, not punished.
    • Some judges in Canada have publicly stated that, when confronted with unproven allegations of abuse, they dare not rule in favor of the alleged abuser
    • Note that these are allegarions by ex-wife against husband, her word only, no witnesses

    Security Report from Ex-wife's Employer further "evidence" of husbands abuse (June 21, 1994)

    • Security Report from Ex-wife's Employer
    • Alleges that she was at home with husband who had just left
    • Alleges that had heated argument with husband over her refusal to sign some papers
    • Alleges that husband had threatened to camp out at her work to get her signature
    • Alleges she was afraid of husband and wanted security escort from car to office
    • Security states no problems or sightings of the perp.
    • Report states this is the 2nd occurance and refers to another report dated June 12, 1994.
    • Husband: Did have argument, ex-wife was delaying and refusing to sign over automobile ownership as she had promised, messing up husbands insurance company terms.
    • Husband: Ex-wife knows that broken promises, breach of trust and evasions by her was major hot button for husband
    • Husband: Unaware and not privy to any second "incident" Second report not submitted to court.
    • Husband: Ex-wife was deliberately delaying, just to provoke husband and admitted it during argument
    • Husband: Ex-wife was taunting during this and other arguments, "hit me, I dare you"
    • Husband: Ex-wife claimed she had ownership at work and asked him to meet here there. Husband had enough crap from ex-wife that day and chose to send fax instead. This fax was later used by ex-wife as evidence of husbands abusive and demanding nature.
    • Husband: This was a trap, set by ex-wife, for him to meet her at work, simultaneously placing security guards on hair-trigger alert for her abusive perp of a husband.
    • Husband: If not fed up with ex-wife's crap, would have unwittingly stepped into this trap. Unpredictable what would have happened if husband jumped by security for no reason.
    • Husband: Exactly why would husband be stupid enough to confront ex-wife at work, to try to force his will on her in front of witnesses when he already had her alone, at his mercy, at home, without witnesses? If husband was intent on using force, best choice would have been at home, making it a he said/she said issue to be sorted out, with no third party reports.
  • The following individuals have made statements that can be interpreted to support ex-wife's allegations regarding husbands "abusive" nature. None had regular social contact with family and none had recent contact, and their opinions were several years old:
  • Jacqueline Bonnar - Alleges to have regularly heard fights, claims that ex-wife confided that husband threatened to leave her "penniless and without daughters", considers husband "controlling and opinionated, with a superiority complex".
  • Affidavit of Jacqueline Bonnar ex tenant and neighbor of Rosses (June 20, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Jacqueline Bonnar
    • Lived in duplex next door from Ross's for one year, moved out in September 1992. Opinion two years old.
    • Claims to have heard fights through the walls (one foot thick, impossible) between Rosses's, on a weekly basis.
    • Husband: Not denying that fights occurred, on a regular basis. Ex-wife's irresponsibility was destroying family ability to survive. If survival threatened, fight or die. That's reality. If husband did not fight, courts would have claimed it was evidence of husband not caring for children as opposed to interperting it as spousal "abuse". It is a no win situation when judges are able to treat interpretation as FACT, in support of whatever agenda they may have.
    • Claims that ex-wife confided that husband was threatening to leave her and take the children, leaving ex-wife penniless.
    • Believes husband is very opinionated, controlling man who believes himself superior, making relationships difficult.
    • Believes any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol problems to be ridiculous.
    • Believes that having to deal with husband would drive many to drink.
    • Disputes and considers ridiculous any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol problems
    • Claims that ex-wife is excellent mother.
    • Claims that ex-wife did the bulk of childcare activities, husband occasionally participated.
    • Admits that husband is a good father and spends quality time with children.
    • Husband: Jacqueline was not around much and worked days, not present during daycare hours.
    • Husband: Ex-wife did not socialize with tenants, since ex-wife was lady of the manor and they were inferior serfs, in her opinion.
    • Husband: Later, after ex-wife managed to use the courts to kick husband out, she did become friends with one female tenant, mainly because tenant was friendly, liked children and was some one that ex-wife could "dump" the children on.
    • Husband: Jacqueline and husband were in a rental dispute, email records available, leaving Jacqueline bitter and biased against husband.
  • Kathy Sainthill - Claims to have witnessed husband's "harsh" punishment of older daughter. Claims to have heard husband say "I'm a man, I'm an engineer, I've been around the world, what have you done?" to dismiss ex-wife's opinion on a minor matter as "irrelevant".
  • Affidavit of Kathy Sainthill acquaintance of ex-wife (November 18, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Kathy Sainthill
    • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1976, visited often at marital home during this period.
    • Husband: Finally, a person he actually knows. Met Kathy S. at the same party that ex-wife came to and never left. During the early years of the marriage, ex-wife went out with Kathy socially at most once per year and Kathy and her partner came over for dinner at most three times. During the latter three years of the marriage, ex-wife and Kathy were estranged due to a major difference of opinion. Claims to be a friend, but actually an acquaintance with limited insight.
    • Claims ex-wife to be an excellent mother and teacher, focused with her children.
    • Claims that ex-wife does discipline daughters by discussion and "time out".
    • Claims that she witnessed husband's harsh punishment by removing all of daughters possessions from room for a minor infraction and then making her earn them back by good behavior.
    • Husband: Kathy S. was not present for this "incident" of husbands "child abuse".
    • Claims that ex-wife is a very open, forthright individual, contrasts to husband as controlling and manipulative individual.
    • Recounts phone call from husband in the spring (ie; at time of divorce initiation) where husband told her that ex-wife was drinking a lot and needed a friend. Interprets goal of husband to be manipulative, an attempt to hurt ex-wife. States that husband called several more times asking her to be ex-wife's friend and help her. States that she advised ex-wife to get a lawyer.
    • Husband: Did call Kathy S. ex-wife needed a friend and was committed to a course that would hurt our children, myself and ex-wife very badly, and was beyond anyone's but her flakey mother's, corrupt lawyer's and corrupt shrink's influence. Kathy S. at this time must have been aware that divorce had started and would not have advised ex-wife to get a lawyer. Even so, it was very bad advice, as subsequent events have shown.
    • Husband: This is a typical manipulative absurdity. There were problems, husband is a problem solver and took real steps such as hoping that an old acquaintance may be able to help stabilize ex-wife, to provide some balance. To have this interpreted, or even to think that this act could be part of some Machiavellian plot on part of husband to hurt ex-wife is non-rational. If the intent was hurt, the best strategy on husbands part would have been to isolate ex-wife, deny her social support and weaken her, prior to moving in for the kill (ie; do what the law tried and failed to do to husband). This act was intended to help ex-wife and Kathy S. did not even try and failed miserably both to be the friend she claims to be and as a human being who are morally obligated to try to assist others in times of distress.
    • Alleges she witnessed a minor dispute between husband and ex-wife, where husband dismissed ex-wife's opinion by: "I'm a man, I'm and engineer, I've been around the world, what have you done?". Paraphrased: The arrogant, insensitive brute of a man and poor little ex-wifey, denied any respect.
    • Alleges she witnessed another incident where husband refused to change diapers: "Don't try to stuff that off on me, ...don't think you can get away with that in front of your friends".
    • Is "shocked" by any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol difficulties that may interfere with her parenting.
    • Considers it to be "incomprehensible" that custody has been recommended to brute of a husband. Wonders what misinformation this can be based on.
  • Marguerite Day - Ex-wife's mother. Claims that husband considers ex-wife and daughters as "property". Claims husband inept at communication, does not listen to opinions of others, considers them idiots. Claims that husband strict, demands unquestioning obedience and discipline equals severe punishment and everyone must be controlled. Claims that husbands punishments are erratic, imposed without forethought. Claims that husband teaching children mistrust and competition. Claims husband does not understand cooperation. Claims husband lacks organizational skills. After this spiel, recommends that husband have "maximal contact with daughters". Go Figure.
  • Affidavit of Marguerite Day ex-wife's mother (June 17, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Marguerite Day
    • Claims to see children more than anyone else, except for parents
    • Claims ex-wife is organized, efficient, dependable and manages all aspects of the children's dietary, health, clothing and social needs.
    • Claims ex-wife is focussed on the reward, rather than punishment aspects of disipline
    • Claims that ex-wife "faciliatates" children's attendance at their activities. Meaning, someone else (husband) takes them.
    • Claims that ex-wife teaches children co-operative, rather than competetive methods of solving disputes
    • Husband: How can someone teach skills they do not have. Marriage failed die to lack of co-operation or reason. See what ex-wife's sisters said in this area.
    • Claims ex-wife has earned the children's trust and love is evident.
    • Claims husband unsuitable parent because he regards children and ex-wife as possessions, which is unhealthy for them.
    • Claims husband is inept at communication. does not listen to the opinions of others.
    • Claims husband regards his opinion as fact and all dissenting opinions as mistakes in the judgment of others.
    • Claims husband demands strict, unquestioning obedience and that disipline equals punishment.
    • Claims husband imposes severe, non-negotiable punishments on his children.
    • Claims husband's punishments are erratic, imposed without forethought and confuse the children who do not know what to expect from him.
    • Claims husband is teaching children to mistrust everyone, including each other and even questions whether they are cheating at games. Unwittingly admits that husband actually plays games with his daughters
    • Claims husband is teaching children to be overly competetive with each other and other people.
    • Claims husband does not understand the concept of co-operation
    • Claims husband treats children as if they must be controlled.
    • Claims husband lacks the organizational skills, consistency, dedication and focus required to manage a family in a short or long term.
    • Claims, despite her opinions indicating father bad, that children should spend as much time as their father as possible.
    • Husband: This is all opinion, with no examples, from a woman who is just as flakey as her daughter, her creation.
    • Husband: This woman knew full well that her daughter was incapable of parenting and was privy to many alcohol and personal responsibility related disputes of the spouses during the entire marriage, to which she advised husband that he was interfering in ex-wife's "freedom" and being "intolerant" by having alcohol issues. Mother stood to financially benefit from child support when her daughter's affairs fell apart due to mismanagement and ex-wife inevitably came running home again. This is exactly what happened.
    • Note that she does not mention her daughter with respect to alcohol.
    • Husband: do appreciate the fact that this woman insulated his daughters from some of the the worse effects of their mother's alcoholism and irresponsibility, in the early years before children matured enough to choose survival and live full time with father.
  • The following individuals were recent recruits, once litigation started and have no pre-separation experience, opinions formed recently:
  • Most of these individuals regurgitated ex-wife's abuse and/or "harsh" allegations, but had no personal experience to recount (hearsay). For this reason, they have been moved to the neutral category.
  • Lisa Kennedy, Marlon Kennedy, Nancy Campbell, Victoria Ruitter, Kathy Nihei

Neutral or No Opinion regarding husbands abuse

  • The following individuals expressed no opinion regarding husband and "abuse" of ex-wife or "harsh discipline" of children:
  • Diane Nicol, Donna Clement, Susan Perry, Lorene Rolfe, Bernard Wilson, Richard + Beth Beange, Garry Hammond, Jan Ladiges
  • The following individuals regurgitated ex-wife's abuse and/or "harsh" allegations, but had no personal experience to recount (hearsay).
  • Carol Taylor
  • The following individuals were recent recruits, once litigation started and have no pre-separation experience, opinions formed recently (hearsay):
  • Lisa Kennedy, Marlon Kennedy, Nancy Campbell, Victoria Ruitter, Kathy Nihei

Support Husband's Oppose Ex-wife's Claims

  • The following professionals researched all issues and made no comment regarding ex-wife's abuse allegations, which, since they pertain to the "children's best interests" which was thoroughly investigated and custody recommended to husband, can only be interpreted as "ex-wife is either lying or misperceiving":
  • One conclusion, "ex-wife is prone to misperception and emotional thinking":
  • Another conclusion, "ex-wife's parental philosophy and lack of discipline is NOT in the children's best interests":
  • Family Court Clinic Report recommending custody to father (November 16, 1994)

      University of Ottawa Family Court Clinic

      • Family Court Clinic
      • Multidisciplinary team of forensic psychiatrists, headed by Dr. David Mclean.
      • The purpose of this investigative unit is to objectively consider issues pertaining to the intersection of psychiatry, law and children's best interests.
      • Services were agreed to and paid for by both parties, to insure unbiased results.
      • This clinic is the premier institution of its type in the region, with the best reputation for objectivity and accuracy.
    • Family Court Clinic Report
    • Custody recommended to father (Page 27).
    • Addiction treatment and psychiatric help recommended for mother (Page 27).
    • McLean Report Overview

      • Counseling help recommended for father to help deal with his hurt and to provide support (Page 27).
      • Ex-wife admits that violence was not an issue during the marriage. Admits that she would hit husband out of frustration and he would simply leave. Husband admits that when ex-wife hit him, he would just restrain her wrists in self-defense. Ex-wife repeats rape threat allegation she made to police against husband in June 1994 as now happening during marriage, as opposed to after separation (Page 5)
      • Marriage counseling since 1992, issues centered around control, finances and ex-wife's drinking. Counselor under the impression that ex-wife may have felt emotionally abused (implied, but not stated: by husband's issues with her irresponsibility and drinking) (Page 5).
      • Ex-wife caught in a lie by Dr. Mclean about her daily consumption of tranquilizers. Pharmacist cuts her off for abuse. Dr. Mclean recounts ex-wife's description of going into withdrawal with "shakes, fears and lightheadedness" (Page 7).
      • Ex-wife admits to drinking 9 to 10 ounces of alcohol per day. Ex-wife claims that her drinking started in January 1989, after birth of second daughter. Ex-wife claims to have cut back on drinking in April 1994, once she became aware husband was measuring her consumption. Ex-wife claims that she can be a controlled drinker and thus is in denial that there is a problem. Dr. Mclean concurs with husbands opinion that ex-wife is on tranquilizers to try to hide alcoholism (Page 8).
      • Ex-wife prone to emotional thinking and misperceiving situations. Ex-wife has considerable anger which she has trouble expressing and may project on other people. Ex-wife can be somewhat naive and self-centered, with a need to view herself positively. Ex-wife tends to be indirect and manipulative in meeting her needs. Ex-wife has difficulties in intimate and long term relationships due to immaturity and self-centerdness. No sign of any mental illness in ex-wife (Page 9)
      • Dr. Mclean describes disastrous one on one encounter between ex-wife and children, where ex-wife had no clue how to deal with them, from which he later concludes no meaningful interaction between ex-wife and daughters for at least several years (Page 10).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife has serious alcohol and/or drug addiction problems, which, if anything, she is downplaying the amount and period of consumption and does not admit it as a problem. Dr. Mclean concludes that primary focus in ex-wife's life at this time must be dealing with her addictions and would be happy to make a professional referral (Page 10).
      • Dr. McLean concludes that ex-wife's alcoholism has negatively affected her parenting and nurturing her daughters for at least the last several years (Page 10).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife's "free spirit" and lack of structure approach to parenting is not in children's best interests (Page 11).
      • Husbands natural mother is in long term care for schizophrenia and has been since husband very young (Page 11).
      • In discussing husbands childhood, husband indicated he associated with the "thinking crowd" and described himself as the "class delinquent" (Page 11).
      • Husband left home at age 16 and worked way through high school (Page 11).
      • Husband quit college electronics course because it was "far too easy" (Page 11)
      • Husband enrolled in University of Waterloo, Electronics Engineering, but failed third year due to frustrated "love" (Page 12).
      • Husband spent several years working in Africa and California, then returned to complete Engineering Degree (Page 12).
      • Husband moved to Ottawa to work for Norpak and was soon promoted to project leader (Page 12)
      • In 1985, husband moved to Nortel to date and keeps refusing management positions, since he is "happier that way" and has no intention of leaving current employment. (Page 12)
      • Dr. Mclean describes husband as down-to-earth and one "who tells it like it is" (Page 12).
      • Husband describes step-mother and acknowledges debt to her for not protecting him from bullies, forcing him to learn how to defend himself (Page 13)
      • Husband describes childhood with no one to intelligently answer his questions, making him feel stupid (Page 13)
      • Husband admits that, in rebellious teens he had minor difficulties with the law including impaired and several drunk and disorderlys (Page 14).
      • Dr. Mclean describes results of one of husbands personality tests (MMPI) as invalid, "characteristic of people who have an almost pathological intense need to present a perfectionist view of themselves" (Page 14).
      • Dr. Mclean elaborates on invalid test: "They are naively defensive and may use considerable repression to maintain their self-image. They may also be rigorously moralistic and self-rightous in a way which could be uncompromising." (Page 14)
      • Husbands profile was suggested to reflect a conventional and controlled man who can be self-centered, immature and manipulative in his relationships (Page 14).
      • Husband is likely to be hard working, achievement oriented, practical and easy-going in many aspects of his life. He is also likely to be friendly and outgoing in relationships (Page 14).
      • Husband does not show an above average potential to be an abusive parent. Responses did indicate unhappiness in relationships and lack of emotional support (Page 14).
      • Husband is able to express warmth and a good range of emotions. Husband appears to have a general negative bias coloring his perception of females (Page 15).
      • While major psychopathology cannot be ruled out because of husband's invalid MMPI test results, husband did present as a generally well functioning person whose authoritarian tenancies are exacerbated by the current conflict situation.
      • Dr. Mclean suggests that husband step back psychologically and consider his own contributions to family problems (unstated what they may be) (Page 15)
      • Dr. Mclean describes one on one interaction between daughters and father. Both daughters appeared comfortable, relaxed and far less aggressive than with mother. Father appears to have the skills to deal with his daughters behavior in a positive manner (Page 15).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband suffers from no major psychiatric illness, but is showing some stress of conflict related symptomology which is expected to dissipate, once matters are resolved (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband perceives ex-wife as the one to blame, or, the guilty party. Husband and ex-wife's personalities are so different that they tend to confuse each other (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that while under considerable stress, husband does have far more in the way of resources to deal with the demands. Husband certainly demonstrated better resources and skills than mother in dealing with his daughters at the clinic (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband would be open to any straightforward parenting suggestions and that husband was more nurturing with his daughters when observed in interaction. (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean has concerns about how husbands tenancy to paint things black and white extends to the potential role he could see the mother playing with the girls (Page 16).
      • Husband admits, that for first two years of oldest daughter's life he was "not the best father" (Page 17).
      • Ex-wife admits that sexual abuse of daughters "not possible" (Page 18).
      • Ex-wife admits that she is more of a "screamer" for discipline, while husband more in control (Page 19).
      • Ex-wife states that back and forth's under consent agreement going "relatively well" and then swears in Affidavit to court that husband has been very disruptive, conflictual and she is in terror and needs protection from him (Page 20).
      • Oldest daughter is noted to have very good intellectual resources (Page 20).
      • Oldest daughter notes that if she had a lot of money, she would live in a tree house (father built one), with no adults, just kids (Page 21).
      • Oldest daughter, when asked who she wanted to live with, stated "Mommy, because she buys them popsicles" (Page 21).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that oldest daughters stated preference to live with her mother is not based on any reasons that are in her long term best interests. (Page 22).
      • Dr. Mclean recommends that oldest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 22).
      • Husband and ex-wife disagree regarding youngest daughter's motor development. Ex-wife states normal, husband states delayed because of being kept in the playpen too much.(Page 22).
      • Youngest daughter states she wants to live with both parents in Dunrobin and, when asked to choose one said "mother" because father was bad and took mothers bed (Page 24).
      • Youngest daughter, when asked who loves her the most said father, then changed to mother and then back to father (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean is surprised, given that mother spent most time caring for youngest daughter while running a daycare, that youngest daughter does not have a strong preference for her mother. Speculates may be an indication that husband has been the one spending time with his daughters (Page 25).
      • Husband was more aware of and concerned by youngest daughter issues (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean recommends that youngest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean summarizes discussions with spouses regarding access arrangements . (Page 25).

      Husband's Response To Report

      • Despite the fact that Dr. Mclean agreed with the facts and husband, still have major misgivings regarding the intellectual validity of the psychiatric profession in general. This profession appears to be in strategic denial of the basic fact that human motivation is to survive in the physical world which is ruled by the laws of action and consequence. To survive requires meeting goals. Further, they refuse to admit that insanity is CONTAGIOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and, if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane from outside point of views. Husband, during the marriage had to deal with his ex-wife, who was insane by refusal to choose survival and husband and daughters were trapped by corrupt law. In husband's humble opinion, the strong possibility exists that this profession was historically created to prevent social and scientific acceptance of the logical implications of evolution and Charles Darwin. Besides, this report netted the psychiatric profession $10,000, who have a very large income by claiming they are "necessary" to provide insight into issues such as this. There was no discussion of motivation on the part of either parent. This is very similar, although far less profitable than current judge's strategic denial of legal equality between persons, requiring judges and politicians to construct elaborate rationalizations "explaining" why people cannot be treated equally in terms of rights and responsibility, making their very costly "services" appear "necessary" to deal with the inevitable conflict between perfectly legitimate and peaceful viewpoints. None of this social conflict would exist if people were free to peacefully live as they see fit, without having their survival threatened if they fail to comply with the demands of whichever political viewpoint has manipulated itself to the "top dog" position, able to wield the apparatus of state as a weapon against the people. When rationalizations fail and the public starts to become aware of the survival of civilization importance of the law being restrained to treat all persons equally and the mortal social danger of special privilege for some, other methods are used, as Martin Luther King Jr. and others have repeatedly proven, at great personal cost and honor to self and loss to civilization.
      • Dr. Mclean failed to consider (and husband suspects, lacked the courage to address) the crucial fact and effects on husband and his parenting ability of being in a trap, prevented from exercising his basic legal rights of not associating with ex-wife AND associating with his daughters to fulfill his parental obligations, of having to deal with and being married to an alcoholic who refused to be responsible as a mother, a partner or contribute, a nemesis, whose self-destructive behavior and financial irresponsibility was destroying the family's and her own daughters ability to survive. Current (illegal) judicial interpretations of law provide no way to hold this mad woman to account, or of influencing her behavior to allow family survival. When the law provides no remedies for very real, survival threatening problems, what is one to do? Husband suggests that domestic abuse statistics indicate the choices that lesser intellects conclude it is "necessary" to make. The fact that husband had issues with ex-wife's destructive behavior appeared to be interpreted by the courts as "abuse" on the husbands part. This was truly a trap, as subsequently proven by the courts. The basic problem is that corrupt courts have upset the balance of power between equal persons in relationships, making reasonable division of labor or compromise impossible in any relationship that has been mis-defined and thus, subverted as has marriage, with the effect of destroying families. Husband could have tolerated ex-wife if she had kept her marriage vows (verbal contract), behaved responsibly, as an equal partner, focused on family and common interest. The only way out is to legally impoverish self and STILL, with irrefutable evidence and law on your side, have the courts take away your children, place them in an environment detrimental to their development and learning survival skills, and attempt to make you a slave using the false pretext of "children's best interests". Husband suspected this during marriage, by equally bizarre legal experiences of family and friends. He was thus biding his time, teaching his daughters, so that when they became more aware, they would choose to leave with him thus avoiding ALL litigation. This they chose, when they became aware, despite the courts "considered opinion" to the contrary. In other words, daughters also disagree with the judicial definition of "in their best interests", and, in a sense, are just as guilty of defiance as their father.
      • Lessor minds choose beating some sense into or killing their spouses, which husband rejected as unjust since ex-wife was a pawn, tricked into lying to provide plausible deniability for the real guilty parties.
      • Regarding Dr. Mclean's statement that husband can be manipulative. Yes, so can we all. Husband realized at a very young age that use of force or fraud (manipulation is a method of fraud) can achieve goals, but the cost is too high to defend from the response of your victims and further, manipulation is antisocial, alienating potential friends and allies. Husband claims to be an honest man and is willing to be judged by his fellow persons on that basis.
      • Husband is in full compliance with the unstated, but very real social contract among rational people, the very basis of civilization "If you refrain from using force and fraud against me, I promise to do the same". Well, force and fraud has been used against husband and his daughters, causing major damage, releasing him from his promise. Husband's response has thus far been restrained, since he wants civilization back and, unrestrained by reason, conflict risks spiraling out of control, sending mankind back to barbarism and living in caves, or worse.
      • Regarding Dr. McLean's speculation on the meaning of husbands personality test (MMPI) being invalid characterizing a pathologically intense need to project perfection, use self-repression and be uncompromising: Or, perhaps some people actually exist who seek the reality, as opposed to the illusion of "being the best they can be" and hold themselves to that standard? (Page 14).
      • Further to the invalid MMPI, indicating defensiveness: How can anyone, when under major assault in a state created conflict whose outcome is determined by those who actually created and profit from the the conflict (for their "profession's" financial benefit), with his children's future and perpetual economic enslavement as stakes be anything but defensive? Besides, husband may be more intelligent than the test writers and saw patterns he was not supposed to be able to see.
      • The fact that husband is intelligent was a major point against him in court, since judges appeared to feel threatened and wary of the possibility husband was manipulating them, as opposed to their view of the natural order, where judges are, by divine right, the manipulators. Husband stuck to the facts and truth, because facts cannot lie and objective minds are easily able to differentiate between fact and manipulation (biased interpretation of fact, posing as fact). For example, police reports in which husband played no part, being presented as a fact that husband was abusive and ex-wife terrified of him, in need of protection and preemptive justice. The only fact is that ex-wife called police and made allegations, which they documented.
      • Regarding husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females may affect his daughters: Had issues with one female in particular and irresponsibility in general. As sexist as it may sound, in husband's experience, irresponsibility and demanding special treatment statistically seems to be mostly female traits, a product of misguided socialization, which keeps females subservient. Husband has, despite major state opposition, raised his daughter's and they can and will successfully hold their own in life, without whining or demanding special consideration. Daughters are about as subservient as their father and woe to all who dare cross them.
      • Things have not changed much for husband since childhood. He is still surrounded by mental midgets who act as if they have the moral right to forcefully compel him to behave to the detriment of himself, family, fellow citizens, civilization and species for their minority gain and majority loss. The only thing that has changed is that opponents are far more larger, powerful, dangerous and isolated from objective reality. They will be defeated by their own actions, by refusal to acknowledge the undeniable principle of physical reality, that all actions have consequences. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. History is very clear on this point. Husband will not even feel remorse, he always warns of the consequences of actions prior to reluctantly engaging in defensive conflict. From a very detached perspective, the sheer folly of this is amusing.

      Ex-wife's Response To Report

      • Ex-wife's response taken from her affidavit.
      • Ex-wife asks the court to ignore the conclusions of the Family Court Clinic Report, for the following reasons:
      • Reason 1: It would be disruptive to the children if they were transferred from her care and control to the husbands. Ex-wife further states that due to the behavior she has ALLEGED against husband (ZERO proof or witnesses), it would stress her daughters too much to give a brute such as him custody.
      • Husband: Ex-wife and husband had EXACTLY the same amount of non-school and awake time with the children on an alternating day basis per consent agreement, later turned into a court order by Justice Sirois. Ex-wife LIES in this sworn affidavit, stating that the children were mostly under her care. It appears to be assumed by judges that women do and should have primary care and control of children (and men should be wallets and slaves, with no parental influence), although, no democratic assembly would DARE (and did not) pass a law that actually states this.
      • Reason 2: Ex-wife strongly BELIEVES she is the best custodial parent and re-iterates allegations that husband has been stealing from home, neglecting children by sleeping instead of caring for them. States that she has been mindful of daughters needs. Repeats claim that she has been children's primary caregiver throughout the entire marriage.
      • Husband: This contradicts all of husbands witness statements including ex-wife's two sisters and father in-law. Since the observations of "civilians" appears to be judicially irrelevant, read the Mclean Report above, describing Dr. Mcleans observations of ex-wife's inept interactions with her own daughters. Dr. Mclean was forced to conclude, that, for at least the last several years, ex-wife and children have had no meaningful interaction and ex-wife's attempts to deal with her daughter's on a one to one basis were pathetic. Dr. Mclean concluded husband relevant parent with far better skills for dealing with his daughters.
      • Reason 2: Ex-wife has lost job, and since November 11 (for 2 weeks) has been able to be with children on a full time basis. Claims to have more time to care for children, as a result.
      • Husband: In other words, ex-wife claims a competitive advantage by not working and husband strongly believes loss of employment was arranged, a strategic legal move, to gain this time as well as economic advantage (the more needy ex-wife is, the more husband has to pay, a major disincentive against ex-wife being employed). This is a major point, which judges buy, claiming to equate parental time (with no consideration of whether or not it is quality time) with children's best interests. The social result is several generations of children of divorce who have minimal exposure to a working role model parent and thus, believe they are entitled to survival without effort (and vote for politicians who make this anti-survival, illegal promise) and learn no work ethic or economic survival skills. The corollary of this false argument is ex-wife previously alleged husband worked too hard (disproved), making a family survival virtue into a legal disadvantage for the husband. Who benefits from this, and how?
      • Ex-wife claims to have "issues" with Dr. Mclean and his report recommending custody to husband.
      • Issue 1: Ex-wife disputes that she has an addictive personality and claims tranquilizer addiction is being medically dealt with, was caused by husbands abuse and the effective remedy is for the court to smite husband.
      • Issue 2: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her mother also has an addictive personality. Ex-wife admits that mother was long term addicted to Valium, requiring medical assistance. Claims Dr. Mclean has not met her mother and cannot conclude this, based on lack of evidence.
      • Issue 3: Ex-wife disputes report contention that youngest daughter suffered from delayed development, in the area of walking. Submits series of photos of youngest daughter from creeping to walking.
      • Husband: During early years, youngest daughter (a very good natured child) confined to playpen by ex-wife too much, to keep her out of ex-wife's "space", a point ex-wife and husband argued about a lot. Dr. Mclean and husband discussed this and husband is still of the opinion that this slightly delayed walking development did occur, as a consequence.
      • Issue 4: Ex-wife disputes report contention she is unconcerned (based on discussions between ex-wife and psychological team) about oldest daughter's sexualized acting out behavior. Claims she is looking for a counselor to assist. Admits she does not "believe it is possible" that husband was sexually abusing daughters.
      • Husband: When it comes to fathers and daughters, he is guilty of being a sexual abuser until proven innocent. Dealing with professionals in this area was like the Spanish Inquisition, they (especially females) appeared to husband as a bunch of anally retentive perverts who saw everything only in terms of predatory males and innocent young girls to protect, all of course, at very high, state funded wages. The truth is, that sexual (or any) abuse of children has highly visible effects that are immediately recognized by caring family friends, teachers, and neighbors. The reason abuse is so prevalent is that anyone who reports it is immediately sucked into a bureaucratic quagmire, legal liability issues and major hassle, reducing the likelihood of reporting it, increasing work for those who pretend to care and have have seized a monopoly in dealing with this and other social problems. This makes social problems far worse, since problem solvers in monopoly positions realized long ago that solved problems equals loss of income and it is far more prifitable to pretend to be solving problems while actually making them worse.
      • Issue 5: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her disciplinary (lack of) and parenting methods are to the detriment of the children's proper development. Claims to have started a task list and that it is husband who is lax in the area of discipline (contradicting her previous allegations that husband is a "harsh disciplinarian"
      • Issue 6: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's comment that husband may have difficulty seeing any positive role that ex-wife can play in the children's lives and claims (LIES) that Dr. Mclean does not deal with this issue in his conclusions.
      • Husband: Dr. Mclean does deal with this and states that once ex-wife cleans up her act, deals with her addictions and other issues and actually behaves in a positive manner and is capable of playing a viable role, that husband may be more supportative of ex-wife's parental role.
      • Issue 7: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's observation that husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females and yet does not explain how this may affect young daughters under his care.
      • Issue 8: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean not addressing effect of husband's alleged "harsh disciplinary" measures on daughters, contradicting her allegation above that husband has become lax in discipline.
      • Issue 9: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating the children have no parental preference and states that daughter's, when asked, tell her that they want to live with mother. Presents a "love her mom" note from daughter's school work as evidence. Claims daughters have closer bond with her than father.
      • Issue 10: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating that one of husbands battery of personality tests came back as "invalid", a possible indication of defensiveness and did not address how this may affect the children.
      • Issue 11: Ex-wife claims that Dr. McLean is lying when he states the amount and period of alcohol consumption reported by her when asked. Ex-wife claims that she answered the alcohol consumption question with "I don't know"

      Dr. Selwyn Smith's Response To Report (November 21, 1994)

      • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
      • Claims to have reveiwed the custody assessment report of Dr. Mclean.
      • Disputes Dr. Mclean's conclusion that ex-wife is an addict
      • Reiterates that ex-wife has been under overwhelming stress due to her "abusive" husband who has made rape and other threats, neccessitating ex-wife to call police twice.
      • Adds that ex-wife's stress further compounded by children's behavioral difficulties and a very messy untrained dog.
      • Note: Dr. Mclean observed ex-wife's ineptness and inability to deal with her daughters here. Note also that none of ex-wife's submissions make any mention of having to deal with, or even admitting that daughters had behavioral difficulties, although, ex-wife did allege that husband was having difficulties and that she had to calm children down after husband consistently upset them during his access time. Note also, the dog was a litter of untrained puppies which ex-wife refused to keep outside in the yard, preferring instead to attribute puppy mess to husband's irresponsibility, in photographic splendour.
      • States that ex-wife used tranquilizers slightly more than prescribed. Makes no mention of ex-wife going into withdrawl or becoming addicted to tranquilizers, as concluded by Dr. Mclean, based on his personal observations and hearing ex-wife's description of withdrawl. Ex-wife also admits she became addicted in her affidavit.
      • Claims that tranquilizers can be withdrawn at end of custody proceedings, implying that they are required to deal with the conflict.
      • Claims that ex-wife has no need of addiction assessment or medical referral.
      • Claims that ex-wife has a number of significant issues (unstated what) in her background which require further assistance, but pointless to explore until the conflict is over.
      • Claims ex-wife is on a managed reduction schedule for tranquilizers.
      • Claims ex-wife has not consumed nor abused alcohol since coming under his care (April 22, 1994).
      • Husband: This is a LIE. Dr. Smith states in his previous "expert opinion" (June 20, 1994) that "her (ex-wife, alcohol) intake hs been reduced considerably. Currently she consumes (ie; claims to) approximately one glass of wine with meals."
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands mental health, due to invalid MMPI results.
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands general negative bias in his perceptions of females and effect on daughters.
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands acceptance of viable role for mother in children's lives.
      • States that he does not feel Dr. Mclean has justified his recommendation of husband as custodial parent.
      • Speculates that, in the absence of Dr. McLeans alleged addiction conclusions, custody may well be recommended for mother.
      • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
      • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGEOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.
  • The following individuals expressed strong opinions, backed up by observations that the opposite is true, that it was ex-wife who was abusing husband and harming daughters by negligence, opposing any rules or structure for the children and creating conflict by her lack of family/partnership values in the marriage.
  • Al + Marion Kidd - Step father and mother of ex-wife: "Ex-wife extremely selfish and irresponsible. Has adopted her mother's misguided, irresponsible parenting".
  • Statement of Alan and Marion Kidd ex-wife's stepfather and his spouse (May 17, 1994)

    • Statement by Alan and Marion Kidd
    • Both very opposed to ex-wife (and supportative of husband) having custody of daughters for children's best interests by reasons/observations outlined within.
    • Husband first described to them by ex-wife as "A rich university graduate with a Corvette, whom she intended to marry", both were firmly convinced marriage was for money and status.
    • Husband has common sense and appears to think of children before self. Husband has good sense of humor and not abusive.
    • Ex-wife extremely selfish and irresponsible. Has adopted her mother's misguided, irresponsible parenting methods (expect rewards without effort) which produced ex-wife and will destroy children in the same way.
    • Ex-wife seems to have no emotional or any other connection with daughters, treats them as things, inconveniences in her life.
    • Ex-wife behaves as if she is special, better than other people, deserving and demanding of special consideration with no basis in reality.
    • Ex-wife a lavish spender, totally financially irresponsible, spending faster than husband can earn.
    • During children's early years, both parents negligent, too busy bickering and arguing. Husband's parenting has substantially improved over the years, ex-wife has not.
    • Witnessed ex-wife smoking cigarettes and consuming alcohol during both pregnancies.
    • Both strongly believe ex-wife is not mother material and strongly suspect her interest is purely child support and the house. Believe husband far better parent.
    • Both believe husbands patience, ability to communicate with children and personal responsibility values will assure good future for children. Believe ex-wife will achieve the opposite.
    • Believe that, if ex-wife achieves custody, she will drive husband out of children's lives, to their detriment (just like her mother), waste any settlement she may get and end up on social services.
    • Have observed no abuse of ex-wife, husband or children.
    • Strongly suspect ex-wife of alcohol problems for years, she always has a drink on the go. She is antisocial and goes off and drinks alone.
    • Suspect that ex-wife's claimed debt to her mother is a fabrication, since her mother is incapable of accumulating such an amount or retaining it.
  • Anita Cox - Sister of Ex-wife: "Ex-wife appears to have no connection with daughters and treats them as annoyances, with no interaction. Ex-wife unstable, incompetent and incapable of parenting, dooming children's future. Believes husband's stability, skills and responsibility values will result in children being successful adults."
  • Statement of Anita Cox one of ex-wife's two sisters (May 18, 1994)

    • Statement by Anita Cox
    • Seen no evidence that ex-wife has changed or learned anything since adolescence
    • Ex-wife is a prima donna, believing she is special, unable to compromise, be a team member, or acknowledge the point of view of others.
    • Ex-wife is completely and utterly selfish and antisocial
    • Ex-wife shares her mothers contempt for establishment beliefs and objective people (such as doctors, engineers...), considering them smug, arrogant and unable to see beyond "reality"
    • Could never understand why ex-wife would marry an engineer, given her utter contempt and disdain for people of the logical persuasion, whom husband certainly is.
    • Ex-wife is extremely adept at skirting around issues and blame shifting to others. She is a very good actress and liar in the short haul when she is trying to get something.
    • Ex-wife's sense of self-worth appears to be based on what she has, who she is superior to or can dominate.
    • Ex-wife appears to have no connection with daughters and treats them as annoyances, with no interaction.
    • Ex-wife unstable, incompetent and incapable of parenting, dooming children's future. Believes husband's stability, skills and responsibility values will result in children being successful adults.
    • No opinion on whether ex-wife has alcohol problems, but unfit parent, even if not.
  • Laura Harris: Sister of Ex-wife: "Husband and ex-wife, tense relationship, arguments usually initiated by ex-wife. Husband did not back down. Appears that ex-wife has replaced Laura with husband as sparring partner".
  • Statement by Laura Harris other of ex-wife's two sisters (May 17, 1994)

    • Statement by Laura Harris
    • Husband and ex-wife, tense relationship, arguments usually initiated by ex-wife. Husband did not back down
    • Appears that ex-wife has replaced Laura with husband as "sparring partner"
    • Ex-wife very territorial, always insists on having things her way, unwilling to compromise.
    • Initially, both parents disasters and negligent, too busy arguing.
    • Husband has improved over the years, has quality times, activities with daughters, treats them as people and plays with them.
    • Ex-wife has no connection or quality interaction with daughters, pushes them away, needs a great deal of alone time.
    • Ex-wife is very irresponsible in all areas, including financial.
    • Ex-wife assumes that her opinions and desires are more valid than anyone else's.
    • No opinion on whether alcohol being abused, but did see ex-wife smoking and consuming alcohol, during both pregnancies.
    • Ex-wife seems to be mimicking what she observed during her parents divorce: Trying to drive husband out of children's lives.
    • Strongly opposed to sole custody for ex-wife or children living together with ex-wife and her mother (children's grandmother), since they will not acquire life survival skills in this environment.
  • Dianna Drynan: - Closest to friend ex-wife would allow: "Ex-wife is lying, have observed entire marriage and nasty disputes. Ex-wife consistently opposed family survival position of husband throughout entire marriage and would not compromise on any issue. If ex-wife indeed terrified of husband during marriage, ex-wife would not have dared oppose husband on these key family survival issues, as witnessed.", also has negligence of children issues with ex-wife.
  • Affidavit of Dianna Drynan the closest person to a friend ex-wife would tolerate (October 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Dianna Drynan
    • Met ex-wife in 1985 at same party as husband did
    • Visited with family at least once a month from prior to marriage through entire marriage, often staying overnight. Observations current, to present
    • Likes ex-wife and wants to help her. Claims to be the closest person to a friend ex-wife has, to the best of her knowledge.
    • States that she never has and never will have any relationship apart from friends with husband.
    • States she has tried, ever since she met ex-wife to be her friend, but ex-wife unwilling to communicate openly.
    • States it was her that lent ex-wife the money to buy a car (May 1994), after marriage failed.
    • States she has tried and wants to be there for ex-wife as a friend, since ex-wife has no one she is close to.
    • States that ex-wife is unwilling/unable to honestly be open with herself, husband, Dianna or anyone.
    • States that ex-wife is unwilling/unable face the reality of her life and family.
    • Is well aware that ex-wife will view this statement as a sign of betrayal, leaving her all alone, with no one to talk to. Believes no other choice, ex-wife's and children's best interests can only be served by having the truth come out and ex-wife dealing with it.
    • It is now clear that ex-wife will never talk openly with her, since Dianna knows too much of the truth ex-wife is trying so desperately to avoid.
    • Claims another motivation for this statement is to counter ex-wife's lies, accusations of abuse and control she is making against husband. States that this is the exact opposite of what she has observed during the entire marriage.
    • Claims that husband is a reasonable person and that he and his children have done nothing to deserve the hell the family is experiencing.
    • Claims that, by her observations the relationship was characterized by verbal abuse and hostility (especially when drinking) on ex-wife's part versus blind love, giving in and reasonableness on husbands part. In general, husband was dominated, used and abused by ex-wife.
    • Describes ex-wife as refusing to contribute and consistently worked against all of husbands goals and efforts on behalf of the family.
    • Has never observed ex-wife make a compromise or attempt to work on the relationship or deal with her problems. Claims that it was always husband giving in to ex-wife's demands, verbal and non-verbal hostility, withdrawal and coldness.
    • Claims that ex-wife confided to Dianna early in the marriage that she could get husband to do anything for her, just by using sex..
    • Claims that ex-wife would go out of her way to be mean and selfish with husband. Provides example.
    • Recounts evening in 1989 when husband and her partner surprised her and ex-wife with a limo and one of those "once in a lifetime" romantic experiences. Describes how ex-wife consumed alcohol to excess, completely ruined the evening by her abuse of husband and concludes "I have never seen a meaner, more ungrateful display from anyone in my life"
    • Recounts similar evening in 1990 when went out to the opera and ex-wife did the same, but this time ex-wife's goal was to get husband to buy her a fur coat like one she had borrowed, which he was refusing for financial reasons.
    • Claims that after evening above, Dianna challenged ex-wife on her treatment of husband over the coat. Ex-wife considered lack of a fur coat as an indication that husband does not love her. Ex-wife and Dianna had a falling out over this.
    • Claims that this is consistently the method that ex-wife uses to achieve what she demands: Ex-wife just abuses and makes people miserable until they give in. Claims that she observed the exact same abuse until ex-wife got husband to agree to major renovations which they definitely could not afford and husband was adamantly opposed to.
    • Claims that Dianna and her partner sometimes found it very embarrassing to be out with or visiting the Rosses, due to ex-wife's abuse of husband.
    • Claims that at Christmas 1992, husband asked Dianna to help him pick out gifts for ex-wife and husband was very particular, it took two shopping outings. At Christmas, ex-wife didn't like the gifts and insisted they take them back and get something better. States that ex-wife very ungrateful, but exchanged gifts and husband always generous to ex-wife for Christmas and birthdays.
    • Claims that during relationship, husband did his best to give ex-wife what she asked, if he could.
    • Claims that whenever she visited, ex-wife was always verbally abusive to husband, in front of the children, especially after her first drink. Ex-wife often called husband a "no good, stupid, cheap asshole"
    • Claims that Ex-wife always insisted on often going out to expensive restaurants they could not afford, until two years ago, at which point husband refused since they could not afford it and stuck to his position.
    • Claims that in September 1994, ex-wife confided that she had never loved her husband.
    • Claims that Dianna his consistently failed and met denial when trying to communicate with ex-wife in any area of reality and that ex-wife refuses to discuss anything or see that different perspectives than her own may have any validity.
    • Claims that from her observations, it has been husband who does all child related activities and is the principal caregiver while ex-wife pretends to be busy with other housework which she does very slowly and drags out, taking many rum and smoke breaks.
    • States that ex-wife uses the illusion that she is busy doing cooking or cleaning to shift complete care of the children to husband, except that ex-wife does feed the children.
    • States that ex-wife refused to participate in any of the children's activities, provides a very long list of activities husband did with children.
    • States that ex-wife did not even communicate with her daughters except to tell them to eat or to stay out of her "space".
    • Has never observed ex-wife being affectionate with her daughters, have them on her lap or give them a goodnight kiss although husband does.
    • States that ex-wife did do some of the organizing and shopping for the children, but it was up to husband to do all of the work.
    • States that Dianna could never convince ex-wife to go anywhere, for any activity with the children and that it was always husband who came with her and her son for activities.
    • States that when ex-wife around children, ex-wife was very particular about nap and bedtime schedules. If the children were out with husband, schedule did not seem to matter to ex-wife.
    • States that her seven year old son does not like the way ex-wife treats him. States that ex-wife made children eat alone in other room, while adults ate later. States that ex-wife was always rapping the children on their heads and telling them to eat. States that ex-wife called herself "the wicked witch of the west"
    • States that she and her son did not like it when the Ross children visited their home, due to their lack of respect, lack of discipline, destructiveness and unruliness.
    • States that ex-wife locked the children (her own and daycare) in their room during naptime and when they misbehaved.
    • Recounts spouses reactions to oldest daughters psychological evaluation: Ex-wife relieved that daughter did not have ADS, was fine and had no problems. Husband devastated regarding daughters social and attention problems and begged Dianna to influence ex-wife to cooperate for daughters sake. Dianna talked to daughters teacher and ex-wife who still saw no problem and refused to attend a joint meeting with husband and psychologist. Ex-wife agreed once it was pointed out how bad her non-cooperation would look. Meeting took place, but no followup.
    • States Dianna tried to talk to ex-wife regarding the importance of cooperating with husband for children's sake. Ex-wife replied "It is a good idea to inform husband about what is happening to the children".
    • States that during first two years of marriage, both parents negligent, always arguing about who would change diapers, etc. Both appeared to want to get out of dealing with the kids.
    • States that whenever she was there husband would have total responsibility for the children and share his time between company and children.
    • States that over the years, husband has vastly improved as a parent and treats his daughters as little people and cares for their needs and is patient with them.
    • States that ex-wife's parenting has not improved at all and ex-wife remains selfish, lazy and neglectful of the children's non-physical needs. States she has never observed ex-wife exhibit patience or tolerance for her children.
    • States that when ex-wife decided to have a second child, Dianna was shocked because it is obvious that ex-wife has no patience for children and she told ex-wife this. Why would she want another?
    • States that Dianna was just as shocked, for the same lack of patience for children reason when ex-wife wanted to start a daycare. States that Dianna told ex-wife that she thought it was a way for ex-wife to avoid working and ex-wife admitted it was true.
    • States that ex-wife is lazy and does not want to work.
    • States that during daycare, ex-wife did no activities with the children. There were no walks or any involvement of ex-wife with children except feeding and safety.
    • States that on some occasions that Dianna took the children to the park and ex-wife refused to come, preferring to stay home and drink rum under the pretext she had to make dinner.
    • States that Dianna has never observed ex-wife discipline or have any expectations of her daughters except to tell them to eat and stay out of her "space".
    • States that she has observed many arguments between the spouses regarding ex-wife's debt, spending and lack of partnership.
    • States that her view of husband as a person is reasonable, take it easy, nothing usually seems to bother him.
    • States that she has never observed any abusive behavior on part of husband, but notes that ex-wife certainly gave him reason with her unreasonableness and lack of compromise.
    • States that husband is firm, gentle and kind with his daughters and has more expectations from the children than ex-wife, who has none.
    • States that ex-wife has confided in her that ex-wife hates her job and considers it beneath her.
    • States that ex-wife would rarely agree to go out with anyone, except to restaurants with husband to be pampered.
    • States that husband was always encouraging ex-wife to go out, make some friends and "get a life". States that husband often encouraged Dianna to go out with ex-wife and make some friends.
    • Describes ex-wife as very anti-social, always saying "I need my space". Describes ex-wife as always going off alone to another room to drink rum and that the children were not even allowed in the same room as ex-wife.
    • Describes ex-wife as very lazy, never wanting to do any work. Describes when Dianna and her partner came over to help with renovations and ex-wife insisted they bring a sitter "so we can all work". Describes ex-wife pretending to make dinner, sitting outside having rum and smoke breaks every few minutes while adults worked. States it was the same for housework in general, except cooking and cleaning. Husband did everything, including all child related activities, while ex-wife lazy, pretending to be busy.
    • States that husband did most of the work and ex-wife would appear near the end, do some minor finishing touch and then claim she did it all. States that when ex-wife challenged on this, she becomes unwilling to communicate. States that husband reciprocated for their renovation help, but ex-wife refused.
    • Describes what happens when Dianna tries to talk to ex-wife realistically, on any topic. Ex-wife tries to evade the issue or change the topic. If ex-wife's evasions are unsuccessful, ex-wife appears to be about to cry, her voice cracks and she starts to shake. As soon as topic changes, ex-wife recovers immediately. This issue evading response on part of ex-wife is concluded to be fake by Dianna.
    • States that ex-wife refuses to communicate on any topic where there may be disagreement and that ex-wife has a blind spot for any views but her own.
    • States she has never observed ex-wife go out of her way for anybody, including her own children due to being self-centered and selfish.
    • States that when ex-wife drunk (always) she went out of her way to be mean to husband. Ex-wife's arguments were emotional, in terms of character assaults on husband. Has never seen husband emotionally angry with ex-wife, husband used reason, and a lets work it out manner, which infuriated ex-wife even more.
    • Dianna has never seen ex-wife treat either husband or the children with love. Ex-wife has two methods of dealing with husband, either demanding or demeaning. Whenever Dianna talked to ex-wife about husband, ex-wife always spoke about husband in terms of how she needed things and how it was up to him to provide them.
    • States that ex-wife did not care whether the children were present or not. Ex-wife would just "fly off the handle at husband with no apparent provocation", whether the children were present or not. It was usually not clear to Dianna what ex-wife's issue or point was.
    • States that ex-wife was definitely well looked after, but not with husbands approval. Ex-wife made husband give her half of his overtime money when he had to work and her debt with nothing to show for it, makes it even worse.
    • Dianna did not know how much ex-wife drank until 1986 when she followed ex-wife to the kitchen many times and observed ex-wife making double rum and cokes each time. States that ex-wife holds her alcohol really well.
    • States that when she went to restaurants with spouses, her and her spouse never wanted to split the bill due to ex-wife's excessive alcohol purchases (4 to 5 double rums, sometimes more).
    • States that Dianna visited the daycare unexpectedly three times, in the late morning. Ex-wife already had a rum and coke on the go and immediately poured another when done.
    • Describes, often when stayed for dinner, ex-wife would sometimes serve dinner, be unable to eat and go up to bed, intoxicated. Other times, ex-wife would pass out in her chair, intoxicated, in the middle of dinner. States the first time this happened was shortly after the wedding.
    • Recounts incident in January 1991 when ex-wife called her up and stated "that bastard dumped all my rum down the sink" and ex-wife demanded that Dianna deliver alcohol to her, as a birthday present, which she foolishly did. Describes a typical alcohol/daycare day and verbal abuse when husband got home from work.
    • States that during marriage, husband asked her many times to try to talk some financial sense into ex-wife, and Dianna tried and failed, since ex-wife would not admit her spending, demands and debt as a problem and expected husband to deal with it.
    • States that the financial relationship was very unfair, in ex-wife's favor, since husband paid for all of the big things and ex-wife only paid for groceries, children's clothing and daycare. States that husband was always sacrificing, not buying clothes for himself while ex-wife was living high and making no personal sacrifice.
    • Elaborates on ex-wife's demand that husband pay her half of any extra income he may earn, to pay her to look after her own children and to allow him to work. States that ex-wife used this money on herself, while husband used it for joint things. States that ex-wife discussed this unfair arrangement with her as early as 1989.
    • Recounts another incident in 1991 when husband again asked Dianna to talk to ex-wife about money management, since ex-wife was $9,000.00 in debt, had nothing to show for it and refused to discuss it with husband. Ex-wife stated to Dianna that things cost a lot, debt was not a problem, husband made enough to care for her, husband expected too much from her and he was cheap. In pursuing this topic, ex-wife became very cold and started shaking.
    • Again Recounts renovations and all of the heated arguments and abuse of husband until he agreed. Describes how ex-wife refused to help with the work, sitting around drinking rum and being lazy.
    • States, after marital breakdown ex-wife is not buying the quality or quantity of food she used to, nor feeding the children healthy food.
    • States, after marital breakdown ex-wife is even worse at discipline, now the children do not even have to finish their meals and candy and treats are now unlimited.
    • States, after marital breakdown that children are much better behaved when ex-wife absent.
    • Describes, after marital breakdown that Dianna babysat children while ex-wife out and tried to put some structure in the evening, to which oldest daughter responded "You're just like my dad - a slave driver".
    • Describes confrontation with ex-wife in September 1994 where Dianna blasted ex-wife on various points:
    • Issue 1: Why she wants the kids and why she thinks husband wants them. Answer: Because she loves them and husband wants to control them
    • Issue 2: That husband loves his daughters, will never give in and is prepared to lose everything.
    • Issue 3: That ex-wife will not be on easy street with any settlement.
    • Issue 4: That husband and her are saying completely opposite things and she has been caught in lies.
    • Issue 5: That the abuse and control allegations against husband are the exact opposite of Dianna's observations.
    • Issue 6: That eventually, ex-wife will have to deal with the reality of the situation
    • Issue 7: That, on present course, everything will be lost to lawyers and what happens to the children and their friends and school.
    • Issue 8: That her current financial demands of husband are unfair. Ex-wife cannot expect husband to pay all of his historical expenses (which by themselves are unfair), an extra $700.00 per month to ex-wife and for husband to somehow find money for rent and living expenses.
    • Dianna states that ex-wife's reaction to the above was that she became very cold and refused to discuss it. Dianna concluded that ex-wife is blind to the facts and not facing reality.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife is simultaneously accusing husband of being a slave driver and making the children clean the house and do chores while simultaneously trashing the home every time he is there. Both cannot be true.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife is accusing husband of stealing groceries and other stuff. She checked with her ex-spouse (husband's roommate) and is convinced this is another lie.
    • Dianna notes that she visits the marital home often and ex-wife does not appear to be doing any cleaning or housework.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife appears to be taking the children to activities and seems to have turned around compared to the marriage.
    • Dianna claims that ex-wife confided she is wearing her magic crystal for luck and reading her tarot cards every night for guidance and to figure out what to do.
    • Dianna concludes that ex-wife is lying regarding husbands abuse and control, since, if true, ex-wife would have been afraid to abuse husband or act contrary to his stated wishes and family interests as Dianna has observed during the marriage and stated herein.
  • Brian Alexson - Family friend: "Ex-wife spent weekends in bed watching TV, yelling out instructions to husband to deal with kids and refused to let them in the room with her. Ex-wife was constantly demeaning and verbally abusive to husband"
  • Statement by Brian Alexson friend and engineering classmate of husband (May 26, 1994)

    • Statement by Brian Alexson
    • Known ex-wife as long as husband. Met at same time.
    • Ex-wife has serious alcohol problem, some times passed out at the dinner table, during dinner.
    • Ex-wife drank double rum and cokes.
    • Ex-wife was often yelling at children to "keep out of her space"
    • It was husband who had all childcare duties when not working.
    • Worked on a project in summer 1993 with husband which ex-wife demanded a "cut" in exchange for taking over husbands childcare responsibilities.
    • While at Ross residence working for a month, ex-wife ignored and refused to take care of children so husband could work
    • Husband was constantly being interrupted to deal with children, which ex-wife refused to do.
    • Ex-wife spent weekends in bed watching TV, yelling out instructions to husband to deal with kids and refused to let them in the room with her.
    • Ex-wife was constantly demeaning and verbally abusive to husband, for entire project.
    • Have never observed ex-wife affectionate, playing with or paying attention to children.
    • Husband is the one that pays attention to children's emotional, attention and social needs.
    • Witnessed a very bad argument / verbal abuse on ex-wife's part against husband in January 1994.
    • Ex-wife always complaining husband is poor provider, an insane opinion, because their lifestyle met or exceeds his peers.
    • Very bad partnership. Ex-wife wants to be lazy, consume and be pampered, husband wants to build for his family and the future.
  • Robert Southby - Neighbor: "Ex-wife extremely verbally abusive to and demanding of husband, treated him like a puppet, in front of his children. Husband did all childcare, don't remember ex-wife interacting with children at all"
  • Statement by Robert Southby neighbor of Ross's (June 14, 1994)

    • Statement by Robert Southby
    • Described day/evening he was over helping with renovations in 1991
    • Ex-wife extremely verbally abusive to and demanding of husband, treated him like a puppet, in front of his children.
    • Husband did all childcare, don't remember ex-wife interacting with children at all
    • Balance of visit much more pleasant after ex-wife went to bed early
  • Sherry Skater - Husbands sister in law: "She is a real bitch towards husband. She was always pushy, bossy and abusive. It was husband do this, husband do that. Ex-wife is a terrible mother, she does not interact with the children as people".
  • Statement by Sherry Skater husband's common law sister (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by Sherry Skater
    • Ex-wife and Sherry got along well and confided in each other.
    • Decide bias or not yourself.
    • Ex-wife drinks to excess
    • Ex-wife demands that husband do all childcare responsibility, refused to participate
    • Ex-wife was a terrible mother, insensitive to children's needs
    • Ex-wife referred to husband as a possession providing money and security.
    • Ex-wife did not play or interact with children and pushes them away. She won't let children play in dirt "you're young ladies" or be kids.
    • Ex-wife confided she couldn't handle motherhood, which was why she drank so much alcohol.
    • Ex-wife claimed children "really get on her nerves". She blamed husband for having children and "it was his responsibility to deal with them"
    • Ex-wife confided she had bottles hidden all around house, unknown to husband. Admitted to drinking at least two 1.75 Liter bottles of rum per week.
    • Observed on weekends that ex-wife would get up in the morning and make several half rum / half coffee's, which she took to her room to drink alone.
    • Ex-wife confided that some friends were getting divorced, with similar economic circumstances. She claimed that $1000.00 per month per child was a fantastically good deal. When Sherry pointed out that it is unfair to impoverish the father, leaving him unable to care for his children, ex-wife's response was: "its the man's job to pay".
  • Bernice Ross - Husbands step-mother: "Ex-wife would not let anyone, including husband correct or discipline her daughters. Only one rule enforced by ex-wife: children stay away from her. Husband was the one caring for daughters - ex-wife disinterested".
  • Statement by Bernice Ross husbands step-mother (May 31, 1994)

    • Statement by Bernice Ross
    • From the perspective of a woman who cared for many children from Children's Aid, helping 42 in all. Read and decide whether biased for yourself.
    • Husband was the one caring for daughters - ex-wife disinterested
    • Ex-wife would not let anyone, including husband correct or discipline her daughters
    • Children very easy to manage in ex-wife's absence
    • Only one rule enforced by ex-wife: children stay away from her.
    • Other grandchildren do not like ex-wife at all.
    • Ex-wife is inconsistent, threats, but no follow-through. Children ignore her
    • Ex-wife does not attend to children's emotional needs or treat them as little people. She does adequately meet their physical needs.
    • Ex-wife admitted she was not being financially honest with husband.
    • Considers husband far more attentive to children's needs and better parent.
  • John Ross - Husbands brother: "Ex-wife would not help out, refused to be a partner and expected husband to do everything. Ex-wife constantly accused husband of being an asshole, with a useless career that was unable to meet her needs, and being an engineer was beneath the dignity of quality people, such as herself. All arguments were started by ex-wife who used vindictive character assaults and emotional bickering, while husband stuck to the facts, which infuriated ex-wife even more."
  • Statement by John Ross husband's brother (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by John Ross
    • Many valid and true observations, but, assume to be biased, since is husband's brother
    • Did not like ex-wife due to verbal abuse of husband, neglect of children's emotional and social needs
    • Ex-wife is not open and acts like a prima donna, better than everyone else
    • Ex-wife would not help out, refused to be a partner and expected husband to do everything
    • Ex-wife constantly accused husband of being an asshole, with a useless career that was unable to meet her needs, and being an engineer was "beneath the dignity of quality people, such as herself"
    • Claims tried to talk some sense into husband regarding being used by ex-wife and was met with "I'm trying to be patient, win to her over to reason and also have the children to consider".
    • All arguments were started by ex-wife who used vindictive character assaults and emotional bickering, while husband stuck to the facts, which infuriated ex-wife even more.
    • Both parents attentive to children's physical needs.
    • Husband better parent because he treats girls as little people, attentive to their emotional and interaction needs. Ex-wife negligent/incompetent in this area.
    • Ex-wife expected others to relieve her of the burden of childcare (while she became inebriated) when husband not around.
    • Ex-wife really likes to drink alcohol.
  • Garnet Ross - Husbands Father: "Ex-wife treated husband with contempt. Very concerned about granddaughters due to verbally abusive ex-wife, tense environment, alcohol abuse and ex-wife's complete lack of attending to daughters emotional and environmental needs. Ex-wife completely unfit mother and unable to compromise with husband (or anyone) on any issue, including raising children in a joint custody situation."
  • Statement by Garnet Ross husband's father (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by Garnet Ross
    • Many valid and true observations, but, assume to be biased, since is husband's father
    • Ex-wife treated husband with contempt, not liked by entire family for this reason.
    • Believed ex-wife was an opportunist, due to lack of respect for husband, her children, lack of partnership awareness, unreasonableness and financial irresponsibility, impoverishing her family.
    • Spent 3 day weekend with family in 1993, Ex-wife inebriated entire weekend, husband did all childcare.
    • Father made the mistake of trying to reason with ex-wife
    • Ex-wife stated "I pretend to be what men want enough to keep them happy and take what I want from them and that is how it is and should be"
    • Very concerned about granddaughters due to verbally abusive ex-wife, tense environment, alcohol abuse and ex-wife's complete lack of attending to daughters emotional and environmental needs.
    • Ex-wife completely unfit mother and unable to compromise with husband (or anyone) on any issue, including raising children in a joint custody situation.
  • The following individuals have observed events that could be interpreted as child abuse on part of ex-wife:
  • Garry Browne: Husband's nephew: Went to visit ex-wife, ex-wife would not allow daughters to see their cousins or even know which cousins were there. Ex-wife intoxicated and screaming at daughters.
  • Affidavit of Garry Browne nephew of husband (October 14, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Garry Browne
    • Husband's nephew
    • Claims that went to matrimonial home with his brother on October 6, 1994, looking for husband, to get grandfathers camcorder
    • Claims that ex-wife asked them in and she was very intoxicated, describes ex-wife's state.
    • Claims to have gone upstairs with ex-wife to get camcorder. Oldest daughter (nephews cousin) opened her bedroom door and asked mother who was there. Ex-wife screamed "It's just your cousins...Shut up and get back to bed!"
    • Claims that daughter did not even see him or know which cousins were there and was not allowed to say hello or anything, oldest daughter crying and carrying on throughout until ex-wife went back upstairs and yelled at daughter some more.
    • Claims that ex-wife gave him a tour of the house and said "husband took everything", to which he replied "you've got the house and kids" to which she replied "not for long"
    • Claims that ex-wife desperately wanted someone to talk to, and wanted sympathy, so he stayed for another half hour and listened to all of her allegations regarding his uncle's "abuse"

Conclusion Husband was NOT abusive or harsh, ex-wife was abusive<

  • Conclusion elaborated: Husband not "abusive" or a "harsh" disciplinarian. Ex-wife was abusive to husband and indirectly (by the conflict she created) abusive to her daughters and opposed ANY discipline, causing the children's problems observed by Dr. Mclean. Ex-wife was a serious threat to the family.
  • On the issue of "harsh" discipline, ex-wife presents three issues (not proven, but husband admits guilt):
  • Issue 1: Husband removed all of older daughters possessions from her room for misbehavior and they had to be "earned" back by good behavior.
  • Issue 2: Photo of daughter in a towel diaper for urinating on the floor. This was a joint punishment, evidenced by husbands hand on daughters shoulder while ex-wife took picture. Ex-wife's claims of being aghast and unable to stop her brute of a husband is posturing and manipulation.
  • Issue 3: Cold showers as a consequence of drenching the bathroom floor. This is fair, daughters got to choose whether or not they had a cold shower and often did, just to add some spice to the evening.
  • "Harsh" discipline conclusion: Define harsh and decide for yourself. Objective conclusion - Husband NOT GUILTY, ex-wife proves that, in her opinion, any discipline is "harsh" and unwittingly confesses to being an unfit parent whose methods can only result in irresponsible adults, a very large social cost which we are all paying, here and now.
  • On the issue of husbands abuse of ex-wife: When all of the hearsay which directly originates with ex-wife and does not involve husband is stripped away (including Dr. Selwyn Smith, police and security reports), we are left with the following:
  • The opinion of ex-wife's mother that husband is insensitive and controlling, with no behavioral examples on the part of husband given, making this, an opinion with no factual observations or basis. In addition, her recommending "maximal contact of husband with children" seems to be the converse of what her "opinions" should imply. These opinions appear to be from very confused intellect.
  • The opinion of Jacqueline Bonnar that husband is "controlling and opinionated, with a superiority complex", no observed incidents of husbands "abuse", plus Jacqueline's claim that ex-wife confided that husband threatened to leave her "penniless and without daughters". Husband admits nothing but points out that this is both the outcome that actually occurred and the the will of the Canadian people which, by some improbable fluke is also what the law states as the fate of deadbeat parents. Even if husband did say this, it was both the truth and the will of the Canadian people, making all Canadians co-conspirators in the abuse of poor little ex-wifey poo.
  • Kathy Sainthill claims to have heard husband say "I'm a man, I'm an engineer, I've been around the world, what have you done?" in dismissing ex-wife's opinion as "irrelevant". Husband admits nothing but, the first three parts are true and the fourth is a question. Husband is well aware that telling the truth is now legally deemed "abusive" and has a year on probation to prove it (documented separately). In the plunge of our civilization to legally enforced ignorance and the next dark age, it is not too far a stretch to see that asking questions is also a threat to authority and may well be, if not already legally classified as "abuse". People who ask questions have always been drivers in the progress of civilization (oops - threat to social stability) and disliked for the simple reason that they make people think and see there may be better alternatives to the life they are currently "tolerating".
  • The fact (admitted by husband) is that the spouses argued, constantly, starting when ex-wife became pregnant and achieved her social "motherhood dividend" and her reproductive organs became a lucrative ATM (Automated Teller Machine). It is now a proven fact that ex-wife was a serious threat to family survival, during the entire marriage and after. Husband argued and fought ex-wife, tooth and nail (but no evidence or reports of physical violence) by reason of defense of self and daughters. Husband and daughters were trapped by corrupt legal interpretations and judicial discretion, which in themselves constitute child abuse and acts against "children's best interests". Husband admits ex-wife may have "felt" abused, since husband would not (could not) deliver on the entitlements ex-wife believed was the essence of marriage, the reward for catching a prosperous husband, her prey. The cost to ex-wife was a little up front pretending and mouthing some completely meaningless wedding vows. Husband was demanding partnership and adherence to the verbal contract of their wedding vows which ex-wife was certain were "abusive" acts against her "freedom" to live without effort or consequences to her actions. It appears that ALL judges in this matter agreed with her. This is why the family and family values (the basic cooperative unit of civilization) are no more. They have been defined away by decree and smashed by idiots wielding gavels.
  • The original question of how did the spouses affect each other's behavior during marriage can now be answered:
  • It is established fact (overwhelmingly by witnesses) that husband was attempting to influence ex-wife to act in the family interest and failed miserably. These attempts were interpreted by ex-wife as abuse. It is thus absurd for ex-wife to claim that husband's (non-existent) abuse was the reason that she could not be personally responsible, behave as a partner, be a mother or deal with her alcohol problems. In effect, ex-wife is blaming husband's demands that she behave in a responsible manner as the reason she could not, trying to construct a bogus "chicken and egg argument". Ex-wife's claims that removal of husband allowed her a personal renaissance to do the exact same thing that she would not do during marriage is equally absurd. It is proven that ex-wife behaved during marriage exactly the same as she behaved after, completely irresponsible, an addict, liar, negligent mother and, when further evidence is revealed, child abuser.
  • The facts also indicate that husband was in a very difficult situation. He had to deal with a spouse who refused to participate in raising their children, opposed all of husband's attempts at discipline, was constantly drunk, was intent on financially destroying the family (from irresponsibility section proof) and husband was trapped by corrupt courts and a legal profession which would take away his daughters and enslave him, dooming them. Husband's only option was the one he took: Try his best to appease ex-wife to buy some sort of harmony, teach his daughters so they would choose to come with him when the time was right.
  • It would be absurd to suggest that husband was not aware of the crucial need for discipline and teaching personal responsibility to children, since he could not have achieved his engineering degree or maintained his challenging employment position without these values. Thus, husband's claim that ex-wife's behavior and refusal to allow any sort of constraints on children, coupled with all of his other woes trying to achieve family survival with a partner who was determined to achieve the opposite are more than credible, they are true and overwhelmingly supported by witness statements and Dr. Mclean.
  • The fact that husband and daughters had to suffer so much damage during the marriage, divorce and after is a form of state created child abuse. Husband should have been able to walk away with his children half time, all of his property, his career and life at any time he chose. Ex-wife would have expressed no legal interest in her daughters if they had been an equal financial responsibility, rather than benefit to her (disinterest, which she chose, once all possibility of getting substantial financial support from husband ceased). The law should have been powerless to make these threats unless husband actually did have characteristics making him a threat to his daughters, otherwise it is in "the children's best interest" that they have access to a parent that is beneficial to them. The only lawful default state of divorce is equality, despite what the various self-proclaimed parasitic stakeholders (experts) in these matters may claim to "think".
  • It should also be kept in mind that ex-wife's allegations of husband's abuse and harsh discipline did not start until after husband submitted his Answer and CounterPetition to Divorce making it clear to ex-wife that husband intended to fight and had serious evidence to the detriment of ex-wife's position. It should also be kept in mind that husband is a rational player, in control of himself. It makes absolutely no sense, that once under observation, husband should start behaving out of established character, making rape and threats of violence (ex-wife's word only) against ex-wife. As has been noted previously, some judges have publicly admitted that, when faced with such allegations, they do not dare rule in favor of the alleged abuser. In other words, judges are cowardly politicians, who choose career and reputation (out of fear of mindless, uninformed media lambasting) over truth and doing the job they are paid for and expected to do.

Husband Stealing Property: Ex-wife alleges grand theft, affecting daughters

  • These allegations are distributed throughout all of ex-wife's affidavits and hearsay witnesses, making them appear as major, child threatening issue and sounding like husband cleared out entire house, leaving nothing, including ex-wife's bed and personal papers.
  • The truth is that husband took pre-marital assets including his office, some entertainment equipment, his bed and some kitchen supplies, plus his clothes.
  • Don't believe husband. In ex-wife's factum (what is claimed to be provable, after all of her hype above), ex-wife provides an itemized list of the property that husband is "really" accused of stealing. Note that this list is small and consists of kitchen utensils and things like "nail clippers"
  • Conclusion: This allegation is a lie, emotional drivel, part of overall strategy to demonize husband to judges who are just as ignorant (the kindest interpretation of the facts) as ex-wife and all of the other "stakeholders" in matters such as these.

Ex-wife's Career "Ambitions": Husband Thwarting

  • Ex-wife has alleged that husband thwarted her educational endeavors by refusing to allow her to quit work and go to university for "social work", at family expense. She demands spousal support in compensation.
  • It should be apparent by now that ex-wife's only ambition, career or otherwise was to entrap a "rich" sucker, get married and pregnant, prey on the family for as long as she could tolerate the jerk, file for divorce, get the children and support and be set for life, just like her mother's "no-fault" divorce. This opinion is shared by ex-wife's step father, two sisters and all witnesses with any insight state that ex-wife was NEVER a partner, interested in her children or even family survival. There is not ONE SINGLE credible witness who stands up for ex-wife as a contributing partner or parent.
  • In the sense of thwarting the above career, husband is GUILTY, proud of it and totally unrepentant.
  • In the sense of thwarting ex-wife's educational endeavors, it was not financially possible, due in large part to ex-wife's demands and financial excesses and her choice of career would never have paid for the investment. "Social work" has a surplus of "do gooders", who, frankly have been up to no good and have made dependents of all of their clients, creating the illusion of "helping". The Canadian taxpayer is not far from ending this scam and firing the lot.
  • As a compromise, husband agreed to pay for all of the correspondence courses ex-wife could handle. This effort on ex-wife's part quickly petered out and ended. Post divorce, ex-wife also lived on student loans until she either flunked out or was kicked out of university. These loans were "repaid" by bankruptcy.
  • There is a very large difference between standing in the way (opposing, actively thwarting) versus refusing to support something. Husband refused to make large family financial sacrifices in pursuit of a dubious goal by a lazy partner who was prone to failure for the simple reason that ex-wife refuses to act in accord with reality. Ex-wife was free to achieve this by correspondence, with husbands support, but chose not to.
  • Truth is, if ex-wife had any career "ambitions", she would have put some REAL effort (as opposed to whining and expecting the unearned) into achieving them. By ex-wife's REAL choices, her ambition was implied by the choices she made: make fraudulent partnership promises (her mothers no fault divorce "proved" that she would be held to NO legal responsibilities or promises), marry a successful man, tolerate the jerk for as long as possible, go for the juggular by filing for divorce, live an irresponsible life subsubsidized by child support, pretending to be a "mother", teaching her daughters the same so they too could be irresponsible hazards to their future husbands, children and society in general, giving tha nanny state an excuse to "help" and "appear" to justify the sorry existance of "problem solvers" who exist by creating the problems they profit from. The PLAN required husband's co-operation (submisssion to illegal / immoral acts) and failed due to TOTAL opposition by husband.
  • Conclusion: This allegation is a lie, the truth is that ex-wife did not have enough ambition or ability to succeed at anything. Husband did not stand in ex-wife's way, he refused to subsidize her. Husband is NOT GUILTY.

Ex-wife Completely Irresponsible including financial alleged by husband

  • Husband alleges that ex-wife is completely and utterly irresponsible, defined as unwilling to face the consequences of her own actions or to shoulder her moral and legal responsibilities, forcing others, including husband, her daughters and society in general to bear the cost.
  • Husband has alleged that ex-wife behaved in a financially irresponsible manner, refused to contribute by shouldering her financial responsibilities and reckless spending, forcing husband to continually bail ex-wife out with the result that the family was impoverished during the entire marriage, despite husbands large contributions.
  • Husband claims, because of this fact, the assumption in law that ex-wife was an equal contributor during marriage is invalid with the consequence that an unequal division of family property should occur, in husbands favor.
  • This issue is also pertinent as evidence that ex-wife is incapable of parenting her daughters, due to a demonstrated inability/unwillingness to take responsibility for the children's well-being and a chronic bias towards selfishness, at the expense of all others.
  • This issue is also pertinent as evidence that ex-wife is incapable of managing child support for the "children's best interests", should she achieve custody. The legal implication is, at a minimum, a third party should manage child support, as trustee for the children's interests.
  • This section is purely for academic interest, since personal responsibility is considered irrelevant and NOT pertaining to "children's best interests" according to the courts. To quote the Right Dishonorable Justice Chadwick "If we considered personal responsibility, nobody would be allowed to care for their children". This quote is in the court transcripts from November 25, 1994 and is completely inaccessible to citizens. There you have it, insanity and social/economic suicide and institutionalized child neglect decreed by gavel and enforced at the point of a gun. A judge stating that the only valid consideration of law, holding persons responsible for their own actions is IRRELEVANT, completely negating himself and all judges who agree with this insane opinion. This judicial position strips the courts of any moral or intellectual rationalizations to exercise power over citizens on any matter. What is left is guns and "might is right", wielding the power of citizens as weapons against their survival interests.
  • The areas of responsibility considered are: ex-wife behaving in children's best interests (includes family interests and keeping legal marriage vows to be a partner), providing an environment in support of children's development (role model, trust, social development, peace, structure, rules, discipline, stability) and financial (required for family survival).

Support Ex-wife's Oppose Husbands Claims

  • Ex-wife presents a letter from her employer attesting to her "solid performance and consistent attendance" as evidence of her personal responsibility.
  • Ex-wife presents a series of performance reviews from her employer indicating an overall "good", meaning that she has performed in a satisfactory manner.
  • The point is conceded that, when ex-wife is under observation full time at work and faces personal consequences (losing face, job, income) for not being responsible, she was able to choose to behave in a responsible manner. This was not to her liking and husband, Dianna Drynan and many others heard many complaints regarding how clerical work was beneath the dignity of quality people such as ex-wife and only peons and the inferior (such as husband) should work. The truth is, based on the fact that ex-wife has remained on social services from 1994 to date, that work in general is beneath the dignity of superior people such as ex-wife and it is the responsibility of Canadian taxpayers to support deserving persons such as she so that she can ponder weightier matters than mere survival with the assistance of liberal quantities of prescription drugs and rum, also at taxpayers expense.
  • Ex-wife presents a series of affidavits/statements from satisfied daycare customers, opinions three years old:
  • Affidavit of Diane Nicol for ex-wife re: quality daycare provided by ex-wife (June 7, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Diane Nicol
    • Statement of Diane Nicol (May 11, 1994), sworn as affadavit.
    • Diane attests to quality daycare for her daughter by ex-wife. Opinion three years old, based on ex-wife's child dropoff and pickup illusions, marketing for clients.
    • The reality was, daycare was an excuse for ex-wife not to work and to stay home and drink rum. There were no child activities except safety and feeding, during day, while drinking rum on job. This is evidenced by statements of Richard Beange, Garry Browne and Affidavit of Dianna Drynan.
    • Diane initially believed ex-wife and was hostile to "abusive" husband.
    • Adds that, ex-wife is very good mother, any suggestions otherwise: ridiculous.
    • Adds that, she has socialized with ex-wife, on occasion, any suggestion of alcohol problem: ridiculous.
    • Husband: If Diane has socialized with ex-wife, it was not during marriage, since husband's attempts in encouraging ex-wife to get friends and a life and go out were consistently unsuccessful. It appears that ex-wife put successful effort into manipulating Diane's perceptions, after divorce started, to achieve this affidavit.
    • Diane subsequently became roommates with ex-wife and was morally compelled to call Child Protection Services on April 13, 1995 to protect daughters from ex-wife.
    • Diane subsequently approached husband and insisted on providing husband an affidavit in support (June 19, 1996) of his bid for custody. Note the date of the second affidavit. It is in the future and thus, could not have been considered in 1994.
    • Ex-wife ended up living with Diane Nicol after being granted by the courts full possession of home (kicking husband out of his home that was achieved by loans from his parents and paid for by himself, despite ex-wife's financial irresponsibility, including after he was forced out), which ex-wife was incapable of managing and chose to leave, another symptom of ex-wife's general incompetence, in all areas, including parenting.

    Statement of Susan L. Perry for ex-wife re: quality daycare provided by ex-wife (May 10, 1994)

    • Statement of Susan L. Perry (May 10, 1994)
    • Ex-wife cared for her two daughters one, before and after school, the other full time from September 1990 to June 1991
    • Considered ex-wife reliable, responsible and caring.

    Statement of Lorene Rolfe for ex-wife re: quality daycare provided by ex-wife (May 11, 1994)

    • Statement of Lorene Rolfe
    • Ex-wife cared for her daughter from August 1989 to August 1991
    • Husband: Lorene was the last client, daycare ended at this time, ex-wife went to work full time. All opinions regarding daycare at least three years old.
    • Considered ex-wife reliable and was happy with care.
  • The point is conceded that, when under observation (child pickup, dropoff) ex-wife can appear to be personally responsible since she would have faced negative consequences (lost income) otherwise. The observations of Dianna Drynan, Richard Beange and Garry Browne indicate that the sole purpose of the daycare was for ex-wife to avoid work, neglect the children and stay home and drink rum. PERIOD.
  • Ex-wife presents affidavits from ex-tenants who worked during daycare hours and could not have observed daycare much, if at all. Opinions at least two years old. They attest that ex-wife appeared to be a good mother, but do not provide examples apart from fact that ex-wife provided toys. Jacqueline Bonnar's opinion was that ex-wife did bulk of childcare, no examples, refuted by affidavits/statements from members of family social network.
  • Affidavit of Donna Clement ex tenant and neighbor of Rosses (June 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Donna Clement
    • Lived in duplex next door from Ross's for fifteen months during time ex-wife was running daycare
    • Donna moved out in 1991, opinion three years old
    • Donna carpooled with ex-wife to work until 1993. Claims that children always happy to see ex-wife when picked up from daycare
    • Husband: Family only had one car, ex-wife was in Donna's car. It was husbands responsibility to drop off/pick up children from daycare, while ex-wife got an early start on supper (ie; start drinking rum, after a stressful day at work). There were occasional times, due to schedule that Donna/ex-wife picked up children, since ex-wife enjoyed "her space" before children got home and discouraged this.
    • Claims to have observed ex-wife and daycare children during the day.
    • Husband: above claim cannot be true, since Donna worked full time during the day and no daycare on weekends.
    • Disputes any opinion that ex-wife was not providing quality care or excellent environment for children.
    • Disputes and considers ridiculous any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol problems
    • Claims to have not seen ex-wife drink alcohol during day or inebriated at any time.
    • Doesn't want to be involved, but so shocked at husbands allegations against ex-wife, feels she must.

    Affidavit of Jacqueline Bonnar ex tenant and neighbor of Rosses (June 20, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Jacqueline Bonnar
    • Lived in duplex next door from Ross's for one year, moved out in September 1992. Opinion two years old.
    • Claims to have heard fights through the walls (one foot thick, impossible) between Rosses's, on a weekly basis.
    • Husband: Not denying that fights occurred, on a regular basis. Ex-wife's irresponsibility was destroying family ability to survive. If survival threatened, fight or die. That's reality. If husband did not fight, courts would have claimed it was evidence of husband not caring for children as opposed to interperting it as spousal "abuse". It is a no win situation when judges are able to treat interpretation as FACT, in support of whatever agenda they may have.
    • Claims that ex-wife confided that husband was threatening to leave her and take the children, leaving ex-wife penniless.
    • Believes husband is very opinionated, controlling man who believes himself superior, making relationships difficult.
    • Believes any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol problems to be ridiculous.
    • Believes that having to deal with husband would drive many to drink.
    • Disputes and considers ridiculous any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol problems
    • Claims that ex-wife is excellent mother.
    • Claims that ex-wife did the bulk of childcare activities, husband occasionally participated.
    • Admits that husband is a good father and spends quality time with children.
    • Husband: Jacqueline was not around much and worked days, not present during daycare hours.
    • Husband: Ex-wife did not socialize with tenants, since ex-wife was lady of the manor and they were inferior serfs, in her opinion.
    • Husband: Later, after ex-wife managed to use the courts to kick husband out, she did become friends with one female tenant, mainly because tenant was friendly, liked children and was some one that ex-wife could "dump" the children on.
    • Husband: Jacqueline and husband were in a rental dispute, email records available, leaving Jacqueline bitter and biased against husband.
  • Ex-wife presents affidavits from several acquaintances from the distant past, not members of family social network, opinions at least three years old, plus recent, post separation "observations", once ex-wife started her "dog and pony show".
  • Affidavit of Kathy Sainthill acquaintance of ex-wife (November 18, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Kathy Sainthill
    • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1976, visited often at marital home during this period.
    • Husband: Finally, a person he actually knows. Met Kathy S. at the same party that ex-wife came to and never left. During the early years of the marriage, ex-wife went out with Kathy socially at most once per year and Kathy and her partner came over for dinner at most three times. During the latter three years of the marriage, ex-wife and Kathy were estranged due to a major difference of opinion. Claims to be a friend, but actually an acquaintance with limited insight.
    • Claims ex-wife to be an excellent mother and teacher, focused with her children.
    • Claims that ex-wife does discipline daughters by discussion and "time out".
    • Claims that she witnessed husband's harsh punishment by removing all of daughters possessions from room for a minor infraction and then making her earn them back by good behavior.
    • Husband: Kathy S. was not present for this "incident" of husbands "child abuse".
    • Claims that ex-wife is a very open, forthright individual, contrasts to husband as controlling and manipulative individual.
    • Recounts phone call from husband in the spring (ie; at time of divorce initiation) where husband told her that ex-wife was drinking a lot and needed a friend. Interprets goal of husband to be manipulative, an attempt to hurt ex-wife. States that husband called several more times asking her to be ex-wife's friend and help her. States that she advised ex-wife to get a lawyer.
    • Husband: Did call Kathy S. ex-wife needed a friend and was committed to a course that would hurt our children, myself and ex-wife very badly, and was beyond anyone's but her flakey mother's, corrupt lawyer's and corrupt shrink's influence. Kathy S. at this time must have been aware that divorce had started and would not have advised ex-wife to get a lawyer. Even so, it was very bad advice, as subsequent events have shown.
    • Husband: This is a typical manipulative absurdity. There were problems, husband is a problem solver and took real steps such as hoping that an old acquaintance may be able to help stabilize ex-wife, to provide some balance. To have this interpreted, or even to think that this act could be part of some Machiavellian plot on part of husband to hurt ex-wife is non-rational. If the intent was hurt, the best strategy on husbands part would have been to isolate ex-wife, deny her social support and weaken her, prior to moving in for the kill (ie; do what the law tried and failed to do to husband). This act was intended to help ex-wife and Kathy S. did not even try and failed miserably both to be the friend she claims to be and as a human being who are morally obligated to try to assist others in times of distress.
    • Alleges she witnessed a minor dispute between husband and ex-wife, where husband dismissed ex-wife's opinion by: "I'm a man, I'm and engineer, I've been around the world, what have you done?". Paraphrased: The arrogant, insensitive brute of a man and poor little ex-wifey, denied any respect.
    • Alleges she witnessed another incident where husband refused to change diapers: "Don't try to stuff that off on me, ...don't think you can get away with that in front of your friends".
    • Is "shocked" by any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol difficulties that may interfere with her parenting.
    • Considers it to be "incomprehensible" that custody has been recommended to brute of a husband. Wonders what misinformation this can be based on.

    Affidavit of Carol Taylor acquaintance of ex-wife (November 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Carol Taylor
    • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1980, met her while working for the Federal Government (student loans)
    • Claims to see ex-wife frequently and talks often on phone. Claims to have seen ex-wife interact with her children.
    • Claims to have visited ex-wife often at home and has seen her with the children there.
    • Husband: Yes, he actually knows this person. Met Carol at the wedding (1985) or shortly before. She was a maid of honor. During the early years of the marriage, ex-wife went out with Carol socially at most once per year and Carol and her partner came over for dinner at most three times. During the latter three years of the marriage, ex-wife refused to go out socially with any of her "friends" or invite them over, despite husband encouraging (oops - abusing) her to "get a life". Only friends that the spouses saw regularly or had over were initially husband's friends. Of those, only Dianna Drynan and ex-wife had what could be called friendship. Carol claims to be a friend, but actually is an acquaintance with limited insight.
    • Claims her motives for speaking up is her "shock" that ex-wife may have addiction problems and that custody has been recommended to the children's father.
    • Claims that she has never seen ex-wife drunk and has had numerous social opportunities to observe both out and at ex-wife's home when alcohol was being consumed.
    • Recounts ex-wife stating that her drinking increased in the months preceding separation, that she became concerned and intended to stop.
    • Claims that, from every indication she has, ex-wife has stopped drinking.
    • Claims the suggestion that ex-wife simply switched her addiction from alcohol to tranquilizers to be "ridiculous"
    • Regurgitates ex-wife's previous allegations against her brute of a husband, running amok, stressing ex-wife.
    • Recounts ex-wife claiming new allegation against husband: That he does not return the children at agreed time, nor call with new schedule, forcing ex-wife to track her daughters down.
    • Claims to have seen ex-wife interacting with children, a wonderful mother, who dotes on her daughters.
    • Husband: Carol did not see or communicate with ex-wife for at least three years, prior to being called to service for ex-wife's "dog and pony show" which started once ex-wife realized that success in court may not be as automatic as she had assumed.
    • Claims to have seen husband interact with the children and claims husband is a "relatively good" parent who plays games with and has fun with his children.
    • Claims that division of child labor was that husband got to do all the fun, interacting stuff, while ex-wife doing all the organizing work.
    • Husband: To have seen and concluded this, it would have been, at latest 1990.
    • Believes it to be "incomprehensible" that ex-wife is not able to discipline her children. Claims to have seen the contrary.
  • Ex-wife presents affidavits from friends of her mother, containing recent, post separation "observations" and hearsay allegations against husband, once ex-wife started her "dog and pony show".
  • Affidavit of Lisa Kennedy friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Lisa Kennedy
    • Claims to have known ex-wife for nine years, little contact with her during this period.
    • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
    • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
    • Claims her observations based on last four to five months (ie; since June/July 1994)
    • Claims also to have had several lengthy phone conversations with ex-wife in above interval
    • Invokes "expert" status with undergraduate psychology and M.Ed. in counseling. Claims specialty in treatment for female survivors of childhood trauma and other abuse. Currently employed at Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Social Services department.
    • Claims to be "appalled" at deterioration and condition of ex-wife who had lost 30 pounds after not seeing her for years.
    • Claims that ex-wife on the verge of tears and trembling and, when asked, indicated it was due to the stress she was under and the enormous difficulties she had to deal with during marriage.
    • Claims that ex-wife expressed concern about the harsh forms of discipline her children had to "endure" at the hands of their father.
    • Repeats older daughter's diaper incident, but this time it is for wetting her pants, as opposed to intentionally urinating on the floor in protest.
    • Expresses "expert" opinion of the profoundly negative long term effects that such humiliation and trauma can have on a sensitive little girl.
    • Repeats ex-wife's description of her helplessness to intervene against her brute of a husband and subsequent attempts to comfort her distraught daughter after this (proven) jointly arrived at and agreed to consequence for an intentional act.
    • Repeats ex-wife's version of cold shower punishment if the girls accidentally "spilled" water on the floor during bath
    • Husband: as opposed to the truth that they were having water fights, destroying the ceiling below, were pre-warned and reason had failed. After a while, this became a game for the girls, experimenting to see if father's threshold of "too much" water on the floor was consistent. It was.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That husband would not let her bath the girls or take care of the children and instead demanded that ex-wife be doing cleaning and cooking, which were ex-wife's sole responsibilities, contradicting ex-wife's contention that she was the primary caregiver during entire marriage since husband was not interested.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That she was afraid to disobey husband out of fear that he would take his wrath out on the children.
    • Re-iterates ex-wife's abuse and rape allegations against husband, except rape threats are now multiple.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That husband has threatened to completely destroy her, physically and emotionally, leaving her unable to function.
    • Repeats ex-wife's allegations that husband has threatened to leave her penniless and that husband has stolen property, including her bed (husbands pre-marital property).
    • Repeats ex-wife's allegations that she had to sleep on the floor (OH?, husband left the couch, proven by ex-wife's photos of "missing property").
    • Claims that husband deprived her of child support. Claims this caused hardship, necessitating ex-wife to borrow money.
    • Husband: September, October, November 1994, $700.00 per month, since children were back in school and daycare costs reduced by same amount and ex-wife refused to negotiate. Meanwhile, husband continued to pay all of ex-wife's major expenses including housing and utilities, per consent. Ex-wife also made substantially more than this selling the puppies which were half husbands and she refused to share the proceeds, or even admit there were any.
    • Repeats ex-wife's allegations regarding husband and feces, alleges that husband "forced" older daughter to feed puppies.
    • Claims that she had to give away these puppies and beloved family pets due to husbands actions. This contradicts ex-wife's diary entries that she sold puppies on at least three occasions.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, husband displayed a complete disregard for her sexual wishes and forced her to engage in sexual acts that were "abhorrent" to her.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, husband threatened to abandon her and the children, from the time they were babies.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, husband would frequently make sexual advances to her in front of the children.
    • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, her fear of husband made her powerless to prevent his inappropriate behavior.
    • Claims she has observed ex-wife with children and, except for slight impatience and lack of discipline, feels that ex-wife is a nurturing, caring parent.
    • Claims to believe that children are more inclined to act out with ex-wife since they feel safe and are not afraid of her.
    • Claims to believe that children are more obedient with father (has never observed father with daughters) because they fear harsh punishments for even the most minor infractions.
    • Claims ex-wife has a good relationship with her own two children and engages in games and other appropriate activities.
    • Claims she trusted ex-wife enough to allow her to babysit her own two children.
    • Claims that ex-wife frightened by tranquilizer addiction and had dealt with problem promptly.
    • Claims that ex-wife claimed that she had dealt with her fear, stress and loneliness by abusing alcohol.
    • Claims that ex-wife claimed that husband had criticized and berated her during entire marriage for being financially dependent and this criticism, coupled with her low self-esteem left her feeling powerless.
    • Claims that ex-wife claimed since separation, she has found the strength and resources to stop abusing alcohol.
    • Believes that, once husbands abuse is stopped by removing him, that ex-wife will experience a renaissance and flower to her full potential.
    • Believes that ex-wife would benefit by joining a support group for abused women.
    • Believes that children require help to recover and deal with husbands "harsh" discipline.
    • Believes that Children's Aid should monitor husbands contact with children, should he foolishly be allowed to see them.
    • Husband: Children's Aid was called in, seven times, by various third parties and professionals, ALL times to investigate complaints against ex-wife. They are as useless as any other beurocracy, primarily focused on covering their own asses.
    • Husband: An "expert" has spoken, GOD help us all. Lisa is the kind of "professional" that courts rely upon for "plausible deniability" and scapegoats when caught in their machinations.

    Affidavit of Marlon Kennedy husband of friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Marlon Kennedy
    • Claims to have known ex-wife for nine years, seen her on occasion during this period. Friend of ex-wife's mother.
    • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
    • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
    • Claims that observations primarily over last few months, has observed ex-wife for many hours each week.
    • Claims that ex-wife is intelligent and capable, more than able to care for her children.
    • Was appalled to see in summer, after many years of not seeing ex-wife to observe her loss of weight, state of anxiety and unconsciously expressed fear.
    • Compares ex-wife to a cowering dog after years of ill treatment, expecting to be beaten at any moment, in contrast to the strong, self confident woman he first met nearly ten years ago.
    • Husband: Proved the facts on her, all of ex-wife's chickens were coming home to roost, the culmination of years of husband warning (oops - being abusive) that her irresponsibility and self-destructive behavior could end only one way. She had seen the evidence, knew it was true, and was terrified. Her master plan of marrying a sucker, tolerate the jerk, bleed him dry for as long as she could then use the law to go for the jugular and be on easy street for life, just like her mother was failing. Of course, husband did not anticipate that the courts would ignore the evidence, not apply the law and worse, break the law. Do not believe for a moment that the courts bought that ex-wife's self-abuse was due to husband, they just pretended to. It is a fact that ex-wife appeared abused. It is assumption and manipulation to attribute it to husband without proof. Judges should know this. The real game is "pass the parasite" created by illegal laws which destroy families, honesty and the work ethic and husband was expected to pay. Husband will not apologize to anyone he may have disappointed by not fulfilling the role or fate arbitrarily deemed for him and his daughters. Husband, like all free and aware people is master of his own destiny and woe to those who act otherwise and refuse to get out of the way.
    • Describes ex-wife's recounting of the constant state of terror and fear of husband.
    • Claims to have observed a dramatic change in ex-wife's state of mind after each encounter with husband. Concludes this is the result of years of criticism, humiliation and being put down.
    • Claims that ex-wife had to struggle to maintain her self-control and composure, every time husband had to be, was or had been dealt with. Claims at other times, ex-wife's strength and composure back.
    • Claims that ex-wife had called on several occasions in a state of despair. Recounts allegations that husband wrote "the great reckoning" on the court date, on the calendar. Recounts allegations that husband had threatened to "rape her", "strip her bare of everything" and "cast her out as worthless".
    • Husband: What the courts do on a daily basis is worse than "rape", since at least the rapist goes away. They daily "strip men bare of everything", including their children and enslave them, forced to pay with no influence with their children. This is exactly what ex-wife was demanding the courts do to husband and this is exactly what the courts tried and failed to do.
    • Recounts allegations that husband had threatened to "punch her out", recounts ex-wife's terror of husband and concludes this can only come from sustained persecution.
    • Claims that, based on a few observations that ex-wife is a caring, nurturing mother.
    • Claims that he has discussed the children with ex-wife and she is concerned about their well-being and is seeking professionals.
    • Claims that he was present during several phone conversations between ex-wife and children when they were with husband who was claimed to be sleeping during the day while children ran amok.
    • Believes that ex-wife is able to put aside her feelings and foster a loving relationship between children and their father. States that on one occasion, the children said something negative about their father and ex-wife defended father.
    • Recounts new allegation by ex-wife: Observes that oldest daughter grabbed ex-wife's breasts in an extremely sexual way, totally shocking mother. Ex-wife alleges that daughter is mimicking husband, who constantly grabbed her breasts, making her feel like a toy.
    • Husband: This was at least four months after separation. Husband and ex-wife in each others presence, apart from turnovers was not a factor. If husband's behavior had been this crude during marriage and daughter was mimicking it, this is not the point in time that mimicking would first occur, "shocking" ex-wife, if true, an indication this was the first time. Daughters were starved for female attention, a fact remarked upon and noticed by many, including teachers. If husband had engaged in this behavior post separation, a police report would certainly have been made, since ex-wife was on hair-trigger alert, reporting even imaginary incidents.
    • Claims to have discussed with ex-wife the possibility of counseling to address daughters sexualized behavior and possibility that husband was sexually abusing daughters.
    • Husband: Both the affidavits of Marlon and his wife Lisa directly address and attempt to counter key issues raised in the McLean Report, such as ex-wife's unconcern with children's behavioral problems. It appears these two are not recounting observations, but trying to "help" their friends daughter, as indicated by their awareness of issues that could have only have come from the report. Raising the issue of husband sexually abusing his daughters is pure manipulation, raising a closed issue. Ex-wife admitted to Dr. Mclean the possibility was ridiculous and further, sexual abuse is such a hot button that many shrinks had interviewed the children looking for this.
    • Claims that ex-wife is such a wonderful mother that he entrusted the care of his own children to her.
    • Husband: Marlon was so impressed with ex-wife, that several months later husband found out ex-wife and Marlon were bed buddies and Marlon and Lisa's marriage was over. One can only speculate on whether there was a cost for this affidavit. With ex-wife, the costs are always hidden and high.

    Affidavit of Nancy Campbell friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Nancy Campbell
    • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1982, seen her with children on occasion at their grandmother's during this period.
    • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
    • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
    • Claims to be "shocked" that ex-wife may lose custody. Claims mother and daughters inseparable and very close.
    • Claims and enumerates qualities that ex-wife has the right motherhood stuff.
    • Claims that she has never observed any disipline problems with the children and they listened to her.
    • Cannot believe that ex-wife has any alcohol problems.

    Statement of Victoria Ruitter friend of ex-wife's mother (November 18, 1994)

    • Statement of Victoria Ruitter
    • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1980 (ex-wife: age 23)
    • Claims to have seen ex-wife develop from a shy girl to a mature, responsible woman.
    • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
    • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
    • Claims, to the best of her knowlege that ex-wife has always been loving caring and supportative mother
    • Believes ex-wife fit parent and essential to children's healthy development.
    • Husband: Never met this woman and doubt she had seen ex-wife with children much, if at all.
    • Husband: Victoria was a friend of ex-wife's mother, called in to do a favor, with no insight.
    • Husband: This was necessary since ex-wife did not invest in personal relationships, was unable/unwilling to earn trust, was in denial of the need for reciprocity in healthy relationships and had only acquaintences, no close friends.

    Affidavit of Kathy Nehei friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Kathy Nihei
    • Claims to have known ex-wife for twenty four years.
    • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
    • Husband: Have met and do not know this person. Believe she was at the wedding. Has never been to home during marriage. Doubt that she has seen ex-wife with children prior to divorce initiation.
    • Claims to be a friend of ex-wife.
    • Claims that ex-wife's strong points are energy, enthusiam, honesty, loyalty and common sense.
    • Claims that ex-wife is inclined to avoid confrontation and readily gives in to avoid hurting others and prefers that she, rather than others be hurt.
    • Claims that ex-wife has a strong sense of family and is a sensitive, supportive and nurturing mother.
    • Claims that ex-wife is stable, very personally responsible, strong, courageous, determined and caring.
    • Claims that children are ex-wife's life and very unjust to take them away.
    • No mention of alcohol.
    • Recommends custody to ex-wife.
  • Ex-wife presents affidavit from her mother who does not discuss responsibility apart from saying ex-wife managed and facilitated but did not state ex-wife actually did anything. This woman is not exactly an expert in responsibility, per her two other daughters.
  • Affidavit of Marguerite Day ex-wife's mother (June 17, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Marguerite Day
    • Claims to see children more than anyone else, except for parents
    • Claims ex-wife is organized, efficient, dependable and manages all aspects of the children's dietary, health, clothing and social needs.
    • Claims ex-wife is focussed on the reward, rather than punishment aspects of disipline
    • Claims that ex-wife "faciliatates" children's attendance at their activities. Meaning, someone else (husband) takes them.
    • Claims that ex-wife teaches children co-operative, rather than competetive methods of solving disputes
    • Husband: How can someone teach skills they do not have. Marriage failed die to lack of co-operation or reason. See what ex-wife's sisters said in this area.
    • Claims ex-wife has earned the children's trust and love is evident.
    • Claims husband unsuitable parent because he regards children and ex-wife as possessions, which is unhealthy for them.
    • Claims husband is inept at communication. does not listen to the opinions of others.
    • Claims husband regards his opinion as fact and all dissenting opinions as mistakes in the judgment of others.
    • Claims husband demands strict, unquestioning obedience and that disipline equals punishment.
    • Claims husband imposes severe, non-negotiable punishments on his children.
    • Claims husband's punishments are erratic, imposed without forethought and confuse the children who do not know what to expect from him.
    • Claims husband is teaching children to mistrust everyone, including each other and even questions whether they are cheating at games. Unwittingly admits that husband actually plays games with his daughters
    • Claims husband is teaching children to be overly competetive with each other and other people.
    • Claims husband does not understand the concept of co-operation
    • Claims husband treats children as if they must be controlled.
    • Claims husband lacks the organizational skills, consistency, dedication and focus required to manage a family in a short or long term.
    • Claims, despite her opinions indicating father bad, that children should spend as much time as their father as possible.
    • Husband: This is all opinion, with no examples, from a woman who is just as flakey as her daughter, her creation.
    • Husband: This woman knew full well that her daughter was incapable of parenting and was privy to many alcohol and personal responsibility related disputes of the spouses during the entire marriage, to which she advised husband that he was interfering in ex-wife's "freedom" and being "intolerant" by having alcohol issues. Mother stood to financially benefit from child support when her daughter's affairs fell apart due to mismanagement and ex-wife inevitably came running home again. This is exactly what happened.
    • Note that she does not mention her daughter with respect to alcohol.
    • Husband: do appreciate the fact that this woman insulated his daughters from some of the the worse effects of their mother's alcoholism and irresponsibility, in the early years before children matured enough to choose survival and live full time with father.
  • Ex-wife presents statement from an old boyfriend attesting to ex-wife's financial responsibility while living together for several months.
  • Bernard recounts that, while living together, ex-wife behaved in a financially responsible manner. This is identical to husbands experience during courtship. Ex-wife was reeling Bernard in and he got away. Husband was not so lucky and became prey. This is consistent with ex-wife's sister Anita Cox's opinion that "Ex-wife can be a very good actress in the short haul, when she is trying to get something".
  • Statement of Bernard Wilson ex and future boyfriend of ex-wife (November 21, 1994)

    • Statement of Bernard Wilson
    • Claims to have known ex-wife for eleven years, mostly, and now living in England
    • Claims, during 1994, to have communicated with ex-wife by telephone once every six to eight weeks. Claims that, since September 1994, frequency of calls increased to once per week.
    • Claims to have lived together with ex-wife for several months and to have shared costs equally with the exception of rent which was shared proportional to income.
    • Husband: During entire marriage, while attempting to deal with ex-wife's financial irresponsibility, ex-wife refused both to share financial information or to agree to an equalization of discretionary income (allowance, budgeting) for spouses, with all else going into family expenses and investments. Ex-wife repeatedly contracted debt against husbands will, to which he was illegally obligated, by faulty law. Husband fought long and hard for any sort of financial discipline or compromise from ex-wife and failed miserably. Ex-wife of the opinion that she can do and spend according to whim and any restriction was interfering with her "freedom", and it was up to husband to deal with the consequences. Husbands position (demanding that ex-wife consider and behave consistent with family survival and her marriage vows) appeared to be later interpreted by the courts as "abuse" on husbands part. It appears that ex-wife was being reasonable with Bernard until she lured him into marriage when the gloves come off and demands for entitlements come into play. Husband experienced the same thing during courtship and "test" living together. Ex-wife was very reasonable and a "good" partner during courtship, until she became pregnant shortly after marriage, consummating her trap. Husband expected the same after marriage (and ex-wife made promises and marriage vows stating this) and was VERY unpleasantly surprised with this bait and switch tactic by both his ex-wife, and later the courts switching law and children's best interests to child abuse, tyranny and slavery.
    • Husband: During marriage, Bernard visited at most twice, when he and ex-wife went out for dinner, without the children. Any encounters between Bernard and ex-wife with children very brief.
    • Claims that ex-wife very responsible, and a loving mother, who tried very hard to keep the marriage together. Claims ex-wife was compassionate and cared for himself when he was ill and was helping her mother out financially.
    • Claims that ex-wife has shown no signs of alcohol or drug dependency. Claims the first he heard of substance problems was when husband called him in September, 1994.
    • Claims that during husbands call, husband asked if he had ever suspected alcoholism or of ex-wife being a "moneygrabber".
    • Claims that is aware of ex-wife's financial hardship when husband stopped paying support..
    • Husband: In fact, ex-wife used this claim of hardship and pity credit to get substantial financial support from Bernard over the years, including living with him for a year or so post separation (until he learned the truth and fled back to England, once subpoenaed by husband) and an all expense paid trip to England for herself and daughters.
    • Claims that ex-wife very upset due to the state of the children after being with husband.
    • Claims that cannot comment on children's environment, but did find the children "wonderfully bright and lively", a credit to their parents.
    • Claims that to recall that husband spent a lot of the time away from home working, concludes most childcare responsibility borne by ex-wife.

Neutral or No Opinion regarding ex-wife's irresponsibility

  • All aspects of this litigation with the exception of the heinous acts alleged against husband as part of the demonization process pertain in one way or another on ex-wife's responsibility or lack thereof. There is no neutral evidence in this area.

Support Husband's Oppose Ex-wife's Claims

  • Dr. Mclean, based on research and observations, was forced to conclude that ex-wife appears to have had no meaningful interaction with her daughters for at least several years and husband was the primary caregiver. He further concluded that ex-wife's "free spirit", irresponsible parenting philosophy was definitely "not in the children's best interests"
  • Family Court Clinic Report recommending custody to father (November 16, 1994)

      University of Ottawa Family Court Clinic

      • Family Court Clinic
      • Multidisciplinary team of forensic psychiatrists, headed by Dr. David Mclean.
      • The purpose of this investigative unit is to objectively consider issues pertaining to the intersection of psychiatry, law and children's best interests.
      • Services were agreed to and paid for by both parties, to insure unbiased results.
      • This clinic is the premier institution of its type in the region, with the best reputation for objectivity and accuracy.
    • Family Court Clinic Report
    • Custody recommended to father (Page 27).
    • Addiction treatment and psychiatric help recommended for mother (Page 27).
    • McLean Report Overview

      • Counseling help recommended for father to help deal with his hurt and to provide support (Page 27).
      • Ex-wife admits that violence was not an issue during the marriage. Admits that she would hit husband out of frustration and he would simply leave. Husband admits that when ex-wife hit him, he would just restrain her wrists in self-defense. Ex-wife repeats rape threat allegation she made to police against husband in June 1994 as now happening during marriage, as opposed to after separation (Page 5)
      • Marriage counseling since 1992, issues centered around control, finances and ex-wife's drinking. Counselor under the impression that ex-wife may have felt emotionally abused (implied, but not stated: by husband's issues with her irresponsibility and drinking) (Page 5).
      • Ex-wife caught in a lie by Dr. Mclean about her daily consumption of tranquilizers. Pharmacist cuts her off for abuse. Dr. Mclean recounts ex-wife's description of going into withdrawal with "shakes, fears and lightheadedness" (Page 7).
      • Ex-wife admits to drinking 9 to 10 ounces of alcohol per day. Ex-wife claims that her drinking started in January 1989, after birth of second daughter. Ex-wife claims to have cut back on drinking in April 1994, once she became aware husband was measuring her consumption. Ex-wife claims that she can be a controlled drinker and thus is in denial that there is a problem. Dr. Mclean concurs with husbands opinion that ex-wife is on tranquilizers to try to hide alcoholism (Page 8).
      • Ex-wife prone to emotional thinking and misperceiving situations. Ex-wife has considerable anger which she has trouble expressing and may project on other people. Ex-wife can be somewhat naive and self-centered, with a need to view herself positively. Ex-wife tends to be indirect and manipulative in meeting her needs. Ex-wife has difficulties in intimate and long term relationships due to immaturity and self-centerdness. No sign of any mental illness in ex-wife (Page 9)
      • Dr. Mclean describes disastrous one on one encounter between ex-wife and children, where ex-wife had no clue how to deal with them, from which he later concludes no meaningful interaction between ex-wife and daughters for at least several years (Page 10).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife has serious alcohol and/or drug addiction problems, which, if anything, she is downplaying the amount and period of consumption and does not admit it as a problem. Dr. Mclean concludes that primary focus in ex-wife's life at this time must be dealing with her addictions and would be happy to make a professional referral (Page 10).
      • Dr. McLean concludes that ex-wife's alcoholism has negatively affected her parenting and nurturing her daughters for at least the last several years (Page 10).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife's "free spirit" and lack of structure approach to parenting is not in children's best interests (Page 11).
      • Husbands natural mother is in long term care for schizophrenia and has been since husband very young (Page 11).
      • In discussing husbands childhood, husband indicated he associated with the "thinking crowd" and described himself as the "class delinquent" (Page 11).
      • Husband left home at age 16 and worked way through high school (Page 11).
      • Husband quit college electronics course because it was "far too easy" (Page 11)
      • Husband enrolled in University of Waterloo, Electronics Engineering, but failed third year due to frustrated "love" (Page 12).
      • Husband spent several years working in Africa and California, then returned to complete Engineering Degree (Page 12).
      • Husband moved to Ottawa to work for Norpak and was soon promoted to project leader (Page 12)
      • In 1985, husband moved to Nortel to date and keeps refusing management positions, since he is "happier that way" and has no intention of leaving current employment. (Page 12)
      • Dr. Mclean describes husband as down-to-earth and one "who tells it like it is" (Page 12).
      • Husband describes step-mother and acknowledges debt to her for not protecting him from bullies, forcing him to learn how to defend himself (Page 13)
      • Husband describes childhood with no one to intelligently answer his questions, making him feel stupid (Page 13)
      • Husband admits that, in rebellious teens he had minor difficulties with the law including impaired and several drunk and disorderlys (Page 14).
      • Dr. Mclean describes results of one of husbands personality tests (MMPI) as invalid, "characteristic of people who have an almost pathological intense need to present a perfectionist view of themselves" (Page 14).
      • Dr. Mclean elaborates on invalid test: "They are naively defensive and may use considerable repression to maintain their self-image. They may also be rigorously moralistic and self-rightous in a way which could be uncompromising." (Page 14)
      • Husbands profile was suggested to reflect a conventional and controlled man who can be self-centered, immature and manipulative in his relationships (Page 14).
      • Husband is likely to be hard working, achievement oriented, practical and easy-going in many aspects of his life. He is also likely to be friendly and outgoing in relationships (Page 14).
      • Husband does not show an above average potential to be an abusive parent. Responses did indicate unhappiness in relationships and lack of emotional support (Page 14).
      • Husband is able to express warmth and a good range of emotions. Husband appears to have a general negative bias coloring his perception of females (Page 15).
      • While major psychopathology cannot be ruled out because of husband's invalid MMPI test results, husband did present as a generally well functioning person whose authoritarian tenancies are exacerbated by the current conflict situation.
      • Dr. Mclean suggests that husband step back psychologically and consider his own contributions to family problems (unstated what they may be) (Page 15)
      • Dr. Mclean describes one on one interaction between daughters and father. Both daughters appeared comfortable, relaxed and far less aggressive than with mother. Father appears to have the skills to deal with his daughters behavior in a positive manner (Page 15).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband suffers from no major psychiatric illness, but is showing some stress of conflict related symptomology which is expected to dissipate, once matters are resolved (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband perceives ex-wife as the one to blame, or, the guilty party. Husband and ex-wife's personalities are so different that they tend to confuse each other (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that while under considerable stress, husband does have far more in the way of resources to deal with the demands. Husband certainly demonstrated better resources and skills than mother in dealing with his daughters at the clinic (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband would be open to any straightforward parenting suggestions and that husband was more nurturing with his daughters when observed in interaction. (Page 16).
      • Dr. Mclean has concerns about how husbands tenancy to paint things black and white extends to the potential role he could see the mother playing with the girls (Page 16).
      • Husband admits, that for first two years of oldest daughter's life he was "not the best father" (Page 17).
      • Ex-wife admits that sexual abuse of daughters "not possible" (Page 18).
      • Ex-wife admits that she is more of a "screamer" for discipline, while husband more in control (Page 19).
      • Ex-wife states that back and forth's under consent agreement going "relatively well" and then swears in Affidavit to court that husband has been very disruptive, conflictual and she is in terror and needs protection from him (Page 20).
      • Oldest daughter is noted to have very good intellectual resources (Page 20).
      • Oldest daughter notes that if she had a lot of money, she would live in a tree house (father built one), with no adults, just kids (Page 21).
      • Oldest daughter, when asked who she wanted to live with, stated "Mommy, because she buys them popsicles" (Page 21).
      • Dr. Mclean concludes that oldest daughters stated preference to live with her mother is not based on any reasons that are in her long term best interests. (Page 22).
      • Dr. Mclean recommends that oldest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 22).
      • Husband and ex-wife disagree regarding youngest daughter's motor development. Ex-wife states normal, husband states delayed because of being kept in the playpen too much.(Page 22).
      • Youngest daughter states she wants to live with both parents in Dunrobin and, when asked to choose one said "mother" because father was bad and took mothers bed (Page 24).
      • Youngest daughter, when asked who loves her the most said father, then changed to mother and then back to father (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean is surprised, given that mother spent most time caring for youngest daughter while running a daycare, that youngest daughter does not have a strong preference for her mother. Speculates may be an indication that husband has been the one spending time with his daughters (Page 25).
      • Husband was more aware of and concerned by youngest daughter issues (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean recommends that youngest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 25).
      • Dr. Mclean summarizes discussions with spouses regarding access arrangements . (Page 25).

      Husband's Response To Report

      • Despite the fact that Dr. Mclean agreed with the facts and husband, still have major misgivings regarding the intellectual validity of the psychiatric profession in general. This profession appears to be in strategic denial of the basic fact that human motivation is to survive in the physical world which is ruled by the laws of action and consequence. To survive requires meeting goals. Further, they refuse to admit that insanity is CONTAGIOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and, if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane from outside point of views. Husband, during the marriage had to deal with his ex-wife, who was insane by refusal to choose survival and husband and daughters were trapped by corrupt law. In husband's humble opinion, the strong possibility exists that this profession was historically created to prevent social and scientific acceptance of the logical implications of evolution and Charles Darwin. Besides, this report netted the psychiatric profession $10,000, who have a very large income by claiming they are "necessary" to provide insight into issues such as this. There was no discussion of motivation on the part of either parent. This is very similar, although far less profitable than current judge's strategic denial of legal equality between persons, requiring judges and politicians to construct elaborate rationalizations "explaining" why people cannot be treated equally in terms of rights and responsibility, making their very costly "services" appear "necessary" to deal with the inevitable conflict between perfectly legitimate and peaceful viewpoints. None of this social conflict would exist if people were free to peacefully live as they see fit, without having their survival threatened if they fail to comply with the demands of whichever political viewpoint has manipulated itself to the "top dog" position, able to wield the apparatus of state as a weapon against the people. When rationalizations fail and the public starts to become aware of the survival of civilization importance of the law being restrained to treat all persons equally and the mortal social danger of special privilege for some, other methods are used, as Martin Luther King Jr. and others have repeatedly proven, at great personal cost and honor to self and loss to civilization.
      • Dr. Mclean failed to consider (and husband suspects, lacked the courage to address) the crucial fact and effects on husband and his parenting ability of being in a trap, prevented from exercising his basic legal rights of not associating with ex-wife AND associating with his daughters to fulfill his parental obligations, of having to deal with and being married to an alcoholic who refused to be responsible as a mother, a partner or contribute, a nemesis, whose self-destructive behavior and financial irresponsibility was destroying the family's and her own daughters ability to survive. Current (illegal) judicial interpretations of law provide no way to hold this mad woman to account, or of influencing her behavior to allow family survival. When the law provides no remedies for very real, survival threatening problems, what is one to do? Husband suggests that domestic abuse statistics indicate the choices that lesser intellects conclude it is "necessary" to make. The fact that husband had issues with ex-wife's destructive behavior appeared to be interpreted by the courts as "abuse" on the husbands part. This was truly a trap, as subsequently proven by the courts. The basic problem is that corrupt courts have upset the balance of power between equal persons in relationships, making reasonable division of labor or compromise impossible in any relationship that has been mis-defined and thus, subverted as has marriage, with the effect of destroying families. Husband could have tolerated ex-wife if she had kept her marriage vows (verbal contract), behaved responsibly, as an equal partner, focused on family and common interest. The only way out is to legally impoverish self and STILL, with irrefutable evidence and law on your side, have the courts take away your children, place them in an environment detrimental to their development and learning survival skills, and attempt to make you a slave using the false pretext of "children's best interests". Husband suspected this during marriage, by equally bizarre legal experiences of family and friends. He was thus biding his time, teaching his daughters, so that when they became more aware, they would choose to leave with him thus avoiding ALL litigation. This they chose, when they became aware, despite the courts "considered opinion" to the contrary. In other words, daughters also disagree with the judicial definition of "in their best interests", and, in a sense, are just as guilty of defiance as their father.
      • Lessor minds choose beating some sense into or killing their spouses, which husband rejected as unjust since ex-wife was a pawn, tricked into lying to provide plausible deniability for the real guilty parties.
      • Regarding Dr. Mclean's statement that husband can be manipulative. Yes, so can we all. Husband realized at a very young age that use of force or fraud (manipulation is a method of fraud) can achieve goals, but the cost is too high to defend from the response of your victims and further, manipulation is antisocial, alienating potential friends and allies. Husband claims to be an honest man and is willing to be judged by his fellow persons on that basis.
      • Husband is in full compliance with the unstated, but very real social contract among rational people, the very basis of civilization "If you refrain from using force and fraud against me, I promise to do the same". Well, force and fraud has been used against husband and his daughters, causing major damage, releasing him from his promise. Husband's response has thus far been restrained, since he wants civilization back and, unrestrained by reason, conflict risks spiraling out of control, sending mankind back to barbarism and living in caves, or worse.
      • Regarding Dr. McLean's speculation on the meaning of husbands personality test (MMPI) being invalid characterizing a pathologically intense need to project perfection, use self-repression and be uncompromising: Or, perhaps some people actually exist who seek the reality, as opposed to the illusion of "being the best they can be" and hold themselves to that standard? (Page 14).
      • Further to the invalid MMPI, indicating defensiveness: How can anyone, when under major assault in a state created conflict whose outcome is determined by those who actually created and profit from the the conflict (for their "profession's" financial benefit), with his children's future and perpetual economic enslavement as stakes be anything but defensive? Besides, husband may be more intelligent than the test writers and saw patterns he was not supposed to be able to see.
      • The fact that husband is intelligent was a major point against him in court, since judges appeared to feel threatened and wary of the possibility husband was manipulating them, as opposed to their view of the natural order, where judges are, by divine right, the manipulators. Husband stuck to the facts and truth, because facts cannot lie and objective minds are easily able to differentiate between fact and manipulation (biased interpretation of fact, posing as fact). For example, police reports in which husband played no part, being presented as a fact that husband was abusive and ex-wife terrified of him, in need of protection and preemptive justice. The only fact is that ex-wife called police and made allegations, which they documented.
      • Regarding husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females may affect his daughters: Had issues with one female in particular and irresponsibility in general. As sexist as it may sound, in husband's experience, irresponsibility and demanding special treatment statistically seems to be mostly female traits, a product of misguided socialization, which keeps females subservient. Husband has, despite major state opposition, raised his daughter's and they can and will successfully hold their own in life, without whining or demanding special consideration. Daughters are about as subservient as their father and woe to all who dare cross them.
      • Things have not changed much for husband since childhood. He is still surrounded by mental midgets who act as if they have the moral right to forcefully compel him to behave to the detriment of himself, family, fellow citizens, civilization and species for their minority gain and majority loss. The only thing that has changed is that opponents are far more larger, powerful, dangerous and isolated from objective reality. They will be defeated by their own actions, by refusal to acknowledge the undeniable principle of physical reality, that all actions have consequences. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. History is very clear on this point. Husband will not even feel remorse, he always warns of the consequences of actions prior to reluctantly engaging in defensive conflict. From a very detached perspective, the sheer folly of this is amusing.

      Ex-wife's Response To Report

      • Ex-wife's response taken from her affidavit.
      • Ex-wife asks the court to ignore the conclusions of the Family Court Clinic Report, for the following reasons:
      • Reason 1: It would be disruptive to the children if they were transferred from her care and control to the husbands. Ex-wife further states that due to the behavior she has ALLEGED against husband (ZERO proof or witnesses), it would stress her daughters too much to give a brute such as him custody.
      • Husband: Ex-wife and husband had EXACTLY the same amount of non-school and awake time with the children on an alternating day basis per consent agreement, later turned into a court order by Justice Sirois. Ex-wife LIES in this sworn affidavit, stating that the children were mostly under her care. It appears to be assumed by judges that women do and should have primary care and control of children (and men should be wallets and slaves, with no parental influence), although, no democratic assembly would DARE (and did not) pass a law that actually states this.
      • Reason 2: Ex-wife strongly BELIEVES she is the best custodial parent and re-iterates allegations that husband has been stealing from home, neglecting children by sleeping instead of caring for them. States that she has been mindful of daughters needs. Repeats claim that she has been children's primary caregiver throughout the entire marriage.
      • Husband: This contradicts all of husbands witness statements including ex-wife's two sisters and father in-law. Since the observations of "civilians" appears to be judicially irrelevant, read the Mclean Report above, describing Dr. Mcleans observations of ex-wife's inept interactions with her own daughters. Dr. Mclean was forced to conclude, that, for at least the last several years, ex-wife and children have had no meaningful interaction and ex-wife's attempts to deal with her daughter's on a one to one basis were pathetic. Dr. Mclean concluded husband relevant parent with far better skills for dealing with his daughters.
      • Reason 2: Ex-wife has lost job, and since November 11 (for 2 weeks) has been able to be with children on a full time basis. Claims to have more time to care for children, as a result.
      • Husband: In other words, ex-wife claims a competitive advantage by not working and husband strongly believes loss of employment was arranged, a strategic legal move, to gain this time as well as economic advantage (the more needy ex-wife is, the more husband has to pay, a major disincentive against ex-wife being employed). This is a major point, which judges buy, claiming to equate parental time (with no consideration of whether or not it is quality time) with children's best interests. The social result is several generations of children of divorce who have minimal exposure to a working role model parent and thus, believe they are entitled to survival without effort (and vote for politicians who make this anti-survival, illegal promise) and learn no work ethic or economic survival skills. The corollary of this false argument is ex-wife previously alleged husband worked too hard (disproved), making a family survival virtue into a legal disadvantage for the husband. Who benefits from this, and how?
      • Ex-wife claims to have "issues" with Dr. Mclean and his report recommending custody to husband.
      • Issue 1: Ex-wife disputes that she has an addictive personality and claims tranquilizer addiction is being medically dealt with, was caused by husbands abuse and the effective remedy is for the court to smite husband.
      • Issue 2: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her mother also has an addictive personality. Ex-wife admits that mother was long term addicted to Valium, requiring medical assistance. Claims Dr. Mclean has not met her mother and cannot conclude this, based on lack of evidence.
      • Issue 3: Ex-wife disputes report contention that youngest daughter suffered from delayed development, in the area of walking. Submits series of photos of youngest daughter from creeping to walking.
      • Husband: During early years, youngest daughter (a very good natured child) confined to playpen by ex-wife too much, to keep her out of ex-wife's "space", a point ex-wife and husband argued about a lot. Dr. Mclean and husband discussed this and husband is still of the opinion that this slightly delayed walking development did occur, as a consequence.
      • Issue 4: Ex-wife disputes report contention she is unconcerned (based on discussions between ex-wife and psychological team) about oldest daughter's sexualized acting out behavior. Claims she is looking for a counselor to assist. Admits she does not "believe it is possible" that husband was sexually abusing daughters.
      • Husband: When it comes to fathers and daughters, he is guilty of being a sexual abuser until proven innocent. Dealing with professionals in this area was like the Spanish Inquisition, they (especially females) appeared to husband as a bunch of anally retentive perverts who saw everything only in terms of predatory males and innocent young girls to protect, all of course, at very high, state funded wages. The truth is, that sexual (or any) abuse of children has highly visible effects that are immediately recognized by caring family friends, teachers, and neighbors. The reason abuse is so prevalent is that anyone who reports it is immediately sucked into a bureaucratic quagmire, legal liability issues and major hassle, reducing the likelihood of reporting it, increasing work for those who pretend to care and have have seized a monopoly in dealing with this and other social problems. This makes social problems far worse, since problem solvers in monopoly positions realized long ago that solved problems equals loss of income and it is far more prifitable to pretend to be solving problems while actually making them worse.
      • Issue 5: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her disciplinary (lack of) and parenting methods are to the detriment of the children's proper development. Claims to have started a task list and that it is husband who is lax in the area of discipline (contradicting her previous allegations that husband is a "harsh disciplinarian"
      • Issue 6: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's comment that husband may have difficulty seeing any positive role that ex-wife can play in the children's lives and claims (LIES) that Dr. Mclean does not deal with this issue in his conclusions.
      • Husband: Dr. Mclean does deal with this and states that once ex-wife cleans up her act, deals with her addictions and other issues and actually behaves in a positive manner and is capable of playing a viable role, that husband may be more supportative of ex-wife's parental role.
      • Issue 7: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's observation that husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females and yet does not explain how this may affect young daughters under his care.
      • Issue 8: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean not addressing effect of husband's alleged "harsh disciplinary" measures on daughters, contradicting her allegation above that husband has become lax in discipline.
      • Issue 9: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating the children have no parental preference and states that daughter's, when asked, tell her that they want to live with mother. Presents a "love her mom" note from daughter's school work as evidence. Claims daughters have closer bond with her than father.
      • Issue 10: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating that one of husbands battery of personality tests came back as "invalid", a possible indication of defensiveness and did not address how this may affect the children.
      • Issue 11: Ex-wife claims that Dr. McLean is lying when he states the amount and period of alcohol consumption reported by her when asked. Ex-wife claims that she answered the alcohol consumption question with "I don't know"

      Dr. Selwyn Smith's Response To Report (November 21, 1994)

      • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
      • Claims to have reveiwed the custody assessment report of Dr. Mclean.
      • Disputes Dr. Mclean's conclusion that ex-wife is an addict
      • Reiterates that ex-wife has been under overwhelming stress due to her "abusive" husband who has made rape and other threats, neccessitating ex-wife to call police twice.
      • Adds that ex-wife's stress further compounded by children's behavioral difficulties and a very messy untrained dog.
      • Note: Dr. Mclean observed ex-wife's ineptness and inability to deal with her daughters here. Note also that none of ex-wife's submissions make any mention of having to deal with, or even admitting that daughters had behavioral difficulties, although, ex-wife did allege that husband was having difficulties and that she had to calm children down after husband consistently upset them during his access time. Note also, the dog was a litter of untrained puppies which ex-wife refused to keep outside in the yard, preferring instead to attribute puppy mess to husband's irresponsibility, in photographic splendour.
      • States that ex-wife used tranquilizers slightly more than prescribed. Makes no mention of ex-wife going into withdrawl or becoming addicted to tranquilizers, as concluded by Dr. Mclean, based on his personal observations and hearing ex-wife's description of withdrawl. Ex-wife also admits she became addicted in her affidavit.
      • Claims that tranquilizers can be withdrawn at end of custody proceedings, implying that they are required to deal with the conflict.
      • Claims that ex-wife has no need of addiction assessment or medical referral.
      • Claims that ex-wife has a number of significant issues (unstated what) in her background which require further assistance, but pointless to explore until the conflict is over.
      • Claims ex-wife is on a managed reduction schedule for tranquilizers.
      • Claims ex-wife has not consumed nor abused alcohol since coming under his care (April 22, 1994).
      • Husband: This is a LIE. Dr. Smith states in his previous "expert opinion" (June 20, 1994) that "her (ex-wife, alcohol) intake hs been reduced considerably. Currently she consumes (ie; claims to) approximately one glass of wine with meals."
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands mental health, due to invalid MMPI results.
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands general negative bias in his perceptions of females and effect on daughters.
      • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands acceptance of viable role for mother in children's lives.
      • States that he does not feel Dr. Mclean has justified his recommendation of husband as custodial parent.
      • Speculates that, in the absence of Dr. McLeans alleged addiction conclusions, custody may well be recommended for mother.
      • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
      • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGEOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.
  • Ex-wife's step-father and two sisters are of the opinion that ex-wife is completely irresponsible, as a parent, financially and in all areas.
  • Statement of Alan and Marion Kidd ex-wife's stepfather and his spouse (May 17, 1994)

    • Statement by Alan and Marion Kidd
    • Both very opposed to ex-wife (and supportative of husband) having custody of daughters for children's best interests by reasons/observations outlined within.
    • Husband first described to them by ex-wife as "A rich university graduate with a Corvette, whom she intended to marry", both were firmly convinced marriage was for money and status.
    • Husband has common sense and appears to think of children before self. Husband has good sense of humor and not abusive.
    • Ex-wife extremely selfish and irresponsible. Has adopted her mother's misguided, irresponsible parenting methods (expect rewards without effort) which produced ex-wife and will destroy children in the same way.
    • Ex-wife seems to have no emotional or any other connection with daughters, treats them as things, inconveniences in her life.
    • Ex-wife behaves as if she is special, better than other people, deserving and demanding of special consideration with no basis in reality.
    • Ex-wife a lavish spender, totally financially irresponsible, spending faster than husband can earn.
    • During children's early years, both parents negligent, too busy bickering and arguing. Husband's parenting has substantially improved over the years, ex-wife has not.
    • Witnessed ex-wife smoking cigarettes and consuming alcohol during both pregnancies.
    • Both strongly believe ex-wife is not mother material and strongly suspect her interest is purely child support and the house. Believe husband far better parent.
    • Both believe husbands patience, ability to communicate with children and personal responsibility values will assure good future for children. Believe ex-wife will achieve the opposite.
    • Believe that, if ex-wife achieves custody, she will drive husband out of children's lives, to their detriment (just like her mother), waste any settlement she may get and end up on social services.
    • Have observed no abuse of ex-wife, husband or children.
    • Strongly suspect ex-wife of alcohol problems for years, she always has a drink on the go. She is antisocial and goes off and drinks alone.
    • Suspect that ex-wife's claimed debt to her mother is a fabrication, since her mother is incapable of accumulating such an amount or retaining it.

    Statement of Anita Cox one of ex-wife's two sisters (May 18, 1994)

    • Statement by Anita Cox
    • Seen no evidence that ex-wife has changed or learned anything since adolescence
    • Ex-wife is a prima donna, believing she is special, unable to compromise, be a team member, or acknowledge the point of view of others.
    • Ex-wife is completely and utterly selfish and antisocial
    • Ex-wife shares her mothers contempt for establishment beliefs and objective people (such as doctors, engineers...), considering them smug, arrogant and unable to see beyond "reality"
    • Could never understand why ex-wife would marry an engineer, given her utter contempt and disdain for people of the logical persuasion, whom husband certainly is.
    • Ex-wife is extremely adept at skirting around issues and blame shifting to others. She is a very good actress and liar in the short haul when she is trying to get something.
    • Ex-wife's sense of self-worth appears to be based on what she has, who she is superior to or can dominate.
    • Ex-wife appears to have no connection with daughters and treats them as annoyances, with no interaction.
    • Ex-wife unstable, incompetent and incapable of parenting, dooming children's future. Believes husband's stability, skills and responsibility values will result in children being successful adults.
    • No opinion on whether ex-wife has alcohol problems, but unfit parent, even if not.

    Statement by Laura Harris other of ex-wife's two sisters (May 17, 1994)

    • Statement by Laura Harris
    • Husband and ex-wife, tense relationship, arguments usually initiated by ex-wife. Husband did not back down
    • Appears that ex-wife has replaced Laura with husband as "sparring partner"
    • Ex-wife very territorial, always insists on having things her way, unwilling to compromise.
    • Initially, both parents disasters and negligent, too busy arguing.
    • Husband has improved over the years, has quality times, activities with daughters, treats them as people and plays with them.
    • Ex-wife has no connection or quality interaction with daughters, pushes them away, needs a great deal of alone time.
    • Ex-wife is very irresponsible in all areas, including financial.
    • Ex-wife assumes that her opinions and desires are more valid than anyone else's.
    • No opinion on whether alcohol being abused, but did see ex-wife smoking and consuming alcohol, during both pregnancies.
    • Ex-wife seems to be mimicking what she observed during her parents divorce: Trying to drive husband out of children's lives.
    • Strongly opposed to sole custody for ex-wife or children living together with ex-wife and her mother (children's grandmother), since they will not acquire life survival skills in this environment.
  • The person that could be considered closest to a friend that ex-wife would tolerate concludes, based on observations that: "ex-wife is a liar, completely irresponsible, a negligent mother and has consistently, throughout the entire marriage worked against the survival of her family, despite husband demanding her to behave to the contrary". Dianna also recalls that, when husband tried to earn extra income, ex-wife would demand half of the proceeds "to take over husband's childcare duties" so he could work. Ex-wife spent this income on herself, while husband used it for family benefit. This was also observed by Brian Alexson.
  • Affidavit of Dianna Drynan the closest person to a friend ex-wife would tolerate (October 21, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Dianna Drynan
    • Met ex-wife in 1985 at same party as husband did
    • Visited with family at least once a month from prior to marriage through entire marriage, often staying overnight. Observations current, to present
    • Likes ex-wife and wants to help her. Claims to be the closest person to a friend ex-wife has, to the best of her knowledge.
    • States that she never has and never will have any relationship apart from friends with husband.
    • States she has tried, ever since she met ex-wife to be her friend, but ex-wife unwilling to communicate openly.
    • States it was her that lent ex-wife the money to buy a car (May 1994), after marriage failed.
    • States she has tried and wants to be there for ex-wife as a friend, since ex-wife has no one she is close to.
    • States that ex-wife is unwilling/unable to honestly be open with herself, husband, Dianna or anyone.
    • States that ex-wife is unwilling/unable face the reality of her life and family.
    • Is well aware that ex-wife will view this statement as a sign of betrayal, leaving her all alone, with no one to talk to. Believes no other choice, ex-wife's and children's best interests can only be served by having the truth come out and ex-wife dealing with it.
    • It is now clear that ex-wife will never talk openly with her, since Dianna knows too much of the truth ex-wife is trying so desperately to avoid.
    • Claims another motivation for this statement is to counter ex-wife's lies, accusations of abuse and control she is making against husband. States that this is the exact opposite of what she has observed during the entire marriage.
    • Claims that husband is a reasonable person and that he and his children have done nothing to deserve the hell the family is experiencing.
    • Claims that, by her observations the relationship was characterized by verbal abuse and hostility (especially when drinking) on ex-wife's part versus blind love, giving in and reasonableness on husbands part. In general, husband was dominated, used and abused by ex-wife.
    • Describes ex-wife as refusing to contribute and consistently worked against all of husbands goals and efforts on behalf of the family.
    • Has never observed ex-wife make a compromise or attempt to work on the relationship or deal with her problems. Claims that it was always husband giving in to ex-wife's demands, verbal and non-verbal hostility, withdrawal and coldness.
    • Claims that ex-wife confided to Dianna early in the marriage that she could get husband to do anything for her, just by using sex..
    • Claims that ex-wife would go out of her way to be mean and selfish with husband. Provides example.
    • Recounts evening in 1989 when husband and her partner surprised her and ex-wife with a limo and one of those "once in a lifetime" romantic experiences. Describes how ex-wife consumed alcohol to excess, completely ruined the evening by her abuse of husband and concludes "I have never seen a meaner, more ungrateful display from anyone in my life"
    • Recounts similar evening in 1990 when went out to the opera and ex-wife did the same, but this time ex-wife's goal was to get husband to buy her a fur coat like one she had borrowed, which he was refusing for financial reasons.
    • Claims that after evening above, Dianna challenged ex-wife on her treatment of husband over the coat. Ex-wife considered lack of a fur coat as an indication that husband does not love her. Ex-wife and Dianna had a falling out over this.
    • Claims that this is consistently the method that ex-wife uses to achieve what she demands: Ex-wife just abuses and makes people miserable until they give in. Claims that she observed the exact same abuse until ex-wife got husband to agree to major renovations which they definitely could not afford and husband was adamantly opposed to.
    • Claims that Dianna and her partner sometimes found it very embarrassing to be out with or visiting the Rosses, due to ex-wife's abuse of husband.
    • Claims that at Christmas 1992, husband asked Dianna to help him pick out gifts for ex-wife and husband was very particular, it took two shopping outings. At Christmas, ex-wife didn't like the gifts and insisted they take them back and get something better. States that ex-wife very ungrateful, but exchanged gifts and husband always generous to ex-wife for Christmas and birthdays.
    • Claims that during relationship, husband did his best to give ex-wife what she asked, if he could.
    • Claims that whenever she visited, ex-wife was always verbally abusive to husband, in front of the children, especially after her first drink. Ex-wife often called husband a "no good, stupid, cheap asshole"
    • Claims that Ex-wife always insisted on often going out to expensive restaurants they could not afford, until two years ago, at which point husband refused since they could not afford it and stuck to his position.
    • Claims that in September 1994, ex-wife confided that she had never loved her husband.
    • Claims that Dianna his consistently failed and met denial when trying to communicate with ex-wife in any area of reality and that ex-wife refuses to discuss anything or see that different perspectives than her own may have any validity.
    • Claims that from her observations, it has been husband who does all child related activities and is the principal caregiver while ex-wife pretends to be busy with other housework which she does very slowly and drags out, taking many rum and smoke breaks.
    • States that ex-wife uses the illusion that she is busy doing cooking or cleaning to shift complete care of the children to husband, except that ex-wife does feed the children.
    • States that ex-wife refused to participate in any of the children's activities, provides a very long list of activities husband did with children.
    • States that ex-wife did not even communicate with her daughters except to tell them to eat or to stay out of her "space".
    • Has never observed ex-wife being affectionate with her daughters, have them on her lap or give them a goodnight kiss although husband does.
    • States that ex-wife did do some of the organizing and shopping for the children, but it was up to husband to do all of the work.
    • States that Dianna could never convince ex-wife to go anywhere, for any activity with the children and that it was always husband who came with her and her son for activities.
    • States that when ex-wife around children, ex-wife was very particular about nap and bedtime schedules. If the children were out with husband, schedule did not seem to matter to ex-wife.
    • States that her seven year old son does not like the way ex-wife treats him. States that ex-wife made children eat alone in other room, while adults ate later. States that ex-wife was always rapping the children on their heads and telling them to eat. States that ex-wife called herself "the wicked witch of the west"
    • States that she and her son did not like it when the Ross children visited their home, due to their lack of respect, lack of discipline, destructiveness and unruliness.
    • States that ex-wife locked the children (her own and daycare) in their room during naptime and when they misbehaved.
    • Recounts spouses reactions to oldest daughters psychological evaluation: Ex-wife relieved that daughter did not have ADS, was fine and had no problems. Husband devastated regarding daughters social and attention problems and begged Dianna to influence ex-wife to cooperate for daughters sake. Dianna talked to daughters teacher and ex-wife who still saw no problem and refused to attend a joint meeting with husband and psychologist. Ex-wife agreed once it was pointed out how bad her non-cooperation would look. Meeting took place, but no followup.
    • States Dianna tried to talk to ex-wife regarding the importance of cooperating with husband for children's sake. Ex-wife replied "It is a good idea to inform husband about what is happening to the children".
    • States that during first two years of marriage, both parents negligent, always arguing about who would change diapers, etc. Both appeared to want to get out of dealing with the kids.
    • States that whenever she was there husband would have total responsibility for the children and share his time between company and children.
    • States that over the years, husband has vastly improved as a parent and treats his daughters as little people and cares for their needs and is patient with them.
    • States that ex-wife's parenting has not improved at all and ex-wife remains selfish, lazy and neglectful of the children's non-physical needs. States she has never observed ex-wife exhibit patience or tolerance for her children.
    • States that when ex-wife decided to have a second child, Dianna was shocked because it is obvious that ex-wife has no patience for children and she told ex-wife this. Why would she want another?
    • States that Dianna was just as shocked, for the same lack of patience for children reason when ex-wife wanted to start a daycare. States that Dianna told ex-wife that she thought it was a way for ex-wife to avoid working and ex-wife admitted it was true.
    • States that ex-wife is lazy and does not want to work.
    • States that during daycare, ex-wife did no activities with the children. There were no walks or any involvement of ex-wife with children except feeding and safety.
    • States that on some occasions that Dianna took the children to the park and ex-wife refused to come, preferring to stay home and drink rum under the pretext she had to make dinner.
    • States that Dianna has never observed ex-wife discipline or have any expectations of her daughters except to tell them to eat and stay out of her "space".
    • States that she has observed many arguments between the spouses regarding ex-wife's debt, spending and lack of partnership.
    • States that her view of husband as a person is reasonable, take it easy, nothing usually seems to bother him.
    • States that she has never observed any abusive behavior on part of husband, but notes that ex-wife certainly gave him reason with her unreasonableness and lack of compromise.
    • States that husband is firm, gentle and kind with his daughters and has more expectations from the children than ex-wife, who has none.
    • States that ex-wife has confided in her that ex-wife hates her job and considers it beneath her.
    • States that ex-wife would rarely agree to go out with anyone, except to restaurants with husband to be pampered.
    • States that husband was always encouraging ex-wife to go out, make some friends and "get a life". States that husband often encouraged Dianna to go out with ex-wife and make some friends.
    • Describes ex-wife as very anti-social, always saying "I need my space". Describes ex-wife as always going off alone to another room to drink rum and that the children were not even allowed in the same room as ex-wife.
    • Describes ex-wife as very lazy, never wanting to do any work. Describes when Dianna and her partner came over to help with renovations and ex-wife insisted they bring a sitter "so we can all work". Describes ex-wife pretending to make dinner, sitting outside having rum and smoke breaks every few minutes while adults worked. States it was the same for housework in general, except cooking and cleaning. Husband did everything, including all child related activities, while ex-wife lazy, pretending to be busy.
    • States that husband did most of the work and ex-wife would appear near the end, do some minor finishing touch and then claim she did it all. States that when ex-wife challenged on this, she becomes unwilling to communicate. States that husband reciprocated for their renovation help, but ex-wife refused.
    • Describes what happens when Dianna tries to talk to ex-wife realistically, on any topic. Ex-wife tries to evade the issue or change the topic. If ex-wife's evasions are unsuccessful, ex-wife appears to be about to cry, her voice cracks and she starts to shake. As soon as topic changes, ex-wife recovers immediately. This issue evading response on part of ex-wife is concluded to be fake by Dianna.
    • States that ex-wife refuses to communicate on any topic where there may be disagreement and that ex-wife has a blind spot for any views but her own.
    • States she has never observed ex-wife go out of her way for anybody, including her own children due to being self-centered and selfish.
    • States that when ex-wife drunk (always) she went out of her way to be mean to husband. Ex-wife's arguments were emotional, in terms of character assaults on husband. Has never seen husband emotionally angry with ex-wife, husband used reason, and a lets work it out manner, which infuriated ex-wife even more.
    • Dianna has never seen ex-wife treat either husband or the children with love. Ex-wife has two methods of dealing with husband, either demanding or demeaning. Whenever Dianna talked to ex-wife about husband, ex-wife always spoke about husband in terms of how she needed things and how it was up to him to provide them.
    • States that ex-wife did not care whether the children were present or not. Ex-wife would just "fly off the handle at husband with no apparent provocation", whether the children were present or not. It was usually not clear to Dianna what ex-wife's issue or point was.
    • States that ex-wife was definitely well looked after, but not with husbands approval. Ex-wife made husband give her half of his overtime money when he had to work and her debt with nothing to show for it, makes it even worse.
    • Dianna did not know how much ex-wife drank until 1986 when she followed ex-wife to the kitchen many times and observed ex-wife making double rum and cokes each time. States that ex-wife holds her alcohol really well.
    • States that when she went to restaurants with spouses, her and her spouse never wanted to split the bill due to ex-wife's excessive alcohol purchases (4 to 5 double rums, sometimes more).
    • States that Dianna visited the daycare unexpectedly three times, in the late morning. Ex-wife already had a rum and coke on the go and immediately poured another when done.
    • Describes, often when stayed for dinner, ex-wife would sometimes serve dinner, be unable to eat and go up to bed, intoxicated. Other times, ex-wife would pass out in her chair, intoxicated, in the middle of dinner. States the first time this happened was shortly after the wedding.
    • Recounts incident in January 1991 when ex-wife called her up and stated "that bastard dumped all my rum down the sink" and ex-wife demanded that Dianna deliver alcohol to her, as a birthday present, which she foolishly did. Describes a typical alcohol/daycare day and verbal abuse when husband got home from work.
    • States that during marriage, husband asked her many times to try to talk some financial sense into ex-wife, and Dianna tried and failed, since ex-wife would not admit her spending, demands and debt as a problem and expected husband to deal with it.
    • States that the financial relationship was very unfair, in ex-wife's favor, since husband paid for all of the big things and ex-wife only paid for groceries, children's clothing and daycare. States that husband was always sacrificing, not buying clothes for himself while ex-wife was living high and making no personal sacrifice.
    • Elaborates on ex-wife's demand that husband pay her half of any extra income he may earn, to pay her to look after her own children and to allow him to work. States that ex-wife used this money on herself, while husband used it for joint things. States that ex-wife discussed this unfair arrangement with her as early as 1989.
    • Recounts another incident in 1991 when husband again asked Dianna to talk to ex-wife about money management, since ex-wife was $9,000.00 in debt, had nothing to show for it and refused to discuss it with husband. Ex-wife stated to Dianna that things cost a lot, debt was not a problem, husband made enough to care for her, husband expected too much from her and he was cheap. In pursuing this topic, ex-wife became very cold and started shaking.
    • Again Recounts renovations and all of the heated arguments and abuse of husband until he agreed. Describes how ex-wife refused to help with the work, sitting around drinking rum and being lazy.
    • States, after marital breakdown ex-wife is not buying the quality or quantity of food she used to, nor feeding the children healthy food.
    • States, after marital breakdown ex-wife is even worse at discipline, now the children do not even have to finish their meals and candy and treats are now unlimited.
    • States, after marital breakdown that children are much better behaved when ex-wife absent.
    • Describes, after marital breakdown that Dianna babysat children while ex-wife out and tried to put some structure in the evening, to which oldest daughter responded "You're just like my dad - a slave driver".
    • Describes confrontation with ex-wife in September 1994 where Dianna blasted ex-wife on various points:
    • Issue 1: Why she wants the kids and why she thinks husband wants them. Answer: Because she loves them and husband wants to control them
    • Issue 2: That husband loves his daughters, will never give in and is prepared to lose everything.
    • Issue 3: That ex-wife will not be on easy street with any settlement.
    • Issue 4: That husband and her are saying completely opposite things and she has been caught in lies.
    • Issue 5: That the abuse and control allegations against husband are the exact opposite of Dianna's observations.
    • Issue 6: That eventually, ex-wife will have to deal with the reality of the situation
    • Issue 7: That, on present course, everything will be lost to lawyers and what happens to the children and their friends and school.
    • Issue 8: That her current financial demands of husband are unfair. Ex-wife cannot expect husband to pay all of his historical expenses (which by themselves are unfair), an extra $700.00 per month to ex-wife and for husband to somehow find money for rent and living expenses.
    • Dianna states that ex-wife's reaction to the above was that she became very cold and refused to discuss it. Dianna concluded that ex-wife is blind to the facts and not facing reality.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife is simultaneously accusing husband of being a slave driver and making the children clean the house and do chores while simultaneously trashing the home every time he is there. Both cannot be true.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife is accusing husband of stealing groceries and other stuff. She checked with her ex-spouse (husband's roommate) and is convinced this is another lie.
    • Dianna notes that she visits the marital home often and ex-wife does not appear to be doing any cleaning or housework.
    • Dianna notes that ex-wife appears to be taking the children to activities and seems to have turned around compared to the marriage.
    • Dianna claims that ex-wife confided she is wearing her magic crystal for luck and reading her tarot cards every night for guidance and to figure out what to do.
    • Dianna concludes that ex-wife is lying regarding husbands abuse and control, since, if true, ex-wife would have been afraid to abuse husband or act contrary to his stated wishes and family interests as Dianna has observed during the marriage and stated herein.
  • The following individuals, members of the family social network, based on observations are unanimous in their conclusions that ex-wife was completely irresponsible, in all areas, especially, as a mother to her daughters.
  • Statement by Brian Alexson friend and engineering classmate of husband (May 26, 1994)

    • Statement by Brian Alexson
    • Known ex-wife as long as husband. Met at same time.
    • Ex-wife has serious alcohol problem, some times passed out at the dinner table, during dinner.
    • Ex-wife drank double rum and cokes.
    • Ex-wife was often yelling at children to "keep out of her space"
    • It was husband who had all childcare duties when not working.
    • Worked on a project in summer 1993 with husband which ex-wife demanded a "cut" in exchange for taking over husbands childcare responsibilities.
    • While at Ross residence working for a month, ex-wife ignored and refused to take care of children so husband could work
    • Husband was constantly being interrupted to deal with children, which ex-wife refused to do.
    • Ex-wife spent weekends in bed watching TV, yelling out instructions to husband to deal with kids and refused to let them in the room with her.
    • Ex-wife was constantly demeaning and verbally abusive to husband, for entire project.
    • Have never observed ex-wife affectionate, playing with or paying attention to children.
    • Husband is the one that pays attention to children's emotional, attention and social needs.
    • Witnessed a very bad argument / verbal abuse on ex-wife's part against husband in January 1994.
    • Ex-wife always complaining husband is poor provider, an insane opinion, because their lifestyle met or exceeds his peers.
    • Very bad partnership. Ex-wife wants to be lazy, consume and be pampered, husband wants to build for his family and the future.

    Affidavit of Garry Browne nephew of husband (October 14, 1994)

    • Affidavit of Garry Browne
    • Husband's nephew
    • Claims that went to matrimonial home with his brother on October 6, 1994, looking for husband, to get grandfathers camcorder
    • Claims that ex-wife asked them in and she was very intoxicated, describes ex-wife's state.
    • Claims to have gone upstairs with ex-wife to get camcorder. Oldest daughter (nephews cousin) opened her bedroom door and asked mother who was there. Ex-wife screamed "It's just your cousins...Shut up and get back to bed!"
    • Claims that daughter did not even see him or know which cousins were there and was not allowed to say hello or anything, oldest daughter crying and carrying on throughout until ex-wife went back upstairs and yelled at daughter some more.
    • Claims that ex-wife gave him a tour of the house and said "husband took everything", to which he replied "you've got the house and kids" to which she replied "not for long"
    • Claims that ex-wife desperately wanted someone to talk to, and wanted sympathy, so he stayed for another half hour and listened to all of her allegations regarding his uncle's "abuse"

    Statement by Richard and Beth Beange contractor, spent extensive time at Ross's (May 11, 1994)

    • Statement by Richard and Beth Beange
    • Did extensive renovations at spouses home in 1991
    • Spent a month and a half plus more weekends at Ross residence. There during daycare hours.
    • Ex-wife never interacted or did activities with daycare or her own children.
    • Right after lunch (children napping) ex-wife would start drinking rum and cokes and sometimes offered to share.
    • Ex-wife and husband argued a lot.
    • At times, when over socially, ex-wife drank to excess and passed out right after dinner.
    • When not working, husband did all child activities, including taking them shopping and for their activities on the weekend.
    • They could have saved substantial renovation costs if husband had helped with renovations and ex-wife cared for the children, rather than husband.

    Statement by Garry Hammond family friend and co-worker of husband (May 18, 1994)

    • Statement by Garry Hammond
    • Ex-wife always drank double rums and refused husbands pleas to take it easy, since she refused to share paying restaurant bills.
    • When out, ex-wife always wanted to go home early and husband always drove, due to ex-wife's inebriated state.
    • On weekends, when stayed over, ex-wife refused to get up and was husband's responsibility to feed children and organize their day.
    • Did not observe what he would call abuse, but much arguing between spouses.
    • Only interaction observed between ex-wife and children was when she fed them. Ex-wife kept children out of "her space".
    • Ex-wife very annoyed if children persisted in asking for her attention.
    • Husband did all quality interaction with children, treating them as little people and meeting their needs and taking them to activities.
    • Husband did bath and story time with children, each evening and bike rides during the day.
    • Never observed husband angry with children.

    Statement by Robert Southby neighbor of Ross's (June 14, 1994)

    • Statement by Robert Southby
    • Described day/evening he was over helping with renovations in 1991
    • Ex-wife extremely verbally abusive to and demanding of husband, treated him like a puppet, in front of his children.
    • Husband did all childcare, don't remember ex-wife interacting with children at all
    • Balance of visit much more pleasant after ex-wife went to bed early

    Statement by Sherry Skater husband's common law sister (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by Sherry Skater
    • Ex-wife and Sherry got along well and confided in each other.
    • Decide bias or not yourself.
    • Ex-wife drinks to excess
    • Ex-wife demands that husband do all childcare responsibility, refused to participate
    • Ex-wife was a terrible mother, insensitive to children's needs
    • Ex-wife referred to husband as a possession providing money and security.
    • Ex-wife did not play or interact with children and pushes them away. She won't let children play in dirt "you're young ladies" or be kids.
    • Ex-wife confided she couldn't handle motherhood, which was why she drank so much alcohol.
    • Ex-wife claimed children "really get on her nerves". She blamed husband for having children and "it was his responsibility to deal with them"
    • Ex-wife confided she had bottles hidden all around house, unknown to husband. Admitted to drinking at least two 1.75 Liter bottles of rum per week.
    • Observed on weekends that ex-wife would get up in the morning and make several half rum / half coffee's, which she took to her room to drink alone.
    • Ex-wife confided that some friends were getting divorced, with similar economic circumstances. She claimed that $1000.00 per month per child was a fantastically good deal. When Sherry pointed out that it is unfair to impoverish the father, leaving him unable to care for his children, ex-wife's response was: "its the man's job to pay".

    Statement by Gary Browne husbands nephew (June 14, 1994)

    • Statement by Gary Browne
    • Stayed with spouses for several weeks in summer 1991.
    • No interaction or activities by ex-wife with daycare children.
    • No rules for children, except don't go upstairs
    • Ex-wife screamed at children often
    • No opinion regarding alcohol, wasn't paying attention

    Statement by Jan Ladiges describes Halloween 1992 visit of Ross's and children (June 8, 1994)

    • Statement by Jan Ladiges
    • Describes Halloween 1992 visit of Ross's and children
    • Ex-wife refused to participate or help in child activities and very detached from everyone, missing the the whole social point of the evening
    • Ex-wife very liberal with helping herself to alcohol
    • Ex-wife expected husband to do all child stuff, including packing them up to go.

    Statement by Bernice Ross husbands step-mother (May 31, 1994)

    • Statement by Bernice Ross
    • From the perspective of a woman who cared for many children from Children's Aid, helping 42 in all. Read and decide whether biased for yourself.
    • Husband was the one caring for daughters - ex-wife disinterested
    • Ex-wife would not let anyone, including husband correct or discipline her daughters
    • Children very easy to manage in ex-wife's absence
    • Only one rule enforced by ex-wife: children stay away from her.
    • Other grandchildren do not like ex-wife at all.
    • Ex-wife is inconsistent, threats, but no follow-through. Children ignore her
    • Ex-wife does not attend to children's emotional needs or treat them as little people. She does adequately meet their physical needs.
    • Ex-wife admitted she was not being financially honest with husband.
    • Considers husband far more attentive to children's needs and better parent.

    Statement by Garnet Ross husband's father (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by Garnet Ross
    • Many valid and true observations, but, assume to be biased, since is husband's father
    • Ex-wife treated husband with contempt, not liked by entire family for this reason.
    • Believed ex-wife was an opportunist, due to lack of respect for husband, her children, lack of partnership awareness, unreasonableness and financial irresponsibility, impoverishing her family.
    • Spent 3 day weekend with family in 1993, Ex-wife inebriated entire weekend, husband did all childcare.
    • Father made the mistake of trying to reason with ex-wife
    • Ex-wife stated "I pretend to be what men want enough to keep them happy and take what I want from them and that is how it is and should be"
    • Very concerned about granddaughters due to verbally abusive ex-wife, tense environment, alcohol abuse and ex-wife's complete lack of attending to daughters emotional and environmental needs.
    • Ex-wife completely unfit mother and unable to compromise with husband (or anyone) on any issue, including raising children in a joint custody situation.

    Statement by John Ross husband's brother (May 30, 1994)

    • Statement by John Ross
    • Many valid and true observations, but, assume to be biased, since is husband's brother
    • Did not like ex-wife due to verbal abuse of husband, neglect of children's emotional and social needs
    • Ex-wife is not open and acts like a prima donna, better than everyone else
    • Ex-wife would not help out, refused to be a partner and expected husband to do everything
    • Ex-wife constantly accused husband of being an asshole, with a useless career that was unable to meet her needs, and being an engineer was "beneath the dignity of quality people, such as herself"
    • Claims tried to talk some sense into husband regarding being used by ex-wife and was met with "I'm trying to be patient, win to her over to reason and also have the children to consider".
    • All arguments were started by ex-wife who used vindictive character assaults and emotional bickering, while husband stuck to the facts, which infuriated ex-wife even more.
    • Both parents attentive to children's physical needs.
    • Husband better parent because he treats girls as little people, attentive to their emotional and interaction needs. Ex-wife negligent/incompetent in this area.
    • Ex-wife expected others to relieve her of the burden of childcare (while she became inebriated) when husband not around.
    • Ex-wife really likes to drink alcohol.
  • This analysis of ex-wife's 1993 accounts by a chartered accountant indicates that ex-wife was putting family in debt at the rate of $10,700.00 per year, with no tangible property purchased, impoverishing family. Much of this can only have been for alcohol.
  • Financial Analysis of Ex-wife's 1993 accounts by chartered accountant (June 20, 1994)

    • Financial Analysis of Ex-wife's 1993 accounts
    • Ex-wife has more discretionary income (her income minus her areas of responsibility) than husband
    • Husband subsidized ex-wife's areas of financial responsibility $5385.00 in 1993
    • Despite husbands subsidization, ex-wife's debt increasing at rate of $5312.00 per year
    • In other words, ex-wife spending $10,700.0 more than her income per year, impoverishing family
  • Ex-wife proves her financial irresponsibility, lack of concern for family financial survival by her choice, against husbands stated wishes, when family was on the financial edge, to choose to put herself a further $1750.00 in debt by having a custom ring made by butchering her wedding ring, further proof of how seriously ex-wife took her marital vows.

Unsupported by Evidence ex-wife's allegations against husband

  • The following allegations by ex-wife against husband have no supporting evidence, apart from hearsay statements and are denied:
  • Husband neglecting children, sleeping while he should be watching them. Forcing seven year old to supervise five year old. Forbidding children from calling their mother.
  • Husband watching TV with children (huh?)
  • Husband forgetting to pick up children at daycare.
  • Husbands theft of property from the home, including food.
  • Puppy feces all over the house due to husbands negligence (photos provided)
  • Husband forcing daughter to clean up puppy feces.
  • Husbands trashing the home every time he is there (photos provided) while simultaneously being a slavedriver, forcing the children to clean up.

Conclusion Ex-wife completely irresponsible, including financial

  • Ex-wife has proven, that when there are negative consequences for behaving irresponsibly, that she can choose to behave responsibly (employment records) or pretend to be responsible (daycare clients, or luring in potential prey such as Bernard Wilson or husband).
  • Ex-wife has therefore proven that, when she perceives some loss for being irresponsible or some gain for pretending to be responsible, that she is at least able to pretend and that is what she does.
  • There is overwhelming evidence in support of husband's allegations of ex-wife's irresponsibility as a mother, considering her daughters social and development needs, a partner, financial responsibility, taking her marriage vows seriously or even caring about family survival. Ex-wife has been totally, in all areas, irresponsible.
  • Given that ex-wife has established that she can at least appear personally responsible when she perceives consequences, it can only be concluded that, when ex-wife chooses to be irresponsible, it is because she perceives no negative consequences of being irresponsible or positive consequences of being responsible. This is a profound conclusion, with many implications.
  • Implication 1: Ex-wife believed that she was entitled by marriage and would not be held to account for ANY behavior by divorce courts. This is exactly what the courts did, for her mother and herself. To date, ex-wife still has custody of her daughters, after eight judges wielding their ponderous intellects, pretending to consider these and far more damming facts as time passed.
  • Implication 2: Fraudulently marrying under false pretences for profit and not being held to account for lack of partnership was ex-wife's plan, thwarted by husband defying the intent of the courts and choosing true law over criminal judicial rulings.
  • Implication 3: It is an established fact that husband fought ex-wife's irresponsibility during the entire marriage (oops - abused her). If ex-wife was indeed terrified of husband, she would have complied with his stated wishes and been terrified of defying husband. Ex-wife proves, by her own irresponsibility that she was not afraid of husbands or any behavioral consequences. Husband could not have been abusing ex-wife, or her terrified of him, by her own behavior.
<< Court Records
Trackback
  • URL: https://www.divorcefraud.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c8/25
  • Trackback: https://www.divorcefraud.org/modules/article/trackback.php/25
Rate
10987654321
API: RSS | RDF | ATOM
Copyright© rossb & XOOPS Site
The comments are owned by the author. We aren't responsible for their content.