Found Safe Canada - O’Driscoll-Zak sisters, 2 & 5, abduction by aunt & grandmother, Cochrane, 12 Mar 2021

[otto]

I understand your point and I would agree IF the children were older.
They are very young and, if I understand correctly, the mother has been the primary caregiver.
This has been going on since 2019.
IMO, it will get better once the children get older and once the world opens up again.

We don't know the work history of the parents, but it is common for both parents to work and a bit of research suggests that was the case here too. Perhaps the children were in daycare from the age of 6 months. We just don't know.

There's absolutely no reason to think that children need to transition to living with their father. Apparently the mother does not think they need to transition to being with their grandmother and aunt either.

"The Tender Years Doctrine was a family law principle that began in 1881 and held that children should remain in their mother's care following a divorce as mothers are best equipped to meet the children's needs. The Tender Years Doctrine was determined to discriminate against, and violate, the rights of fathers and other caretakers. Currently, the Best Interests of the Child Standard is applied when determining custody arrangements for children."
​

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314942512_Tender_Years_Doctrine

 

[Seattle1]

TIMELINE:

2014 - CMZ AND JOZ married

July 2019 - Separated

Two children ages 5 and 2

There have been several interim parenting orders since the separation:

First-order found JOZ in contempt for breaching two previous parenting orders; dismissed JOZ's application to cross-examine CMZ on parenting proposal; granted primary care of the children to JOZ with joint decision making between the parties.

July 29, 2020 -- Domestic Special.

Aug 13, 2020 and Aug 24, 2020 - Decisions:

Parties directed to provide therapeutic intervention for the purpose of reunification between children and father CMZ; order imposed parenting plan on the parties.

Sept 2020 - JOZ applied for permission to appeal parenting plan and reunification with father.

Sept 16, 2020 - permission granted to appeal and stay orders of August 2020.

Higher Court-directed parties to commence family reunification counseling with Dr. Froberg as soon as possible -- no later than Sept 30, 2020.

Nov 30, 2020- Expedited appeal heard.

Appellate Court decision:

The case management judge did not err in declining the appellant’s application to adjourn the contempt application to allow for cross-examination of the respondent CMZ. There was ample evidence that the appellant had breached the two previous parenting orders by unilaterally terminating the respondent’s access. Cross-examination of the respondent would not have assisted the appellant. Awarded costs against the appellant JOZ but imposed no relief for contempt.

The parenting schedule adopted by the case management judge has expired -the issue of its suitability is largely moot.

Dec 4, 2020: The appeal dismissed and the matter remitted to the case management judge for further determination.

Dec 8, 2020: Counsel for the father CMZ sent case management Judge a letter requesting a review of the parenting regime since the Reunification Counselling had commenced, matter originally set to be reviewed late Oct 2020. Requested appearance prior to the Christmas break.

Dr. Froberg provided an affidavit to the Court regarding the assessment of JOZ readiness and willingness to support reunification efforts:

“Based on her comments and actions, Ms. O’Driscoll does not appear to have accepted the validity and appropriateness of the Reunification intervention and is not indicating that she is willing to cooperatively participate in the process.”

Dec 15, 2020: JOZ and her counsel rejected the proposed Dec 15 case management review-- suggested a later date in January 2021.

CMZ's counsel responded to JOZ suggestion for 2021 date:

“I would not like to let this matter go until January as there is no parenting order in place and Mr. Zak has not seen his children for many months. As Mr. Wilson is still counsel of record I would ask that we proceed on December 15 and Ms. Miller can assume conduct of the file thereafter.”

[The week of December 14 to 18 was the last regular Court sitting week of the year].

Dec 15, 2020: Case management review held with CMZ, his counsel, and Dr. Froberg attending via WebEx.

Case Management Judge did not grant the relief sought by the father after the December 15, 2020 case management meeting and adjourned the matter to February 8, 2021, at the time of booking, for the reasons explained above, the matter was pressing and urgent.

Judge declined to make an order at the December case management meeting based on the mother’s assurances that she was cooperating with Dr. Froberg and would continue to be cooperative, thereby mitigating the need for a court order.

JOZ told Judge she believes in the reunification process. Dr. Froberg was requested to provide Judge with a report by the end of January after her further meetings with the children. Judge still anticipated receiving that report before the February 8, 2021 case management meeting.

Jan 18, 2021- Case Management Judge heard JOZ's application that the Judge be disqualified as the case manager for bias.

Feb 1, 2021 - Conclusion:

The mother, JOZ, did not meet the high burden to provide cogent evidence in support of her allegation of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.

________________

No additional court-linked info available since Feb 1, 2021.

Reportedly, JOZ was initially granted primary care of the children with joint decision-making between the parties. I believe the mother took this for granted, and the Feb 8 review probably resulted in no progress or willingness by JOZ to cooperatively participate in the process which ultimately resulted in primary care of the children awarded to CMZ.

March 12, 2021: CMZ states the court awarded him full custody of the children on Friday but the children disappeared when they were supposed to be presented to him.

March 13, 2021: RCMP said they were called to the children’s home – in a rural residence near Cochrane – on Saturday morning for a report of two female missing children and two female missing adults.

“Leonine O’Driscoll-Zak, five, and Wyatt O’Driscoll-Zak, two, are believed to be in the company of their grandmother, Therese O’Driscoll, 68, and their aunt Alison O’Driscoll, 38, all from the area of Cochrane,” the RCMP said on Sunday.

“They were all last seen at approximately 9:30 a.m. on Friday at the children’s home.

“The children’s disappearance is currently being investigated as an abduction involving their grandmother and aunt.”

The children remain missing...

 

[Seattle1]

1) Yes, parents have rights but they are superseded by the best interests of the child.

2) I have no idea what specific behaviors the judge is referencing in the above paragraphs.
"being interfered with" = What exactly does this mean?
"traumatized by recent events" = ???
"obstructive, intrusive poisonous behavior" = ???

IMO this judge sounds very emotionally involved in this case, she appears to have lost her 'professional distance'.
Just my opinion.

From the two Court documents linked for this custody matter, we know that the mother was initially (2019) awarded primary care of the children with joint decision-making between the parties.

We also know that since July 2019, the mother was found in contempt for breaching at least two parenting plans, found responsible by the Court for parental alienation, and further failed to cooperate with the court-appointed therapist's plan for reunification with the father.

Most recently, Dr. Froberg's affidavit to the Court stated the following about the mother:

“Based on her comments and actions, Ms. O’Driscoll does not appear to have accepted the validity and appropriateness of the Reunification intervention and is not indicating that she is willing to cooperatively participate in the process.”

In other words, the mother here has brazenly represented to the Court (and the public) that she does not believe the family court laws apply to her, they are not valid, and she's not willing to participate in the process.

Please don't mistake the Judge's firm response to one contemptuous individual as being emotionally involved or biased. The mother already tried that --attempting to dismiss the Judge as the case manager, and that also failed.

I truly fear for the children in her care. Although I lean towards young children staying in the care of the mother, I applaud the Courts decision to remove them from this particular mother as the primary caregiver. .

It's very clear the mother has no respect for the court, her former spouse, or her children. Abducting the children screams if I can't have them you'll NEVER see them. Her children should not have to pay for the rage she has towards her former husband. She's incapable of acting in the best interest of the children.

Clearly, she was given every opportunity by the Court and failed to appreciate a case manager that was more than patient with her.

MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

This is a criminal investigation into the abduction of two young children by two people related to the family. The longer it goes on, the more concern there is for the children.

"The Serious Crimes Branch of the RCMP continue to investigate the disappearance of 5-year-old Leonine O’Driscoll-Zak and 2-year-old Wyatt O’Driscoll-Zak and still believe they are in the company of their grandmother and aunt who are believed to have taken them. "
​

Cochrane RCMP update investigation into search for missing children and adults - DiscoverAirdrie.com

Yes, I know it's a crime. I was talking about what the discussion seems to be about.

jmo

 

[otto]

Yes, I know it's a crime. I was talking about what the discussion seems to be about.

jmo

I suppose we're trying to understand whether there is any way to view the abduction in the context of 'protecting children', which leads us to explore what led up to the abduction.

At this time, I agree with @Seattle1. This seems like a situation where: "Abducting the children screams if I can't have them you'll NEVER see them."

If a father did what the mother did, that is probably the first thing people would think. Because it is the mother, she is given the "benefit of the doubt." That seems to be what the Judge did as well, provided ample time for the mother to come to terms with the situation, to access divorce services and to accept that the father has rights.

 

[Seattle1]

I suppose we're trying to understand whether there is any way to view the abduction in the context of 'protecting children', which leads us to explore what led up to the abduction.

At this time, I agree with @Seattle1. This seems like a situation where: "Abducting the children screams if I can't have them you'll NEVER see them."

If a father did what the mother did, that is probably the first thing people would think. Because it is the mother, she is given the "benefit of the doubt." That seems to be what the Judge did as well, provided ample time for the mother to come to terms with the situation, to access divorce services and to accept that the father has rights.

In an account after the virtual court review with the father and court-appointed reunification therapist on Dec 15, 2020, the case manager memorialized that she did not grant the relief sought by the father when I'm sure she had more than sufficient reason to do so after 18+ months of defiant, contemptuous behavior exhibited by the mother.

Instead, she adjourned the matter to Feb 8, 2021-- giving the mother yet another chance, based on the mother’s assurances that she was cooperating with Dr. Froberg and would continue to be cooperative, thereby mitigating the need for a court order.

No question the mother was given the benefit of the doubt.

Soon, if not already, the children will understand they are not on holiday with grandma and auntie. We know that mom alienated the children from the father. Are we to expect the abductors are doing the same at this very moment -- telling the children the judge and your father are "bad people" and we have to hide from them?

It's sick, damaging, behavior.

MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes, I know it's a crime. I was talking about what the discussion seems to be about.

jmo

The discussion here went down that path by trying to understand what led up to the father being granted full custody immediately preceding the abduction by the children’s grandmother and aunt, including why some people support it and others are even allegedly aiding it.

Cochrane RCMP believe suspects receiving aid in case of missing girls | Calgary Herald

“Investigators understand that there are many people who are sympathetic to the custody situation of these children,” said Cochrane RCMP in a statement on Friday.

“Those assisting the O’Driscoll’s may believe they are acting in the best interests of the children, however those who assist in the commission of a criminal offence can be charged criminally with aiding and abetting.”..”

 

[Seattle1]

The discussion here went down that path by trying to understand what led up to the father being granted full custody immediately preceding the abduction by the children’s grandmother and aunt, including why some people support it and others are even allegedly aiding it.

Cochrane RCMP believe suspects receiving aid in case of missing girls | Calgary Herald

“Investigators understand that there are many people who are sympathetic to the custody situation of these children,” said Cochrane RCMP in a statement on Friday.

“Those assisting the O’Driscoll’s may believe they are acting in the best interests of the children, however those who assist in the commission of a criminal offence can be charged criminally with aiding and abetting.”..”

Thanks, @MistyWaters for the RCMP reminder about aiding and abetting.

I definitely believe the abductors are receiving aid because it's human nature to believe a mother if she says her children need to be protected from the father. We tend to give the mother the benefit of the doubt.

I think JOZ has proven to be the exception. MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

Thanks, @MistyWaters for the RCMP reminder about aiding and abetting.

I definitely believe the abductors are receiving aid because it's human nature to believe a mother if she says her children need to be protected from the father. We tend to give the mother the benefit of the doubt.

I think JOZ has proven to be the exception. MOO

You’re welcome and thank you for creating that really helpful timeline. It really puts everything into an orderly perspective.

As each day passes I’m becoming more and more concerned about the well-being of the two girls. Initially it seemed maybe the grandmother and aunt intended to disappear with them for a couple of days as an attention-getting endeavour, maybe hoping their radical action would encourage the Judge to revisit the custody order, more or less resembling a boycott of that decision. But now it’s been 11 days.

 

[Sillybilly]

But now it’s been 11 days.

<rsbm>

And these 2 sweeties are now without both their mother and their father. Have to wonder how on earth the abductors are justifying this in their own minds.

 

[otto]

In an account after the virtual court review with the father and court-appointed reunification therapist on Dec 15, 2020, the case manager memorialized that she did not grant the relief sought by the father when I'm sure she had more than sufficient reason to do so after 18+ months of defiant, contemptuous behavior exhibited by the mother.

Instead, she adjourned the matter to Feb 8, 2021-- giving the mother yet another chance, based on the mother’s assurances that she was cooperating with Dr. Froberg and would continue to be cooperative, thereby mitigating the need for a court order.

No question the mother was given the benefit of the doubt.

Soon, if not already, the children will understand they are not on holiday with grandma and auntie. We know that mom alienated the children from the father. Are we to expect the abductors are doing the same at this very moment -- telling the children the judge and your father are "bad people" and we have to hide from them?

It's sick, damaging, behavior.

MOO

I think the 5 year old has very likely become protective of her little sister, in many ways growing up too fast because of their circumstances. I do believe that they are well aware of the turmoil with their parents, that something is seriously wrong, and it's likely that they feel responsible for the problem.

It's unfortunate that the grandmother and aunt are so involved in the divorce that they are can't see the harm they are causing the children.

They can't hide forever. Eventually someone has to pay the bills on their homes. If they gave power of attorney to someone to pay bills shortly before the abduction, could that fall under aiding and abetting? Who is collecting their mail?

Did the mother live with the grandmother prior to the abduction? Is that why the grandmother is so involved with keeping the children?

 

[Seattle1]

Did the mother live with the grandmother prior to the abduction? Is that why the grandmother is so involved with keeping the children?

^^rsbm

I think it's possible that grandmother and aunt have been bullied, manipulated by JOZ and are probably acting under a plan by JOZ.

She needs to be in control. I don't see her sitting at home, wondering where her children are. She's not going MSM or SM asking them to please come home. Seems she's highly skilled at fooling others into doing things on her behalf.

No boundaries...

MOO

 

[otto]

^^rsbm

I think it's possible that grandmother and aunt have been bullied, manipulated by JOZ and are probably acting under a plan by JOZ.

She needs to be in control. I don't see her sitting at home, wondering where her children are. She's not going MSM or SM asking them to please come home. Seems she's highly skilled at fooling others into doing things on her behalf.

No boundaries...

MOO

If the mother was at all worried about where her children were, she would be all over the news pleading for their safe return. She is silent, so she is either confident that they are in a place that suits her, or she doesn't care how they are doing.

She seems highly skilled at convincing others that she means well, will do the right thing, just needs more time, is having issues with lawyers, is cooperating but ... the world is going against her best efforts.

She seems to have convinced her sister and her mother to entirely give up their lives, careers and reputations to do her bidding. She has convinced them that what they are doing is so important that a criminal record is a reasonable consequence. The mother has not given up anything and does not currently risk the consequence of a criminal record. She has enlisted her sister and mother to do the dirty work and to take the fall.

What the sister and grandmother are missing is that wild and crazy allegations that appear, out of the blue, six years into the marriage, and just at the moment when joint custody could be awarded, they should think twice. Instead, it seems as though the aunt and grandmother have embraced hysterics of fear after the mother made more wild accusations against the father.

They should snap out of it, go home, let the children see their father, and follow up with their concerns through proper channels.

The world is not conspiring against the mother and the children - there are proper channels for all concerns.

 

[otto]

I wonder whether RCMP have obtained a search warrant for the property where the mother lives, and where the grandmother lives. Photos show the children with horses, and my impression is that there are horses at their rural property. If the children are at a rural property, who is to say that they are not at home, but were hidden when police looked for them?

That doesn't explain why the sister is involved, other than to give the illusion that she and her mother abducted the children.

 

[otto]

This case comes to mind: Shannon Burgess. She went home in Dec 2014 and vanished. Police were in the home more than once while she was folded into a bin on the patio at the housing co-op. The only thing that made sense, given security cameras and timelines, was that she was still in the home. Her husband later buried her in the back yard.

The deceased victim was in the home, but without a search warrant police could not look beyond plain sight.

If the children are hidden, but in their own home, they are safe, the aunt and grandmother cannot be charged with a criminal offence, and everyone wins - according to their rules.

 

[MistyWaters]

This case comes to mind: Shannon Burgess. She went home in Dec 2014 and vanished. Police were in the home more than once while she was folded into a bin on the patio at the housing co-op. The only thing that made sense, given security cameras and timelines, was that she was still in the home. Her husband later buried her in the back yard.

The deceased victim was in the home, but without a search warrant police could not look beyond plain sight.

If the children are hidden, but in their own home, they are safe, the aunt and grandmother cannot be charged with a criminal offence, and everyone wins - according to their rules.

You do make a valid point. It’d certainly be easier for two people to hide two children on a rural farm or acreage than to totally disappear elsewhere. As you say, police would require a search warrant in order to set foot on the property and even then likely wouldn’t have authority to search every nook and cranny. A security system at the access to the property and a locked gate forewarning of their arrival might be all that’s required to provide enough time to hide.

 

[Inthedetails]

You do make a valid point. It’d certainly be easier for two people to hide two children on a rural farm or acreage than to totally disappear elsewhere. As you say, police would require a search warrant in order to set foot on the property and even then likely wouldn’t have authority to search every nook and cranny. A security system at the access to the property and a locked gate forewarning of their arrival might be all that’s required to provide enough time to hide.

Interesting ideas!

I was thinking they are in Toronto because it would be easier to "disappear" in a big city, newcomers don't stand out, the news story might not be followed closely there, and the aunt could find work (though that might require a fake or borrowed ID?).

jmo

 

[Tealgrove]

^^rsbm

I think it's possible that grandmother and aunt have been bullied, manipulated by JOZ and are probably acting under a plan by JOZ.

She needs to be in control. I don't see her sitting at home, wondering where her children are. She's not going MSM or SM asking them to please come home. Seems she's highly skilled at fooling others into doing things on her behalf.

No boundaries...

MOO

I was just about to post a similar sentiment.

I wonder what JOZ has been telling Grandmother and Auntie. Has she been feeding them lies so that they actually believe they are doing the right thing?

 

[Tealgrove]

Interesting ideas!

I was thinking they are in Toronto because it would be easier to "disappear" in a big city, newcomers don't stand out, the news story might not be followed closely there, and the aunt could find work (though that might require a fake or borrowed ID?).

jmo

If they are in Toronto nobody here even knows about this and they can carry on here for a long time.

It might be harder to hide here due to Pandemic Restrictions, get a job, etc.

How are they supporting themselves and 2 children? Do they work? Do they receive Gov't Assistance?

I wonder if LE can get a warrant to obtain information on their bank accounts and credit cards? If they are making withdrawals through ATM's that would give a location or using their cards LE would get a better sense of what they are up to. What are they buying? Paying Rent, etc.

If someone is e-transfering funds, then that's another lead.

This is not a smart scheme and these two will go to jail and JOZ might as well.

MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

If they are in Toronto nobody here even knows about this and they can carry on here for a long time.

It might be harder to hide here due to Pandemic Restrictions, get a job, etc.

How are they supporting themselves and 2 children? Do they work? Do they receive Gov't Assistance?

I wonder if LE can get a warrant to obtain information on their bank accounts and credit cards? If they are making withdrawals through ATM's that would give a location or using their cards LE would get a better sense of what they are up to. What are they buying? Paying Rent, etc.

If someone is e-transfering funds, then that's another lead.

This is not a smart scheme and these two will go to jail and JOZ might as well.

MOO

It definitely is not a sustainable situation, unless they are willing to let all the current bills go unpaid - utilities, housing, vehicle payments, etc. I'm sure they love the kids, but I keep envisioning a family that runs on chaos without thinking of consequences.

jmo