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

[TGIRecovered]

The following is based on my observations of crime over the years, not this case in particular:

Let’s not forget that and judges regularly make foolish, dangerous rulings.

Josh Powell was allowed to have contact with his kids and now they’re dead. How many times have we seen a parent go missing, never to be found and the children are left in the home with the killer? We’ve seen parents who are proven out of control violent offenders who retain custody of their children because they haven’t been caught or successfully prosecuted for beating the children yet. Manipulators can fool anyone, including judges, psychologists, psychiatrists, clergy and their own family.

Judges regularly return children to parents who have abused them mentally, physically and emotionally. It happens a lot. That’s how we end up with so many messed up adults.

I don’t know if these children were abused by anyone or if there is some other reason that they shouldn’t be around either parent. I do know that more often than not, when you see children abducted by a male it is out of anger and done to show power, to terrorize the mother or kill the child. It is rare to see grandmothers and aunts disappear with child unless they fear for the child’s safety. 99% of the time I would trust most grandmothers’ natural instinct to protect a child over a judge’s ruling.

I’m not here to argue with anyone who has a different opinion I’m simply stating mine.

 

[Alice Ramnit]

The following is based on my observations of crime over the years, not this case in particular:

Let’s not forget that and judges regularly make foolish, dangerous rulings.

Josh Powell was allowed to have contact with his kids and now they’re dead. How many times have we seen a parent go missing, never to be found and the children are left in the home with the killer? We’ve seen parents who are proven out of control violent offenders who retain custody of their children because they haven’t been caught or successfully prosecuted for beating the children yet. Manipulators can fool anyone, including judges, psychologists, psychiatrists, clergy and their own family.

Judges regularly return children to parents who have abused them mentally, physically and emotionally. It happens a lot. That’s how we end up with so many messed up adults.

I don’t know if these children were abused by anyone or if there is some other reason that they shouldn’t be around either parent. I do know that more often than not, when you see children abducted by a male it is out of anger and done to show power, to terrorize the mother or kill the child. It is rare to see grandmothers and aunts disappear with child unless they fear for the child’s safety. 99% of the time I would trust most grandmothers’ natural instinct to protect a child over a judge’s ruling.

I’m not here to argue with anyone who has a different opinion I’m simply stating mine.

FANTASTIC post!! I completely agree!

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

Direct from the court record:

“My oral reasons for decision were quite lengthy. In those reasons, I found that the mother was in contempt of court for having breached two previous parenting orders and I found that the mother had engaged in alienating behaviour.

[18] As earlier stated, the mother appealed my findings and set out many issues for the Court of Appeal to consider including “whether the chambers judge was, or appeared to be, biased.”

[19] In its Memorandum of Judgment upholding my decision, the Court of Appeal made the following comments on the issue of alienation and bias, at paragraph 7:

7 We are not satisfied that the appellant was denied procedural fairness or that the case management judge was not impartial. The parental alienation issue was fully argued and the case management judge’s finding of alienation by the appellant is supported on the record. There is no basis for any suggestion of lack of impartiality.” This is a quote from the case directly (see citation earlier). The Court of Appeal held there was no basis for apprehension of bias and held that the finding of alienation was supported on the record (in other words, evidence). A three member panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal found no basis for the allegation of bias but did find a basis for the judges finding that the mother engaged in alienating behaviour (poisoning the children against the father).
Courts get it right most of the time. I will go with the facts two courts have dismissed the bias claim.

 

[MistyWaters]

The following is based on my observations of crime over the years, not this case in particular:

Let’s not forget that and judges regularly make foolish, dangerous rulings.

Josh Powell was allowed to have contact with his kids and now they’re dead. How many times have we seen a parent go missing, never to be found and the children are left in the home with the killer? We’ve seen parents who are proven out of control violent offenders who retain custody of their children because they haven’t been caught or successfully prosecuted for beating the children yet. Manipulators can fool anyone, including judges, psychologists, psychiatrists, clergy and their own family.

Judges regularly return children to parents who have abused them mentally, physically and emotionally. It happens a lot. That’s how we end up with so many messed up adults.

I don’t know if these children were abused by anyone or if there is some other reason that they shouldn’t be around either parent. I do know that more often than not, when you see children abducted by a male it is out of anger and done to show power, to terrorize the mother or kill the child. It is rare to see grandmothers and aunts disappear with child unless they fear for the child’s safety. 99% of the time I would trust most grandmothers’ natural instinct to protect a child over a judge’s ruling.

I’m not here to argue with anyone who has a different opinion I’m simply stating mine.

I hadn’t noticed it stated anywhere the grandmother and aunt are hiding the children due to safety concerns. That seems to be a conclusion people have leapt toward. I don’t view the abduction of children and hiding from police for nine days now as an act of heroism at all.

Custody battles arise for many reasons other than safety concerns, such as spiteful withholding access to punish the ex, control of children to use as hurtful weapons turning them against one parent, and financial issues such as who pays child support and how much.

We don’t know what’s at play here other than the RCMP wants these four to be found.

JMO

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

I hadn’t noticed it stated anywhere the grandmother and aunt are hiding the children due to safety concerns. That seems to be a conclusion people have leapt to. I don’t view the abduction of children and hiding from police and involving other people as an heroic act at all.

Custody battles arise for many reasons other than safety concerns, such as spiteful withholding access to punish the ex, control of children to use as hurtful weapons turning them against one parent, and financial issues such as who pays child support and how much.

We don’t know what’s at play here other than the RCMP wants these four to be found.

JMO

Thank you. Colossal leaps of logic without facts aren’t helpful. No evidence at all that this is about safety. Only evidence in the court is that it is about refusal to accept court orders.

 

[MyBelle]

The following is based on my observations of crime over the years, not this case in particular:

Let’s not forget that and judges regularly make foolish, dangerous rulings.

Josh Powell was allowed to have contact with his kids and now they’re dead. How many times have we seen a parent go missing, never to be found and the children are left in the home with the killer? We’ve seen parents who are proven out of control violent offenders who retain custody of their children because they haven’t been caught or successfully prosecuted for beating the children yet. Manipulators can fool anyone, including judges, psychologists, psychiatrists, clergy and their own family.

Judges regularly return children to parents who have abused them mentally, physically and emotionally. It happens a lot. That’s how we end up with so many messed up adults.

I don’t know if these children were abused by anyone or if there is some other reason that they shouldn’t be around either parent. I do know that more often than not, when you see children abducted by a male it is out of anger and done to show power, to terrorize the mother or kill the child. It is rare to see grandmothers and aunts disappear with child unless they fear for the child’s safety. 99% of the time I would trust most grandmothers’ natural instinct to protect a child over a judge’s ruling.

I’m not here to argue with anyone who has a different opinion I’m simply stating mine.

I share your opinion for the same reasons. Jennifer Dulos was denied an order of protection and it cost her life. Too many parents and their attorneys are weaponizing the court process.

In this case, when the Appeals Court denied the mother's complaint in late Nov. 2020, the Appeals Court raised serious concerns about the judge's decision.

....the admissible evidence before the case management judge and in support of the fresh evidence applications raises a concern that one of the children may have experienced distress during the respondent’s parenting time and that the parenting schedule adopted by the case management judge may have been impractical or unworkable. The schedule may have moved too quickly towards unsupervised access and overnight stays. It would have been helpful for the case management judge to provide reasons for selecting the respondent’s parenting schedule.

....The determination of a new parenting plan that is in the best interests of the children should be considered afresh by the case management judge. We question the utility of Practice Note 7 in the circumstances, given the expert’s inability to make recommendations to the court regarding the children’s best interests.

The mother's new attorney filed her complaint against the judge in January 2021 and the judge filed her response in early February. I question the doctor's and the judge's warp speed in going from an inability to make recommendations to the court regarding the children's best interest to awarding the father full custody on March 12, 2021

 

[MyBelle]

Thank you. Colossal leaps of logic without facts aren’t helpful. No evidence at all that this is about safety. Only evidence in the court is that it is about refusal to accept court orders.

The Appeals Court raised concerns about the Judge's decisions. Were they making "colossal leaps of logic?" I don't believe they were. If those judges decided there was admissible evidence that one of the children did experience distress during the respondent's parenting time and that the parenting schedule adopted by the judge may have been impractical or unworkable, I have no reason to disagree.

2021 ABQB 80 (CanLII) | Zak v Zak | CanLII

[25] The Court of Appeal stated the following with respect to case management of the matter:

8 The parenting schedule adopted by the case management judge has expired so the issue of its suitability is largely moot. However, although some of the evidence in the fresh evidence applications is inadmissible hearsay, the admissible evidence before the case management judge and in support of the fresh evidence applications raises a concern that one of the children may have experienced distress during the respondent’s parenting time and that the parenting schedule adopted by the case management judge may have been impractical or unworkable. The schedule may have moved too quickly towards unsupervised access and overnight stays. It would have been helpful for the case management judge to provide reasons for selecting the respondent’s parenting schedule.

9 As an appellate court, we are not in a position to resolve the parties’ competing positions nor to fashion a new parenting plan. The determination of a new parenting plan that is in the best interests of the children should be considered afresh by the case management judge. We question the utility of Practice Note 7 in the circumstances, given the expert’s inability to make recommendations to the court regarding the children’s best interests. It may be that an Evaluative Triage under Practice Note 8 would be better suited to the high conflict nature of these proceedings and the parties’ tendency for protracted disputes. However, we leave to the case management judge the determination of the best way to resolve the disputes and move this litigation forward in the best interests of the children, bearing in mind that the orders issued to date are only interim in nature and that at some point there will have to be either a settlement or a trial to finally resolve the parenting situation.

10 The appeal is dismissed and the matter is remitted to the case management judge for further determination.

[Emphasis in bold added].

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

Practice Note 7:

“Under this Practice Note a Parenting Expert will not provide an opinion or recommendations as to the best interests of the children, including opinions or recommendations regarding parenting time/responsibilities, custody, access or relocation.”

You misunderstood the courts reference when you said “ I question the doctor's and the judge's warp speed in going from an inability to make recommendations to the court regarding the children's best interest to awarding the father full custody on March 12, 2021.”. It wasn’t that they waffled and couldn’t decide, they weren’t allowed to. The court went on to say the case management judge SHOULD decide:
“However, we leave to the case management judge the determination of the best way to resolve the disputes and move this litigation forward in the best interests of the children.”

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

The court was right - they didn’t make colossal leaps. I meant people on here assuming the father is a danger.

 

[LadyL]

I think I trust the RCMP over Zak's opinion.

JMO

Why? They don't even know the children or the mother or the aunt & grandma
Zak and the courts who have been dealing with them are familiar with at least the mother

 

[LadyL]

it's possible that what the father says about the mother is true
and sometimes behavioural issues run in families

 

[MistyWaters]

Practice Note 7:

“Under this Practice Note a Parenting Expert will not provide an opinion or recommendations as to the best interests of the children, including opinions or recommendations regarding parenting time/responsibilities, custody, access or relocation.”

You misunderstood the courts reference when you said “ I question the doctor's and the judge's warp speed in going from an inability to make recommendations to the court regarding the children's best interest to awarding the father full custody on March 12, 2021.”. It wasn’t that they waffled and couldn’t decide, they weren’t allowed to. The court went on to say the case management judge SHOULD decide:
“However, we leave to the case management judge the determination of the best way to resolve the disputes and move this litigation forward in the best interests of the children.”

We also don’t know the duration of the Custody Order issued on March 12th. Was it permanent or only a temporary measure due to the expiry of the existing. Was there further action, including mediation, parenting classes, anything ordered to work toward an eventual successful co-parenting compromise beneficial to the children.

 

[MyBelle]

Practice Note 7:

“Under this Practice Note a Parenting Expert will not provide an opinion or recommendations as to the best interests of the children, including opinions or recommendations regarding parenting time/responsibilities, custody, access or relocation.”

You misunderstood the courts reference when you said “ I question the doctor's and the judge's warp speed in going from an inability to make recommendations to the court regarding the children's best interest to awarding the father full custody on March 12, 2021.”. It wasn’t that they waffled and couldn’t decide, they weren’t allowed to. The court went on to say the case management judge SHOULD decide:
“However, we leave to the case management judge the determination of the best way to resolve the disputes and move this litigation forward in the best interests of the children.”

My comprehension is just fine, thanks. The mother told the court at the December hearing that she would work with the Doctor to develop a re-unification plan. A re-unification plan is very gradual and doesn't go a warp speed to full custody to the parent who distressed the child during their parenting time.

Parenting and practice note 7: getting a psychologist involved

 

[MyBelle]

Why? They don't even know the children or the mother or the aunt & grandma
Zak and the courts who have been dealing with them are familiar with at least the mother

Because friends and family are also witnesses to domestic violence or abuse plus the Appeals court said there was evidence.

in support of the fresh evidence applications raises a concern that one of the children may have experienced distress during the respondent’s parenting time and that the parenting schedule adopted by the case management judge may have been impractical or unworkable.

 

[MyBelle]

The court was right - they didn’t make colossal leaps. I meant people on here assuming the father is a danger.

I'm not assuming the father is a danger. I am forming my opinion based on what the Appeals Court said which the Judge repeated in her response to the January complaint:

"in support of the fresh evidence applications raises a concern that one of the children may have experienced distress during the respondent’s parenting time and that the parenting schedule adopted by the case management judge may have been impractical or unworkable.

 

[MyBelle]

it's possible that what the father says about the mother is true
and sometimes behavioural issues run in families

It's also possible what the father said about the mother is untrue. Apparently the mother is not a suspect in the disappearance of the children.

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

The distress was caused by the mother’s alienating actions:
“Furthermore, what is clear from the evidence is that Colin is trying to have parenting time with the Children and his time is being interfered with to the extreme as earlier outlined. The parties both admit that the Children have been traumatized by recent events that occurred while Colin was attempting to access his parenting time. However, I find that Jacqueline has significantly contributed to this trauma. I would even say she ignited it, and now it is aflame.”

 

[MyBelle]

The distress was caused by the mother’s alienating actions:
“Furthermore, what is clear from the evidence is that Colin is trying to have parenting time with the Children and his time is being interfered with to the extreme as earlier outlined. The parties both admit that the Children have been traumatized by recent events that occurred while Colin was attempting to access his parenting time. However, I find that Jacqueline has significantly contributed to this trauma. I would even say she ignited it, and now it is aflame.”

The judge wasn't there. She's only displaying more of her deep bias against the mother and her attorney. And the Appeals Court did not say there was evidence the child was in distress because of the mother. The appeals court did state:
the parenting schedule adopted by the case management judge may have been impractical or unworkable.

 

[MistyWaters]

It's also possible what the father said about the mother is untrue. Apparently the mother is not a suspect in the disappearance of the children.

Even if the RCMP believe the mother was involved in arranging the disappearance of her children, what proof is there at this point in time? She claimed she had no knowledge of where they are and it’s not as if the RCMP can talk to the persons responsible as they haven’t been found.

 

[otto]

We also don’t know the duration of the Custody Order issued on March 12th. Was it permanent or only a temporary measure due to the expiry of the existing. Was there further action, including mediation, parenting classes, anything ordered to work toward an eventual successful co-parenting compromise beneficial to the children.

On March 12, the father was awarded full custody of the girls. My understanding is that this "full custody" was a permanent decision. I assume that the mother and her family expected this, so they had a plan in place to disappear.

Court starts at 10AM, they were last seen at 9:30AM, so they were gone before a ruling was made.

"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.

Investigators believe the four have not left Canada. The children, along with their grandmother, 68-year-old Theresa O'Driscoll, and aunt, 38-year-old Alison O'Driscoll are all from the Cochrane area. They were last seen at around 9:30 am Friday, March 12th at the children's rural home near Cochrane.

The two children were supposed to be picked up that day by their father, Colin Zak who was awarded full custody of his daughters. Zak said when he went to get the kids from the home they weren't there. "
​

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