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

[MistyWaters]

I think that's a real possibility. Most states in the U.S. don't consider it a crime if the underlying reason is to protect the children's safety. We don't know much about either parent at this point or the reason behind the divorce.

We probably will never know the inside story. But if the mother had reason to believe the children’s safety was at risk, wouldn’t she have informed the Court of the specifics?

IMO this has gone well beyond a situation of protecting the children’s safety....it’s been 9 days and nobody knows where they are. If safety was a concern, they should have no reason to hide out from the police who are trying to find them.

BBM

Cochrane RCMP request assistance to locate two children and two adults – Update 2 – Still investigating | Royal Canadian Mounted Police
“RCMP believe the O'Driscoll's are receiving assistance to avoid apprehension. The RCMP is making a request of anyone who may be assisting the O'Driscoll's in hiding the children to contact police.

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...”

 

[MyBelle]

<bbm>

I don't think the judge's demand was unfair given that the mother was found in contempt of court for having breached 2 previous parenting Orders. A judge's Orders are issued in relation to what is in the best interests of the children, and as the judge stated "it was in the best interests of the children to convene a case management meeting before the Christmas break to address the interim parenting issues and for the parties to bring me up-to-date on their progress with the PN7 Reunification Therapy".

ETA: Also, that week was the last regular sitting week of the year. Actually, the last sitting was December 14 and the judge arranged a Webex conference for December 15 to ensure that the sitting took place prior to Christmas.

The best interests of the children trumps attorney schedules and parent unwillingness or unpreparedness to participate when ordered.

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

We'll agree to disagree. The mother had retained counsel which she has the legal right to do. It wasn't her fault that her counsel--whom she pays to represent her--could not make the short-notice hearing. Plus, her husband's attorney had already indicated to the court that he was withdrawing. I do not believe it is ethical for a judge to force anyone to appear without their retained counsel present.

<bbm>

I don't think the judge's demand was unfair given that the mother was found in contempt of court for having breached 2 previous parenting Orders. A judge's Orders are issued in relation to what is in the best interests of the children, and as the judge stated "it was in the best interests of the children to convene a case management meeting before the Christmas break to address the interim parenting issues and for the parties to bring me up-to-date on their progress with the PN7 Reunification Therapy".

ETA: Also, that week was the last regular sitting week of the year. Actually, the last sitting was December 14 and the judge arranged a Webex conference for December 15 to ensure that the sitting took place prior to Christmas.

The best interests of the children trumps attorney schedules and parent unwillingness or unpreparedness to participate when ordered.

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

We'll agree to disagree.

It wasn't an emergency. It was about a reunification plan being handled by a Doctor. The children hadn't seen their father in months. Re-unification plans are only necessary if a child has been traumatized in the past and that document indicates it was an issue without further explanation.

No reason the hearing had to be held on such short notice because it didn't result in a court order. The judge clearly has a bias against the mother because the judge doesn't like her attorney. She should be removed from the case.

 

[MistyWaters]

From a few days ago, husband is concerned about the safety of his daughters -

Father of missing girls concerned for their safety - Strathmore Now
Colin Zak -
"It's been a really difficult past couple of days, it's been a difficult number of months. We've been working through the courts, taking all the right steps to get these girls into a safer situation and then this happens at the last minute."

Zak was ordered full custody of the girls but when he went to go pick them up they were gone.......

.....There are specific criteria that must be met in order to activate an Amber Alert and in this case the RCMP say "they do not have evidence to indicate that the threshold has been met."

However, Zak disagrees. "They say that the children aren't in danger but the court disagrees. That's why the court ordered the immediate removal of the children. That's why the court-appointed psychologist was supportive of that. It's a dangerous game of semantics when you start having RCMP disagreeing with the judgement and disagreeing with the experts who are actually familiar with this case.".....

....."I'm very concerned. The mother is extremely unwell. The mother of my children is extremely unwell. That's why the court has ordered a psychiatric assessment and that's why they removed the children ultimately. I think that's what it comes down to."...”

 

[MyBelle]

We probably will never know the inside story. But if the mother had reason to believe the children’s safety was at risk, wouldn’t she have informed the Court of the specifics?

IMO this has gone well beyond a situation of protecting the children’s safety....it’s been 9 days and nobody knows where they are. If safety was a concern, they should have no reason to hide out from the police who are trying to find them.

BBM

Cochrane RCMP request assistance to locate two children and two adults – Update 2 – Still investigating | Royal Canadian Mounted Police
“RCMP believe the O'Driscoll's are receiving assistance to avoid apprehension. The RCMP is making a request of anyone who may be assisting the O'Driscoll's in hiding the children to contact police.

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...”

I think several people know more than they are telling. As the statement says, "may believe they are acting in the best interest of the children."

This case involves a reunification parenting plan so something happened in the past that necessitates a gradual reunification of the children with their parent. I think RCMP is being very careful in order to protect the privacy of the children. It reminds me of the Dulos case where the mother disappeared and Dulos showed up in NYC expecting to pick up his children at their grandmother's house for his parenting time. And Granny said, "nope."

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

We'll agree to disagree. The mother had retained counsel which she has the legal right to do. It wasn't her fault that her counsel--whom she pays to represent her--could not make the short-notice hearing. Plus, her husband's attorney had already indicated to the court that he was withdrawing. I do not believe it is ethical for a judge to force anyone to appear without their retained counsel present.


We'll agree to disagree.

It wasn't an emergency. It was about a reunification plan being handled by a Doctor. The children hadn't seen their father in months. Re-unification plans are only necessary if a child has been traumatized in the past and that document indicates it was an issue without further explanation.

No reason the hearing had to be held on such short notice because it didn't result in a court order. The judge clearly has a bias against the mother because the judge doesn't like her attorney. She should be removed from the case.

It’s important to note that was not a link to the hearing when full custody was granted to the father. Those comments were made in regard to a move by the mother to disqualify the Judge in January. Custody to the father was granted on March 12, the same day the grandmother and aunt disappeared with the children. Nothing has been mentioned about her failure to retain councel or not be represented by councel between January and March.

Considering the custody agreement was expired, IMO it would be prudent for the Judge to not allow either side to further impede the proceedings.

 

[MyBelle]

From a few days ago, husband is concerned about the safety of his daughters -

Father of missing girls concerned for their safety - Strathmore Now
Colin Zak -
"It's been a really difficult past couple of days, it's been a difficult number of months. We've been working through the courts, taking all the right steps to get these girls into a safer situation and then this happens at the last minute."

Zak was ordered full custody of the girls but when he went to go pick them up they were gone.......

.....There are specific criteria that must be met in order to activate an Amber Alert and in this case the RCMP say "they do not have evidence to indicate that the threshold has been met."

However, Zak disagrees. "They say that the children aren't in danger but the court disagrees. That's why the court ordered the immediate removal of the children. That's why the court-appointed psychologist was supportive of that. It's a dangerous game of semantics when you start having RCMP disagreeing with the judgement and disagreeing with the experts who are actually familiar with this case.".....

....."I'm very concerned. The mother is extremely unwell. The mother of my children is extremely unwell. That's why the court has ordered a psychiatric assessment and that's why they removed the children ultimately. I think that's what it comes down to."...”

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

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

I think several people know more than they are telling. As the statement says, "may believe they are acting in the best interest of the children."

This case involves a reunification parenting plan so something happened in the past that necessitates a gradual reunification of the children with their parent. I think RCMP is being very careful in order to protect the privacy of the children. It reminds me of the Dulos case where the mother disappeared and Dulos showed up in NYC expecting to pick up his children at their grandmother's house for his parenting time. And Granny said, "nope."

JMO

Yes it appears the Reunification Plan was required because the mom somehow prevented or impeded the father from having access to his children in the past. Beyond that, my speculation only, because the mother was set upon the father having no access to his children, to her a Reunification Plan was unnecessary. The abduction seems to be a continuation, a sequence of events, in that same direction. JMO

From the Canlii document -
“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.

To ensure the greatest possible protection of the Children's physical, psychological and emotional safety and considering their needs and circumstances, they need to be reunified with their father, and their mother needs to stop her obstructive, intrusive poisonous behaviour....”

 

[MyBelle]

It’s important to note that was not a link to the hearing when full custody was granted to the father. Those comments were made in a move by the mother to disqualify the Judge in January. Custody to the father was granted on March 12, the same day the grandmother and aunt disappeared with the children. Nothing has been mentioned about her failure to retain councel or not be represented by councel between January and March.

Considering the custody agreement was expired, IMO it would be prudent for the Judge to not allow either side to impede the proceedings.

The Parenting Plan had expired but the emergency hearing in Dec. didn't result in a parenting order.

The mother had retained new counsel in December. We don't know the details from the March custody hearing but it sounds to me like the judge has such extreme bias against the mother's attorney, she's ordering the mother to undergo psych exams.

 

[MyBelle]

Yes it appears the Reunification Plan was required because the mom somehow prevented or impeded the father from having access to his children in the past.

From the Canlii document -
“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.

To ensure the greatest possible protection of the Children's physical, psychological and emotional safety and considering their needs and circumstances, they need to be reunified with their father, and their mother needs to stop her obstructive, intrusive poisonous behaviour....”

I don't agree. I think the re-unification plan was because "the children have been traumatized by recent events." We don't know details about those "events." The judge sounds just as ridiculous as the Michigan judge who decided a 15-yo boy and his younger siblings belonged in jail.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

I don't agree. I think the re-unification plan was because "the children have been traumatized by recent events." We don't know details about those "events." The judge sounds just as ridiculous as the Michigan judge who decided a 15-yo boy and his younger siblings belonged in jail.

JMO

The Judge referred to the events but not in that particular ruling..... “his time is being interfered with to the extreme as earlier outlined”.

I don’t think we’re in a position to judge the Judge but that particular Decision certainly provides insight into an ongoing confrontational and volatile situation.

Nothing is solved by the grandmother and aunt abducting the children, in fact if everyone involved is criminally charged they’ve made it far worse. JMO

 

[asmi106082]

I think it depends on the reason behind the abduction. For example, at the designated parenting time, the parent shows up drunk or under the influence of drugs. Or the parents are texting threats to one another.

I do believe the judge in this case has a clear bias against the mother because of the allegations of bias made by the mother's attorney. Her attorney requested a sudden hearing in Dec. be changed because she couldn't attend. Rather than move the date, the judge demanded the mother attend by herself. That's very unfair to the mother. There is just too much we don't know about what is going on in this case.

There was a custody case a few years ago in Michigan where the judge threw three kids into juvie jail. It was ridiculous.

JMO

It was the mother who decided to change lawyers right before this meeting. Her former counsel advised he could be there but she had fired him. The new attorney she hired refused to accept that the meeting was urgent even though the judge made it clear it was. In the application to remove the judge the attorney mentions several times that it was a non urgent matter. I would be angry too if I were the judge. The fact that the father hadn’t seen his children in months despite a Court order commanding reunification seems pretty urgent to me.
I understand that relationships can end badly. Sometimes one of the spouses really screws up and it’s discovered that they’ve been unfaithful, etc. I can understand the feelings of betrayal. But parents need to realize that just because a spouse has completely broken the trust and marriage, they are still the other parent. The relationship they have with their children shouldn’t be jeopardized because one spouse is angry at the other. I’m not saying that happened here but it certainly sounds to me that this mother went into the divorce battle assuming the courts would side with her but instead they chose the option that was in the best interest of the children. The judge ruled that the kids should have access to both parents and be therapeutically reintroduced to their father. That in itself tells me that mom has been bad mouthing dad to these babies since the separation. There’s no evidence of physical abuse or neglect on either parent’s part so I don’t think that mom was ignoring the court order so she could protect the kids.
I don’t see any bias against the mother here. I sense that the judge was fed up with her antics after she repeatedly disregarded the orders of the court and the reunification plan. Rightly so. MOO.

 

[MyBelle]

The Judge referred to the events but not in that particular ruling..... “his time is being interfered with to the extreme as earlier outlined”.

I don’t think we’re in a position to judge the Judge but that particular Decision certainly provides insight into an ongoing confrontational and volatile situation.

Nothing is solved by the grandmother and aunt abducting the children, in fact if everyone involved is criminally charged they’ve made it far worse. JMO

I've formed my opinion of the judge based on her writings posted here as well as the father's public statement that the judge knows better than the RCMP.

I think the RCMP know what is in the best interest of the children better than we do.

JMO

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

No one can really judge the “judge” or the case if they weren’t in court to hear the evidence. It is extremely likely that the conduct of the mom caused the judge to act, not the other way round. The change in lawyers conveniently before Christmas, after losing her appeal, (in my opinion an attempt to try to prevent a hearing) speaks volumes to me. Repeatedly ignoring court orders and being found in contempt also speaks volumes to me. It appears to me that she was thumbing her nose at the court system because she didn’t like the outcome.

 

[MyBelle]

It was the mother who decided to change lawyers right before this meeting. Her former counsel advised he could be there but she had fired him. The new attorney she hired refused to accept that the meeting was urgent even though the judge made it clear it was. In the application to remove the judge the attorney mentions several times that it was a non urgent matter. I would be angry too if I were the judge. The fact that the father hadn’t seen his children in months despite a Court order commanding reunification seems pretty urgent to me.
I understand that relationships can end badly. Sometimes one of the spouses really screws up and it’s discovered that they’ve been unfaithful, etc. I can understand the feelings of betrayal. But parents need to realize that just because a spouse has completely broken the trust and marriage, they are still the other parent. The relationship they have with their children shouldn’t be jeopardized because one spouse is angry at the other. I’m not saying that happened here but it certainly sounds to me that this mother went into the divorce battle assuming the courts would side with her but instead they chose the option that was in the best interest of the children. The judge ruled that the kids should have access to both parents and be therapeutically reintroduced to their father. That in itself tells me that mom has been bad mouthing dad to these babies since the separation. There’s no evidence of physical abuse or neglect on either parent’s part so I don’t think that mom was ignoring the court order so she could protect the kids.
I don’t see any bias against the mother here. I sense that the judge was fed up with her antics after she repeatedly disregarded the orders of the court and the reunification plan. Rightly so. MOO.

According to the judge's document, it was the Parenting plan which had expired and as of December, there was no re-unification plan in place. At the December hearing, the mother agreed to cooperate and with the plan. The father then changed his attorneys, not the Mother.

I have no idea if there was physical abuse or neglect of the children by either party but I bet the RCMP know and are acting accordingly.

JMO

 

[Mystrywrtr62]

RCMP will act accordingly and enforce the law and enforce the court order. They don’t have any judgment to make.

 

[MyBelle]

No one can really judge the “judge” or the case if they weren’t in court to hear the evidence. It is extremely likely that the conduct of the mom caused the judge to act, not the other way round. The change in lawyers conveniently before Christmas, after losing her appeal, (in my opinion an attempt to try to prevent a hearing) speaks volumes to me. Repeatedly ignoring court orders and being found in contempt also speaks volumes to me. It appears to me that she was thumbing her nose at the court system because she didn’t like the outcome.

You're correct, I wasn't in court so I can't form an opinion of the mother. My opinion of the judge is based on her own writings which have been linked here. It is the mother's attorney who has raised the issue of the judge's bias.

Has the RCMP named the mother as a POI in the abduction of the children? If so, I missed it.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

RCMP will act accordingly and enforce the law and enforce the court order. They don’t have any judgment to make.

Actually the RCMP does have the authority to issue an Amber Alert. So far, they haven't.

 

[Inthedetails]

Actually the RCMP does have the authority to issue an Amber Alert. So far, they haven't.

Const. Shelley Nasheim said this incident did not meet the threshold for an Amber Alert.

“At this point in time, it is believed that the children are not at risk, that they’re with people who care for them, and [officers are] at this point, trying to locate them and confirm everyone’s welfare and safety, and make sure that this isn’t something more than families that are concerned about the custody of the children,” she said.

Cochrane RCMP look for tips after 2 children related to ‘volatile court battle’ taken from home

 

[MistyWaters]

Const. Shelley Nasheim said this incident did not meet the threshold for an Amber Alert.

“At this point in time, it is believed that the children are not at risk, that they’re with people who care for them, and [officers are] at this point, trying to locate them and confirm everyone’s welfare and safety, and make sure that this isn’t something more than families that are concerned about the custody of the children,” she said.

Cochrane RCMP look for tips after 2 children related to ‘volatile court battle’ taken from home

As days go by, the tone of the RCMP appears to be taking on greater urgency. As the RCMP now believe someone is aiding in hiding the children, it’s doubtful an Amber Alert would be helpful, especially as no vehicle has been identified.

RCMP ‘imploring’ public to offer tips about disappearance of Cochrane-area children
“RCMP are imploring anyone with information to please contact them.”

 

[Inthedetails]

As days go by, the tone of the RCMP appears to be taking on greater urgency. As the RCMP now believe someone is aiding in hiding the children, it’s doubtful an Amber Alert would be helpful, especially as no vehicle has been identified.

RCMP ‘imploring’ public to offer tips about disappearance of Cochrane-area children
“RCMP are imploring anyone with information to please contact them.”

I agree.

Responding specifically to the Amber Alert issue that was brought up, this case doesn't fit the definition for an alert. But that doesn't mean it's not serious.

jmo