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

[MistyWaters]

Her continued family violence, I wonder how The Court learned of this. Police were called?

BBM

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=4
The March 12, 2021 Order
[18] The preamble to the March 12, 2021 order noted “the previous findings of contempt against [Ms O’Driscoll] and her actions since the breach which occurred on February 11, 2021”, “the Court finding it is in the best interest of the children to be immediately removed from the care of [Ms O’Driscoll] as a result of her continued family violence affecting them”; and “the Court noting that there is no evidence before the Court substantiating any allegations against [Mr Zak] and the Court finding that [Mr Zak] poses no risk whatsoever to the children of the marriage.”

 

[otto]

When the youngest of three daughters is determined to allege sexual abuse of her two daughters to gain sole custody, at the same time her two young daughters are taken away hidden from the mother by her mother and sister.

Is that cult level lunacy?

 

[otto]

We have the lawyer and her sidekick suggesting that RCMP look for bodies, the mother's lawyers speak on her behalf to suggest that even though she has interfered with the father for upwards of a year, we should feel sorry for her - something about 3 weeks that her children are with her mother and sister?

“She’s a wreck,” said Castle. “These children are all that she lived for, worked for, everything. Can you imagine not seeing your kids for three weeks?”
​

'Our hearts are beyond broken': RCMP have yet to locate two Cochrane sisters three weeks after disappearance

 

[otto]

Apologies for this opinion but, given that lawyer Diann Castle was representing the mother when sole custody was awarded to the father, add her remarks about bodies and RCMP incompetence, one does wonder whether her competence as a divorce lawyer is marred by weeks in a psychiatric ward.

 

[Inthedetails]

If a third allegation of sexual abuse is alleged, one has to look at Munchausen Syndrome as a factor. Why would any mother want her children to be victims of sexual assault when all evidence indicates that it did not happen?

snipped

Munchausen by Proxy is something I hadn't considered. Hmmm.

Personal experience: I had an acquaintance who I strongly suspect had Munchausen by Proxy with her kids. Her kids were continually victims of odd illnesses/injuries and subjected to medical tests, etc. but in each case, the person who "cured" or saved the kids was the mom. The feeling was the Mom vs. The World and Mom Knows Best and Wins, Every Time!

Every once in awhile a sexual abuse claim was mentioned - but then the story sort of disappeared without resolution. The details would be sort of outlandish and the allegations never rang true, imo, but of course it wasn't something I would question of a mother from our mommy-group. The feeling I got was those were allegations tossed out when she really, really wanted to control a situation. IMO.

She also moved around a lot without much warning - just up and left, even going to another country or another state and then showing up locally again.

She gave the best first impression, as such a loving and wonderful mom. I finally felt really uncomfortable around her (for several reasons) and I also found her really controlling of friendships - and she showed no interest in others. When she was around, everything was about her. I distanced myself, and eventually she moved away to be a traveling hug healer or something like that.

I know that personal experience isn't proof of anything at all, but the unstable, nonsensical, controlling feeling is similar to how I feel about this case.

Again, that is not proof of anything, of course! Still, Munchausen by Proxy something to think about. Edited to add: I am not a medical person - just someone brainstorming ideas.

jmo

 

[Seattle1]

Her continued family violence, I wonder how The Court learned of this. Police were called?

BBM

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=4
The March 12, 2021 Order
[18] The preamble to the March 12, 2021 order noted “the previous findings of contempt against [Ms O’Driscoll] and her actions since the breach which occurred on February 11, 2021”, “the Court finding it is in the best interest of the children to be immediately removed from the care of [Ms O’Driscoll] as a result of her continued family violence affecting them”; and “the Court noting that there is no evidence before the Court substantiating any allegations against [Mr Zak] and the Court finding that [Mr Zak] poses no risk whatsoever to the children of the marriage.”

After seeing "family violence" referenced numerous times in the legal proceedings involving the parents, I located the definition in the Divorce Act. It seems an allegation of family violence would not necessarily require calling the police. In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if JOZ claim of child support arrears is the basis for alleging "family violence."

Family violence means any conduct, whether or not the conduct constitutes a criminal offence, by a family member towards another family member, that is violent or threatening or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes that other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person — and in the case of a child, the direct or indirect exposure to such conduct — and includes:

• (a) physical abuse, including forced confinement but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect themselves or another person;
  
  
• (b) sexual abuse;
  
  
• (c) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;
  
  
• (d) harassment, including stalking;
  
  
• (e) the failure to provide the necessaries of life;
  
  
• (f) psychological abuse;
  
  
• (g) financial abuse;
  
  
• (h) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property; and
  
  
• (i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property; (violence familiale)
  

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/s...sc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html#sec16subsec3_smooth

 

[everybodhi]

The only claim of sexual abuse in the court documents I can find says that on Feb 11, 2021, the mother denied visitation (again) and called the RCMP saying the 2 year old had been sexually abused by her father.
There is no reference in the document of any prior complaints of sexual abuse, surely the court would have addressed prior allegations if they existed.
Speculating that there were three complaints of sexual abuse doesn’t make it so.
This case is bad enough without making things up.

Exhibit “M” attached to Ms O’Driscoll’s March 16, 2021 affidavit, described as correspondence from an RCMP police officer (dated March 10, 2021) stating, in part: “In this case no information was provided by either child to indicate any forms of abuse. With no additional corroborative information we do not have any concerns at this time for the childrens [sic] safety with the father”.

Exhibit “F” attached to Mr Zak’s March 30, 2021 affidavit, appears to be a communication dated March 11, 2021 from the same police officer to Mr Zak, stating in part: “A letter was forward [sic] to the courts at this time as both interviews have been done and no concerns at this time around safety. At no time during the statements did [the children] disclose any concerns or physical or sexual abuse”

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=4
(Edited to add link)

 

[modesty blaise]

What a mess.
Imo the guilty party is usually the absconders.

 

[MistyWaters]

After seeing "family violence" referenced numerous times in the legal proceedings involving the parents, I located the definition in the Divorce Act. It seems an allegation of family violence would not necessarily require calling the police. In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if JOZ claim of child support arrears is the basis for alleging "family violence."

Family violence means any conduct, whether or not the conduct constitutes a criminal offence, by a family member towards another family member, that is violent or threatening or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes that other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person — and in the case of a child, the direct or indirect exposure to such conduct — and includes:

• (a) physical abuse, including forced confinement but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect themselves or another person;
  
  
• (b) sexual abuse;
  
  
• (c) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;
  
  
• (d) harassment, including stalking;
  
  
• (e) the failure to provide the necessaries of life;
  
  
• (f) psychological abuse;
  
  
• (g) financial abuse;
  
  
• (h) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property; and
  
  
• (i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property; (violence familiale)

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/s...sc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html#sec16subsec3_smooth

Yes that, thank you. So the mother thought if she was able to toss sexual abuse allegations toward the ex then the Judge would allow the children to remain with her? It looks to me that wasn’t going to happen regardless, something was seriously wrong.

BBM

[16] As a result, the case management judge indicated that under the best interests of the child test and the new s 16(2) of the Act, Ms O’Driscoll’s actions gave her concerns for the children’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being. In reaching the decision to change parenting, the case management judge stated she had considered all the best interest factors under section 16(3), and specifically noted the new requirement to consider family violence under sections 16(3)(j) and 16(4) of the Act.

 

[MistyWaters]

From the Calgary Herald, a summarized version of the Appeal Court’s decision -

Mother of missing Cochrane girls loses bid to have decision giving full custody to father stayed | Calgary Herald
“..........The possible child abduction case has drawn attention to a “high conflict” situation between the girls’ parents, who separated in July 2019.

Court documents detail serious allegations launched by both parties, related to issues such as parental alienation, child welfare and mental-health concerns.

Colin Zak, the girls’ father, opposed the stay application, stating it would be an “inappropriate remedy” because his former partner “does not appear before the court with clean hands,” according to legal documents.

“The application for a stay, while the children’s whereabout(s) are unknown, raises the question of whether Ms. O’Driscoll is seeing a stay prior to the children being returned from the ‘abduction,’ ” it continues......

.......Schutz noted the “unusual and unique circumstance” of an RCMP missing-persons investigation in obstructing the transition of children into Zak’s care.

However, I do not rest any aspect of my decision on this very concerning state of affairs,” she said. “To be clear, Ms. O’Driscoll has admitted no part in the children’s disappearance. If cogent evidence had been adduced proving otherwise, I would have considered that evidence.”......”

 

[MistyWaters]

Quite frankly I don’t get it. The Judge questions if the stay was requested prior to the children being returned from the ‘abduction’, yet the mother admitted no part in the children’s disappearance.

Did anyone think to ask her what’s the point of moving a stay application forward to prevent the father’s custody if she has no idea whether or not her missing children are dead or alive?

If formal abduction charges haven’t yet been filed against the grandmother and aunt, it’s getting ridiculous. What sort of precedent is this setting for others in the future who disagree with any court order for any reason..... run and hide?

 

[otto]

Quite frankly I don’t get it. The Judge questions if the stay was requested prior to the children being returned from the ‘abduction’, yet the mother admitted no part in the children’s disappearance.

Did anyone think to ask her what’s the point of moving a stay application forward to prevent the father’s custody if she has no idea whether or not her missing children are dead or alive?

If formal abduction charges haven’t yet been filed against the grandmother and aunt, it’s getting ridiculous. What sort of precedent is this setting for others in the future who disagree with any court order for any reason..... run and hide?

My understanding is that the father, rather than the Judge, questions whether awarding the mother sole custody will result in the the children being returned.

"Mr Zak stresses the children’s whereabouts continue to be unknown; thus, “[t]he application for a stay, while the children’s whereabout are unknown, raises the question of whether Ms. O’Driscoll is seeking a stay prior to the children being returned from the ‘abduction’”.
​

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=4

Perhaps the mother thinks that if she has sole custody, she can claim that the abductors had permission to take the children.

The attempt to reverse the custody decision does give the impression that the children were abducted because the father was awarded custody, and, if that decision is reversed, the children will be returned. It looks like the children are held hostage to force the Judge to rule in the mother's favour.

 

[MistyWaters]

This was something I wondered about earlier - when was the father last with his children....pertaining to the need for the Reunification Plan, the Court’s findings of parental alienation by JOZ plus the Feb/21 sexual assault allegation by her. These poor children, to be caught in the centre of this through no fault of their own.

Once again, I suppose just a coincidence the children happen to be missing pending appeal.

BBM

[25] Ms O’Driscoll maintains that an abrupt change of custody is not in the children’s best interests and the children will suffer irreparable harm if they live with Mr Zak pending appeal. In her affidavit, she deposes the children have primarily lived with her since the parties’ separation and that Mr Zak has not had unsupervised access with the children since May 2020 due to “safety”, the “children’s distress”, and Mr Zak’s “aggressive behaviour”. Ms O’Driscoll attaches to her affidavit three reports from Families First Support Services, documenting a staff member’s cancellation of the children’s visits with Mr Zak in early September 2020, largely due to the eldest child’s distress at the idea of having to visit Mr Zak.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=4

 

[Cordelia Gray]

The only claim of sexual abuse in the court documents I can find says that on Feb 11, 2021, the mother denied visitation (again) and called the RCMP saying the 2 year old had been sexually abused by her father.
There is no reference in the document of any prior complaints of sexual abuse, surely the court would have addressed prior allegations if they existed.
Speculating that there were three complaints of sexual abuse doesn’t make it so.
This case is bad enough without making things up.

There was a complaint of sexual abuse in August 2020.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=4
(Edited to add link)

 

[Cordelia Gray]

It looks like CMZ was granted professionally supervised parenting time last summer. I imagine due to the constant conflicts when the O'driscoll family was supervising the visits.

[4] Prior to the dismissal of the appeal, on September 2, 2020, a stay application by Ms O’Driscoll was heard by Paperny JA, who granted an interim, without prejudice stay of para 2 of the August 24, 2020 order pending a further application to be heard on September 15, 2020, before Rowbotham JA. Paperny JA’s stay was conditional on Mr Zak having professionally supervised parenting time on three occasions per week for three hours, and materials received from the supervising agency were to be provided to this Court.

 

[Cordelia Gray]

Here is some background on the family supervised visits and private investigator I mentioned earlier

[34] In his affidavit, Mr Zak deposes that soon after separation, Ms O’Driscoll made it difficult for him to spend time with the children; his visits were often supervised by her or her family members, whom Mr Zak found intimidating and hostile. Recently, a member of Ms O’Driscoll’s family and a private investigator hired by the family attended two of his supervised parenting sessions with the youngest child. Mr Zak also relates an occasion during which Ms O’Driscoll prevented him from seeing the children for over 60 days. He attributes some of the eldest child’s behaviour such as attempting to flee his home, to parental alienation. Mr Zak states he learned the applicant has taken the youngest child to the hospital several times over the past few months, without advising him.

 

[grannygates]

I remember way back when going across the border into Washington with my nieces and my sister had to bring a letter from their father stating that he approves them leaving the country. This was a long time ago, I’m wondering is this still the case ? I know borders are shut to those travelling by car, but seems like you can just hop on a plane. I’m wondering if same applies, the grandma/aunt would need a letter from both parents ? I don’t see a real manhunt going on here but I don’t get how in these days of technology people can really go off the map for this long while remaining in Canada.

 

[MistyWaters]

I remember way back when going across the border into Washington with my nieces and my sister had to bring a letter from their father stating that he approves them leaving the country. This was a long time ago, I’m wondering is this still the case ? I know borders are shut to those travelling by car, but seems like you can just hop on a plane. I’m wondering if same applies, the grandma/aunt would need a letter from both parents ? I don’t see a real manhunt going on here but I don’t get how in these days of technology people can really go off the map for this long while remaining in Canada.

The adults would require a passport to fly from Canada to the US.

The RCMP say they believe the four are still in Canada. If others are indeed assisting them, I don’t think it’d be difficult to hide out in Canada, no more than the US, especially if it’s true the abduction was planned in advance which probably included accommodation.

 

[musicaljoke]

I remember way back when going across the border into Washington with my nieces and my sister had to bring a letter from their father stating that he approves them leaving the country. This was a long time ago, I’m wondering is this still the case ? I know borders are shut to those travelling by car, but seems like you can just hop on a plane. I’m wondering if same applies, the grandma/aunt would need a letter from both parents ? I don’t see a real manhunt going on here but I don’t get how in these days of technology people can really go off the map for this long while remaining in Canada.

Yes, a notarized letter of permission from both parents is required in order to cross the border.

 

[everybodhi]

There was a complaint of sexual abuse in August

Can you link to the details of the August allegations of sexual abuse?
I can only find the mother’s allegations that the children were in distress over visitations, I cannot find any reference to sexual abuse before February 2021.
TIA