The Serial Abuser and Accuser

At 7:31 p.m., the father is recording a short audio clip of his child to send to family. The mother enters. The recording captures the entire exchange:

Mother: "I've had recurring dreams of being a pedophile in a past life."
Father: "In a past life?"
Mother: "Yeah… a pedophile… exactly, yes."

She continues describing how, in that past life, she was able to access children.

On a signed and dated medical intake form, the mother reports drinking 10 ounces of alcohol daily while taking care of the child on top of a long-running prescription record covering Ativan, Lorazepam, Hydroxyzine, Amitriptyline, Venlafaxine, and Trazodone from 2003 to 2014. In a separate filing, the mother lies to the court stating that her 'mental health has not been an issue since 2008.'

Hours after learning the father has contacted a lawyer, the mother emails him claiming she has gone into hiding with their child. She tells police he has sexually abused the boy and physically assaulted her. Two police cars arrive at the father's home.

Two days later, in a recorded phone call, the mother admits both of her allegations against the father are false. CPS and police nonetheless conduct a three-month investigation against the father! Both close in the father's favor.

The mother reports two further false allegations of sexual abuse to CPS, including one falsely alleging the father abused their child during a supervised visit at a professional supervised access center. CPS interviews the father and the supervisor. Both deny the false allegation. Both files close in the father's favor. The investigations themselves are used by the mother and her lawyer to justify continued supervised access of just 3 hours per week.

The father proposes mediation and the mother agrees, then walks away from the process two months in. The father files a court application requesting 50/50 custody and access. A temporary order issues, leaving the child primarily with the mother and ordering a gradual increase in the father's supervised time, contingent on participation in a custody assessment.

The mother begins arguing that the father has ADHD and is therefore unfit to parent, a claim she will repeat across multiple court and arbitration hearings in the years that follow.

The mother reports a fourth false allegation, again falsely claiming sexual abuse during supervised visits, and a fifth falsely alleging physical abuse. CPS interviews the father and the supervisors at the supervised access center. Both files close in the father's favor. Even after the investigations are closed in the father's favour, the mother and her lawyer continue to cite the investigations as a reason to limit the father's supervised access to 3 hours per week.

On their child's birthday, the father drops off balloons and a card at the mother's residence with two witnesses video recording. The mother falsely reports to police that he broke in, broke into her safe, and installed surveillance devices. The father provides the video showing that all he did was drop off balloons and a birthday card. The case closes in his favor. Two additional police investigations triggered by further false allegations also close in his favor. Once again, even after the investigations are closed in the father's favour, the mother and her lawyer continue to cite the above investigations as a reason to limit the father's supervised access to 3 hours per week.

On December 17, 2015 at 2:06 p.m., the father submits the original 2014 audio recording to a forensic lab to authenticate that it is the mother's voice in the "pedophile in a past life" recording ahead of the custody assessment.

In court filings dated November 2015 and December 2, 2015, the mother falsely claims the father has ADHD and uses this to argue he is unfit to parent. She repeats the same claim in her March 2020 filings. The court and the psychology licensing board ultimately reject the claim in full.

Without the father's knowledge or consent, the mother forges and signs a School Transfer Form (January 15, 2016). She falsely states that she has sole custody of their child. She even writes on the form that the school is not to contact the father in case of an emergency, and that only she and her mother are to be contacted. Eight months later, days before the start of the school year, only then does the mother's lawyer inform the father's lawyer that the child has been moved to a school in the mother's neighborhood.

The father files an emergency motion. The judge declines to treat it as urgent and schedules a hearing for December, four months after the start of school. He then reasons that given that the child would have been in the school for four months by the time of the next hearing, at that point it would likely be in the child's best interest to remain in the new school.

Confronted with the forensically authenticated 2014 recording, the mother submits a signed and dated (February 16, 2016) written response to the court-appointed clinical psychologist admitting to making the "pedophile in a past life" statement. The psychologist signs and dates (February 20, 2016) the mother's confession.

A sixth false allegation of sexual abuse during supervised visits is reported to CPS. The father and the supervisor are interviewed. Both deny the false allegation. The case closes in the father's favor.

The court-appointed clinical psychologist completes the custody and access assessment. He recommends 50/50 custody and access, finds the father presents no established risk to the child, and notes a close and positive father-child relationship.

The mother rejects the recommendation. Without court approval she hires a second psychologist, Dr. Leonif, who produces a four-page critique attacking the recommendations of the court-appointed psychologist. When even Dr. Leonif's review does not give her what she wants, the mother proposes hiring yet a third psychologist, Dr. Harris, to implement a modified version of the original custody and access schedule. The father refuses. The mother then files a regulatory complaint against the original court-appointed clinical psychologist. The psychology licensing board later clears the court-appointed clinical psychologist of any wrongdoing.

Ironically, on October 4, 2016, the second unauthorized psychologist also recommends 50/50 custody and access.

After the mother falsely accuses the professional supervision agency of allowing abuse to occur during supervised visits, the agency issues a six-page rebuttal and attaches nine hundred pages of detailed supervisor notes covering every recorded visit. The supervisor's records contradict the mother's false allegations.

Following the Christmas visit, the mother begins making her seventh false allegation, naming the father's twin sister, a substitute teacher, as having sexually abused the child. The accusation expands in early January 2017 to include the father and his sisters together and is formally reported to police (see below). Seven years later, the father's twin sister has not been able to return to her teaching job.

Two days after the New Year's Eve visit, the father is contacted by police. The mother's seventh false allegation claims the father and his sisters sexually abused their child during Christmas and New Year's visits, citing a diaper change on Christmas Day as the supposed evidence and triggering a CPS file that targets the father and his sister together.

Anticipating this possibility, the family had video recorded every minute of both days, more than forty hours of footage. In mid-January 2017, a detective conducts a two-hour interrogation. The father plays the recordings. The interview ends. The detective tells him to continue doing whatever he legally needs to do to protect himself.

Between 9:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., two detectives interview the child. The child denies having told his mother that the father touched him inappropriately, states no one is hurting him or making him uncomfortable, and confirms there is no inappropriate touching.

In a court filing, the mother claims she "did what any vigilant mother would do" and insists that her false allegations "should not be used against [her] in court." She effectively concedes that the allegations were untrue while arguing they should carry no consequence for her.

At a settlement conference, the judge, on the record, says the mother's repeated false allegations "are tantamount to child abuse." She turns to the mother's lawyer and asks why so many false accusations were permitted. The lawyer answers that she tried to stop them. The judge replies that she did not try hard enough.

The judge describes the clinical psychologist's reports as glowing for the father and not so great for the mother's interactions with the child, and strongly encourages the mother to follow the 50/50 custody and access recommendation.

Under judicial pressure and warned about the cost of trial, the mother agrees to implement the clinical psychologist's recommendation of 50/50 custody and access without conditions. Four years after the first false allegation, the father has 50/50 custody and access to his child.

Despite a court order requiring Father's Day to be spent with the father, the mother denies access for the fourth consecutive year. Parental alienation tactics continue alongside the new shared-parenting arrangement.

Three liens on the father's home, accumulated through the cost of defending against the initial custody and access action, leave the property within two weeks of a forced auction. The father manages to stop the sale at the last possible moment. The IRS places legal demands on both his business and personal accounts.

The mother launches new proceedings, withholds the child from the father for thirty consecutive days at the start of the pandemic, and demands one hundred percent custody for the duration of COVID-19. Her conditions include requiring the father to demonstrate he has not left his house or had any visitors in the previous 60 days, and to allow police enforcement of any deviation from the access schedule.

She also claims the child's pediatrician stated that "COVID-19 being a hoax and that the government is overreacting." In the 2020 arbitration award (March 31, 2020), the arbitrator writes that "the allegation that the child's doctor made a comment about the Coronavirus being a 'hoax' is very serious given her role as a pediatrician in this community." The arbitrator finds the mother's claim not credible and writes: "The series of events suggests that the mother may be engaging in 'doctor shopping,' potentially to find a medical professional who would support her preference for their child to remain solely in her care for the entirety of the pandemic." The arbitrator orders the existing 50/50 arrangement to continue.

The psychology licensing board clears the court-appointed clinical psychologist of any wrongdoing in the regulatory complaint filed by the mother. Her central argument, that the father's claimed ADHD should have disqualified him from 50/50 custody, is rejected.

In an OurFamilyWizard email dated June 21, 2020, the mother references having overheard the father's side of a private call with the child, confirming she was listening in. The March 31, 2020 arbitration award expressly requires communications between the child and either parent to be private.

When the father raised the broader pattern, the mother's only defence was that on "two or three occasions" the child "came into my vicinity while he was talking to you, which I cannot control", an implicit concession that she was within earshot during the calls.

The mother becomes angry with the child and slams him to the ground, injuring his neck and back. That evening she emails the father claiming the child has "head and neck pain" and that she will be taking him to a chiropractor the next day, concealing the cause.

The following week, during the father's access time, the child tells the father directly that his mother grabbed him, slammed him to the ground, hurt him, and that he cried for ten minutes afterward. Audio recording of the child's disclosure is on file.

The mother leaves the child alone inside the car with the keys in the ignition, and walks into a restaurant to get food. The child is alone in a dark, running car, scared enough to call his father from it. Audio recording is on file.

The mother launches further proceedings seeking full custody. With the child now old enough to be heard, both parents agree to a Voice of the Child assessment. During the interviews, the child discloses that his mother has been physically abusing him for years. The assessor reports the disclosure to CPS.

CPS opens an investigation and verifies that the mother has been physically abusing the child. The child reports the bruising lasted two to three days. CPS advises that this does not meet the threshold to involve police. No meaningful consequence follows for the mother.

The mother falsely accuses her last live-in partner, a military veteran, of assault, triggering a three-year criminal trial. The pattern that consumed the father's first four years now consumes another man's life.

After a three-year criminal trial, the mother's last live-in partner, a military veteran, is acquitted of all charges. The pattern of false allegations is now documented across two separate men, multiple investigations, and one verified finding of abuse against the mother herself.

The father continues to share 50/50 custody of his child. IRS demands on both his business and personal accounts remain in force into winter 2025. The total documented cost of defending the case stands at approximately $473,500. The mother faces no consequences for the verified finding of abuse or for the documented pattern of false allegations.

This site is the public record of what happened.