The fatherhood of scientologist P. D.

Reggie the Reg · Aug 8, 2019

JC1961

SUPERIOR COURT

CANADA
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
DISTRICT OF
MONTREAL

No:
500-04-064129-142

DATE:
January 12th, 2017
______________________________________________________________________

IN THE PRESENCE OF:
THE HONOURABLE
CAROL COHEN, J.S.C.
______________________________________________________________________

P. D.
Plaintiff
v.

J. P.
Defendant

______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________

[1]The parties are the parents of X, 2 ½ years old and born on [...], 2014. Plaintiff P. D. (the “Father”) is 41 years old, and Defendant J. P. (the “Mother”) is 27 years old. They lived together briefly from the fall of 2013 until May 2014, and separated when the Mother was 7 months pregnant with X. The Mother has always had sole custody of X at her parents’ residence where she lives, with supervised visitation at that residence by the Father.

[2]The Court is seized with motions by both parents for exclusive custody of X. The Mother is asking to maintain her custody of X and to deny any access whatsoever by the Father, whereas the Father is now asking, by verbal amendment presented at trial, for exclusive custody of the child in his favour.

Facts, proceedings and judgments to date

[3]The Father initiated proceedings in this file when X was 2 weeks old, by motion dated July 28th, 2014 (the “Father’s First Motion”). Throughout the proceedings, he filed motions under his own name and for the most part, was self-represented. However, from approximately February 2016, the Father did have an attorney, and he was represented by Me Sarah Nathalie Marsolais before the undersigned. As for the Mother, she was represented throughout by the firm of O’Hanlon, Sanders, Texeira, primarily by Me Johanna Sarfati.

[4]In the Father’s First Motion, he asked for joint custody of X as well as a psycho-social evaluation. These requests were provisionally refused by Justice Marc-André Blanchard on August 11th, 2014, as the Father was not listed as such on the child’s birth certificate. Related proceedings, including those with respect to paternity and DNA testing, were instituted in two other Court files.

[5]On September 15th, 2014, following several Court orders, paternity of the Father was established and the parties desisted from proceedings in the other Court files. The Mother consented to limited access by the Father, namely access on Wednesdays and Fridays after 6pm, for a maximum of one hour, and on either Saturdays or Sundays, also for one hour, in the presence of one or the other of the child’s maternal grandparents. Also on September 15th, 2014, Justice Monast ordered a psycho-social expertise, and ordered the Father to communicate his Annexe I, his tax returns and his last 3 pay cheques, the whole by or before September 25th, 2014.

[6]The Mother presented her first motion for exclusive custody of X in her favour on September 26th, 2014 (the “Mother’s First Motion”). She also filed an Annexe I, as the Father had not done so, estimating the Father’s income at $44,600. The Mother had no income at that time, as she was on welfare. The Annexe I in question provided for annual child support of $5,630 and monthly child support of $469.17. This Annexe I was retained on September 29th, 2014 by Justice Wery, and confirmed on March 30th, 2015 by Justice Kear Jodoin in an interim judgment, given the inability of the part of the Percepteur to collect any monthly alimentary pension for the Mother for the 6 preceding months.

[7]The Court-ordered psychosocial assessment, prepared by social worker Lyane McDonagh (the “Expert”), was produced on March 3rd, 2015 (the “First Expert’s Report”). The Expert recommended that supervised access by the Father continue at the Mother’s residence, and that such access be supervised by her mother (the “Grandmother”), 3 times per week for 1 hour each visit.

[8]The Mother amended her motion on March 20th, 2015, when X was 8 months old, following the First Expert’s Report (the “Mother’s Amended Motion”). She asked for exclusive custody of the child as well as an order denying any access whatsoever to the Father. She also asked, inter alia, for child support, a provision for costs and for the right to travel with the child without the authorization of the Father.
[9]The Mother’s Amended Motion of March 2015 is still pending on the merits and several interim orders with respect to custody, access and child support were pronounced by the Court up until October 31st, 2016, the date the hearing began before the undersigned.

[10]More specifically, on April 13th, 2015, the greffier special continued the interim orders pronounced by Justice Kear Jodoin, to remain in force until May 12th, 2015.

[11]On April 27th, 2015, the Father signed an Annexe I, in which he declared his annual income to be $25,636.

[12]On May 12th, 2015, the greffier special set down the case on the merits in room 2.01 for two days, on February 16th and 17th, 2016, and continued the interim orders pronounced by Justice Kear Jodoin to remain in force until February 17th, 2016.

[13]On September 22nd, 2015, the Father signed a new motion entitled Requête du demandeur pour modification intérimaire des droits d’accès et mesures accessoires (the “Father’s Second Motion”), in which he asked for a safeguard order increasing his access to X, asking for access each Saturday for a duration of 10 hours. He also asked that the access no longer take place at the residence of the Mother’s parents and that it no longer be supervised by the Grandmother.

[14]On October 6th, 2015, Justice Mayer dismissed the Father’s Second Motion and reserved the Mother’s rights to a provision for costs.

[15]On November 11th, 2015, the Father presented another motion (the “Father’s Third Motion”), asking for an order that Dr. Paris, a psychiatrist who had been consulted by the Mother in the past, be present before the Court on the merits of the case on February 16th, 2016, and that Dr. Paris bring with him the Mother’s entire medical file.

[16]On November 13th, 2015, the Mother’s attorneys served a notice of communication of a report from the Mother’s psychologist Dr. Sylvie Gerbaux dated October 7th, 2015, which report was to take place of the testimony of psychologist Gerbaux at trial.

[17]On November 23rd, 2015, the Father asked for a “gestion de dossier”, in specific with respect to the testimony of Dr. Paris, and he also served a notice of “intention”, objecting to the production of the report prepared by psychologist Gerbaux.

Reggie the Reg · Aug 8, 2019

[1]As noted, the parties’ pending motions were to be heard on the merits beginning on February 16th, 2016. However, the Expert was not available on that day. The Mother’s attorney therefore requested that the hearing be postponed. The Father, represented at that time by attorney Gisela Barraza, objected to the postponement and verbally asked the Court to modify the Father’s access rights on an interim basis, so that they be unsupervised.

[2]Justice André Roy granted the Mother’s request for a postponement on February 16th, 2016, and fixed the case on the merits for 2 days, on October 31st and November 1st, 2016. Given the delay, Justice Roy also ordered a complementary Expert’s report, although he refused the Father’s request that his access rights become unsupervised. Finally, Justice Roy noted that the Father intended to ask the Court to cancel all child support payments.

[3]The complementary Expert’s report was filed on June 15th, 2016 (the “Complementary Expert’s Report”) by the Expert McDonagh. Once again, the Expert recommended that the Mother retain sole custody of X and that the Father’s access rights be supervised by an organization such as AMCAL, for 2 hours, once each week.

[4]On August 20th, 2016, Me Marsolais, on behalf of the Father, signed a new motion for a safeguard order (the “Father’s Fourth Motion”) which was not supported by an affidavit. In the Father’s Fourth Motion, he asked for access rights supervised by AMCAL instead of by the Grandmother, as well as for cancellation of the child support and all measures of collection of child support, alleging loss of his job as of March 2nd, 2015[1]. In an affidavit dated September 7th, 2016, the Father alleged that he had been on welfare for “plusieurs mois” and that the child support should therefore be “temporarily” suspended, as appears from paragraph 29 of that affidavit:“29. Enfin, je suis bénéficiaire de l’Aide sociale depuis plusieurs mois malheureusement, et je demande à ce que soient temporairement suspendus la pension et les mesures de perception de la pension alimentaire”.

[5]On September 7th, 2016, Justice Davis dismissed the Father’s Fourth Motion, as appears from his judgment, which noted, inter alia, that the Father was no longer exercising his access rights at the Grandmother’s residence:
CONSIDÉRANT la demande de Monsieur signifiée le 30 août 2016 qui demande au tribunal une ordonnance de sauvegarde en modification des accès du père à l’enfant X et en annulation de la pension alimentaire payable par le père à la mère;
CONSIDÉRANT que le 16 février 2016 l’hon. juge André Roy a prononcé un jugement qui, entre autre, fixait l’audience au mérite les 31 octobre et 1 novembre 2016, ordonnant au service d’expertise psychosociale de procéder à un complément d’expertise et prenant acte de l’intention exprimée par le père de s’adresser au Tribunal pour obtenir l’annulation ou la suspension de la pension alimentaire;
CONSIDÉRANT que depuis, il semble que Monsieur n’exerce plus ses accès auprès de la fille des parties et soulève principalement l’attitude de la grand-mère maternelle comme la raison qui l’a conduit à cesser ses accès;
CONSIDÉRANT que dans les circonstances, le Tribunal estime que c’est le père qui a décidé de lui-même de cesser les accès et qu’en conséquence, il n’a pas démontré qu’il est urgent de modifier les accès d’ici le procès au mérite;
CONSIDÉRANT que quant à la pension alimentaire, l’urgence n’a pas été démontrée non plus, car la situation perdure déjà depuis fort longtemps.
POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL :
REJETTE la demande de sauvegarde de Monsieur;
SANS FRAIS.

(emphasis added)

[6]In fact, it was established at trial that the Father had ceased exercising any access rights to X in February 2016, following the judgment rendered by Justice Roy.

[7]The case began before the undersigned on the merits on October 31st, 2016. At the outset of the hearing, Me Marsolais, representing the Father, asked the Court to transform the hearing into an interim hearing, deciding only the issue of custody and access, which the undersigned refused. As noted above, the Father then amended orally, asking for exclusive custody of the child, rather than for unsupervised access.

The hearing of the motions on the merits

[8]The Court heard 4 witnesses in the 2 days fixed for the hearing: the Expert, Lynne McDonagh; the Father; the Mother; and the Grandmother. In counter-proof, the Father testified again. The Mother, an Anglophone, testified in English, as did the Grandmother, whereas the Father, who acknowledged that the parties communicated exclusively in English throughout their relationship, testified both in French and in English.

[9]Given that no time remained at the end of the second day, the Court allowed the parties’ attorneys to file written argument, which they did within the following week.

The issues

[10]The Court must determine custody and access to the child X. In the event that custody is awarded to the Mother, the Court must determine whether the Father’s access should be unsupervised, whether it should be supervised at the AMCAL centre or whether all access should be suspended, as requested by the Mother.

[11]The Court must also determine if any child support will be payable, both retroactively and for the future, and adjudicate upon the Mother’s request for a provision for costs.

The facts and testimony

[12]The facts appear from the testimony of the parents and the Grandmother, as well as from the two lengthy Expert’s Reports, cited in part below.

[13]The parties met when the Mother was 24 years old and the Father was 38. They moved in together in approximately September 2013. The Mother discovered she was pregnant in October that same year.

[14]In November 2013, one month after the parties began cohabiting, the Father started a new job and spent 3 weeks in training in Salt Lake City, Utah. When he returned, in mid-December, he proposed and the couple became engaged.

[15]However, the relationship was a difficult one, according to both parents.

[16]The Mother, in her testimony, noted that the Father was domineering, controlling every aspect of her day. For instance, she testified that he insisted on her rising at 5am every morning to prepare his breakfast and lunch, although she was pregnant and attending classes during the day, and that she leave him his dinner at home before she herself left to attend classes.

[17]The Mother also testified that the Father was violent with her from the outset, punching her in the face at a party, and punching a hole in the wall of their home while she was pregnant. She testified that he was very critical of her efforts at housekeeping, that he insulted her intelligence and that he criticized her weight gain during pregnancy.

[18]According to the Mother, her mother (the Grandmother) and her mother’s husband (the “Step-father”) came to their residence during her pregnancy to try to help them “work things out”. At the time, the Father told the Grandmother and Step-father that he would have “corrected” her errors physically, if she were not pregnant.

[19]The Mother testified that the Father was an active member of the Church of Scientology and that he spent thousands of dollars on this interest, not saving any money for the baby even though they were in debt.

[20]At 4-5 months of pregnancy, the Mother testified that the Father told her that he did not want the baby and that he was no longer interested in their relationship, adding that someone else “could be the father of the baby”. She briefly moved back to her mother’s house at that time, for about 3 days.

[21]At 7 months of pregnancy, in May of 2014, the Mother testified that the Father returned home from work upset one day, saying that he was in trouble for having used racial slurs at work. He told her at that time that he wasn’t interested in being with her or raising the child. As a result, she called her parents once he had left the home, who came to get her, and she never returned. At that point, the Mother testified that the Father told her he did not want to be in this baby’s life and not to name him on the birth certificate.

[22]The Mother therefore moved to her mother and step-father’s house in Town A in May 2014, where she was living when X was born in July of that year. She and X still live with the Grandmother and Step-Father in a floor of the house reserved for them, which contains a bedroom and a playroom, and she intends to remain there while she continues school, pursuing studies in science with a view to becoming a neuroscientist. She presently writes on contract for a sports publication, earning approximately $16,000 to $18,000 per year.

[23]The Mother testified that she is still breast-feeding X, although the child is 27 months old, mostly at bedtime. She stated that the Father has not consistently seen the child and that he is always “popping in and out of her life”, noting that for 11 months of the child’s 27 month life, he has chosen not to exercise his access rights.

[24]The Mother testified that the Father is of the opinion that these absences have “zero impact” on the child, and that he could leave for a number of years and that it would not affect X. She testified that he did not call X on [...], 2016, for her birthday, and has shown no interest in her since February 2016, having not seen her with the exception of a visit with the Expert for the preparation of the Complementary Expert’s Report.

[25]The Mother testified as to her serious concerns with respect to the Father’s parenting capacities. She stated that he has admitted to having kidnapped his older daughter in Peru, an event described by the Father in his testimony and by the Expert. He also brought inappropriate foods to his access visits – for instance, bringing lobster, mussels and cured meats for X to eat when she was only 6-7 months old, even though the child did not even have all her teeth and was only starting to eat solid foods.

[26]The Mother described an incident, also described by the Father during his testimony, in which the Father rubbed a taut cloth harshly over the child’s face, irritating her skin, and commented on a “game” which the Father admitted to playing with the child during a later visit, in which he showed her a ball, then took it away, then showed it to her, then took it away, which the Father said was to “tease” the child. According to the Mother, this shows very little ability to understand how to interrelate with the child and militates both against access and against custody in his favour.

[27]Finally, the Mother described the behaviour of the child when she is stressed during such visits, as a rocking back and forth motion. This behaviour was also described by the Grandmother in her testimony, discussed below.

[28]In cross-examination, the Mother repeated that the Father had treated her violently and that he admitted this behaviour in affidavits, before judges and to the Expert. She denied that they were in a “sadomasochistic” relationship and insisted that even if they were, what goes on in the bedroom does not indicate her consent to be abused in such a way in day-to-day life.

[29]The Mother also noted that he has never uttered the word “Daddy” to the child in her presence and that he has had no problem leaving his other daughter in Peru, which makes her fear that he may also abandon X if he feels like doing so.

[30]The Father testified both at the outset of the trial and again, after the Mother’s testimony. He explained that he felt that the access at the grandparents’ home was in an environment which was “hostile” to his paternity, and that the Mother and her parents have had a project to exclude him from the life of the child from the outset.

[31]According to the Father, the Mother was initially very supportive of his paternity, posting online a picture of an ultrasound with the comment: “P. and I got to see our adorable creation today” (Exhibit P-4). However, the situation did not improve once she moved out and gave birth.

[32]The Father noted that the Mother was aware of his past with his older daughter Y, explaining the situation as follows.

[33]He testified that he has had Peruvian citizenship since 2002, from marriage to Y’s mother in Peru, where he was living and working. He admitted to orchestrating a plan in Peru to kidnap Y in a truck when she was 3 or 4 years old, returning the child to her mother after the media became involved. This issue is discussed in the First Expert’s Report, cited below. The Father acknowledged that he has had no access to Y since the kidnapping.

[34]As for his relationship with X, the Father testified that it is up to the child to learn to develop an attachment to him: “C’est à l’enfant de développer un lien avec moi”. He admitted that he was uncomfortable with touching the “intimate” parts of the child, even when she was an 8 month old baby.

[35]The Father acknowledged playing games with the child at 23 months during which he offered and removed objects from her, explaining that this was with a view to teaching her that life is difficult: “je veux apprendre à l’enfant que la vie est difficile”. He testified that he himself put an end to his access rights in February 2016 “J’ai mis fin aux accès depuis février”, given the critical attitude of the Mother and her parents.

[36]The Father testified that he presently lives near the [metro A] in a 2 bedroom apartment. He testified that he lived at the Old Brewery Mission for a month in 2011, when he returned from Peru, but then found an apartment. He currently lives with a roommate, a man in his 50’s who was not identified but who, according to the Father, remains primarily in his own room, which is a larger bedroom than the Father’s: “Il a décidé d’arrêter de travailler pour se dédier à faire de l’argent sur YouTube. Il fait beaucoup d’argent sur YouTube. Si jamais je vis là avec l’enfant, l’enfant aurait ma chambre, moi j’serais dans le salon. Moi j’ai grandi comme ça, mais ça serait temporaire. C’est sûr que je ne resterais pas là longtemps avec un homme de 50 ans. C’est un bon gars mais c’est pas ça que je veux donner à ma fille”. The Father did not provide any photos or other proof of the premises in which he would receive the child, if given unsupervised access or custody.

[37]The Father confirmed that he has not worked since March 2015, when he was fired from his job for having made a comment which was “déplacé” towards a co-worker. The Father also testified that he had had a “burnout”.

[38]The Father denied being a “member” of the Church of Scientology, although he admitted to practising this religion for 25 years. He testified that he is a Protestant who believes in “spiritual” methods to heal, including with respect to children, and therefore that antibiotics would be acceptable for the child but not Tempra or other pills of that sort. In his view, “médecine est une deuxième option”. The Father did comment on an exhibit (part of D-6) in which a post on the Scientology Forum in 2007 was entitled: “Scientologist P. D. (sic) brags about sex with minors”, claiming that this was not the “original” title of the post.

[39]The Father admitted to not using the term “Daddy” with the child, as he had heard the Grandmother “sigh” in the past when he used that word. He did testify that he said, in front of the Expert, that X should “Come see Daddy” and that he would have said to X, at the meeting with the Expert for the Complementary Expert’s Report: “Do you recognize me, it’s Daddy?”.

[40]As to the Mother, the Father testified that he has no worries with respect to her parental capacities despite allegations in his earlier motions, stating that: “je lui fais confiance en tant que mère”.

[41]Finally, the Father testified that he would refuse to exercise his access rights if they were to be supervised at AMCAL and this, even though he himself had requested AMCAL access in his Fourth Motion. He stated before the undersigned that the government only gives 2 hours of supervised access for the first 6 months, and that afterwards, he would be obliged to pay which, in his view, is “immoral”. Thus, the Father testified that if the Court were to order supervised visits at AMCAL, at his expense, he would refuse such access: “C’est contre mes valeurs de payer pour voir mon enfant; je préfère ne pas voir l’enfant dans ces circonstances. Les valeurs d’une personne sont plus importantes que tout”.

[42]As for the Grandmother, she testified that the Father admitted to her that he would have “corrected” the Mother during her pregnancy if she weren’t pregnant, noting that he “smirked” while saying so. The Grandmother also testified that the Father held a blanket over X’s face at 4 months old, and when she yelled for him to stop, he replied “You can’t tell me what to do with my child”.

[43]The Grandmother noted that during the supervised access at her residence, the Father changed the child’s diaper only once, stating to her on other occasions “I think she crapped” and handing the child to the Grandmother to be changed.

[44]The Grandmother noted that X is trusting, open and sweet and that she likes to play with anyone. However, during the Father’s visits, she testified that X would often rock back and forth and suck on her fingers, indicating that she was very stressed. She testified that she hasn’t seen this behaviour in the child since the Father’s visits ceased last February.

[45]Finally, the Grandmother testified that the Father is not affectionate with X during the visits, adding that he speaks of all women – even his mother – in a degrading manner. She testified that he told her that his daughter in Peru was flirting with men in the park at the age of 2, and that he talked of X, when she was a newborn, as having “breasts”.
[46]In counter-proof, the Father admitted having said that X had “crapped” and handing her to the Grandmother to be changed, noting that it was in good spirits and that he’s a “joker”. He maintained that he changed X’s diaper on “multiple occasions” until the Grandmother moved the diaper changing station to another room.

[47]He admitted criticizing the Mother while the parties were together, stating that “You’re studying algebra and physics but you can’t put up a shower curtain? Come on, a shower curtain?”, noting that she had “gone” to her parents not long after that.

[48]As for the incident in which he punched the Mother, he testified that they were in a bar, and that she laughed and slapped his face, at which point he “slapped her back with an open hand, landing on her nose”. According to the Father, she then “went to see her daddy, crying” but that they apologized to each other the next morning.

[1] The Father’s Fourth Motion was signed by Me Marsolais on August 20th, 2016. The notice of presentation of the Fourth Motion was signed by Me Marsolais on August 29th, 2016, and the Fourth Motion was notified on August 30th, 2016. There was no affidavit by the Father attached to the Fourth Motion in support of the allegations contained therein. Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Father’s Fourth Motion concerning his financial situation read as follows: “29. Compte tenu de la fin d’emploi du demandeur en date du 2 mars 2015, le demandeur demande respectueusement que la pension alimentaire et ses mesures de recouvrement et perception soient suspendues jusqu’à l’audition, afin de permettre ultérieurement la correction rétroactive de la pension le cas échéant; 30. Le demandeur doit subvenir temporairement à ses besoins uniquement par de l’aide financière de dernier recours, et en produit la preuve documentaire au soutien des présentes sous les cotes P-1 à P-3”. In fact, P-1, P-2 and P-3 do not deal with the Father’s finances and it is rather Exhibit P-9, filed on October 31st, 2016, which shows that as of January 12th, 2016, the Father was a recipient of welfare payments of $623 per month.

Log in or Sign up

The fatherhood of scientologist P. D.

Reggie the Reg Member

Reggie the Reg Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Predefined Skins