14 Nov, 5:16 PM
VANCOUVER (CP) - A French woman who abducted her kids received a scathing rebuke from the judge in her child custody case Tuesday.
In the latest instalment of what has been described as an international soap opera, Justice Nicole Garson decided that the ex-husband of Nathalie Gettliffe would keep interim custody of the children but Gettliffe would be allowed more frequent visits.
The judge didn’t mince words about Gettliffe’s conduct over the past five years as she ruled that Scott Grant, father of Max, 12, and Josephine, 11, would continue to have interim custody. Permanent custody will be sorted out a trial sometime in the future.
“In this case, Miss Gettliffe has denied (the children) permission to love their father,” Garson said in her ruling on the custody battle.
“This order is designed to redress to the extent possible that harm.”
The case has attracted wide attention, particularly in France, over the woman’s abduction of the children to France from Vancouver in 2001.
The case’s twists and turns have included citings of the Hague Convention, nasty accusations in France against her ex-husband, Gettliffe’s voluntary return in immediate arrest in Vancouver, charges that she was abused in prison where she also gave birth to a new son, and allegations that her Canadian ex-husband belonged to a cult-like church.
Gettliffe also announced recently that she wants to run for the presidency of France.
On the criminal side of the ledger, she pleaded guilty to abduction in B.C. Supreme Court earlier this month and will be sentenced later.
On Tuesday, as Grant sat in court and the former couple’s two lawyers handling the civil matter listened to the oral ruling, the judge raked Gettliffe over the coals. At the conclusion, Grant’s lawyer, Theresa Stowe, turned and smiled broadly at him.
“Miss Gettliffe has conducted a publicity campaign to support her decision to defy the Canadian and French court orders,” said Garson.
“She set up an Internet website and association to protect her children. She has made numerous public statements about Mr. Grant and his religious practices. She has exposed her children to the public campaign.”
The judge said Gettliffe appeared “completely without insight as to any potential damage such a custody battle could have on her children.”
Gettliffe had asked the court to see her children twice weekly but the judge sided with Grant, who wanted two visits a month. Still, that order allowed her more visits than the total of six times the children have visited her in jail since April.
The children now live with the father alone in suburban Surrey, B.C., but they “are not affectionate with him” as they were before their abduction.
“The children have been rude and angry at times,” the judge said, allowing that they miss their mother.
She said their behaviour was not surprising since they have spent little time with their father in the past five years.
“I infer from the evidence that they have been told over the past five years that he was not a suitable father,” said Garson.
The children must have time to establish affection “without interference from her.”
“That relationship cannot be nurtured if Miss Gettliffe continues her campaign of vilifying Mr. Grant to the children.”
While she will be allowed more frequent visits, the court ordered her to refrain from making “adverse comments” about the father or his church.
She must also not discuss with the kids any possible return to France.
The jail visits must be supervised because Gettliffe does not appreciate the impact on her children of her “very public campaign” against Grant.
Gettliffe also had asked the court to allow her children contact with friends and relatives in France, but the judge again sided with Grant and left it to him to decide on the degree of contact.
“I am also concerned that such communications might be misused by Miss Gettliffe, her husband or supporters in their continued efforts to maintain public support for the custody battle.
Gettliffe was arrested in April when she returned to defend her PhD thesis in linguistics at the University of British Columbia.
The judge suggested that she returned because her arrest and contempt order, issued in 2001 after she fled, were set aside in 2004 at Grant’s request.
“He took this step because he believed Miss Gettliffe might voluntarily return to Canada if she were not in jeopardy of being arrested,” the judge said.
Gettliffe said previously she took her children to France to remove them from the influence of their father because of his activities in a church that’s considered a cult in France - the International Church of Christ.
But the judge said Gettliffe never talked disparagingly of his church until she reached France.
Although the mother had also asked the court to prevent Grant from taking the kids to his church, the judge allowed him to take them but no more than once a week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
And forcing the children to live with their father while their mother and little brother are in prison is going to encourage them to love their father?
Le Juge reconnaît que les enfants sont fâchés et impolis et pas affectueux avec leur père – Je me demande si elle a considéré que ceci pourrait être parce qu’il ne leur permet pas de visiter leur Maman et frère en prison.. aussi, ils ne parlent pas l’anglais, et ils n’ont pas habité avec leur père pendant cinq ans. Comment le juge pense-t-il qu’en les forcant à habiter avec lui elle aide les enfants ?
Pourquoi ne pas demander le children? ?
It’s a disgrace – there are murderers and rapists walking on the streets, but this new mother must rot in prison because she believed she was protecting her children.
Shame on the Justice system in Canada!
Fed-up Grandmother in Alberta
Post a Comment