CanadianCRC Editor comment
The family law industry charges a fortune.
They prey on those with equity in their homes or who have rich relatives from which they can borrow money or maybe never see their children again.
The law says that courts only consider the "best interests of the child", which isn't true at all because fundamentally, it's not in any child's best interests to have the parents fighting, stressed out going to court, dealing with lawyers and expensive assessments.
It is not in the best interests of children to go weeks, even a year or more, without seeing both their parents.
Parental Alienation and Helen Scott ( formerly Helen Scott Goudge )
Helen Scott (her pre-married name), Helen Scott Goudge or just Helen Goudge, was a family law assessor who in our opinion is more of the problem and less of the solution when it comes to family law situations in Toronto, Ontario. Helen advised the Canadian Children's Rights Council in 2020 that she was no longer doing any work with family law consequences, including but not limited to, assessments and parent coordination.
Ms. Goudge advised the Canadian Children's Rights Council in 2021 that she was only doing psychotherapy for individual adults going through divorce at $230 /hr.
The situation was that the parents both lived in the same neighbourhood, had agreed since they broke up that the children would be raised equally, alternating weeks with the change over Saturday at dinner time. The parents lived in the same neighbourhood and both homes were within walking distance of the children's schools. Both parents had an equal shared time agreement.
Prior to the split up of the couple, the mother had been caught having multiple affairs.
9 months into this arrangement the mother became enraged and extremely angry, likely because a new woman had entered the ex-husband's life and was now engaged and living in the matrimonial home which was the father's alone since it was a common-law relationship because the mother had taken 5 years to get a divorce from her 1st husband. She was unemployed when she met this financially well off father from a good family.
The mother started to send the police over to the father's home and made false allegations against the father. The mother then committed domestic violence when she forced her way into the father's residence beating him badly, damaging his front tooth and threatening to kill him. The father called 911 and the police came and took her from his home and charged her. She plead guilty and got probation for 6 months.
The mother then wanted to fight in court to get sole custody and Helen Scott was requested as the assessor by the mother.
Helen Scott, then Helen Goudge, then consulted only with the mother regarding who to interview at the children's school. The mother instructed her to see a former teacher of the children and not the current teachers. After interviewing the male teacher, whom had an affair with the mother, and upon the principal finding out that she had done so, the school principal then wrote a stinging letter stating that she had not been authorized Helen Scott Goudge to talk to that teacher or any teacher and that the teacher wasn't the right person to be interviewed and wasn't even a current teacher of the children.
With regards to the mother breaking into the father's home, threatening to kill him and badly beating him leaving him badly bruises and bleeding, Helen Goudge, stated that the mother's anger was well know to the children AND THEN SHE RECOMMENDED SOLE CUSTODY FOR THE MOTHER WHO WOULDN'T ACCEPT THE STATUS QUO OF EQUAL SHARED PARENTING WITH EQUAL PARENTING TIME.
Helen Scott talked 1st with the mother and her sister. She interviewed the children and visited the mother's home. She refused to even visit the father's home but did so reluctantly after she decided that she would recommend joint custody to the court but that should the mother want sole custody, she would recommend that instead and amend her report to the court. The father stated that she just went through the motions and then on the way out of the home she stated that the courts do whatever she recommends.
After fighting with Helen Scott about having meetings with him, his friends and the children, the father was told by Helen Scott that she would change the parenting time to 65%/35% favouring the mother EVEN THOUGH HER OWN REPORT FOR THE COURT stated that the mother's anger was well know to the children and reported that father wasn't angry at the mother. Such a change of time would get the mother child support paid by the father. Goudge recommended 'joint custody' unless the mother wanted sole custody. Helen Scott then changed her recommendation to the court because the mother wanted sole custody.
Had the assessor, Helen Scottt Goudge supported the shared equal parenting arrangement that both parents had wanted prior to the mother becoming full of anger and starting legal action paid for fully by legal aid which cost tax payers over $50,000, the children would have been safe in the 50/50 time split. The mother used the report of Helen Scott with the children to endorse her position that she should have sole custody.
If you want to know more about Helen Scott Goudge, read the best selling book Divorce From Hell written by Wendy Dennis, a well known author. Helen Scott Goudge was the assessor in that case and failed miserable.
Helen Scott Goudge was the family assessor in the case published in the book below tiled " The Divorce from Hell"
Divorce From Hell: How The Justice System Failed A Family
by Wendy Dennis
This gut-wrenching book is the story of Ben Gordon. It is written by his live-in girlfriend and author Wendy Dennis. Dennis tell us that she met Gordon when Gordon was going through a bad divorce; and a bad divorce it is. The true villain in the book is the legal system. Dennis observes Ben Gordon's ordeal as a father who just wanted to remain an involved parent to his two daughters.
Dennis exposes the so-called "experts" who yield extraordinary power with devastating consequences, and she accurately describes an arbitrary `system'' with no accountability that professes to act in the children's best interests but fails to do so. The "game" of family law is accurately described -- as well as who really profits from the "game".
The only surprise here is how Ben Gordon continues to go through his ordeal over a period of nine years and at a cost of over $500,000 by his own estimate. We are only left with the ultimate question: when is the guy going to get it? -- access will only happen if "mother" allows it to happen. For Mr. Gordon, it is apparent, the "game" was over before it even began.
This book is a description of the current reality in Canada. It is this excuse for a family law "system" that needs to be changed -- urgently -- so that so many others, like Ben Gordon, don't get ground into the dirt and out of their children's lives.