Sure.
We watched a video summary of the controversial study on false memories called “Lost in the Mall”. We watched episodes of the show Brain Games that tried to convince us further that our memories were incorrect, such as “False Memory and Misinformation Effect” and “Remember This!” We were told that our mother was the abusive one, and that the sessions were all videorecorded.
In the afternoons, we visited local attractions. During these outings, we were coerced into co-operation. A specific example was at the Empire State Building when Mary yelled at me for not smiling in a photo. I was told that if I did not smile, the no-contact order with my mom would be tripled.
About a month after we returned from New York, we began attending what is referred to as “aftercare” with a Canadian social worker. I will refer to him as “Kevin”. Kevin's framework and methodology were simply extensions of what we experienced in New York. With Kevin, we watched videos of controversial experiments that would not meet the ethical standards and best practices of today. For example, we watched Jane Elliott's “blue eyes, brown eyes” exercise, Tronick's “still face” paradigm and Harry Harlow's “monkey mother” experiment. Kevin even tried to encourage us to be physically affectionate with our father based on the work of Harry Harlow. Kevin utilized threats and bargaining in our therapy sessions. His indicators of therapeutic success included us telling our father that we loved him, initiating and accepting physical affection from our father, and addressing him as “Dad”.
With regard to schooling, it is important to share the following.
On our return from New York, my brother missed three weeks of school and I was not permitted to return to in-person school that year. I was forced to complete my grade 9 year virtually. In the fall of 2022, my father registered my brother and me at schools in his neighbourhood. My brother was devastated by this decision, as he would have been entering grade 7 with all of his friends since junior kindergarten.
I was simply excited to be returning to in-person school. I was not permitted to have a cellphone. My father said that, if I made new friends, they could call me at his number. I was not permitted to have a Chromebook that belonged to the school board. Rather, my father purchased me a Chromebook and installed the app Qustodio on it to monitor my every move.
Now that I was out of the house for the first time since April, I knew I had to advocate for my rights. I reached out to an organization for youth, and a lawyer there was able to assist me in obtaining a judicial interview. After my father learned that I had been in contact with this organization, I was threatened. My friends would be called to the guidance office and questioned, my friends would have to provide their phone records, and school security footage would be obtained. My father also started coming to the school at lunch and having me paged to the office. On one occasion, he had the principal come find me. He made me leave with him for the duration of the lunch breaks.
After the Christmas holidays that year, I was not permitted to return to in-person school again. I was enrolled at an online private school and not permitted to know my log-in information. My father logged me in to school daily. The online private school was asynchronous, and I did not have any real-time interaction with other students or teachers.
In the summer of 2023, I turned 16. On my birthday, I left my father's residence and began walking to my mom's. It was my understanding that, at age 16, I could make this choice. Rather, my father called the police and I was stopped about two-thirds of the way to my mom's. We spent hours in a park. In the end, I was taken back to my father's in a police car. My father had given the officers consent to use handcuffs and force if needed. I went co-operatively to avoid this.
Later that summer, I was provided with an updated judgment that permitted me to have contact with my mom again. The order states that it is in my best interest to reside primarily with my mom and to have parenting time with my father in accordance with my wishes.
The no-contact order that was in effect for over 500 days regarding my mom, and attendance at a reunification camp and aftercare, did not strengthen my relationship with my father. Rather, it reinforced my feelings, which have been consistent for years. My father's actions and choices while I was in his sole custody for over 500 days damaged our relationship further.
As someone who has observed and personally experienced coercive control, I support its criminalization. However, the presence of parental alienation and its associated remedies needs to be adequately addressed. The providers of reunification camps and therapy for parental alienation use types of coercive control in their practice, and further encourage and support the use of coercive control by the non-preferred parent. I recommend that legal representation be provided to children. While in the sole care of my father, there was not one individual I could confide in about what was actually happening. I recommend that the court not be able to make orders that include custody reversals, no-contact orders, the use of transport agents, reunification camps and therapy.
Thank you for listening to a high-level summary of my story. I will continue to advocate until change is made. This past January, I was featured in a webinar hosted by the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children. I spoke after Reem Alsalem and prior to Suzanne Zaccour.
Thank you very much.