Article 606 — Civil Code of Quebec — In Force June 6, 2023
"Deprivation of parental authority may be decreed by the court, on the application of any interested person, against a father, mother or parents, one of them or a third person to whom it was granted, if serious grounds and the best interest of the child justify such a measure, particularly because of the presence of family violence, including conjugal violence, or sexual violence."
✓Serious Grounds: Conjugal violence, coercive control, physical incident involving Scarlett, financial abandonment, suicide note, self-harm history, 100% disability with self-admitted incapacity, reality distortion across multiple documented sources.
✓Best Interest of the Child: Independent caregiving demonstrably unsafe. Forced contact perpetuates harm to primary caregiver. Growing psychological risk as Scarlett ages.
✓Conjugal Violence (2022): Financial coercion and coercive control explicitly covered. The Dec 30 money-for-silence message is the clearest single example.
Child Support Alongside Déchéance
✓At least one Quebec judgment has granted total déchéance AND child support in the same ruling. Child support is the child's right — it survives termination of parental authority.
!To resolve with Bianca: She indicated pursuing déchéance may preclude child support. This conflicts with case precedent and Article 585 C.c.Q. Needs resolution before strategy finalizes.
!Fiona's position: Full severance is the primary non-negotiable goal. Child support and 50% debt contribution sought only if achievable alongside déchéance — never instead of it.
VA Disability + Therapy Attendance
✓100% VA disability = severe and not expected to substantially improve. Therapy attendance is factored into this rating — 100% exists alongside treatment, confirming treatment-resistant severity.
✓He cannot claim improved parenting capacity to a Quebec court while maintaining the disability rating that provides $5,700/month. Any claim of rehabilitation contradicts the basis of his income.
CLAIM: The legal document was coercion / blackmail▼
Context: Maurice was leaving for Texas. Fiona said she would not travel to the US without a written agreement because she genuinely feared he would prevent Scarlett from returning to Canada.
Notary Defense: Signed before a notary whose role is to confirm voluntary signing without duress. He raised no objection at signing.
His Own Words Defeat This: In the same exchange where he called it blackmail, he agreed: "Yes, I'll stop talking about breaking up."
CLAIM: She controlled my movements — library, working with women▼
Context: By June 2025, Fiona had documented evidence of Maurice looking at explicit content while pregnant and consistently refusing to hold emotional space for her while demonstrating capacity to do so for other women. Her concern was a direct reaction to documented trust breaches — not baseline controlling behavior.
CLAIM: She tracked my location — controlling▼
Context: Both parties agreed to mutual location sharing from early in the relationship. Her monitoring intensified during (1) discovery of explicit content while pregnant and (2) his active suicidal ideation — monitoring his safety, not his movements. Courts assess function, not just form.
CLAIM: She made me kneel — racially charged humiliation▼
Context: Occurred immediately after he called her a bitch and a slut. She asked him to acknowledge the harm.
Mutuality Defense: The day after, Maurice made the same request of Fiona — she complied. Establishes it as a mutual dynamic, not racial humiliation. He also documented a pattern of weaponizing race accusations as a control mechanism.
CLAIM: She isolated me — no friends in Canada▼
Context: Maurice chose to relocate internationally. Geographic distance is a natural consequence of his own decision. His PTSD-related social withdrawal is documented in his own words — his isolation pattern predates this relationship.
CLAIM: She wouldn't let me get therapy with a woman▼
Truth: Fiona did not object to therapy. She expressed discomfort with him processing emotional intimacy with a female therapist because he consistently refused to hold that space for her. He has attended VA therapy for years — his 100% rating is unchanged, confirming treatment-resistant severity.
CLAIM: She said she didn't want to be alive — also suicidal▼
Her Own Words Provide Context: In the documented August 2025 exchange, Fiona immediately self-contextualized: "Because when I say I don't wanna be alive anymore, I'm still committed to working through relationship dynamics via communication and forgiveness."
Categorical Difference: Fiona's statement was relational exhaustion, self-explained in the same message. Maurice's pattern: written note (Nov 2024), published self-harm account (Substack 2020), second phone threat (Oct 2025). One is a figure of speech. The other is a documented multi-year clinical pattern.
CLAIM: She called me names — compiled list▼
Context: Several items on his list are common expressions not widely understood as racial slurs. The remaining labels are characterizations of his behavior in reactive moments — not a sustained pattern. His list also contains the Shadow Realm statement — presented as factual reality — which is among the strongest evidence of disconnection from shared reality.
CLAIM: She took Scarlett — child abduction (8-hour trip)▼
Context: Before this trip, Maurice declared he would not hold emotional space. Fiona left location sharing active throughout. She visited her sister and returned.
The Irony: Maurice threatened to leave on four documented occasions and departed July 29, 2025 — nine days after Scarlett's birthday — publicly glorifying it. An 8-hour family visit with active location sharing is not child abduction.
To: Me Bianca Scaramuzzi — My Position Before We Proceed — File: Maynard / Luckett
Hi Bianca,
Before anything is filed or proposed to opposing counsel, I wanted to share my full position so we can align on strategy.
PRIMARY GOAL — NON-NEGOTIABLE: Full déchéance de l'autorité parentale under Article 606 C.c.Q.
SECONDARY GOALS (only if achievable alongside déchéance):
1. Child support until Scarlett turns 18
2. 50% contribution to the $40,000 shared debt ($20,000)
If I must choose between full severance and financial recovery, I will choose severance every time.
I have approximately 15 documented incidents, case precedents confirming déchéance has been granted on comparable facts, and a full evidence file to share at our first consultation.
Thank you,
Fiona Maynard
450 495 8005