Confidential Legal File

Maynard v. Luckett

This file is private and confidential.
Authorized access only.

File K1695B Maynard v. Luckett — Parental Authority & Child Support
Active — Primary Goal: Full Severance
Chronological Evidence

Incident Timeline

Click any incident to expand full details, quotes, and legal relevance. All 15+ documented incidents in chronological order.

NOV 17–19, 2024
Incident 1 — Suicide Threats & Written Note
Handwritten suicide note — photographed and emailed same day
Maurice wrote a handwritten suicide note stating he was "not strong enough," desired God to "erase his existence," and described himself as "just the black man to help create a mixed baby." Fiona photographed it November 19 and emailed it to herself immediately — creating a timestamped record predating all litigation.
Verbatim Content of Note
Stated he was "not strong enough" and had "given up." Desired to feel more "alone and in death." Desired God to "erase his existence to be as if he never existed." Expressed resentment, describing himself as "just the black man to help create a mixed baby."
Legal Relevance
Critical incapacity evidence: Handwritten suicide note in the home where Scarlett was present, with contemporaneous photograph emailed the same day. Cannot be denied. Establishes severe active mental health crisis in the family home — directly supports incapacity argument and best interest analysis under Article 606 C.c.Q.
NOV 20, 2024
Incident 2 — Self-Admitted Danger in the Home
"I am a danger inside unless I go outside" — Scarlett present
The day after the suicide note, Maurice stated he "cannot ground himself and is a danger inside unless he goes outside." Said in the shared home with Scarlett present.
His Own Words
"I cannot ground myself and am a danger inside unless I go outside."
Legal Relevance
Self-admission of danger in family home: A parent who states they are a "danger inside" the household where their child lives is providing their own evidence against unsupervised access. Voluntary, direct, made with Scarlett present.
DEC 4, 2024
Incident 3 — Physical Safety Incident — Scarlett
Scarlett (18 months) knocked toward wall — blamed for it
During an argument about finances, Maurice stormed past Scarlett. His right leg and hip made forceful contact with her head, knocking her toward the wall. Fiona caught her. He immediately blamed Scarlett, accepting zero accountability.
What Happened
During a conversation about household finances, Maurice became angry, muttered under his breath, and stormed away. His right leg and hip made forceful contact with Scarlett's head (she was then 18 months old), knocking her toward the wall. Fiona caught her before she hit it. When confronted, Maurice immediately stated Scarlett had "walked into him" and it was "her fault" — accepting zero accountability.
Legal Relevance
Most critical Scarlett-specific incident: Physical endangerment of a toddler during an anger episode, followed immediately by blaming the child. This directly answers "what specifically did he do to Scarlett?" — the core safety incident of this case.
DEC 5, 2024
Incident 4 — Self-Disclosed Incapacity to Care for Scarlett
"It depends on my body" — cannot hug, lift, or comfort Scarlett
Maurice admitted in a documented conversation that he regularly denies Scarlett physical comfort. "There are lots of times I just can't hug her." "If my body cannot do anything I will not move." "It depends on my body."
His Own Words — Verbatim
"There are lots of times I just can't hug her."

"If my body cannot do anything I will not move."

"There are lots of times I have denied her a hug."

"I can't bend down or do any of those things."

When asked what he would do if Scarlett reached out for a hug: "It depends on my body."
Legal Relevance
Self-admitted incapacity for basic caregiving: A parent who states he regularly cannot hug, lift, or comfort a toddler is providing his own evidence against unsupervised access. This is not Fiona's characterization — it is his own recorded admission.
DEC 6, 2024
Incident 5 — Hostile Home Environment
Slept in bathtub, stomped through apartment — Scarlett didn't finish formula
Maurice slept in the bathtub claiming he didn't feel safe, issued rigid cleaning demands, stomped through the apartment raising his voice while Scarlett slept, and issued a 24-hour ultimatum to cut contact with an ex. That night Scarlett didn't finish her formula — observed via baby monitor and attributed to household stress.
What Happened
Maurice stated he didn't feel safe and slept in the bathtub. He wiped surfaces with baby wipes, wrote a rigid cleaning schedule demanding compliance, and when asked if completing the cleaning would restore the bedroom, said "it depends on how I feel" — demonstrating control rather than resolution. He stomped through the apartment raising his voice despite being asked to lower it as Scarlett was sleeping. He also issued a 24-hour ultimatum to cut all contact with an ex. That night Scarlett didn't drink her usual formula, observed via baby monitor. Cat's nose was leaking — stress response observed in both child and pet.
Legal Relevance
Child exposed to hostile home environment: Repeated volatile outbursts with Scarlett present, combined with the observed impact on her feeding, demonstrates measurable harm to Scarlett's sense of security from his dysregulation.
JAN–SEP 2025
Incident 6 — Sustained Coercive Control Pattern
Stonewalling, abandonment threats, verbal abuse — documented pattern throughout 2025
Throughout 2025: 7+ day silent treatment episodes as punishment, approximately four documented abandonment threats with bags packed, "FUCK YOU" with physical aggression (Jan 29), controlling cleaning demands, withholding affection as punishment, role reversal, gaslighting, refusing to engage in repair.
Documented Incidents Within Pattern
Jan 1–11: 7+ day silent treatment. Jan 17: bags packed and dangled as abandonment threat (one of four). Jan 29: "FUCK YOU" said with physical head-thrust aggression. Multiple dates: refusing to hold space, deflecting, role reversal, accumulated grievance lists. March 15: demanded to see every video Fiona posts before publishing.
Legal Relevance
Coercive control pattern — Article 74.3: Stonewalling, role reversal, sustained withdrawal as punishment, and demanding approval of Fiona's content are named forms of psychological/moral violence. The pattern across months establishes deliberate tactic, not reactive behavior.
JUL 15, 2025
Incident 7 — Racial Slur & Verbal Abuse
"You being white is not the only reason I don't like you, I don't like you because you're a bitch" — journal same day
Recorded in Fiona's personal digital journal on the same date. Gendered slur combined with racial reference, directed at Scarlett's mother.
His Own Words — Verbatim
"You being white is not the only reason I don't like you, I don't like you because you're a bitch."
Legal Relevance
Verbal degradation as part of coercive control: Contemporaneous journal record establishes date and exact wording. Part of broader pattern including "FUCK YOU" (Jan 29), "slut," and sustained verbal aggression.
JUL 20, 2025
Incident 8 — Denial Pattern Documented in Real Time
Foot kick incident — denied it happened — contemporaneous ChatGPT record 1:37 AM
Maurice kicked Fiona's foot while getting up, causing significant pain. He minimized, then denied the impact ("your foot was just there"), redirected blame, went to bed without repair. Fiona documented the incident in ChatGPT at 1:37 AM the same night — timestamped, geolocated to Côte-Saint-Luc.
His Denial Pattern
"I didn't even kick you." / "You stubbed your foot and your foot was just there."
Legal Relevance
Real-time documentation of gaslighting: ChatGPT record timestamped 1:37 AM, July 20 — written in the moment, not reconstructed. Demonstrates the denial-of-reality pattern with an independent dated record.
JUL 29, 2025
Incident 9 — Abandonment (Gladly)
Left nine days after Scarlett's 2nd birthday — publicly glorified burning his old life
Maurice departed for Austin, Texas nine days after Scarlett's second birthday. Notarized agreement signed same day. He has since publicly described abandoning his previous life with a lighter and laughter on Instagram Live — "watch it burn," "look at my life burn" — glorifying the abandonment he subjected Scarlett to.
The Departure
Maurice left Montreal on July 29, 2025 — nine days after Scarlett's second birthday — and returned to Austin, Texas. Both parties signed a notarized agreement the same day confirming Canada as Scarlett's habitual residence. He has not returned for any meaningful caregiving since. Physical absence now approaching one year.
His Public Glorification of the Abandonment
Instagram Live (2026): appeared with a lighter, made a shotgun sound, pointed lighter to ground, said "watch it burn," laughed, "look at my life burn." Stated "I don't identify with this person anymore." Described digging up roots, setting old life on fire, planting in new soil. Stated: "I'm probably somewhat of a psychopath, which is OK. I'm a happy psychopath." Described multiple voices he pours two cups of tea for.
Legal Relevance
Abandonment + public glorification: He left nine days after Scarlett's birthday and has publicly described burning his old life with laughter and pride. This is not reluctant departure under difficult circumstances — this is documented, self-described, publicly glorified abandonment of his child.
SEP 26 – OCT 22, 2025
Incident 10 — Dangerous Brakes / Car Safety
Fiona drove Scarlett in a car with failing brakes — Maurice knew, refused to help
September 26: Fiona messaged Maurice worried about the brakes. He minimized, gave remote advice about brake fluid. No financial help provided. October 22: Former partner Justin reached out offering car help and fixed the brakes — describing the car as dangerous. Fiona could not afford the repair due to Maurice's support reduction. She had been driving Scarlett in an unsafe vehicle because of his financial abandonment.
The Sequence
September 26, 2025: Fiona messaged Maurice about brake concerns. He responded: "if the brakes don't work as well then it is the brake fluid which can be done at any place because they just have to add the fluid versus change anything crazy. If they screech loud AF then that means the brake pads must be changed." He offered no financial help and the problem remained unresolved.

Fiona could not afford to fix the brakes because Maurice had reduced financial support, leaving no money for car repairs.

October 16, 2025: Justin reached out asking if Fiona needed car work done.

October 22, 2025: Justin fixed the brakes — describing the car as dangerous. In Justin's assessment, the brakes posed a risk of harming others on the road.
Legal Relevance
Financial abandonment created safety risk for Scarlett: Maurice's support reduction left Fiona unable to repair a vehicle she regularly transported Scarlett in. He was informed of the brake issue, offered only remote verbal advice, and provided no financial assistance. A third party assessed the car as dangerous. This directly links his financial coercion to Scarlett's physical safety.
OCT 29, 2025
Incident 11 — Second Suicide Threat Post-Separation
Suicide threat by phone from Texas — during same period of financial withdrawal
During a phone conflict after returning to Texas, Maurice again threatened suicide. Second documented threat — one year after the written note. Occurred simultaneously with financial withdrawal, confirming the condition is ongoing, not situational.
Pattern Context
This is the second documented suicide threat (first: November 2024 with written note). Combined with the 2020 published self-harm account (Substack), this establishes a multi-year pattern across different life circumstances. The threat occurring post-separation and post-departure confirms it is not caused by the relationship — it is an ongoing condition consistent with his 100% PTSD disability determination.
Legal Relevance
Ongoing, not resolved: Three separate documented incidents across six years: 2020 (self-harm, Substack), November 2024 (written note), October 2025 (phone threat). A multi-year pattern that persists across relationships and geographies cannot be attributed to situational stress.
NOV 27, 2025
Incident 12 — "YES OUR debt" — Written Acknowledgment
Explicit written acknowledgment of $40K shared debt
Maurice stated "Yes OUR debt" in a text exchange. Foundation of the unjust enrichment/debt contribution claim. He then partially walked it back — acknowledging the debt while refusing to contribute fully.
His Own Words
"Yes OUR debt."

"I will help you pay off your debts, but I will not pay off both of our debts on my own."
The Debt
Total: $40,000 CAD. BMO Mastercard: $20,000 (Oct 2022 onward). BMO Line of Credit: $20,000 (opened Feb 2023 at $0 — cash advances used to service card debt). Interest accumulating at $500+/month.
Legal Relevance
Foundation of unjust enrichment claim (secondary goal): Written acknowledgment of shared debt. Note: Fiona's primary goal is full severance. Debt recovery is sought only if achievable alongside déchéance — not at the cost of severing the legal tie.
DEC 25–30, 2025
Incident 13 — Written Support Promises → Money for Silence
Promised rent, food, daycare in writing — then conditioned support on Fiona's silence
Dec 25: written commitment to pay apartment, food, daycare. Dec 30: explicitly tied financial support to Fiona's silence about the separation — "that's not right and can impact my business, which also then impacts me being able to send money."
December 25 — Written Promise
"I will pay for the apartment, food for Scarlett, her daycare and things she needs."
December 30 — Money for Silence
"Did you tell your communities and people that I broke up with you? I will have a problem if you're slandering my name... That's not right and can impact my business, which also then impacts me being able to send money if I can't make money."
Legal Relevance
Clearest documented coercive control mechanism: Conditioning Scarlett's basic needs on Fiona's compliance and silence. Quebec case law cites this exact pattern as grounds for déchéance under Article 606 C.c.Q.
JAN 11, 2026
Incident 14 — Income Disclosed: $5,700/month CAD
Confirmed $4,100 USD/month income — still paying $700 — support conditioned on access
Maurice disclosed his VA disability income as $4,100 USD/month (~$5,700 CAD) in a documented text exchange. Despite this income, maintained $700/month was "appropriate." Linked financial support to guaranteed Scarlett access in the same exchange.
The Numbers
His income: $5,700 CAD/month — stable, guaranteed, lifetime VA disability.
His contribution: $700 CAD/month.
Monthly rent: $1,400 CAD.
Daycare: $200 CAD/month.
The $700 does not cover rent alone, let alone food, daycare, or any other expenses.
JAN 30, 2026
Incident 15 — Support Slashed to $700 + Food Bank Directive
Support cut nearly 75% from ~$2,700 to $700 — food bank — Scarlett call linked in same message
Maurice unilaterally declared $700/month going forward — down from nearly $2,700 CAD (~$2,000 USD + rent). He directed family to food bank despite knowing Scarlett's specific dietary needs (pharmacy sweet potato jars, oatmeal). He asked about a Scarlett video call in the same message he cut support — documenting the coercive link. Fiona drove Uber Eats with Scarlett to afford food.
Payment History
May 2023–Nov 2024: ~$1,000–1,100 USD/month via PayPal (Celesteal Inc).
Nov 2024–Dec 2025: $1,400 CAD/month rent paid directly to landlord.
Jan 2026: one payment of $2,200 CAD.
Feb 2026 onward: $700 CAD/month — rent payment eliminated entirely.

Total reduction from peak: nearly 75% despite no change in his income.
The Coercive Link — Same Message
"I'm sending $700 CAD today for February child support. Going forward, I'll send $700 CAD on the 1st of each month." [same message]: "Are we still on for a call with Scarlett this evening?"
The Food Bank and Scarlett's Food
He directed Fiona to a food bank knowing Scarlett's primary meals are specific pharmacy jars (sweet potato) and oatmeal. Fiona visited the food bank personally — available items were whole vegetables (cucumber, lettuce), unsuitable as Scarlett's main meal. She attempted to recreate the jar recipe at home. Scarlett refused it. Fiona drove Uber Eats with Scarlett at night to earn money for pharmacy food. Welfare took 3 months to process — retroactive payment of $1,191 received March 2026.
Legal Relevance
Financial abandonment + child safety: Support reduced to below rent level while he earns $5,700/month. Child directed to food bank. Scarlett transported in a car with dangerous brakes he refused to help fix. Uber Eats driven at night with Scarlett to afford food. Every consequence of his financial withdrawal created real, documented risk for Scarlett.
Evidence Library

Evidence Library

Add links directly in the browser. Click any item to open. Pull this up in court to access any document instantly. Add new items using the form in each tab.

+ Add Text Screenshot
Email to self — suicide note photographed same day (timestamped)
Nov 19, 2024
No link added
Text message screenshots — suicide threats (Nov 17–19)
Nov 17–19, 2024
No link added
ChatGPT record — foot kick incident (timestamped 1:37 AM)
Jul 20, 2025
No link added
Sep 26 — brake concern message + his minimizing response
Sep 26, 2025
No link added
Oct 22 — Justin confirms car was dangerous (brake fix)
Oct 22, 2025
No link added
YES OUR debt — written acknowledgment
Nov 27, 2025
No link added
Money for silence — Dec 30 message
Dec 30, 2025
No link added
Dec 25 support promises (post-separation written commitment)
Dec 25, 2025
No link added
Support cut to $700 + Scarlett call request — same message
Jan 30, 2026
No link added
Income disclosure — $5,700 CAD/month confirmed
Jan 11, 2026
No link added
Racial slur + gendered slur — "you're a bitch" (journal same day)
Jul 15, 2025
No link added
+ Add Voice Note or Video
Recording — "it depends on my body" / cannot hug Scarlett
Dec 5, 2024
Add Google Drive link
Instagram Live — "happy psychopath" / watch it burn / multiple voices (screen recorded)
2026
Add Google Drive link
Uber Eats timestamped photos — Côte-Saint-Luc 8:06 PM + Ville-Marie 9:48 PM
Apr 4, 2026
Add Google Drive link
+ Add Document
Notarized agreement — signed by both parties
Jul 29, 2025
Add Google Drive link
PayPal records — Celesteal Inc monthly payments
May 2023–Nov 2024
Add Google Drive link
BMO Mastercard statements — $20K debt (highlighted)
Oct 2022–present
Add Google Drive link
Manulife Invoice No.001 + bank deposit confirmation
Jun 2026
Add Google Drive link
ChatGPT record — foot kick incident (timestamped 1:37 AM)
Jul 20, 2025
Add Google Drive link
+ Add Public Record
Substack — "The Scar" — first-person self-harm account
2020 — public
Add Substack URL
Threads post — "ghosting his bloodline" (screen recorded)
Post-separation 2025
Add Google Drive link
Instagram Live — "happy psychopath" / watch it burn (screen recorded)
2026
Add Google Drive link
Case Overview

Maynard v. Luckett

Primary Goal: Full déchéance de l'autorité parentale — complete termination of Maurice Luckett's parental authority under Article 606 C.c.Q. Secondary goals (child support, debt contribution) are sought only if achievable alongside déchéance — never at the cost of the primary goal.

15+Documented Incidents
100%VA Disability — PTSD
$40KShared Debt (secondary)
~1 yrPhysical Absence
Applicant — Fiona Maynard
DOBJanuary 7, 1994
LocationMontreal, Quebec — NDG/Côte-des-Neiges
RoleSole primary caregiver since Scarlett's birth. 100% of all caregiving, medical, daycare, and daily decisions.
FinancialLegal aid eligible. Commission-based Manulife role (June 2026). Previously on welfare. $40K debt from relationship.
Represented byMe Bianca Scaramuzzi, Les Services Kazuko S.A. (supervised by Me Dario Hajjar)
Respondent — Maurice Luckett
DOBFebruary 13, 1985
LocationAustin, Texas, USA. Left Montreal July 29, 2025 — nine days after Scarlett's 2nd birthday.
Income~$5,700 CAD/month — guaranteed VA disability income, stable and lifelong.
Medical100% VA disability — severe PTSD. Attends VA therapy/meetings (no documented improvement — 100% rating reflects non-improvable condition). Self-disclosed NPD diagnosis. Detached retina — cannot drive.
Represented byMe Alexandre Morin, Morin Avocat, Westmount QC. File AM-321.
Legal Strategy

Six Pillars of the Case

Each pillar independently supports déchéance under Article 606 C.c.Q. Together they form an overwhelming evidentiary foundation. Primary objective: full severance. Child support and debt recovery are secondary and pursued only if compatible with severance.

Pillar 01
Conjugal Violence & Coercive Control
Sustained pattern: financial coercion, emotional abuse, gaslighting, denial of incidents, dysregulation, yelling in the home with Scarlett present, and explicitly conditioning financial support on silence. Documented in writing. Support reduced from nearly $2,700/month to $700/month while earning $5,700/month — a deliberate act, not a hardship.
→ Article 606 C.c.Q. (2022) explicitly names conjugal violence as grounds for déchéance.
Pillar 02
Physical Safety — Scarlett Directly
December 4, 2024: knocked Scarlett (18 months) toward a wall during an anger episode — blamed her. Voice note available. Drove Scarlett in a car with dangerous brakes he was informed of and refused to help fix — a third party later confirmed the car dangerous. Financial abandonment directly created safety risks for Scarlett.
→ Physical endangerment of child and created safety conditions are central to best interest analysis.
Pillar 03
Documented Incapacity
100% VA disability — severe PTSD, not expected to improve. VA therapy attendance does not change the rating — 100% means the condition is severe and chronic by federal determination. Self-disclosed: cannot hug, lift, or comfort Scarlett. Hyperarousal, hypervigilance, distorted reality perception (self-described). Detached retina — cannot drive. Multiple suicide incidents. Published self-harm account (Substack, 2020). Self-disclosed NPD.
→ Federal incapacity determination he cannot contradict without risking his income.
Pillar 04
Abandonment — Gladly
Left nine days after Scarlett's 2nd birthday. Returned to Texas. Absent nearly one year. Minimal genuine interest in contact during absence — demanded frequent contact only when legal proceedings began. Publicly glorified abandoning his previous life on Instagram Live: lighter, shotgun sound, "watch it burn," evil laugh, "I'm a happy psychopath." This was not reluctant departure — it was celebrated.
→ Abandonment + public glorification of it. No reasonable path to stable future caregiving role.
Pillar 05
Financial Abandonment
Reduced support nearly 75% from ~$2,700 to $700/month while earning $5,700/month. Directed family to food bank knowing Scarlett's specific dietary needs. Conditioned support on silence (December 30, 2025 — written). Left family facing potential eviction. Fiona drove Uber Eats with Scarlett to afford food. Scarlett transported in dangerous vehicle (failing brakes) because there was no money to fix it.
→ Financial coercion explicitly named as conjugal violence in Article 606 (2022 amendment).
Pillar 06 — Best Interest
Best Interest of Scarlett
His disability makes independent caregiving demonstrably unsafe — his own admission. His conduct shows Scarlett is not at the center of his concerns (glorified abandonment, food bank directive, dangerous car ignored). Forced ongoing contact perpetuates harm to primary caregiver — directly affecting Scarlett's stability. Growing psychological risk from documented reality distortion as she ages. Quebec courts have held a mother's ongoing trauma from forced contact is not in the child's best interest.
→ Both cumulative Article 606 criteria met: serious grounds AND best interest of the child.
Direct Quotations

His Own Words

Every quote below is Maurice Luckett's own statement — written, recorded, or publicly published. No interpretation required.

"I cannot ground myself and am a danger inside unless I go outside."
November 20, 2024 — in shared home with Scarlett present
Self-admission of danger in the family home. A parent who states they are a "danger inside" is providing their own evidence against unsupervised access.
"There are lots of times I just can't hug her." / "If my body cannot do anything I will not move." / "It depends on my body."
December 5, 2024 — recorded conversation
Self-admitted incapacity for basic caregiving — hugging and lifting a toddler. His own recorded words, not Fiona's characterization.
"YES OUR debt."
November 27, 2025 — text message
Written acknowledgment of the $40K debt as shared. Note: debt recovery is a secondary goal only if achievable alongside full severance.
"That's not right and can impact my business, which also then impacts me being able to send money if I can't make money."
December 30, 2025 — text message
Explicit written conditioning of Scarlett's basic needs on Fiona's silence. Quebec case law cites this exact mechanism as grounds for déchéance.
"You being white is not the only reason I don't like you, I don't like you because you're a bitch."
July 15, 2025 — recorded in digital journal same date
Gendered slur combined with racial reference directed at Scarlett's mother. Contemporaneous journal entry establishes date and exact wording.
"I'm probably somewhat of a psychopath, which is OK. I'm a happy psychopath." / Describes having multiple voices he pours two cups of tea for and converses with.
Public Instagram Live — 2026 (screen recorded)
Public, voluntary, on-camera self-identification as psychopath while simultaneously pursuing legal access to a three-year-old. Multiple voices he converses with — corroborates written and verbal disclosures about not perceiving reality as others do.
"And I cut my right arm. Inside of the forearm, tracking toward the elbow, about four inches. [...] It was quiet. It was intentional."
Published Substack — 2020 — voluntary public first-person account
His own published account of intentional self-harm. Part of multi-year pattern: 2020 (self-harm), November 2024 (suicide note), October 2025 (phone threat). Published by him.
Shadow Realm Statement: "You allowed demonic energy to enter your body in sexual ways. Demons that I used Seraphim energy to remove from your stomach, lungs and both intestines, AND to free your mother from the debt your family owes to The Shadow Realm — which I sacrificed my life for."
Text message — during relationship — presented as factual reality
Presented as undisputed fact during a relationship argument. Consistent with his verbal disclosure that he does not perceive reality as others do, and his public description of multiple conversational voices. Among the strongest documented evidence of disconnection from shared reality.
Legal Framework

Article 606 C.c.Q. — The Law

Current as of June 6, 2023. The 2022–2023 amendments significantly strengthened grounds for déchéance by explicitly naming conjugal violence.

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 documented across multiple sources.
✓Best Interest of the Child: Independent caregiving demonstrably unsafe (his own admission). Forced contact perpetuates harm to primary caregiver. Growing psychological risk from reality distortion as Scarlett ages.
✓Family/Conjugal Violence (2022 amendment): Financial coercion, emotional abuse, and coercive control are explicitly covered. The money-for-silence mechanism is the clearest single example.
Child Support Alongside Déchéance
Child support is the child's right — not a parental privilege — and therefore survives termination of parental authority under Quebec case law.
✓At least one Quebec judgment has granted total déchéance AND child support in the same ruling. The child was also exempted from any future obligation to support the father in adulthood.
!Counsel's position to resolve: Me Scaramuzzi indicated pursuing déchéance may preclude child support. This conflicts with case precedent and Article 585 C.c.Q. Needs specific citation and resolution before strategy is finalized.
!Fiona's position: Full severance is the primary and non-negotiable goal. Child support and 50% debt contribution are sought only if achievable alongside déchéance — never instead of it.
VA Disability + Therapy Attendance
Maurice attends VA therapy and regular military meetings. This does not change the legal argument — and may strengthen it.
✓A 100% VA disability rating is a federal determination that the condition is severe and not expected to substantially improve. Therapy attendance is already factored into this determination — the rating exists alongside his treatment, not because treatment has been withheld.
✓The legal question under Divorce Act s.16 is whether he has taken concrete measures to prevent future violence and improve caregiving capacity. Years of therapy attendance with no improvement in the underlying PTSD rating is evidence that the condition is treatment-resistant, not that he has addressed the safety concerns.
✓He cannot simultaneously maintain a 100% disability claim to receive $5,700/month and argue to a Quebec court that his capacity has substantially improved. The disability income depends on the condition remaining severe.
Quebec Jurisprudence

Case Precedents

Add and remove precedents as you research. Each entry links directly to the case. Click the case link to open the full judgment.

+ Add Quebec Case
Coercive Control as Serious Grounds
"Coercive control creates fear of the partner's reactions if certain arbitrary rules are not respected and leads to an unhealthy, toxic, and difficult-to-end relationship. The Court is of the opinion that domestic violence which results in coercive control constitutes a serious reason justifying, where appropriate, the partial or total forfeiture of parental authority within the meaning of Article 606 C.c.Q., because it has an irreparable impact on children born of a dysfunctional union."
Our case: Dec 30, 2025 money-for-silence message explicitly conditions Scarlett's basic needs on compliance with an arbitrary rule.
Mother's Ongoing Symptoms as Best Interest Factor
"The trial judge concluded that déchéance was necessary because there remained a risk that the child would be exposed to domestic violence in the future, and the psychological symptoms the mother experienced as a result of the violence she suffered would persist as long as she was forced to maintain contact with the father due to their joint obligations toward their child."
Our case: Forced ongoing contact through joint parental obligations perpetuates harm to Fiona as primary caregiver — directly affecting Scarlett's stability.
Sole Caregiver / Legal Structure Disconnected from Reality
"For several years, the child has lived in a family environment where the applicant alone assumes all significant parental responsibilities. Nothing in the evidence reasonably suggests a future, stable, and meaningful resumption of the defendant's parental role. Maintaining the defendant's parental authority would risk perpetuating a legal structure disconnected from the family reality experienced by the child. Parental authority is not based solely on the biological link, but also on the actual and sustained exercise of the responsibilities it entails."
Our case: Fiona has been sole caregiver since birth. His 100% disability — and its persistence despite therapy — makes future stable caregiving structurally implausible.
Total Déchéance + Child Support in Same Ruling
"GRANTS the application for deprivation of parental authority, for a change of name and the child support; ORDERS the total deprivation of parental authority; EXEMPTS the child from her obligation of support to the defendant."
Our case: Establishes that full déchéance and child support are not mutually exclusive. Both can and have been granted in the same Quebec ruling. Child support is the child's right — it survives termination of parental authority.
Proactive Defense

His Anticipated Claims — Context & Response

Click any claim to expand the full context and response. Every item has a documented, specific, contextual answer. None constitute coercive control — they are reactions to documented triggers, not initiating patterns.

CLAIM: The legal document was coercion / blackmail / manipulation▾
Context: Maurice had declared he was leaving for Texas. Fiona told him she would not travel to the US without a written agreement because she feared he would prevent Scarlett from returning to Canada. This was not manipulation — it was a documented, honest safety concern.

Notary Defense: The agreement was signed before a notary, whose role is to confirm voluntary signing without duress. He raised no objection at the time. He cannot now claim coercion without explaining why he signed voluntarily before an independent officer of the law.

His Own Words Defeat This Claim: In the same text exchange where he called it blackmail, he ultimately agreed: "Yes, I'll stop talking about breaking up." A person under genuine coercion does not negotiate and then comply.
CLAIM: She controlled my movements — library, working with women (approx. June 2025)▾
Context: By June 2025, Fiona had documented evidence of Maurice looking at explicit content while she was pregnant, replying to women on social media against agreed boundaries, and consistently refusing to hold emotional space for her while demonstrating capacity to do so for other women. Her discomfort was a direct, traceable reaction to documented trust breaches.

The Distinction: Coercive control uses movement restriction to isolate and dominate. Fiona raised concerns rooted in specific documented behavior. Courts trained in domestic violence understand the difference between control and reaction to breach of trust.
CLAIM: She tracked my location — controlling and invasive▾
Context: Both parties agreed to mutual location sharing from early in the relationship. Fiona's monitoring intensified during two specific documented periods: (1) after discovering he was looking at explicit content while she was pregnant; (2) during active suicidal ideation — she was monitoring his safety.

Function Is Different: Monitoring someone who has expressed desire to die is a safety response, not surveillance. Courts assess the function of behavior. His location requests for her had no equivalent safety rationale.
CLAIM: She made me kneel — racially charged humiliation▾
Context: This occurred immediately after he called her a bitch and a slut. She was in genuine distress and asked him to physically acknowledge the harm he caused. She did not initiate the verbal degradation.

Mutuality Defense: The day after this incident, Maurice made the same request of Fiona — asking her to kneel in apology. She complied. This establishes the gesture as a mutual dynamic in their relationship. A person who genuinely experienced racial trauma does not then use the identical gesture as a power tool the following day.

Race Weaponization Pattern: Throughout the relationship, Maurice documented using racial accusations as a control mechanism — claiming identical behaviors were acceptable when he did them but racist when Fiona did them. This pattern is documented in text exchanges.
CLAIM: She isolated me — I had no friends in Canada▾
Context: Maurice chose to relocate internationally from Austin to Montreal. Geographic distance from an existing network is the natural consequence of his own decision — not something Fiona created.

His own disclosures (PTSD hyperarousal, hypervigilance, social withdrawal) describe difficulty with sustained social engagement due to his condition, not due to Fiona's restrictions. His Instagram Live describes himself as someone who burns his previous life and plants in new soil — suggesting social isolation predates this relationship entirely.
CLAIM: She wouldn't let me get therapy — especially with a woman therapist▾
Truth: Fiona did not object to therapy. She expressed specific discomfort with him processing emotional intimacy with a female therapist because he consistently refused to hold that space for her at home. This is a documented, specific concern — not a blanket denial of mental health care.

Additionally: he has been attending VA therapy for years. His 100% disability rating is maintained despite that attendance — confirming the condition is severe and treatment-resistant, not that therapy was withheld.
CLAIM: She said she didn't want to be alive — also suicidal▾
Her Own Words Provide Context: In the documented August 2025 exchange, Fiona responded directly: "Because when I say I don't wanna be alive anymore, I'm still committed to working through relationship dynamics via communication and forgiveness. Since those are the foundational pillars of a relationship." She self-contextualized the statement in the same message.

Categorical Difference: Fiona's statement was relational exhaustion, immediately followed by a commitment to communication and forgiveness. Maurice's pattern: handwritten suicide note (Nov 2024), published self-harm account cutting his forearm 4 inches (Substack, 2020), second phone threat post-separation (Oct 2025). One is rhetorical distress, self-explained. The other is a documented multi-year clinical pattern across different life circumstances.
CLAIM: She called me names — compiled list of labels▾
His List Included: Door Knob, Master, Peanut Gallery, Kid, Narcissist, Demon, Ungodly, Not A Provider, Not A Man, etc.

Context: Several items (Door Knob, Peanut Gallery, Kid) are common expressions not typically understood as racial slurs — his framing of these as racist is itself an example of the documented pattern of weaponizing race to control conversations. The remaining labels are characterizations of his behavior in reactive moments during conflict.

Asymmetry: His verbal abuse: "FUCK YOU" with physical head-thrust aggression, "you being white is not the only reason I don't like you, I don't like you because you're a bitch," "slut." One side has a documented initiating pattern. The other has reactive responses.

Most Revealing Part of His List: The same document contains his statement that Fiona "offered her body to demons" and that he used "Seraphim energy to remove demons from her stomach, lungs and intestines" and freed her mother from "a debt to The Shadow Realm." Presented as factual reality during an argument — among the strongest evidence of disconnection from shared reality.
CLAIM: She took Scarlett without permission — 8-hour trip to sister (child abduction)▾
Context: Immediately before this trip, Maurice declared he would not hold emotional space in the relationship. Fiona was already heading to the park with Scarlett when she decided to visit her sister. She left her location sharing active throughout — Maurice could see her location at all times. She visited a family member. She returned home.

The Irony: Maurice threatened to leave and packed his bags on four documented occasions. His July 29, 2025 departure — nine days after Scarlett's birthday, subsequently publicly glorified — is the actual documented sustained absence in this case. An 8-hour visit to a sister with location active does not constitute child abduction by any legal standard.
Counsel Notes

For Bianca — Questions & Notes

A private space for counsel to add questions, flag items, or note follow-up actions. Click any note body to edit it directly. Add new notes with the button below.

Open Question — Child Support + Déchéance
Fiona's position: full déchéance is the primary and non-negotiable goal. Child support until Scarlett turns 18 is sought only if achievable alongside déchéance. At least one Quebec case has granted both in the same ruling. Please clarify whether this is legally impossible in our situation or a practical enforcement concern (Texas).
Strategy Note — VA Disability & Therapy Attendance
Maurice attends VA therapy. This does not change the argument — 100% rating exists alongside therapy, confirming treatment-resistant severity. The legal question under Divorce Act s.16 is whether concrete measures have improved caregiving capacity. Years of therapy with no rating change is evidence the condition is severe and not substantially improving.
To Discuss — NPD Diagnosis
Maurice self-disclosed a Narcissistic Personality Disorder diagnosis by the US military. Dario mentioned we may be able to formally request this through VA/military records. Can we pursue this? If confirmed, it is directly relevant to incapacity and best interest analysis.
To Discuss — Strategic Disclosure
Fiona's preference: disclose only what is legally required to opposing counsel at each stage. Do not give the other side unnecessary time to prepare against the full weight of the evidence. Please advise on what is required vs. discretionary at each stage of proceedings.
To Discuss — Additional Concern (Unverified)
There is one further matter to raise in consultation — a concern of a more serious nature regarding Maurice's behavior toward minors. Remains unverified and should not distract from the primary arguments, which are independently winnable. Fiona will detail at first meeting. Please advise on how and whether to pursue.
Correspondence

Key Emails to Counsel

Key communications sent to Me Scaramuzzi for reference.