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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
Photo of handwritten suicide note
Nov 19, 2024
No link added
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
Voice note — Dec 4 incident (Scarlett knocked toward wall)
Dec 4, 2024
Add Google Drive link
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
Photo of handwritten suicide note — emailed to self same day
Nov 19, 2024
Add Google Drive link
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."
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."
Self-admitted incapacity for basic caregiving — hugging and lifting a toddler. His own recorded words, not Fiona's characterization.
"YES OUR debt."
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."
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."
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, 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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To: Me Bianca Scaramuzzi — Re: Clarification on Child Support + Déchéance
Hi Bianca,
Before anything is filed or proposed to opposing counsel, I want to make sure we are fully aligned on strategy and goals.
PRIMARY GOAL — NON-NEGOTIABLE: Full déchéance de l'autorité parentale under Article 606 C.c.Q. Complete termination of Maurice Luckett's parental authority. This is the only outcome I am unwilling to compromise on.
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. But I do not believe the law requires that choice.
On child support alongside déchéance: you indicated pursuing full déchéance may mean I would not get child support. I have found at least one Quebec case where the court granted total deprivation of parental authority AND ordered child support in the same ruling — on the basis that child support is the child's right, not a parental privilege, and therefore survives termination of parental authority. Article 585 C.c.Q. supports this position. Could you please clarify whether this is a legal impossibility in our situation, or a practical enforcement concern — particularly given that Maurice is in Texas?
I also want you to know that I have approximately 10-15 pages of documented incidents and a full evidence file that I will share at our first consultation. My case is grounded in Article 606 C.c.Q. (2022 amendment), and I have researched Quebec precedents confirming déchéance has been granted on facts comparable to mine.
I am fully prepared to fight this and I look forward to aligning strategy before anything moves.
Thank you,
Fiona Maynard
450 495 8005