A father with violent tendencies and misogynistic views was denied shared custody of his daughter due to concerns for her safety and well-being. The court awarded primary custody to the mother, allowing the father minimal visitation. Judge Serge Gaudet emphasized the father’s lack of involvement in parenting and his focus on personal issues over the child’s needs. The ruling reflects a growing judicial awareness of domestic violence in custody determinations, following recent family law reforms.
Father Denied Shared Custody Due to Misogynistic Views
A father who openly exhibits violent tendencies towards his child’s mother and harbors extremist views was denied shared custody of his daughter. Instead of prioritizing her well-being, he chose to indulge in conspiracy theories, which significantly influenced the court’s decision.
Judge Serge Gaudet from the Superior Court expressed concern over the father’s “stereotypical and misogynistic” perception of women, noting, “He seems to hold women in general responsible for the misfortunes and suffering of men.” This ruling took place at the Valleyfield courthouse, where the couple’s ongoing conflict since their separation in 2021 came to light. Due to family law restrictions, the identities of those involved, including the young child, remain confidential.
Focus on Self-Interest Over Child’s Needs
The mother sought sole custody, while the father requested shared custody. Ultimately, the court awarded the majority of parenting time to the mother, allowing the father limited visitation of one weekend every two weeks. Judge Gaudet remarked, “It is hard to think that it can be in the best interest of a little girl to spend half of her time with a parent who holds such ideas about women,” highlighting the father’s inadequate parenting skills.
Magistrate Gaudet revealed that the father has shown a concerning lack of care for his daughter, prioritizing his own needs over hers. Notably, he refused to feed her breast milk collected during her early years and neglected to sleep nearby her crib, demonstrating a troubling disinterest in her welfare. “After the separation, he did not prioritize the child’s well-being and continued to focus on his personal agenda, often engaging in lengthy discussions laden with conspiracy theories,” the judge explained.
Even post-separation, the father attempted to exert control over the mother, intruding into her home uninvited and making inappropriate advances. “There is an element of domestic violence that cannot be overlooked in determining the sharing of parenting time,” Judge Gaudet noted.
In his defense, the father argued against being labeled misogynistic, claiming that his daughter’s name honors both her mother and an aunt. However, this argument failed to sway the judge’s opinion.
Expert Insights on the Case
Family law attorney Me Sylvie Schirm, who has practiced since 1988, stated that it is uncommon to see the term “masculinist” referenced in custody rulings. “While conspiracy and misogyny played a role, the key factor in the judge’s decision was the father’s minimal involvement in the child’s life,” she explained. “He was unaware of how shared custody works or even the name of the school he wished to enroll his daughter in.”
Me Schirm also highlighted that the court took into account the domestic violence the mother endured when determining parenting time. “This approach is relatively new, following the 2022 reform of family law, which mandates that courts consider domestic violence in custody decisions,” she concluded.