Dad wants kids kept from dominatrix mom


Praxius
#1
Things just keep getting weird today:

Halifax man says teens are living with relatives and doing well there
Dad wants kids kept from dominatrix mom - Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.ca (external - login to view)

Quote:

A Halifax man fears a judge will send his three teenage children back to live with their mother, a dominatrix who admits to dressing her teenage daughter in bondage gear and posing for photos with her in a sex dungeon.

The daughter, then 15, posted the photos, which include a shot of her wearing a dog collar and leash held by her mom, on the Internet last June.

When the father saw those, he called child protection workers, who alerted Halifax Regional Police.

On the advice of a child welfare worker, all three teens moved out of the home. The kids were allowed to return to their mother in July but authorities seized them again in November when it came to light that the same teenage girl was working as a makeup artist for pornographic photo and film shoots in their apartment building.

"I’m a liberal guy, but you have to get boundaries in your life when you have kids," said the father, who can’t be named for fear of identifying the children.

He’s not arguing for custody of the children at the hearing in Halifax family court later this month. The kids are living with relatives and seem to be doing well there, said their 45-year-old dad.

But he’s worried the judge will give the children back to their 42-year-old mother.

"She’s arguing the kids are not in need of protection," he said Wednesday of his estranged wife, whom he met when they studied at Dalhousie University.

Court documents paint a strange picture of the woman’s mothering style.

She was aware of the racy photos of her daughter on the web and "did not see any problem with the pictures, saying her daughter wanted to become an ‘alternative model,’ and they were ‘funny pictures,’ " says a report that Jean Webb, a lawyer with the provincial Justice Department, wrote last month for Associate Chief Justice Robert Ferguson.

A social worker who visited the home "noticed marijuana, a roach clip used to smoke marijuana, and whips in the living room, all of which were in plain sight of the children," Ms. Webb wrote.

Both the mother and daughter, now 16, "acknowledged a ‘dungeon’ being downstairs from their apartment and both admitted to being in the ‘dungeon,’ " she wrote.

When the mom got her kids back last summer, she signed an agreement to "co-operate with any services and supports that the Department of Community Services department considered necessary, provide a safe and secure environment for the children free from adult language, information and materials, insure the children are sheltered from inappropriate associations" and to work on turning her life around, Ms. Webb wrote.

But in November, authorities got several tips from confidential sources about the teenage girl "being exposed to ‘adult’ conversations concerning sex shoots between adults," Ms. Webb wrote, noting that the same sources expressed concerns about pot use in the home.

When social workers visited the home, the mother acknowledged her daughter "had applied makeup for an adult entertainment photo shoot. An odour of marijuana was detected."

The mom, who did not respond to an interview request from The Chronicle Herald, acknowledged smoking pot. But court documents say she told social workers she wasn’t willing to attend counselling and would not send her children, some of whom have missed a considerable amount of school, back to class until this month.

Based on that evidence, a judge sent the three teens to live with relatives.

In an attempt to get her children back, the mother has hired Andrew Pavey, a Halifax lawyer suspended for 18 months by the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society in 2001 for professional misconduct. He had sex with a female client, gave her money for crack cocaine and used the drug with her. He was representing the woman, who was pregnant at the time, in a child custody case.

Wow.... classy.

Quote:

In the case involving the three teens, Mr. Pavey has argued some of the evidence from a social worker be struck from the record as "false, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious," say court documents.

In a report written Dec. 29, Mary McGrath, a psychologist who met with the mother, says photos the woman posted on the Internet "depicted domination, degradation and humiliation of men and women (predominantly women), including what appeared to be (the mom) in bondage, women bound with rope, naked women in chains and women wearing gags."

Yup..... that's bondage.

Quote:

Ms. McGrath tried telling the mother such photos "could normalize this behaviour with impressionable children and present a skewed outlook on future relationships," say court documents.

The mother "said she had never considered it from that perspective, instead having thought that this could actually help her children to develop a liberal and tolerant outlook on life."

Alrighty fellas, let it all out.....
 
karrie
#2
Don't let the kids in on your bedroom play. Seems simple enough. Keep the bedroom stuff confined to the bedroom, or at the very least, the dungeon door LOCKED. Moron.
 
#juan
#3
Seems to me there are people who just shouldn't have children.
 
TenPenny
#4
Whatever the mother wants to do, that's fine. Taking pictures of her daughter like that is verging on child pornography. She's nuts.
 
Praxius
#5
I see it this way: You do what you want to do in your own bedroom/closet/dungeon with your partner(s) - you leave your kids out of the situation as best as you can.

However, having your own Bondage/S&M dungeon in your own home is a bit hard to keep away from your children, because given enough time, nosey kids are gonna want to find out what's down there.

Eventually, whatever the situation, they're going to find out, whether by complete accident or due to their own curiosity of what the hell those sounds are late at night that keep them awake.

Explaining to them so that they understand that you're not out to torture or harm others, and that you're not evil, per se, and basically getting it out in the open is a good thing, as nobody wants their kids to become scared of them.....

..... but you don't drag your kids into it to involve them into your personal kinks. You explain to them how it is, and then you dictate to them that this place is off limits and is your own "Home away from home" or however you want to word it. Leave them to discover what they are interested in and/or like on their own in their own time like everybody else.

Don't start getting involved in shaping their sexual lives.... that's like a parent trying to form their kid straight or gay..... er... sorta.
 
karrie
#6
I disagree on a certain level Prax. My parents had stuff in the house of a sexual nature. But it was hidden and/or locked away. So, IF someone was nosy and found it (ie my brother, I was an angel), it was not okay to discuss it. IF we heard something at night, we knew that was their business, not ours, it was not okay to discuss it.

We talked biology, we talked about the social side of sex, talked about birth control, when it was okay, etc., but discussing YOUR specific individual sex life was not done unless there was some sort of a problem (ie, you needed the pill, condoms, etc.). It worked just fine, and even if we'd unlocked a door to a dungeon, we would have just kept our mouths shut about it and pretended we didn't know. Knowing mom and dad were sexually active and in love with one another was all the info we needed about their particular sex life, and being armed with the info we needed to make decisions about our own was all we needed for ours.
 
Praxius
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I disagree on a certain level Prax. My parents had stuff in the house of a sexual nature. But it was hidden and/or locked away. So, IF someone was nosy and found it (ie my brother, I was an angel), it was not okay to discuss it. IF we heard something at night, we knew that was their business, not ours, it was not okay to discuss it.

Well that was pretty much the same as my upbringing, so I agree to a degree with what you said above..... but times are a changing, kids are becoming more aware at a younger age these days.... I knew all the ins and outs by the time I was in grade 4.... my younger counsin learned much younger then that. We didn't need to really discuss it with them, because we pretty much already knew.

Every situation is different, I'm just saying in a worst case situation where it's right there in front of them and they already have a gist of what it's all for but don't completely understand and may take things the wrong way, the above might be a good solution.

I know for myself, I would be more willing to talk to my kids about sex and give them the most information I can in an educational manner of what to avoid and when or how long they should wait.... then to just keep it all hush hush and wait for them to figure it all out on their own. I've known way too many friends who done a few silly things in their lives that they may have not done if they knew a few things beforehand.

Of course, they're not going to hear any of my personal likes and dislikes in regards to sex unless I have no choice and it's something they stumbled apon, I ain't gonna lie to them.... but I certainly sure as hell ain't gonna include them into it.... geez.... that mother is one screw ball that's for sure.

Quote:

We talked biology, we talked about the social side of sex, talked about birth control, when it was okay, etc., but discussing YOUR specific individual sex life was not done unless there was some sort of a problem (ie, you needed the pill, condoms, etc.). It worked just fine, and even if we'd unlocked a door to a dungeon, we would have just kept our mouths shut about it and pretended we didn't know. Knowing mom and dad were sexually active and in love with one another was all the info we needed about their particular sex life, and being armed with the info we needed to make decisions about our own was all we needed for ours.

Fair enough.... for me and what I said above in my previous post, I was moreso directed towards if I had a dungeon in my house and they stumbled apon it.... I'd rather them know the truth then think I'm some kind of person who tortured and chopped up people or something.... the last thing I need is a visit from the cops and having to explain it to them as well.
 
karrie
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post



Fair enough.... for me and what I said above in my previous post, I was moreso directed towards if I had a dungeon in my house and they stumbled apon it.... I'd rather them know the truth then think I'm some kind of person who tortured and chopped up people or something.... the last thing I need is a visit from the cops and having to explain it to them as well.

lol... I hadn't really thought about it from that pov. If that were the case, fine. But I have a feeling most kids know all about the S and M scene fairly young now.
 
Zzarchov
#9
Side note:

There is nothing illegal about her job in any way. Why does the state get to decide when a legal profession is wrong for children to be around? if its so damaging, make it illegal.

Now in this case that seems a bit stupid, we can all agree "She should know better" based on our social norms.

But where does "inappropriate job" end. Maybe the government decides if your a garbage collector or Janitor you shouldn't have kids, because they can be teased at school.

Maybe they decide if you work for an editorial that has unpopular views you are damaging your childrens development by exposing them to unpopular views.

Slippery slope, even if this particular issue is within bounds we are willing to tread.
 
karrie
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

Side note:

There is nothing illegal about her job in any way. Why does the state get to decide when a legal profession is wrong for children to be around? if its so damaging, make it illegal.

Now in this case that seems a bit stupid, we can all agree "She should know better" based on our social norms.

But where does "inappropriate job" end. Maybe the government decides if your a garbage collector or Janitor you shouldn't have kids, because they can be teased at school.

Maybe they decide if you work for an editorial that has unpopular views you are damaging your childrens development by exposing them to unpopular views.

Slippery slope, even if this particular issue is within bounds we are willing to tread.

It's not really a slippery slope at all Zz. Stripper is a perfectly legal profession as well, but, if you get caught letting your son flick loonies at your cooch, or teaching your daughter how to hold a rolled up poster between her labia, there's gonna be trouble.

This is a matter of exposing children to sexual content. Plain and simple. And while perfectly legal (just like my hubby and I engage in perfectly legal acts in our bedroom at night) making it a family affair (say for instance hubby and I decide that we prefer the couch before supper instead), is not okay from a child welfare point of view.

Simple. And not slippery at all unless you're using too much lube.
 
shadowshiv
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

It's not really a slippery slope at all Zz. Stripper is a perfectly legal profession as well, but, if you get caught letting your son flick loonies at your cooch, or teaching your daughter how to hold a rolled up poster between her labia, there's gonna be trouble.

This is a matter of exposing children to sexual content. Plain and simple. And while perfectly legal (just like my hubby and I engage in perfectly legal acts in our bedroom at night) making it a family affair (say for instance hubby and I decide that we prefer the couch before supper instead), is not okay from a child welfare point of view.

Simple. And not slippery at all unless you're using too much lube.

That and the fact that she took pictures of her 15 year old daughter in bondage gear, which is not something that she should have done.
 
Zzarchov
#12
Side note: Since when is it illegal to expose your teenage child to sexual content. As I recall there is actually a point there where the state exposes your children to sexual content, in the form of sex education, which also deals with issues like bondage. As praxius pointed out in the "sext" thread, it isn't actually any different than a swimsuit.

So far it hasn't shown she has done anything wrong other than pot use. She just seems to be telling her kids that closing your eyes and thinking of England isn't the normal method of sex in her "Birds and the Gimped out Bees" speech.
 
karrie
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

Side note: Since when is it illegal to expose your teenage child to sexual content. As I recall there is actually a point there where the state exposes your children to sexual content, in the form of sex education, which also deals with issues like bondage. As praxius pointed out in the "sext" thread, it isn't actually any different than a swimsuit.

So far it hasn't shown she has done anything wrong other than pot use. She just seems to be telling her kids that closing your eyes and thinking of England isn't the normal method of sex in her "Birds and the Gimped out Bees" speech.

No one on here has used the word 'illegal' have they?

What has been discussed is child welfare. Many many issues in which social services needs to step into a home are not to do with anything illegal... like alcoholism. It's not illegal (it's actually also something the state exposes us to). Mental illness is not illegal. Yet, if occurring unchecked in a home with a child, they threaten the welfare of that child, and that is when social services intervenes.
 
TenPenny
#14
Now, let's think about what would happen if a father took pictures of his 15 year old daughter in bondage gear, wearing a dog collar and leash.

Would everyone be rushing around to defend the father's hobbies?
 
Praxius
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Now, let's think about what would happen if a father took pictures of his 15 year old daughter in bondage gear, wearing a dog collar and leash.

Would everyone be rushing around to defend the father's hobbies?

Certainly not..... afterall, men are pigs and don't deserve the benifit of the doubt.... There's still a sexist skew on many things within our society and the father probably would have been beaten on the streets.
 
Zzarchov
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Now, let's think about what would happen if a father took pictures of his 15 year old daughter in bondage gear, wearing a dog collar and leash.

Would everyone be rushing around to defend the father's hobbies?


No, but if the dad had the 15 year old son at a rally preaching about homosexuality as an abomination we'd be having serious issues with trying to take the kid away, even though most of use view that as unwholesome.

Bringing to the point, who decides what level of sexuality (bondage gear, swimsuits, being allowed to have a boyfriend), violence (being a boxer, violent video games) or hatred (Fundementalist Groups, Political Groups, being part of the debate team) is allowed?

In this case the big issue for me isn't this particular instance and if its over the line or not, its who decides where that line is drawn and what are the criteria.


To decide something is bad for childhood development you first need to decide what is acceptable for an adult to be.
 
Said1
#17
Speaking of parents and openness about their sexual preferences.....Whe I was a kid, I had a little friend who's parents were into 'plastic' underwear etc. Her father kept a pair on his easy boy - some colored, some white, some CLEAR. We used to play in his office, where he kept his rolodexs (sp?) full of Polaroids, out in the open, on his desk. Of course, we used to flip through it like we were looking for recipes. Then, all of a sudden, I wasn't allowed to play over there anymore.
 
Praxius
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1View Post

Speaking of parents and openness about their sexual preferences.....Whe I was a kid, I had a little friend who's parents were into 'plastic' underwear etc. Her father kept a pair on his easy boy - some colored, some white, some CLEAR. We used to play in his office, where he kept his rolodexs (sp?) full of Polaroids, out in the open, on his desk. Of course, we used to flip through it like we were looking for recipes. Then, all of a sudden, I wasn't allowed to play over there anymore.

See, ya gotta keep that stuff from your parents or that will happen
 
Said1
#19
Her dad gave me the creeps, it was just as well. My mother did say her mother tried to sell her some plastic items, maybe they had a spat during that discussion. My mother is pretty open minded, she knew about the easyboy, but she didn't know about the photos - so who knows. I should ask her about it. Her step-sibblings wanted nothing to do with him either.
 
karrie
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post


To decide something is bad for childhood development you first need to decide what is acceptable for an adult to be.


You've totally lost me here. You mean that adults should only ever behave or be employed in ways that are acceptable in front of children? Do you really see no line that child welfare needs to draw between bedroom play and family play?
 
karrie
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1View Post

Her dad gave me the creeps, it was just as well. My mother did say her mother tried to sell her some plastic items, maybe they had a spat during that discussion. My mother is pretty open minded, she knew about the easyboy, but she didn't know about the photos - so who knows. I should ask her about it. Her step-sibblings wanted nothing to do with him either.

Sounds like your mom is a smart lady.

One of the big concerns is that leaving sex paraphenalia out and about for children to find is indicative of an attempt to normalize it. It's a big red flag for future abuse. What's the matter with modeling those things for your friend's dad hey? They're sitting out for everyone to see, surely there mustn't be anything shameful about them?
 
Zzarchov
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

You've totally lost me here. You mean that adults should only ever behave or be employed in ways that are acceptable in front of children? Do you really see no line that child welfare needs to draw between bedroom play and family play?

Thats not what im talking about at all, im not sure where you got that from...

The closest im coming to that statement is deciding who draws lines. In that case I don't think Child Welfare should be the one to draw lines about what is "hurting development" unless very specific rules are laid out for whats an "Acceptable adult" that children should be allowed to develop into.

What is innappropriate behaviour? To a huge chunk of the world (and Canadas) population, taking a photo of your kid having a kiss at junior prom is obscene and considered child porn. (seriously, look up the views on Kissing in Indian culture)

If there are to be lines drawn, then draw the lines, explain why and make it all open and not a bunch of "in the air" bullshoi.

You can't give people a badge and a gun (worse the ability to steal children) and then not actualy codify the reasons why and how they can take peoples kids in very concrete ways. This is why our Child Protection services are so corrupt.

Lines obviously need to be drawn, but who draws them, where and why. And why aren't they actually drawn?
 
karrie
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

This is why our Child Protection services are so corrupt.

Lines obviously need to be drawn, but who draws them, where and why. And why aren't they actually drawn?

Last I've heard, child welfare is only an intermediary much like police officers. While officers can attempt to enforce the law as they understand it, it's up to the courts to interpret and apply the guidelines and laws, and it's for the courts to draw the lines you discuss, NOT social workers. Child welfare can't actually 'steal' a child. Courts hold the ultimate say.
 
Risus
#24
Why the hell is this even making the news???

The mother is wacko, keep the kid from her, its not rocket science...
 
Zzarchov
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Last I've heard, child welfare is only an intermediary much like police officers. While officers can attempt to enforce the law as they understand it, it's up to the courts to interpret and apply the guidelines and laws, and it's for the courts to draw the lines you discuss, NOT social workers. Child welfare can't actually 'steal' a child. Courts hold the ultimate say.

Courts are slow, in the mean time you've got no kid. Courts make all kinds of laws, but unless police enforce them, and enforce them as intended, then its pointless.

For instance take Canadian prostitution laws. In some cities cops look the other way, regardless of the breach of laws (Even flagrant ones with ads) in other towns even if prostitutes obey the laws completely, police arrest them, process them, publish the names of the women and the johns, then release them with no charges pressed (because no laws were broken) but a destruction of privacy.

The courts are only powerful if enforced.
 

Similar Threads

13
Don’t Tell the Kids
by inetryconydot | Mar 8th, 2010
292
Fat Kids
by VanIsle | Dec 29th, 2009
0
GHB in kids toy
by DurkaDurka | Nov 6th, 2007
no new posts