A friend sent me a photo awhile back. The photo is of my friend holding his newborn daughter. He wrote this about that day, nineteen years ago, "She was only 3 days old and about to come home for the first time. She was as light as a leaf and I thought she might blow away she was so small. I was so proud. She was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen and I loved her from the minute I saw her - and maybe even before that!" This was a father in love.
Then he went on, "I will always love her - even while I have not seen her for three years. My "little one" lives on in my memory, and I keep this picture to remind me that I was once a Dad who simply lived and loved and tried to be and do the best I could."
You see, five years ago this Canadian man's life turned inside out.
His story was told in an article entitled "Dads Under Fire" in the Western Standard. It starts:
Dads Under Fire Dads who own guns are increasingly being labelled "dangerous" by therapists, cops and ex-wives who want to keep them from their kids
Candis McLean - June 13, 2005
Only a few years ago Jeremy Swanson was living the great Canadian dream. He had a wife, with a growing business of her own, three kids, a home in Ottawa's exclusive Hunt Club district and a good job in the civil service. Even better, as a top official at the Canadian War Museum, he was living every military buff's dream. He had won employee of the year in 1996, after arranging a life-sized re-enactment of a Second World War air raid, replete with pyrotechnic explosions and Lancaster bombers swooping over the nation's capital. The event was such a hit, Swanson not only won accolades within his department, but, thanks to his dedication to preserving military history, he received word he had been nominated to receive the Order of Canada in 1995.
Today, stuck in a YMCA in downtown Ottawa, Swanson hasn't seen his kids in nearly two years. He's not allowed to, unless both he and his kids undergo a series of psychological tests. The lover of all Canadian military history has been branded a dangerous criminal--not because of anything he's done, but because of what he owns. "They're my children," says Swanson. "Who are these faceless people? I'm speaking for hundreds of men who are being treated as second-class citizens and dangerous criminals." Swanson's Canadian dream turned into a great Canadian nightmare in December 2000, when he travelled to his native South Africa for a much-needed holiday and was served with divorce papers while overseas. "Should you attempt to enter the house or create a disturbance on the property," the notice read, "Mrs. Swanson has been advised to notify the police." The public servant and family man was about to find out what it's like to be branded a potential murderer--simply, he says, because he happened to own guns. And he's not alone: increasingly, say family law experts, firearms are taking centre stage in custody and divorce disputes. With the anti-gun atmosphere in Canada today, almost anyone going through a difficult divorce can be classified a potential threat by law enforcement agencies if he happens to own weapons. And that not only gives the other party the upper hand, it can ruin the gun owner's life forever.
If you register on the website you can read the rest of the article here.
Please read this history and decide for yourself if justice has been done. Then say a prayer for my friend Jeremy Swanson as he stands before the judge once again today. There is an action alert to follow.
Background: Marriage, employment, home Jeremy Swanson married Susan Scott on 26 April 1985 in Cape Town South Africa.
In 1988 they immigrated to Canada with their baby daughter Kirsten. The marriage was happy and stable and replete with all of the normal stresses and strains of a normal marriage. Short-term conflict was quickly and amicably resolved. There was never any violence or abuse of any kind.
By the 1990s the Swanson’s were established as a highly successful and productive immigrant family with 3 children. Susan was running her own business (Brain Injury Management-later Swanson and Associates which had been supported and started by both of them) and Jeremy enjoying a high profile and highly successful career at the Canadian Museum of Civilization-War Museum. Well known in the media-especially radio and television-in the diplomatic, veteran and government circles, he received the Corporation’s Top Employee Award 1997 (1st out of 640.) He also received the top employee award in 1994 plus many subsequent nominations from the War Museum itself. In 1996 he was recommended for the Order of Canada. In October 2000 Jeremy and Susan purchased a large family house (their dream house) in Hunt Club, a prosperous suburb of Ottawa.
Important dates- leading to the separation
October 1999–Jeremy began a period of sick leave from work due to physical and emotional burn out. This came about as a result of having to cope with the on-going pressure of racial and cultural abuse and constant bullying from a new boss while pushing himself to achieve great success finally took its toll.
December 2000–Jeremy went to visit his family in South Africa. Mrs. Swanson encouraged him to take the trip as part of his recovery process. A stay of 6 weeks was suggested and arranged. During that time Susan and Jeremy spoke regularly on the telephone. All appeared to be ‘normal’.
January 2001–Just 2 days before Jeremy was due to return home to Ottawa he received the separation papers, via email, from his wife’s lawyers. He was asked not to return to the family home. A friend was sent to pick him up from the airport. Jeremy moved to a downtown hotel and then later as his situation became worse, to an apartment/bed-sit.
Important dates following the separation
January 2001–all attempts at mediation failed. Mrs. Swanson did not want to mediate. She had made her decision to divorce. Felt no compulsion to give a reason. Jeremy wanted his say and had questions to ask but was not allowed to do so within the few sessions that were arranged.
February / March 2001–Susan and Jeremy Swanson were receiving help from their respective psychologists. The three Swanson children were also receiving help from a child psychologist.
POINTS to consider: - Mrs. Swanson arranges support for her divorce
Mrs. Swanson had said that she was in a state of ‘severe depression’ between December 2000 and April 2001 which was the exact period of the separation.
Mrs. Swanson (prior to the separation) obtained a ‘good mother’ reference from a psychologist who was also a personal friend. The implication here was that Jeremy was a ‘bad father’. This was an ethics offence in contravention of the College of Psychologists code of ethics.
April 2001-The children’s psychologist (another friend of Mrs. Swanson) recommended that Mr. Swanson’s *firearms collection” be removed from the marital home as she feared a ‘murder- suicide situation’. This was despite the fact that there was no evidence of this and she only met Mr. Swanson once at a social event. She had never examined him. Another breach of ethics.
Mr. Swanson underwent tests with his own psychologist. Despite the lasting shock and pain experienced as a result of the separation from his family, Jeremy was not showing any sign of any form of mental disorder or imbalance. There was no evidence or finding of paranoia. This was formally included in a report.
Firearms–the disclosure document provides evidence that the collection was ‘used’ by Mrs. Swanson to secure grounds for instigating the divorce. If Jeremy could be ‘seen’ to be dangerous then she could be justified in her actions. The firearms (a collection pieced together over 16 years and consists mainly of 2 firearms presented as gifts-along with others donated to the Canadian War Museum- from a grateful veteran and 1 item bought for historic value in 1988 and another brought legally into Canada from South Africa as part of Jeremy’s immigration property list. Others retained for sentimental reasons such as- a penknife belonging to Jeremy’s late father). Storage of the firearms in the home: was in a double-locked CSA-approved and regulation metal safe. This was located in the basement at the family home in Hunt Club, Ottawa and was protected by alarm systems. Disclosure later revealed that when Mrs. Swanson called the police in April 2001 (3 months after the separation) relating her ‘fear’ of having the items in the home, the officers were shown the items strewn through the house, including the master bedroom. Jeremy had left them, as he always did, locked away in the safe-according to the law and according the forearms safety regulations. In removing the firearms and placing them around the home– for obvious effect – Mrs. Swanson had created a negative impression of her husband that was entirely lacking in truth. The firearms issue remains unresolved. Jeremy is determined to clear his name and reputation in the eyes of the law and for his children.
May 2001–The child psychologist who, only weeks before, had declared a ‘murder/suicide situation’, recommended in a report that the Swanson children would benefit from seeing more of their father on a regular basis. (Contradicting her opinion, just weeks before, that Jeremy could be a ‘danger’ to his children).
August 2001–Jeremy, by chance, learned from his son Andrew (during an access visit) that the antique firearm collection had been taken from the family home by a team of police officers and the bomb Squad and in full view of the neighbours and with the children present. The collection had been seized for ‘safekeeping’ (according to the findings of Jeremy’s lawyer) in April 2001. Jeremy was not-and still to this day has never been interviewed by the police. He was never informed of the seizure, nor did he ever consent to the seizure of his collection.
January 2002–Jeremy returned to work to be told that his job no longer existed and he was dismissed. So began a long-standing battle with the Canadian War Museum to fight a case of constructive dismissal. (This was finally resolved in February 2003 after a long and bitter struggle in a secret and confidential settlement for personal damages).
November 2003–Jeremy’s lawyer attended a JPT re: the confiscation of the firearms. There were no charges against Jeremy to discuss in the presence of the judge. The judge expressed her disbelief as to why Jeremy’s case was being discussed when there were no charges. Collection held for safekeeping for 12 months. The firearms are still in police custody and new “evidence” without disclosure is being presented every time the firearms are supposed to be returned. Jeremy has not been able to nor can he register these while they are being held and he is unable to store them securely at any address since the separation. The police could destroy them although there was no need for them to be removed from the marital home in the first place. He is fighting this as it impacts negatively on him and his CPIC record.
November 2003–Jeremy was forced, by lack of finances, to leave his down town apartment (bed-sit) to live in the YMCA. He resides there now and survives on handouts and on welfare while continuing his search for employment.
December 2004–unable to reach an amicable settlement, and despite several efforts to achieve a fair settlement, the case of Swanson v Swanson endured a 5 day trial. Jeremy had refused a $10,000 ‘payoff’ in return for his share of the marital home which had been on offered the condition that he ‘disappear’ and waive his right to any share in anything from the home and the marriage. Jeremy felt hurt and insulted by the idea of the ‘pay off’ and refused on that basis.
January 2005 – The judge’s decision (skewed and biased in several respects) of the Family Law case makes Jeremy the loser in every way. (See below – legal situation now…)
The legal situation now …As of the end of January 2005
Jeremy has lodged an Appeal against the judge’s decision on the grounds that the judge accepted statements from Mrs.Swanson’s counsel without asking for proof / confirmation of accusations made against Mr. Swanson OR provided incomplete or incorrect information e.g. in checking Jeremy’s job search record (in an attempt to present the idea that Jeremy had purposely remained unemployed) Mrs Swanson’s counsel stated that one prospective employer–they said the British High Commission – had never received the application.
But the truth was the application was for a position at the Australian High Commission. The judge accepted Mrs. Swanson’s version and the implication that all job applications were ‘fictional’. No substantiating evidence was sought. And none was offered. No account was made of the difficulty any 52 year old man, however skilled, experiences finding suitable employment in this day and age and after a legal contract situation with the Canadian War Museum.
Jeremy was accused of ‘hiding’ money in “offshore accounts” and spiriting money away to “exotic resorts” in order not to have to pay child or spousal support. No evidence was ever led to substantiate any of this and no money was ever hidden. Mr Swanson was forbidden to disclose this settlement amount or even the settlement itself to anyone by legal contract and he faced a multiple dilemma.
Jeremy was also not aware of any difficulties being experienced by his wife financially. The first he ever heard about “difficulties” or “bankruptcies” was in August of 2004 at a case conference. Nothing further than this allegation was presented. As far as Mr. Swanson was concerned Mrs Swanson was still living very well indeed and evidence was that Mrs Swanson was earning in excess of $100,000 a year constantly while Mr Swanson was living on the breadline and has been since January 2001.
Any money that existed was used to live, fund the constant legal fights instigated by Mrs Swanson and her associates and to pay debts. This was never taken into account and the judge did not even consider Jeremy’s offer of truth on the issue. Mrs. Swanson’s counsel was believed without question and without opportunity to offer a contribution to mitigate the facts behind the lie. No request was ever made by the case conference judges or the trial judge for evidence to support the accusation of hidden funds. It was again another callous blind acceptance of a lie without any reference to Jeremy’s true position.
Jeremy and Susan signed a pre-nuptial agreement in South Africa in 1985. Under the terms of the agreement there was to be an equal split of all property, custody, money etc…in the event of a divorce. Mrs. Swanson’s Counsel stated that there was an outstanding ‘loan’ of $14, 000 (should have been R14, 000 SA rand-which is NOT $14, 000) to Jeremy’s father. Susan knew that this was not a loan but a gift and an advance on the will to enable Jeremy and Susan to buy their first home. It was never a loan. The Judge never gave reasons why this was an impediment to the pre-nuptial being realized. He blindly believed Susan’s version, without a request for proof of ‘loan’, and the pre-nup was therefore casually made “void” despite the fact that it would have provided for a equitable split of assets and made the custody situation tolerable.
Mrs. Swanson’s counsel stated that Susan’s business had gone into decline (applied for bankruptcy listing) due to the added financial pressure on her since the separation. This, they said, was due to the fact that Jeremy was refusing to pay child support. No proof of this was ever offered and no details were ever presented. In the initial service of divorce papers it had been stated that NO child or spousal support was being asked for-just an unequal division of property.
Jeremy’s lawyer did not ask for proof either. The more crucial and thus truthful factor in the alleged decline of the business was to do with the fact that just after the marital separation Mrs. Swanson’s senior business associate and therapist left the business taking the client list and contacts with her and went into opposition in business.
That was the significant reason for the decline in business. This had been offered as a reason by the accountant Ms. LaVictoire who subsequently at trial did not offer this as a reason again. This was not heard at court as no other reason was requested for consideration. No defence or intervention was offered by Jeremy’s lawyer.
Financial situation at end of trial:
The evidence presented at trial confirms that Jeremy’s financial situation is dire and he does not have the ability to pay a cost order. His sole source of income is from social assistance. The only savings he did have, namely the remaining money from his settlement with his ex-employer has been transferred to Mrs. Swanson, as was the decision of the judge. Likewise, his interest in the matrimonial home has been transferred to Mrs. Swanson in trust for the children.
Jeremy now also owes a substantial equalization payment to Mrs. Swanson as well as extensive credit card debts and tax arrears to Revenue Canada. His losses are in the region of $225,000. He is emotionally distraught, in fear of his life and financially drained. He has little hope of recovery and no way of meeting debts and costs put upon him or even a means to continue a normal life.
What now?
Jeremy has no money for an Appeal but he has filed for an appeal in any case because he feels that he has no choice. He has lost everything: his family, his property equity and any hope of any financial stability or stable career ever again. The outcome of the trial has secured that grim view of the future. Jeremy needs and wants a re-trial. Justice has been skewed and denied. Fairness and truth has similarly eluded him. He has to all intents and purposes been destroyed by the State and the legal system.
Jeremy wants his case to stand as a prime example of what is and has been happening to husbands and fathers all over Canada every day because the Family Law system, as it stands, appears to actively support their systematic destruction. Assumed guilty from the point of separation, some fathers spend years attempting to prove their innocence and their right to co-parent their children. Some never make it.
Jeremy has not seen his children now for almost two years. Every visit was becoming a painful part of the antagonism between husband and wife. The children were beginning to sense a “comfort” disparity between Jeremy and their life at home. Jeremy has been of the mind that he wanted to spare the children the pain of parents in conflict. On top of Jeremy’s own pain, the children have been and are the only ones really suffering. Unable to afford treats and trips-and often even food for the children when they were with him-Jeremy could only offer the children his time and attention. It was no wonder that, when asked, one of the children described visiting ‘dad’ in his bed-sit as something that the children’s then Psychologist subsequently termed a “hospital visit”. He could not, in the best interest of his children, put them and himself through any more of that pain.
Susan Swanson has always decided the “access” requirements and these have always been to Jeremy’s disadvantage. Most family law cases instigated by fathers run aground for lack of the huge amounts of money required to prove true status and innocence. Ruined emotionally and financially is it any wonder that many men are ruined physically too.
Hopelessness and suicide are several of the poor options for the father who wants to be an active parent and the man who wants to count as a productive citizen. If the law is meant to protect and serve, why can’t those objectives apply to husbands and fathers too? Many of the true horrors and complexities of this case cannot possibly be included here. The case is a maze of legal catch-22’s and impossible obstacles that have created a nightmare of a life for Jeremy.
Update: As a matter of urgency in terms of life support and continuance of the legal struggle Jeremy was forced to access the money in the “frozen” bank account which was so made as a result of a lie by Susan Swanson’s lawyer who claimed the ordinary TD local account was an “off-shore account” designed to funnel funds out of the country to “some tropical resort”. As such he is facing contempt of court sentencing on the 9th September.
He was told previously by various legal representatives that when one is in appeal (which has transpired as of January 20th 2005) the orders of the judgements are themselves “frozen” and as such the funds became available to him. It is widely understood by many to be the case. Jeremy found that the account was indeed not “frozen” and the funds were easily and readily accessible. But he now faces jail as a result.
The lawyer for Mrs Swanson has also demanded the “signing over of the Matrimonial home to Mrs Swanson for ownership-on top of the loss of equity which Mr Swanson was due in terms of the value of the home-even though the judgement of December 2004 specifically stated that the home was to be signed over to his eldest daughter Kirsten Swanson. The lawyer Derek Nicholson is completely ignoring the fact that the entire case is in appeal and is trying to force the hand of the court in having Jeremy Swanson jailed. Fundamental Status of Law under the Charter is being completely ignored and Jeremy is facing the full wrath of law based on lies and deceit. He has nothing left with which to fight.
The way things should still be:
ACTION ALERT!
If you decide what has happened to Jeremy is wrong and you'd like to help, please write or call the following people and demand an investigation and justice in the Swanson vs. Swanson case:
Dalton McGuinty
Provincial (Ontario) Premier
Rm 281, Main Legislative Building
Toronto ON M7A 1A4
Tel : 416-325-1941
Fax : 416-325-7578
email : dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Hon. Michael Bryant
Attorney General (Ontario)
720 Bay St, 11th Flr
Toronto ON
M5G 2K1
Tel : 416-326-2220
Fax : 416-326-4016
email : mbryant.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
In Jeremy's words, "I ask for your support in everything I have to do to get my children and my property back. And I urge your support in getting back the status position and integrity of Canadian Men and Fathers. This is a deadly serious situation that affects us all. It is a gigantic travesty and an outrage and a crime against Fathers, Men, Children and Families."
If you'd like to send a letter of support to Jeremy you can do so here:
swanson@storm.ca
9/9/05 Update:
Jeremy appeared in court. He wrote, "It took 3 plus hours but I am not in jail. It's not over so if you will all please keep the pressure on for me I would appreciate it. God bless you all."
Please keep those calls, letters and faxes going!
9th annual Equal Parents Week
In a press release issued by Matt O'Connor today he announced plans to restart his campaign in the states [with a major international protest at a US landmark in the next few months.] O'Connor said, "Despite previous frustrations I remain indefatigable and personally committed to making this work, ensuring F4J delivers a fair and equitable system of family law in the United States. Once the campaign is established it will be handed over to our US team." F4J say that British & Dutch activists will be directly involved with US representatives. 
