22 Case Study Number 13: Elham and Dawood
Age at time of marriage
Country of Origin
|No Information Available||No Information Available|
|High School (Germany)||Bachelor of Engineering|
English language ability
Employment before migration
|Unemployed||Middle Eastern Country|
Category under which immigrated
|Family Class: Dawood sponsored Elham under the spousal sponsorship program. (1995)||Immigrated under a Student visa (in 1980).|
Number of years of marriage: 13
*At time of the Family Court application
Dawood had already been living in Canada for fifteen years, working as an engineer prior to their marriage. He comes from a powerful and influential family with ties to his home country’s government secret service. Dawood sponsored Elham to immigrate to Canada in 1995, a year after they married. There is a significant age gap between Elham and her spouse; she is over twenty years younger than he is. Elham said that he wanted to marry a younger woman so that he could ‘train and control’ his wife.
Settlement in Canada
Upon arrival in Canada, Elham wanted to return to school to complete her dentistry education. Dawood didn’t support her to do this. He told her that he wanted her to look after the home and start their family. Elham was responsible for all aspects of childcare, helping the children with schoolwork, extracurricular activities and medical appointments. Elham has one sister living in Canada but the rest of her family remained in their home country.
Soon after marriage, Elham realized that Dawood was having a long-term romantic relationship with a Canadian woman. In fact, Dawood brought the woman on Elham’s and Dawood’s honeymoon, ostensibly as a photo- and vidographer. This relationship continued throughout their marriage and the woman had a key to all three matrimonial homes over the years. She was also a title holder on Elham’s and Dawood’s first matrimonial home alongside the couple. Elham was expected to live with this arrangement. She was isolated in the home and her spouse controlled whom she socialized with. She did not have a key to the house and could not come and go as she pleased.
From the beginning of their marriage, Elham suffered significant abuse at Dawood’s hands. Dawood would drink heavily, swear and yell at her, punch her and throw her around. He would threaten to kill her and said that ‘going to jail would be worth every minute if she were dead’. He would tell the children to tell their mother that they hated her. The children witnessed the ongoing violence and they would often plead with their father to stop. Elham thought about contacting the police, but she did not as her spouse told her that he would send the children out of the country, and she would never see them again. As Dawood held the children’s passports, had family in high positions, and Dawood himself worked in the airline industry, this threat was very real.
Dawood would constantly interrogate the children and ask them what Elham did during the day and who she talked with. The children were not comfortable providing this information about their mother and would not comply. As punishment, Dawood would then take away their toys and games. He would become angry and yell at the children. He was overly aggressive with them, berating them for not meeting his expectations in both sports and school. He was inconsistent in his behaviour as there were other times that he would bring them gifts. As a result of this unpredictability, the children were afraid of him.
Elham disclosed the abuse to her family doctor and he began to treat her for the symptoms she presented. Her mental health has been managed with the help of medication over the years. Elham stated that, as time passed, she became wiser, stronger, and less tolerant to the abuse. Unfortunately, her spouse reacted negatively to her emerging resilience and the abuse only escalated.
The children were instructed not to call her ‘mother’. She describes being treated like a servant in her own home. Elham had no money of her own and Dawood did not provide her with any financial support. Elham started working part-time as a real estate assistant when the children were in school. She had previously earned her real estate license, but Dawood did not let her renew it. He did not want her to work and wanted her to relinquish her wages directly to him. Dawood had built up significant debt of $600,000 from risky financial decisions and financial fraud, which included applying for thirty-six credit cards under Elham’s name. Throughout her marriage Dawood would approach Elham with a postnuptial agreement that stated he would have custody of the kids and she would pay him a certain amount if they were to separate. Elham did not sign this agreement. Regardless of their financial situation, Dawood drove luxury cars, while Elham drove an older car in need of repair.
In March 2008, Elham’s family went on a weeklong cruise with another family. Dawood drank heavily on the trip and had already been approached by ship’s staff for being disruptive. After an argument one night, Elham was scared and hid in her friends’ cabin. Dawood found her and punched her in front of their friends. He said he was going to kill her and throw her off the ship into the water. The fight continued in Elham’s cabin where he continued hitting her and tore her clothes. Elham managed to tell the ship’s security officer and they secured another room for her for the remainder of the trip. Dawood stayed with the children for the remaining three days of the cruise and tried to brainwash them against their mother during this period.
Upon arriving back from the cruise, Elham went to live with her sister in the same city but would travel back to the marital home to cook, clean, and take care of the children while Dawood was at work. With her sister’s support she contacted the police, but at that time declined to make a statement. Two months later she moved back into the marital home but was relegated to the basement.
Just weeks after coming back to the home, Dawood threatened Elham with a broken beer bottle to her neck, demanding that she stop working. Elham complied. One week later, there was another argument where Elham confronted Dawood about questioning the children and searching through her things. At this point Dawood began taunting her by recording her with a camcorder (as he sometimes did). Elham tried to grab the camcorder but Dawood pushed her to the floor, where she fell, hitting her head, landing on her elbows, and hurting her neck. She told Dawood she would not live with the abuse any longer. She called the police and they asked her to move to a safe place. The officers kept Dawood busy while Elham packed her belongings. She moved to a shelter with the children. There were no and Dawood tried to convince the police she was the one who attacked him. The was called, and the children received counselling at the shelter in relation to the abuse. Elham sought a against her spouse, which was put into effect for sixteen months. She terminated the believing herself and her children to be safe and wanting to minimize conflict for the family.
After the ended, Elham and her spouse, with the court’s intervention, agreed to a visitation schedule. A year later, there was an incident with Dawood and the children, and they did not see him for another six (6) months. The was involved. Elham’s desire is to start a new life and provide stability, love, and care for her children. Dawood continues trying to mislead the courts with a different version of the events leading up to the separation. The is involved to represent the ren. Elham is seeking and would support access to the children, under the condition her spouse seeks help with anger and drinking issues. She is seeking child and spousal support.
Click on the links below to access Case Study questions related to the following:
Practitioners’ Subjectivity and Social Location
Migration and Transnationalism
Providing Supports to Victims of DV
- Questions © Gerd Altmann is licensed under a CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) license
- Boats in a dock © strikers is licensed under a CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) license
to accuse someone officially of doing something illegal. (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2019)
For over 100 years, the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS) has been serving and promoting the welfare and well-being of children, youth and families in Ontario. Their vision is to re-imagine child welfare: to create an effective children’s services system that supports ALL children, youth, families, and communities to thrive. There are 50 Children’s Aid Societies (CASs) and Indigenous Child and Family Well-Being Agencies in Ontario. OACAS is an association representing 49 member organizations. Of these, 47 of 49 are mandated CASs and Indigenous Child and Family Well-Being Agencies; two are pre-mandated Indigenous agencies. More information about the services provided by the OACAS can be found at http://www.oacas.org/
A restraining order can be requested from a family court if there is fear that a former spouse/partner could potentially cause harm to another member of the family. This is completed within a Family Court and must be mandated by a judge to be considered binding. Typically, it lists a number of conditions in which the spouse/partner must adhere to and obey and can either be broad or detailed, depending on the situation. An example of a general restraining order would be the instruction that the partner/spouse “cannot come near you or your children.” Alternatively, a more detailed order would stipulate that a partner/spouse cannot come to a place of employment, must maintain a specific distance, cannot visit children at school, or try to initiate communication at locations often frequented. It is applied for by way of a court application or a court motion (if urgent) (Ministry of Attorney General, 2009).
The Office of the Children’s Lawyer is an independent, government funded, law office operating within the Family Justice Services Division of the Ministry of the Attorney General. The purpose of the OCL is to provide legal services to children under the age of 18 in the selected civil law matters. Their primary function is to represent the interest of the children in courts such as custody, child protection, civil, estates/trusts, and personal hearings. Because the OCL is government funded, parents are not required to pay for these services. The OCL have Children’s Lawyers and also has clinical investigators on staff who may be assigned to assist lawyers who represent children in particularly difficult custody and access cases, or to provide a report to the Court according to section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act.
Only a judge can make an court order requesting the involvement of the OCL (at the request of one or both parents or by motion). They will do so in cases where the parents/legal guardians of the child are unable to negotiate an appropriate custody arrangement, or if the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) requires their services to assist the family in navigating alternative resolution processes (i.e. mediation). It is entirely at the discretion of the OCL to determine whether or not they will accept the case: it is not mandatory for them to do so despite the court order. In the event that the OCL accepts the case (they receive thousands of requests each year), they will first determine if the child requires a lawyer or a clinician (typically a Social Worker). Both parties serve different purposes when working with the child. The decision as to which is required is typically based on age.
Lawyer - Their role is to converse with the parents or whomever is requesting custody (for example grandparents) to understand the nature of the dispute. They will also speak directly with the child as it is important for the lawyer to understand their wishes before proceeding. Additionally, it is the lawyers’ responsibility to reach out to any other sources, such as teachers or doctors, to understand their perspective and gather any additional information necessary. Based on their findings, they will take a position on behalf of their child client and represent them at the court by providing their feedback as to how to move forward.
Clinical Investigator - Their role is like that of a lawyer as they will communicate with the child, their respective guardians, and any additional parties they feel appropriate. Where the clinician differs is in terms of additional functionalities such as observing the families, making recommendations for resolution, and creating a report for the court which outlines the details of the case and their recommendations. Once the report is complete, the clinician will then share the information with the family and will formally file it with the court.
Both Lawyer and Clinician - If both a lawyer and clinician are assigned to a case, the clinician does not file any sort of report, instead, they assist the lawyer in the creation of an affidavit. (Ministry of the Attorney General, 2005-2006)
The “best interests of the child” is a principle stated in law that allows decision-making authorities to be child-focussed. The ‘best interest’ test provides discretion to a judge to decide the disputes involving children within the legislative framework, keeping the child’s interest at the heart of the decision. Simply put, the judge will consider the evidence provided by each party but make the decision based on what is best for the child. The examples of family law cases involving best interest of children analysis are as follows: cases involving issues of custody and access or variation thereof, exclusive possession of matrimonial home, or mobility cases. If the parties before the family court are married, they are governed by the federal legislation i.e. the Divorce Act. If they are not married, the provincial Act (In the case of Ontario, the Children’s Law Reform Act) would provide the framework and specified criteria for deciding what is in the best interest of the child. In family cases involving domestic violence, it allows the court to consider past conduct of a parent when it involves violence or abuse against a spouse, a parent of the child to whom the application relates, a member of the person’s household, or any child.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) refers to the need to take "into account the best interests of a child directly affected". Thus, the decisions of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) or Immigration Refugee Board (IRB) must include an assessment of the best interests of a child who would be directly affected in an Humanitarian and Compassionate Application for permanent residence, or Refugee claim or citizenship application involving children.
Canada has signed International human rights instruments which require children's best interests be given priority consideration courts, tribunals or other institutions.
Two people, usually the parents, share the responsibility for making decisions for a child. It does not necessarily mean that a child will spend “equal” time with both parents (Ministry of Attorney General).