24 Case Study Number 15: Ayesha and Kabir
Age at time of marriage
Country of Origin
English language ability
Employment before migration
Category under which immigrated
|No Information Available||Family Class: Ayesha sponsored Kabir under the Spousal Sponsorship program|
|Citizen||Permanent Resident (2005)|
Number of years of marriage: 6
*At time of the Family Court application
Ayesha ’s birth family immigrated to Canada from Bangladesh. Her family followed Sufism, a spiritual form of Islam. At the time of her marriage, Ayesha was a university student. She was in the process of completing her B.A., and had already been living in Toronto for four years with her family. Ayesha is a talented Bangladeshi singer and would sing as an accompanying artist with professional singers. All her family members were Canadian citizens. Kabir was living in the United Kingdom, completing a graduate degree in Technology. Kabir came from a well-to-do family, his father was a high ranking official in the airline industry. They had an , supported by both families. The marriage ceremony took place in Bangladesh in 2004.
Settlement in Canada
Ayesha completed her BA in June 2005, soon after their marriage. She sponsored Kabir to come to Canada and he arrived one month after her graduation. Ayesha and Kabir set up their married life in a large Canadian city. Kabir would not allow his wife to work after they were married. Kabir found work in the IT department of a bank. Ayesha became pregnant quickly after they married, and their child was born in 2006.
Soon after the couple started living together the abuse began. Early on, Kabir complained about Ayesha’s cooking. Once he held her face over a pot of boiling oil, saying he was teaching her the correct cooking temperature. Scared of his anger and violence, Ayesha quickly became submissive to Kabir. Throughout her pregnancy, Kabir would kick, shove, and punch her. Kabir did not want the child and pressured Ayesha to abort. He enlisted the help of his extended family to convince her to do so, but she refused.
During her fourth month of pregnancy, Ayesha disclosed to her family doctor that she and Kabir were having issues in their relationship. The doctor referred the couple to a psychiatrist, and during their joint meeting, the psychiatrist suggested that her husband consults with another psychiatrist for his anger issues. Kabir got upset with this recommendation and stopped going to the psychiatrist. He prevented Ayesha from attending further appointments and his abusive behaviour began to increase.
Their son was born by C-section, and Ayesha’s parents came to help the family for a week. However, the visit was cut short when Kabir insulted Ayesha’s mother and she left. She was, however, able to access some support during this time. The public health nurse who attended Ayesha at home after her delivery noticed that Ayesha was exhibiting mental health behaviour. She suspected post-partum depression and was supportive of Ayesha emotionally.
Ayesha was expected to do all the household chores, raise the child, and serve Kabir’s extended family. The cries of the new baby interfered with Kabir’s sleep and he told Ayesha to sleep in another room on a pull-out couch with their son. With the baby, just a year old, Ayesha moved to her parents for several months while Kabir’s brother-in-law moved into the marital home.
Over the years Kabir continued to be a strict disciplinarian, demanding order and obedience from Ayesha and their son. If the son did not comply with Kabir’s orders immediately, Kabir would scold, shake, and hit the child. The child was afraid of his father. Ayesha could not interfere, or she would be beaten. Kabir started a new job and the family moved into a new home in June 2010. The title deed of the house was solely in Kabir’s name. Kabir was making good money and started taking postgraduate courses at a local university. Kabir told Ayesha her domain was the home and it needed to be tidy and organized; if it was not, she would be beaten.
In January 2010, when Ayesha’s uncle was visiting, he witnessed Kabir being abusive to Ayesha and the son. Kabir had been hitting Ayesha with his shoe and this upset the child who tried to intervene. Kabir got furious and pushed the child onto a sofa. When the child intervened again, Kabir shut the child into a washroom and turned the lights off. This terrified the child.
Ayesha started developing mental health issues over the years because of the abuse she faced and which remained untreated. This took place between 2007 and 2010. In 2010 the abuse peaked. Kabir would say to Ayesha that if her family was not living in Canada, he would have killed her. He would threaten to kill her and then kill himself. He would threaten her with a knife and call her ‘uneducated’ and ‘stupid’, among other things. The son witnessed much of the abuse and would cry and try to protect his mother.
In August 2010 Kabir called Ayesha ’s parents to come and take Ayesha away and that she should not return until she ‘improved’. Ayesha and her child began living with her parents and her father took her to the family doctor who referred Ayesha to an outpatient mental health clinic. She started treatment with the outpatient clinic in October 2010. The outpatient clinic required the spouse to accompany her for an intake meeting with a social worker. Kabir said he could not attend so the outpatient clinic contacted Ayesha’s father and requested him to bring her to the hospital. The next day the father took her to the appointment, and she met the psychiatrist. During their discussions, Ayesha shared that she was terrified of her husband.
She confided to the doctor that she felt her husband had special powers and that she was afraid of him. The psychiatrist told her that he had a safety concerns to the police and if she was unwilling to report these herself to these agencies.
Ayesha reported the abuse to the police and they took her to a shelter with the child. She stayed at the shelter for one night and then moved into her parent’s house. Kabir was arrested and charged with assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats. He was released on a .
The was called at the time of police intervention and an intake worker visited Ayesha’s parents’ home to conduct a . The purpose was to ensure the environment was safe for the child as well as to extend an offer of support if Ayesha required it.
Kabir started a court application asking for custody and access to the child. Ayesha is seeking of her son with access granted to Kabir to see his child. A (outlined under Children’s Law Reform Act of Ontario (CLRA) was conducted, and a psychologist at that time recommended to the father. The court can order a when there is a concern around a parent’s capacity, typically around mental health in order to meet the needs of the child and keep the child safe. Ayesha is now managing her mental health well and the child is being successfully parented by Ayesha, with support from her parents. While these were ongoing, the father was granted supervised access to the child.
Ayesha challenged the assessment and a was conducted as the S. 30 report did not account for Kabir’s anger issues nor the domestic violence aspect. The recommends that Ayesha maintain custody of her son and a ‘Community of Support and Accountability’ (C.O.S.A) be formed around her to ensure the child’s needs are met. The matter was finally resolved by way of where Ayesha got to decide on the child’s religion and health matters and the father made decisions related to the child’s education. The child resides primarily with the mother and has access visits with Kabir. Ayesha receives spousal support and child support from Kabir. The matrimonial home was sold, and she received a share of the sale.
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
- Broken egg shell © Mabel Amber is licensed under a CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) license
- Tree near water © Bessi is licensed under a CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) license
A form of marriage where the choice of groom and bride is largely made by the families of the couple.
Under section 125 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), every person who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child (up to the age of 18) is, or may need protection, must promptly report the details of the suspicion and the information upon which it is based to the Children’s Aid Society. This includes persons who perform professional or official duties with respect to children, such as social workers, health care workers, teachers, operators, employees of childcare programs or centres, medical practitioners, police and lawyers. It is not necessary to be certain that a child is or may need protection to make a report (Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, 2018).
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/
This is an order in criminal cases mandated either by the police or the court that prevents any direct or indirect communication between an accused person and the victim. The accused is to have absolutely no contact with the victim. Such orders can be arranged at any point during the criminal justice process and typically remains in place until such time the accused is either sentenced or found not guilty at trial. Since September 2014, no-contact conditions have been required for all probation orders and conditional sentences unless:
the Court finds there are exceptional circumstances; or
the victim agrees to the contact (Department of Justice, 2017)
A process of identifying, analyzing and evaluating events and or hazards that may be of a negative impact on an individual, child, or a person in their environment. Should a risk be determined to have caused/will cause harm, interventions are established to either eliminate or control the hazard. Pertaining to children specifically, the goal of risk assessment is to investigate and identify potential risk or maltreatment (Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, 2016).
One person has the responsibility and authority to make major decisions about the child, primarily about the child’s health education and religion.
A Section 30 Assessment must be ordered by a judge prior to proceeding under Section 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. It can be at the request of one parent, both, and at the judge’s discretion if s/he feels as though the matter is complex in nature. S. 30 assessment orders are made if the judge has reason to believe that there is a serious clinical issue, much greater than the test for an OCL involvement. It is conducted by a neutral, third party, private assessor (i.e. social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist) who will ascertain the interest and views of all children involved, this is then reported back to the parents and the court in form of an assessment report containing recommendations. Section 30 assessments are privately funded whereas OCL assessments are publicly funded. In S. 30 assessments the parents may be psychologically tested, and the assessment report may contain a psychological or psychiatric opinion. OCL assessors are neutral whereas S. 30 assessors are appointed. In domestic violence cases, it is crucial to have an assessor who understands the impact of violence and trauma on children and parents.
These are the actions and activities which take place during a legal dispute. It is a blanket term that defines the entire legal process from beginning to end. This could also refer to a specific type of hearing or trial (Justice Education Society, 2019).
An evaluative summary of findings based on the observations of a professional assessor such as a Counsellor, OCL, doctor or psychiatrist etc. This evaluation provides the court with evidence and information notating a child's wishes, also including what they determine to be in their best interests. The court may use the findings presented when determining custody, access, or parenting arrangements. (CLEO, 2017)
This is a form of joint custody whereby each parent is designated sole responsibility for specific areas of decision-making concerning their child. While one parent may govern all decisions pertaining to medical or educational issues that arise, the other would have another set of concerns that they would primarily manage (i.e. financial or legal matters). The court may award this form of custody when the parents have difficulty communicating with one another, making co-parenting difficult and harder for the child. Instead, each parent manages the day-to-day decisions of their assigned domains, thereby eliminating the need to engage with one another. As time passes, and healing begins, communication between separated parents tends to improve and they can, once again, work towards more collaborative child-rearing. Parallel parenting can protect the children`s relationship with their parents, shielding them from conflict (Kruk, 2013). Parallel parenting orders have been made by courts in situations where both parents have been involved with the child and wish to retain decision-making rights, but where the conflict between them is such that a joint custody order is not in the child’s best interest.