Triple Murder In Famiy Court Custody Battle So Bad Sonia Blanchette Killed Herself In Prison
Based On: The National Post Article
Let me introduce you to these 3 children beautiful children and their father Patrick Desautels
Patrick Desautels was where I was for many years, going through The Family Court System with an emotionally unstable person trying to negotiate co-parenting. Patrick was going through a nasty divorce, but he finally won custody of these beautiful children through The Family Courts. His ex-wife Sonia was ordered to have Supervised Access to the children.
Feel free to read up about Sonia Blanchette in The National Post.
Sonia Blanchette's friends described her as a doting mother going through a bad divorce. She had originally won custody at the beginning of the divorce, but had just lost custody and was supposed to only have Supervised Access, and was quite notably upset about it. One access visit was not supervised which was when Sonia Blanchette methodically killed their 3 children, saying she'd rather them be
dead than with the father. A coroner ruled the two youngest drowned while the oldest was killed by a combination of strangling and drowning. As a parent, I CANNOT imagine who would it think it better that children are better off dead, can you? This is only possible in the extremely adversarial nature of The Family Court System.
This Is The Criminally Insane Ultimate
Winner Takes All
This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of an Adversarial Family Court System. This IS
Winner Takes All exemplified in the worst possible way! Kramer vs. Kramer is a famous movie of a divorce in The Family Courts and that
vs. means versus or against, like a battle, and that's how people like Sonia Blanchette kill children. The Family Court environment is very combative, argumentive and in no way resembles Co-Parenting. The Family Court System not only creates the mentality behind Parental Alienation, The Family Courts endorses, fosters and enables everything to do with Parental Alienation. Judges, Courtrooms and Lawyers invoke a heartless war-like mentality whereas Mediators eliminate that. Which one would you endorse if you had a choice? But Mediation is merely optional for divorces or separation involving children, and that option is very wrong. It allows bad parents the ability to be horrific parents like Sonia Blanchette.
Sonia Blanchette was originally awarded full custody at first, then lost that full custody but simply could NOT stand losing it. She felt as if she were losing her children, just decided to end their lives to protect them. She was quoted as saying they were better off dead than with their father, but was that her or the mentality of
Winner Takes All? She may have started out her separation as innocent as my divorce did, but The Family Court mentality disproportionally awards winners and winning, adversely punishing the losers and losing in the process. It was too much for Sonia Blanchette to take, but Non-Custodial Parents are expected to take this?
Parents shouldn't have to win or lose choose their children, but because The Family Court System is only able to pick a winner or loser, it makes losers out of good parents and potentially winners out of bad parents. Even if Sonia was a good parent, she couldn't handle not being able to be a good parent with Supervised Access Visits only with her children, on one day she asked her mother to leave her with her children un-supervised, Sonia Blanchette murdered her 3 innocent children.
Sonia Blanchette Experienced Only What Most Fathers Do Every Day
It's so extreme that Sonia couldn't handle what MOST fathers endure in The Family Court System. Taking her common-sense parental rights away, typical of the what the
Non-Custodial parent experiences in The Family Courts, was too much that even the death of her children was better, that's how worst off it was to her. Some people just can't be entrusted or trusted to do the right thing when presented with SO many options to do bad things. While other good parents are pushed to the extreme of what they personally can tolerate for their children. It's volatile at best for everyone involved.
Im my experienced opinion, Mandatory Mediation would NEVER drive a divorce into such dire consequences. It inherently prevents exactly that by dealing with issues before they become huge and sometimes FATAL problems.
The Similarities Between This Case And Mine Are Too Eerie
I believed if I fought for my daughter, I'd eventually be risking her life. It was the DADS of Durham Group that taught be to be prepared for if you DO win, that's when it can get really bad. I feared for my daughter's life. The way the mother was progressing, ruining my relationship wasn't enough, stealing her away somewhere was next, or worst yet, eliminating my chances of having a daughter at all.
Sonia eventually regretted what she did so much, she starved herself to death in jail. Her lawyers fought for her right to starve herself because that's ultimately a better fate than living as a baby killer. What she did was so apprehensible, she couldn't live with herself. Only The Family Court System can foster a mindset as toxic as where Sonia's mind was when she killed her children. The fact that Sonia and her husband were going through a bitter divorce battle had EVERYTHING to do with the death of those 3 children. That word bitter does not describe killing children. The phrase "winner takes all" in The Family Courts does.
Mandatory Mediation makes so much sense compared to The Family Courts, so why are we still using The Family Court System?