An autistic father denounces a judicial and police spiral that allegedly deprived him of his children
“I was mowing my lawn. Two hours later, I was treated like a terrorist.”
It is with this sentence that Julien (name changed to protect the children’s identity) sums up the police intervention that, according to him, turned his life upside down. This autistic father living with Gilles de la Tourette syndrome, in the context of a separation, states that he lost access to his children following a series of judicial and police events that he now describes as discriminatory.
A spectacular police intervention
According to his testimony and access-to-information documents, the case began with two hunting rifles belonging to his ex-partner. He claims he insisted that they be retrieved before his departure from the family residence. Despite confirmation indicating that they were no longer there, he says he discovered them hidden under a staircase.
Fearing being wrongfully implicated, he states that he dismantled the weapons and entrusted the parts to his father so they could be returned to their owner.
A few days later, a neighbor calls him: a major police operation is underway at his home.
Julien describes a deployment including an armored vehicle, police officers in assault gear, K-9 units and bomb disposal technicians. He is arrested, handcuffed and questioned about weapons, explosives and a possible bunker — elements he categorically denies.
No explosives or arsenal were discovered during the search. The most serious allegations, including manufacturing explosives and illegal possession of weapons, were reportedly dropped before even being officially filed. Charges of death threats, based according to him on indirect, non-credible testimony, were later withdrawn.
At the end of the judicial process, he states that he was acquitted on all counts.
“Even if the case collapses, the label remains,” he maintains.
Allegations of discrimination
Julien believes that his autism influenced the way he was perceived in court.
He claims that during a hearing, Judge Pierre Labelle allegedly told him that “a person like him” did not deserve to have a lawyer, which allegedly forced him to represent himself afterward, despite his disability. Moreover, another judge, Stéphane Lacoste, refused his reasonable accommodations and his support person during hearings, as indicated in the minutes of November 18, 2025.
He also reports that his former lawyer, Me Bianca Vigneault, allegedly told him: “A person like you does not deserve to have children.”
These alleged remarks are not confirmed by the parties concerned. Julien presents them as examples of “subtle systemic discrimination,” where his mode of communication and his intensity were allegedly interpreted as signs of instability, despite a neurological report classifying him as gifted in the 98th percentile. (High intellectual potential)
“Sign or lose the children”
The father maintains that the rupture with his children does not stem from a single judgment, but from an accumulation of decisions made in a climate of constant pressure.
He claims that psychosocial and child protection reports would have favored shared custody, but that they were not fully argued in his favor.
He maintains that Me Michel Lachance is still the subject of a disciplinary investigation and that Me David Chun resigned from the Bar while a syndic’s investigation was underway. This information was independently confirmed as part of this article.
The “trap” at the courthouse
One episode in particular fuels his sense of injustice. Represented at the time by Me Bianca Vigneault through legal aid, Julien says he initially believed he had found an ally: she allegedly told him that his case was strong and that an urgent safeguard hearing — announced on Friday for the following Thursday — would be a mere formality, especially since child protection services, according to him, supported his position with favorable reports. However, as the deadline approached, he recounts total silence: calls, emails and messages allegedly went unanswered. On the eve of the hearing, worried about appearing alone, he personally contacted child protection services and obtained, he says, a message to convey to the court inviting it to wait for the final report. Shortly after leaving a message for his lawyer indicating that he would go to the courthouse anyway, she called him back and assured him that the hearing was canceled; his ex-partner allegedly wrote him the same thing.
The next day, upon consulting the docket, he nevertheless noticed that the hearing was maintained. On site, he claims he was kept away from the courtroom, isolated in a cubicle and pressured to sign a voluminous document — a text of several dozen pages drafted by the opposing party’s lawyer, David Chun, who resigned from the Barreau du Québec on February 5, 2025 while a syndic’s investigation was ongoing — intended notably for child protection services and describing him as a danger. Julien refuses to sign. It is at that moment, he claims, that his lawyer allegedly said to him: “Listen, a person like you does not deserve to have children. Either you sign, or we have already arranged for you to never see your children again.” He maintains that these words were allegedly spoken despite psychosocial reports and evaluations favorable to him. He eventually enters the courtroom at the moment when, he says, the opposing lawyer pleads his “absence.” According to him, this episode marks an irreversible turning point: “I understood that the battle was no longer being fought on the facts, but on the image.”
A “closed circle”
Julien states that he is currently appealing. He also maintains that a police ethics investigation is underway.
He denounces a system where, according to him, institutions shift responsibility among themselves: courts, the Bar and disciplinary bodies allegedly operate “in a closed circle.”
Since February 2026, an article published on justice-quebec.ca states that Me Anne-France Goldwater allegedly transmitted to the Bar information related to a “serious criminal fraud” in his file associated with former lawyer David Chun, formerly of Spunt & Carin. Despite these alleged elements, the Office of the Syndic would reportedly maintain the closure of the file.
Following these events, false statements about him and repeated acts of harassment and parental alienation, Julien went several times to the Repentigny police station to file a formal complaint. The police refused to record his complaint. He captured audio recordings in which he can be heard being told: “You’re just coming to piss us off,” “You have facial tics, you seem nervous, you look like a drug addict,” even while he was explaining that he has Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. These recordings are accessible on the justice-quebec.ca website.
Between personal account and systemic denunciation
Through his platform, Julien says he wants to go beyond his personal case and raise broader issues: complexity of procedures, judicial costs, access to evidence and the impact of reputation in family cases.
“A single word can mobilize an army against you,” he states.
At the heart of the debate remains a sensitive question: that of the balance between child protection, parental rights and the perception of a parent presenting neurodivergence.
For Julien, the issue remains simple: to regain a place in his children’s lives.
Today, Julien refuses for a neurodivergent parent to be judged on his symptoms rather than on his love. The fight continues on justice-quebec.ca, a platform that now collects words of encouragement and experiences of similar situations. Readers are invited to consult the “Testimonials” section to share their story and support the initiative.
Ajouter un commentaire
Commentaires