The Gettliffe / Grant Affair

The Gettliffe / Grant affair

Summary of the case (2001 – 2009): For having fled to France in 2001 with her two children, Ms Nathalie Gettliffe, divorced from Mr Scott Grant, was detained in Canada from 11 April 2006 until January 2007. Transferred to France at the beginning of 2007, she left prison in January 2007. She has since lived in the Ardèche, from where, through her lawyer, she launched a new appeal to Nicolas Sarkozy on 23 December 2009 in order to obtain, in the words of the letter, “an effective intervention to preserve the inalienable and fundamental rights of two children and their mother”. The flight with her children was justified, according to her, by the necessity of removing them from the influence of their father, a member of the International Church of Christ (ICC) of Vancouver.

CICNS note (2007): The dialogue from which we reproduce extracts below is edifying in what it reveals about prejudices against new religious movements, the knee-jerk reactions and the media conditioning that distort the reasoning of the greatest number. The exchange between two participants, who call themselves Thémis and Phonetag, is presented below. We offer these extracts not to support the International Church of Christ, but to show in a flagrant way how emotion (on which crude anti-cultism plays) makes it possible to obscure the facts and, as one of the participants says further down, would ultimately authorise acting outside the law (“I can see a little further than what is written in the texts of the law”, he says). Texts of law to which anti-cultism nevertheless resorts (even if it means creating new, discriminatory ones), when it suits. (The additions in parentheses marked ed. are by the webmaster.)

Also read the commentary on the case by SOS enlèvement international d’enfants (pdf document)

Read the commentary of a Canadian journalist

Read the October 2010 update

Extracts from a dialogue on the blog of Nicolas Barcet: What do you think of the Nathalie Gettliffe affair?

Intervention of Thémis, presenting himself as a member of SOS enlèvements internationaux d’enfants www.seie.org

With this affair, you have a fine example of disinformation.

Ms Gettliffe did not flee Canada to protect her children from the International Church of Christ as she claims, but to pursue university studies in Lyon. As she was in the process of separating from her husband (Scott Grant), moving the children required a consensus between the two parents. The father refused to let them accompany their mother 13,500 km away from him, because the exercise of his visiting rights would be impossible during the ten months of the stay in France. The dispute was brought before a court of justice which, after expert assessment, concluded that such a journey did not correspond to the best interests of the children, and therefore prohibited it.

No mention of any dangerousness of the Church had been raised by the mother at that time. As this decision thwarted her plans, Ms Gettliffe disregarded it and left anyway on 27/08/01, which earned her a local arrest warrant for perjury, issued the following month. To try to justify this unlawful removal, she skilfully used the fact that her husband’s church had been considered a cult by the French parliamentary report Gest-Guyard, which has moreover never had force of law and has been discarded for four years by the French authorities. The French courts have in fact ordered the children’s return to Canada, since no proof of their endangerment by the alleged cult had been produced by the mother.

It should be known that since August 2001, Mr Grant has seen his children only 5 days, in June 2005. On 10 April, Ms Gettliffe did not go to Canada to sign an agreement there with her ex, as her entourage claims — fortunately it is not necessary to make such long journeys to finalise an international mediation —; in reality, she went there to defend her doctoral thesis on 12 April.

In the series of lies fed to French opinion, one can also cite pell-mell: the international arrest warrant that never existed, the importance and influence of the “cult” over Canadian justice (170 members for the whole of British Columbia), the issuing of a new arrest warrant 36 hours after the arrest, the drafting of the indictment by a prosecutor related to Mr GRANT, Ms Gettliffe’s propensity for difficult pregnancies, the respect of the father’s visiting rights, etc. — all of that is perfectly false!

If there is something to be scandalised about in this affair, it is:

- the way the children are instrumentalised by their mother’s entourage;

- the stupidity with which the media repeat these people’s lies without taking the trouble of the most elementary verification;

- the slowness of French justice in applying the Hague Convention (which does not only concern abductions committed by North African fathers, as some here seem to believe);

(…) I am not a member of the International Church of Christ. But as I know the file well, I can also tell you about this church. It was founded in 1979 by a certain Kip McKean, a pastor who preached within another evangelical movement called the Church of Christ. (To avoid confusing them, this first church is now referred to as the Traditional Church of Christ.) McKean found that the faith within that church was too lukewarm and founded his movement on the principle of “total commitment” and a return to the sources, namely the biblical texts. He therefore founded his first parish in the Boston area (…) As the movement spread throughout the world, the Church organised itself into a pyramid system, with McKean and his wife at its summit (hence the accusations of abuses and gurus — ed.) (…) In 2002, McKean’s daughter slammed the door of the International Church of Christ (ICC) with a bang, which brought about her father’s fall (…) The ICC has lost much of its splendour since this double crisis of 2002/2003. Its French branches (which were already not overabundant) were shattered. Generally speaking, the ICC is now divided into three currents: the traditionalists who have remained faithful to McKean; the reformers who want to apply the recommendations of Henry Kriete (of the London church, who strongly criticised the Church in 2003 — ed.); and the moderates who would like to reconcile everyone. It seems that the Church of Christ of Vancouver (the one Scott Grant is affiliated with — ed.) is in this middle tendency. (See an information site on the ICC and the site of the Vancouver church — ed.)

(…) Canadian justice is not manipulated by a cult.

No more than the judges of the TGI of Privas who ruled against Nathalie Gettliffe;

no more than the judges of the Court of Appeal of Nîmes who also ruled against Nathalie Gettliffe;

no more than the judges of the Court of Cassation who rejected Nathalie Gettliffe’s appeal.

No, Canadian justice simply knows the truth about this affair, while you are swallowing the lies committed by the lady’s entourage.

Reply from Phonetag, presenting himself as someone “who knows Ms Gettliffe well”:

1. Nathalie fled Canada because she was afraid for her children’s safety. Her career was starting with a position in Victoria (next to Vancouver) and she wished to continue her life in Canada. By returning to France, she lost everything professionally. It is therefore aberrant to say that she returned for her studies!

2. Nathalie never sought to cut the ties between the children and their father. Thus, when Scott was able to reassure Nathalie about the children’s safety, she let them go on holiday for 1 week. She therefore (naively) believed that Scott was seeking to calm the conflict and was committed to that approach. She is paying dearly for it today.

3. For those who consider that Justice should be left to run its course, I point out that Nathalie was, until last week, incarcerated in the prison where her ex-mother-in-law worked, that she suffered particularly humiliating treatment and that they tried to break her morale. The objective of this approach was to make her plead guilty so that she would hand over the children (I hold Scott Grant’s words on this point at the disposal of whoever wants them). Should Justice be left to run its course when it endorses inhuman treatment and when it does not protect children?

I will stop at Thémis’s untruthful statements; he sorts the file according to his personal interest and does not give a fair and comprehensive view of the affair as a whole. After all, that is normal for a lawyer, he is paid for that! Except that normally, a lawyer does not waste his time expressing his opinion on blogs. One must get bored in Valence…

(…) Nathalie’s famous arrest warrant. The one that was published 36 hours late (and which does not exist according to Thémis) has finally been transmitted to Nathalie’s lawyer (on 25 May!!!). It is indeed signed by Nathalie’s ex-father-in-law (in fact he is the lover of the mother-in-law… they are not married, which allows Thémis to say it is false!!). Nathalie will therefore be able to organise her defence (at last!) (…) Finally, I recall that this is a very complex affair. The press can only cover it partially. It is therefore easy to speak of disinformation and lies; nevertheless the facts are there: Nathalie is being treated like a criminal and her children are in danger!

I will keep you informed of future developments and remain at your disposal for any questions.

Reply from Thémis

You say:

“Nathalie fled Canada because she was afraid for her children’s safety. Her career was starting with a position in Victoria (next to Vancouver) and she wished to continue her life in Canada. By returning to France, she lost everything professionally. It is therefore aberrant to say that she returned for her studies!”

It is true that she wished to return to Canada in June 2002 to take up her position at the University of Victoria. The trouble is that this is totally incompatible with the story of the flight to protect her children from a danger. One does not remove children from a peril only to plunge them back into it 10 months later. On the other hand, one does go off for a year of studies in Lyon and come back 10 months later, when the academic year is over.

Here, moreover, is the extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court of BC of 24 August 2001 which clarifies matters:

“Nathalie Jeanne Grant (‘Ms Grant’) makes the application for a transitional injunction by which she may temporarily change the place of residence of the two children of her marriage: from Vancouver, British Columbia, to France, for a period of ten months, from September 2001 until June 2002. The reason for her application is as follows: to allow her to study at the University of Lyon, in France, a university that specialises in her field of study and research, and that will support her in her doctoral thesis.”

“Aberrant”, you say? I specify that the Court vetoed this journey.

You add: “Nathalie never sought to cut the ties between the children and their father. Thus, when Scott was able to reassure Nathalie about the children’s safety, she let them go on holiday for 1 week.” Apart from the fact that this story of Scott reassuring Nathalie about the children’s safety does not mean much, one will note that according to you, reducing the children’s contact with their father to one shared week in five years is not a way of cutting their ties. And the horrible testimonies they were made to give against him, both before the Court of Appeal of Nîmes and before the children’s judge of Privas — that too is certainly a way of strengthening filial bonds…

I also read, concerning Nathalie Gettliffe’s incarceration: “The objective of this approach was to make her plead guilty so that she would hand over the children (I hold Scott Grant’s words on this point at the disposal of whoever wants them).” Pleading guilty only spares her a trial. The return of the children is an obligation for France, which has ordered it twice, and it is not directly linked to the criminal trial.

What is true, on the other hand, is that acknowledging her wrongs and cooperating for a return of the children, at last de-dramatised (which would be entirely to their benefit), will certainly earn her more clemency from her judges than campaigns of calumny against British Columbia and the utterance before the Court of lies that will not withstand the first cross-examination.

Finally, I also read: “Nathalie’s famous arrest warrant. The one that was published 36 hours late (and which does not exist according to Thémis) has finally been transmitted to Nathalie’s lawyer (on 25 May!!!). It is indeed signed by Nathalie’s ex-father-in-law.”

You do not read carefully, Phone Tag: it is the INTERNATIONAL arrest warrant that never existed. There was indeed a warrant issued in September 2001, but it was PROVINCIAL. It was lifted in September 2004 AT THE REQUEST OF SCOTT GRANT to facilitate Nathalie Gettliffe’s return WITH her children within the framework of the application of the Hague Convention, and in no way in relation to the legally shameful mediation undertaken three months later.

I have therefore never denied the existence of the one you speak of; I simply said that it was not issued with retroactive effect as was claimed by Nathalie Gettliffe’s French lawyer.

As for its signatory, since you have a copy of the warrant, publish it on your site. We shall see who it is.

It is incredible how my various interlocutors struggle to keep a sense of proportion. You are no exception.

There are two ways of seeing things: as one would like them to be, and as they really are.

Whether you like it or not, this affair is in the hands of the justice system. Revile it as much as you like, that will change nothing; the decisions will be rendered within the framework of the law and respect for procedure.

I have therefore tried to explain to you that the argument of the torn-apart siblings will certainly be rejected, and why it will be. Nathalie Gettliffe has every right to rebuild her life and to have other children, but that choice contained from the outset the risk of ultimately having some children in Canada and others in France, and that argument cannot prosper before judges.

Moreover, whether you like it or not, a binational couple is subject to additional responsibilities, and the departure of one parent to their country of origin with the children under their arm is unacceptable. That you blind yourself with a sexist discourse that is out of place will not change that either. It is not a matter of setting fathers against mothers but of fighting parental abductions.

Reply from Phonetag

Do you know Scott? How do you know he is “loving”?

I have an outside view of this affair, but I saw the children on their return to France; they were not well at all (poor school results, easily manipulated children…)

Scott is a person ill at ease with himself, incapable of properly raising children. Otherwise he would not be in a cult!

Nathalie, by concentrating on her children’s well-being, and by rebuilding a normal life (without a cult!), managed to get her two children back and to allow them to grow up properly. This is not a story of father versus mother, but of one adult who takes care of his children and the other who does not!

Did she not have the right to have a new baby?

Does anyone wonder who Scott lives with?

Does anyone wonder whether Scott prefers his career or his kids?

Scott and you see only your personal right, even if it means traumatising children and putting their mother in prison. The father is more important than anything.

Reply from Thémis

Your attitude is extraordinary: you hand out the roles quite at your ease. So, in the role of the villain: Scott Grant — ill at ease with himself, incapable of looking after children, or even of loving them. What’s more, he is in a cult! Therefore dangerous. (By the way, what danger?)

In the role of the perfect mother: Nathalie Gettliffe, heroic, who sacrificed everything for them, etc.

That this does not correspond to the reality of the facts does not matter, since no one will go and check. So we make ourselves a fine film with this fine casting, Manichean to a fault. We scare ourselves with the wicked cult even though we have nothing serious to present in terms of dangerousness. And we play along, even if it means cutting ourselves off from reality and doing the opposite of what the situation requires.

Unfortunately this is not a film, and one day or another, it will be necessary to come back down to earth. It will be all the more painful because you will have been telling yourselves stories for a long time.

Reply from Phonetag

I may hand out roles, but I can see a little further than only what is written in the texts of the law. The only thing that matters to me is the well-being of the children. I saw these children come back from Canada; they were not well. Nathalie and her family worked enormously to restore these children. For example, nobody at Maximilien’s school believed he could pull through. Today he works well, has more than decent marks and has not repeated a year. This success is the doing of Nathalie and the children’s grandmother. I saw it and I know all these people (unlike you, visibly!). I do not judge Scott a priori, but I look at the results. That does not mean that Scott is the big villain and that he cannot see his children; it just means that the mother must be listened to for the well-being of the children! And above all she must not be put in prison in an unjust and inhuman way! As for the “return to earth”, we shall see… But if Nathalie wins, it is you who will have to open your eyes and come out of your legal truth and your “father’s right”. The only right worth anything is that of the children!

Reply from Thémis

Your leitmotiv of the “rights of children” or the “well-being of the children” or again the “interest of the children” would be honourable if it did not serve to hide the truth. From those who read this forum, but also from yourself, who end up self-intoxicating with this repetitive discourse.

You do not see “a little further than only what is written in the texts of the law”; you purely and simply evade the legal aspect — that is not the same thing. It is not because you repeat 200 times that Nathalie Gettliffe’s imprisonment is “unjust and inhuman” that it will, as if by miracle, cease to be the logical and legal consequence of her past behaviour.

It is not because Nathalie Gettliffe has been capable of taking good care of her children that their removal on 27 August 2001 ceases to be unlawful and that she is exempted from respecting the laws in force.

It is not because Maximilien does well at school that his mother is exempted from complying with the decisions of the courts, both French and Canadian, which all order their return to British Columbia.

It is not because you have decided that the law, judges, tribunals and Courts must count for nothing against your conception of the “protection of children” (which includes, where applicable, their instrumentalisation on television in dubious stagings and even the use of false testimony) that the judges will tiptoe away and the proceedings vanish by enchantment.

Wake up!! Nathalie Gettliffe is well on her way to serving a long prison sentence, because she committed the longest parental abduction in the annals of the legal history of British Columbia. She is well on her way to serving a long prison sentence also because she scorned the opportunity that Canadian justice had offered her in September 2004 to return to Vancouver in the best possible conditions (no more criminal proceedings and restitution of primary custody of the children). And it is not by repeating like a refrain “the only right worth anything is that of the children” that you will change anything.

Start a petition if you like! But remember how the previous one, with its 3,000 signatures, was perceived by the magistrates of the Court of Appeal: as an attempt to put pressure on the Court. The same causes generally produce the same effects, and above all do not imagine that the Canadian jury will exclaim “Ms Gettliffe must be freed because Phone Tag’s petition asks us to!” “If Nathalie wins”, you say! One must be dreaming! With the same arguments she lost at Privas and lost again at Nîmes and lost yet again before the Court of Cassation, and you still hope she will win in Vancouver? Come down from your cloud! Nathalie Gettliffe’s only chance of benefiting from a little indulgence is to adopt a low profile. Grant was not wrong to recommend that she plead guilty “to spare herself the ordeal of a trial”. Only there it is: it is necessarily bad advice since it comes from Grant; so they persist. To finish, I would be grateful if you would kindly put away your everlasting cliché of the “father’s right” among your joke-shop accessories. I have never defended the “father’s right” but fought the so-called “right” that certain parents (fathers and mothers share this sad behaviour fairly equally) arrogate to themselves to dispose unilaterally of their children under various fallacious pretexts. As far as Maximilien and Joséphine are concerned, the question is no longer whether or not they must return to Canada — that has long been settled. The question is: under what conditions is their return organised? Dramatically or calmly? That is the only question that should be on the agenda of any person claiming to defend these kids.

But can you still understand that?

Remark from a forum user

You are nevertheless forgetting an essential element of the file, which is Mr Grant’s membership of a cult (…)

(There is the classic argument that permits every shortcut — ed.)

Reply from Thémis

(…) One can obviously criticise the three strong points of the ICC: assiduity at services, a culture of results in recruitment, the threat of damnation in the event of misconduct (which is furiously reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s excommunication), but none of that amounts to much. Any Orthodox Jew imposes far stronger constraints on himself, but nobody would dream of considering his religion a cult and his children as being in danger. Why decide “a priori” that one dogma is dangerous and not another, one movement a cult and another a church? Why should the ICC be definitively labelled a “cult” and not the Mormons? If Scott Grant were a Sudanese Muslim instead of a Canadian Christian, he would probably be planning an excision ceremony for his daughter upon his return to the country. I am weak enough to consider that she would then be truly in danger if she were sent back to his country, even though her father’s religion would not bear the infamous label of cult. The debate about cults therefore matters little; what counts is the reality of the threat, and in this case, I am sorry, but there is nothing of a nature to justify an abduction of children.

Moreover you say: “One can understand that a mother alone, facing the pressure of the group, decided to leave the country to protect her own.”

In all the accounts she has given since the beginning of the proceedings, Nathalie Gettliffe has not been able to cite a single episode illustrating this famous “pressure of the cult”. Everything she relates is situated before her departure from the marital home (July 2000) and therefore cannot justify a departure for France in August 2001.

Reply from Thémis

I read: “Public opinion is not fooled and will know to take the side of this French mother.”

That is exactly the natural drift in this type of case: one takes the side of one’s compatriot, without looking further. If the roles were reversed, what would we not hear to blame this banana republic that leaves a poor Frenchwoman without her children, abducted for five years, while all the judgments are in her favour and nothing has been done in the 22 months since they became enforceable, except to grant her the alms of a one-week visit… The international conventions (The Hague, Luxembourg, Brussels I and II) are there to move from a logic of opposition between States systematically defending their nationals, even when at fault, to a logic of reciprocal cooperation. I concede that this requires an effort of reflection where one is rather tempted to react with one’s guts.

Reply from Phonetag

Thémis’s attitude, taking no account of the well-being of the children, seems revolting to me. As a father, I am also “disgusted” by these men who see only their navel and their personal interest… However: Beware, Nathalie is indeed charged with contempt of court and child abduction! Both counts have been retained against her. The confusion comes from the wording of the arrest warrant, which is not very clear. But after checking in the Canadian texts, it has been confirmed that both counts are indeed retained. She therefore risks 10 years in prison!

Nathalie is indeed a candidate in the presidential elections. This candidacy rests on three arguments:

1. her story is a real social issue. She hopes that her candidacy will generate a debate and that her experience will be able to serve others.

2. she was more and more isolated in prison. Visits were becoming more and more difficult. There is really a political will to make people forget this affair and to settle it without telling public opinion. This will exists in France as in Canada.

With her candidacy, if arbitrary decisions are again taken against Nathalie, public opinion will be informed of it more easily.

3. this candidacy will force French politicians to take a position in this affair.

It may seem idiotic to people like Thémis, but it is the best way to give the anthill a good kick. When one is fighting people who are ready for anything, including imprisoning people arbitrarily, one must be able to leave the beaten track… A last word for dear Thémis and his association. I find it particularly depressing that a group with as laudable a vocation as SOS enlèvements d’enfants positions itself in this way. This association will be beneficial if and only if its priority is the defence of children. At present it makes a strict reading of the law in force (of a part of the law…). Associations that are not capable of taking positions somewhat at odds with the powers that be serve no purpose. It is a pity, because the initial idea was surely very good…

Go on, Thémis, write me a few reference texts, it will let off your steam!

Reply from Thémis

Phone Tag, who is letting off steam here? Some of your friends who insult and threaten me? Surely, yes. You yourself, playing Robin Hood? Perhaps. But me, certainly not. Writing here relieves me no more than talking to a deaf man could. You have definitively chosen to stick to an imaginary version of the Gettliffe affair, whatever demonstration one may bring you that it corresponds in no way to reality. “Let us therefore begin by setting aside all the facts, for they do not touch the question,” said J.-J. Rousseau: that could be your motto. You have locked yourself into a spiral of lies that leads you today to endorse false news, untruthful accusations and even the worst manipulations of the two children. Making them speak of their father in the past tense, making them repeat the sordid accusations they had to testify to before their lawyer or the children’s judge — that is probably what you call “taking into account the well-being of the children”. I do not. One of the arguments of Nathalie Gettliffe’s defence before the Court of Appeal was that, under the presumed influence of the “cult”, they might be led to “curse their mother”. And leading them to consider their father “a monster”, to speak of him in the past tense and to “no longer want to bear his name” — that is better, perhaps? No, it is doing exactly what was supposed to be prevented. So no, a thousand times no, I am not letting off steam by coming here, reading all your phraseology punctuated by the hollow formulas of some about “innovative methods” and the navel-gazing considerations of others who consider that laws are worth nothing against their own opinion. Faced with so much narrow-minded stupidity and so much blindness, which leads you not even to see that with every lie, with every insult against the Canadian system, you aggravate Nathalie Gettliffe’s case — no, I am not letting off steam. I despair. “Collective intelligence is a superhuman effort,” said Céline. He must have crossed paths with you somewhere.

Addendum October 2010

The “Gettliffe” affair made headlines in 2007. Nathalie Gettliffe, French, was then in open conflict with her Canadian ex-husband Scott Grant, whom she accused of being in a cult and of preventing her from seeing her children. She had been convicted by Canadian justice for having abducted her children without authorisation in order to bring them back to France. In her “fight” she was helped by her new companion Francis Gruzelle, a journalist at the Dauphiné Libéré, who had become totally involved in her defence.

The affair having taken an international turn, it was not possible for France to put forward the theme of the “cult”, because Canada has the intelligence not to have a French-style anti-cult policy and because the decision of the Canadian court of justice had to be respected. So much so that MIVILUDES and the French authorities had adopted a diplomatic language full of nuance. Within our borders, on the contrary and unsurprisingly, the theme of the cult that separates couples and steals children had flourished, as for example on Laurent Ruquier’s programme

On n’est pas couché

(France 2 – 24 February 2007), in which the vacuity of the anti-cult arguments is downright appalling.

By an astonishing repetition of events, Nathalie Gettliffe and Francis Gruzelle are today in a publicised conflict over the custody of the two children they have had together. Nathalie Gettliffe asserts that Francis Gruzelle “played a superb role at the time of (her) story [CICNS: the one with Scott Grant] (…). He would like to re-mediatise this affair, to live again off this conflict” (L’Express). Francis Gruzelle, for his part, speaking of Nathalie Gettliffe, states: “She utters the same accusations against me that she uttered against Scott Grant, minus the cult” (Elle).

“Minus the cult”. But did “the cult” have any role whatsoever in the separation of the first couple? Evidently, Nathalie Gettliffe surfed on the wave of French anti-cultism to try to win her case in the conflict linked to her first divorce (as many others have tried — see our documentary on this subject). Apparently, the repetition of events does not seem to serve as a lesson for people who would benefit from seeking the source of their problems within themselves. Nor should we expect any self-questioning on the part of the commentators who, in 2007, adopted the anti-cult logorrhoea without thinking and who would probably adopt it again in 2010.