2 total
The court granted an alienating mother limited access to her children despite non-compliance with therapy orders, and ruled that reunification therapy costs survive her bankruptcy as child support.
This endorsement reviews the custody and access arrangements following a previous judgment where the mother (Y) was found to have alienated the children from the father (X).
The court had ordered X to have sole custody and Y to participate in the Family Bridges Program and counselling.
Despite these orders, Y demonstrated significant non-compliance, causing delays and increased litigation costs, and subsequently declared bankruptcy.
The court, balancing Y's continued alienating behaviors and non-compliance against the children's strong desire to see their mother and their progress in reunification, granted Y limited unmonitored access.
The court also ruled that the costs associated with the Family Bridges Program and Y's counselling were in the nature of child support and maintenance, thus exempt from Y's bankruptcy discharge under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
The court dismissed a mother's motion to substitute a court-ordered reunification professional, finding the conflict of interest claim was res judicata and factually unfounded.
The respondent, Y, brought a motion to substitute her psychiatrist for the Family Bridges Aftercare worker, Ms. J. Vanbetlehem, alleging a conflict of interest due to Ms. Vanbetlehem's prior therapeutic services to the applicant, X. The court dismissed Y's motion, finding the issue was res judicata as Y knew or ought to have known about the alleged conflict before trial.
Furthermore, the court found no actual conflict of interest, as Ms. Vanbetlehem's services to X were not therapeutic but advisory, and the Family Bridges program is non-evaluative, with all professionals' goals aligned with the children's best interests.
Y was ordered to comply with the original order to participate in the Family Bridges Program.
