DATE: 20010731
DOCKET: C35795

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

PATRICIA ANNE SPEARS-HAUGEN (Appellant) - and -RANDOLPH BERTRAM HAUGEN, LORRIE ELLEN SPEARS, SUPERIOR COURTS OF ONTARIO (Respondents)

BEFORE:

CATZMAN, FELDMAN, SHARPE JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Patricia Spears-Haugen

In person

Catherine Bellinger and E. Pauline Taylor

of the Children's Lawyer

HEARD:

JULY 19, 2001

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Susanne R. Goodman dated January 8, 2001 in Newmarket.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant is the mother of two daughters, ages 15 and 13 years old. She appeals from the judgment of Goodman J. which awarded custody of her two daughters to her sister, their aunt, Lorrie Spears. The appellant represented herself on the appeal as she did at the trial. No one appeared for the father of the children or for the aunt. Counsel for the childrens’ lawyer opposed the appeal, representing the interests of the children.

[2] The appellant has many concerns and disputes arising out of her problems with her husband and her subsequent loss of all of her property, for which she blames many people and government agencies. From the reasons of the trial judge, it appears that the appellant’s constant focus on her grievances was one of the reasons for the conclusion that it would not be in the best interests of the children to be in the permanent custody of their mother.

[3] To her credit, the appellant was able to limit her submissions to the grounds of appeal on the issue of custody alone. The appellant raised concerns regarding her sister’s care of the children and their failure to thrive. Her position is that it is in their best interests to be in the custody and care of their mother. She said that they are failing in school, and are unsupervised.

[4] She also raised issues regarding the proceedings below including the propriety of the social worker’s assessment of the situation; she advised the court that he did not come into her home. However, from the reasons, it appears that his role was to determine the wishes of the children and not to conduct a custody assessment, which may explain why he did not attend at the appellant’s home. She also complained that she had approached legal aid several times but did not have a lawyer. On this point, the children’s lawyer advised the court that it was her understanding that when the appellant applied for legal aid, she did not qualify because of her assets. The appellant also objected to the fact that the trial judge was prepared to accept the lower expectations of the aunt for the children as more realistic than those of the mother regarding their education.

[5] We do not minimize the concerns expressed by the appellant about her children. They demonstrate how much she cares about her children as their mother. However, the reasons of the trial judge reveal that she gained a very complete understanding of the situation. In our view, the reasons of the trial judge are both thorough and even-handed in their approach. The trial judge weighed and considered all of the evidence carefully and applied the correct legal principles in concluding that in all of the circumstances, it was in the best interests of the children that they be in the custody of their aunt.

[6] The trial judge specifically found that: “I have no hesitation in finding, based on the evidence of Mr. Jenkinson [the social worker] and that of the aunt, that the children have been living in and will continue to live in a stable home environment while at their aunt’s home.” (par. 38) She also took into account the distance to Elliott Lake where the aunt lives, which makes it very difficult for the appellant to have access to the children. On that point she concluded that any access difficulties are outweighed by the benefits of the “stable, loving environment” the children have with their aunt.

[7] We have no basis to interfere with these findings and conclusions based on the record before us. If there is new information which changes the circumstances in a way which warrants a variation of the custody arrangements, the appellant may consider seeking a variation of the custody order. If she does so, it would be most helpful for her to seek the assistance of counsel.

CONCLUSION

[8] In the result the appeal is dismissed without costs.