WARNING

The Court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to one or more of subsections 48(7), 45(8) and 45(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

45.— (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.

The Court may make an order:

(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing,

where the Court is of the opinion that publication of the report would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding.

(8) Prohibition: identifying child.

No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child's parent or foster parent or a member of the child's family.

(9) Idem: order re adult.

The Court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

85.— (3) Idem.

A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(c) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2017-07-14

Court File No.: Belleville, Ontario FO-16-005-00

Between:

Highland Shores Children's Aid Society, Applicant

— AND —

J.L.O. (mother), R.O. (father), J.O. (step-mother), Respondents

Before: Justice Wendy Malcolm

Heard on: June 26 and 29, 2017

Written Submissions: July 7, 2017

Reasons on Temporary Care and Custody decision released: July 19, 2017

Counsel:

• Linda Fagbenro — counsel for the applicant Society
• Wendy J. Elliott — counsel for the respondent J.L.O.
• Eve Ann Theriault — counsel for the respondents R.O. and J.O.
• Heidi Breier — children's lawyer for S.O.

Malcolm, J.:

Relief Requested

[1] This decision concerns the temporary care and custody of the child S.R.O., who is 7 years of age. The child lives at present in the joint and shared care of his parents on a week about schedule, pursuant to the temporary order of February 16, 2016 made pursuant to subsection 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act.

[2] The Highland Shores Children's Aid Society (Society) seeks to vary this order and place S.R.O. in the care of his father and stepmother with alternate weekend access to his mother, subject to society supervision.

[3] The Society claims that the mother breached the joint custody order when she changed the child's medication, without the consent or consultation of the society or father, and that this change impacted the child's physical and emotional health. Further, it is claimed that the mother obtained unnecessary services for the child without the consent or consultation of the father and Society.

[4] The Applicant Society's motion was heard over two half-days. The evidence consisted of both affidavit and oral testimony. In particular, there was Affidavit evidence from Kristen McCoy, the current Family Services Worker for the Applicant Society, Affidavits from the Respondent mother and the mother's close friend and landlord, F.G., and by the Respondent step-mother.

[5] Oral evidence was received from the following third parties and independent service providers: Dr. Khalid-Khan, S.R.O.'s treating psychiatrist; Jenn Cooke, S.R.O.'s school teacher; Madison Reid, an Occupational Therapist with "Make Way for Me"; and Sabrina Tripolitano, MSW, RSW, a clinical social worker who completed a section 54 assessment on the family that was submitted to the Court on November 8, 2016.

[6] The Respondent mother, J.L.O., is opposed to the relief sought by the Applicant Society on the basis that there has been no material change in circumstances since February 2016. Further, she submits that the child is doing well in the joint care of the parents; the child may be able to remain in the same school that he has attended for the past four years; the child does not want to live full-time with his father; and the child may react badly if the change is made.

[7] The Respondent father and step-mother, R.O. and J.O., and the Children's Lawyer are consenting to the relief sought by the Applicant Society. The Children's Lawyer submits that the week about arrangement continue until the middle of August 2017, and then the child reside in the care of the father.

The Law

[8] A motion to vary a temporary order brought pursuant to subsection 51(6) of the CFSA is an exercise in judicial discretion in accordance with the case law and the principles of the Act. Unlike subsection 51(2) which clearly outlines the test at a temporary care and custody hearing, there is no similar test laid out within subsection 51(6).

[9] At a temporary care and custody hearing the evidence must be based on credible and trustworthy evidence as set out by Justice Blishen in Children's Aid Society of Ottawa Carleton v. T.. I find that there must be the same standard at a variation hearing.

[10] In Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. K.D., 2011 ONCJ 55, Justice Spence in his extensive review of the case law and at paragraph 29, concludes that the Court should follow a "four-step path" when determining whether to vary a temporary order, based on the following questions:

1. Has there been a material change since the making of the previous temporary order?

2. If so, is that material change risk-based? In other words, is it a change that makes it either more likely, or less likely, to affect the risk of harm to the child?

3. If the material change is risk-based, is it significant enough to vary the child's placement, having regard to the length of time that the status quo has been in place and how soon trial is likely to occur?

4. In considering step number 3, is the requested variation proportional to the change in circumstance, having regard to the court's mandate to be guided by the paramount purposes, as stated in subsections 1(1) and (2) of the Act?

[11] I will follow the same analysis as set out in Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. K.D. The paramount purposes of the Act at paragraph 1(1) and (2) are as follows:

1(1) The paramount purpose of this Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well being of children.

Other purposes

(2) The additional purposes of this Act, so long as they are consistent with the best interests, protection and well being of children, are:

1. To recognize that while parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and, wherever possible, be provided on the basis of mutual consent.

2. To recognize that the least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child should be considered.

3. To recognize that children's services should be provided in a manner that:

   i. respects a child's need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment,

   ii. takes into account physical, cultural, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children,

   iii. provides early assessment, planning and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children in accordance with their best interests, and

   iv. includes the participation of a child, his or her parents and relatives and the members of the child's extended family and community, where appropriate.

4. To recognize that, wherever possible, services to children and their families should be provided in a manner that respects cultural, religious and regional differences.

[12] The court must also take into account the fact that any variation of a temporary order is itself only intended to be a temporary measure. As such, the context and the temporal factors inherent in a motion to vary must also be weighed by the court in its analysis. In Children's Aid Society of Algoma v. D.M., 2013 ONCJ 391, at para. 18 Justice Kukurin outlines the temporal factors to be considered. These include the "length of time that the status quo has existed (and why), the length of time before the case comes to trial, the length of time that the children have maintained contact with parents, and the point in time when the proposed change in temporary care and custody is to take place."

[13] Finally, the Society seeks to rely on the section 54 assessment. In Children's Aid Society of St. Thomas and Elgin v. C.R., 2014 ONCJ 245, Justice O'Dea relied almost exclusively upon the parenting capacity assessment in finding that a change in circumstances has occurred. He concluded that the temporary order should be varied to follow the assessor's recommendations pending a trial of the matter.

Brief History Prior to the February 2016 Order

[14] The parents separated from each other in 2009. In 2012 they consented to a divorce, division of property, child and spousal support and a joint custody arrangement for their son, with primary residence with the mother. There is a 2012 order in the Superior Court of Justice.

[15] The mother is an early childhood educator and works full-time in a day care in Belleville.

[16] The father has remarried and he and his wife have a child, A., who is approximately 2 years of age.

[17] The father and step mother are registered nurses. Although the father originally lived in Kingston where the stepmother and he worked, they moved to Napanee in order to be closer to S.R.O. The father also changed jobs to be closer.

[18] S.R.O. has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiance Disorder. He is treated by a psychiatrist in Kingston.

[19] The Society has been involved with this family since January 4, 2010. The society alleges that there is extreme conflict between the parties that has emotionally impacted the child. The mother has made numerous allegations that the father was harming the child and the child has been seen by numerous physicians, the police and society workers. Comments have been made by many of those service providers involved with the family that the conflict between the parents may be contributing to the child's challenges.

[20] The allegations have ranged from the father hurting the child's foot, the father threatening the life of the mother, and the father aggressively washing the child's penis. The society did not verify any allegations.

[21] The child and mother's physician, Dr. Bonacci described the mother to Ms. Tripolitano as anxious and that sometimes she brings the child to see him when it is necessary and other times when it is not necessary.

[22] The most concerning example of an unverified allegation occurred on August 10, 2015 when the mother alleged that the child said his father kissed his penis. Despite there being an assigned child protection worker, did not report this but instead took the child to a pediatrician who referred the case to the sexual abuse team in Kingston. The child was not forthcoming in any allegations when he met the team.

[23] Subsequently the Napanee OPP investigated on August 12, 2015. The child recanted and told the investigating officer Tucker that he had said that his father touched his penis but that was not true. He said, "I said this to get Dad in trouble. Dad is perfect, mom is awful, many lies. I need to get my dad in trouble for once".

[24] Both the society worker at the time, Kelly Lockwood, and the OPP officer believed the child had been coached. The parents were told on August 13, 2015 that there would be no charges laid against the father and his access would resume that weekend. Despite knowing this, the mother proceeded with a motion in the Superior Court of Justice without notice to vary the joint custody order and suspend the father's access.

[25] Her motion was adjourned for service on the father to September 1, 2015. The Society worker received a copy of the mother's affidavit and indicated there were inaccuracies within it. As a result, the Society obtained a warrant for the OPP investigation. The worker was subpoenaed to court by the father's lawyer and on September 1, 2015, the mother withdrew her motion.

[26] On December 4, 2015, the mother complained to the worker that the child's penis was red and raw. After interviewing the child during a visit with his father, the father was directed by the worker to take the child to a doctor. Dr. Chanda in Kingston examined the child but did not see anything wrong. Dr. Bonacci had seen the child for similar complaints and reported to Ms. Tripolitano that "it was a bit of redness" "not really much".

[27] In December 14, 2015, S.R.O. stabbed a person at his day care. After the incident he became an inpatient at Hotel Dieu hospital in Kingston for 4 days.

[28] On December 23, 2015, the mother took the child to a doctor who was not in this area. This doctor was told that the mother was concerned about the child going for his access because his father may not give him his asthma medication. The mother did not want the child to attend for his access.

[29] In January 2016, the Society brought a protection application requesting that the child be found in need of protection because of the extreme conflict between the parents and the mother's unsubstantiated allegations of abuse by the father. The Society asked that the child be placed in the equal and shared joint custody of his parents.

After the 2016 Order

[30] On the first return date of the application on February 16, 2016 the parents consented to an order that S.R.O. be in the joint care and custody care of the parents on a week about basis. The parents agreed not to contact each other unless there is an emergency. They agreed to use a communication book. Subsequently, this was changed so the parents could use Family Wizard, an online communication program.

[31] On June 28, 2016, a section 54 parenting capacity assessment was ordered by the court on consent of the parents.

[32] The child is on two medications: Adderall to help control his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Risperidone to assist with his aggressive behaviours.

[33] The parties had significant disagreement with respect to the medication regime. The father and stepmother felt that the Risperidone taken at night caused the child to have difficulties sleeping. The mother disagreed. After a meeting with the child's psychiatrist the child was taken off the nighttime dose in November 2016. However, the mother reported the father and step mother to the College of Nurses of Ontario because of their position regarding the medication.

[34] The Section 54 assessment was completed in November 2016. The assessment is 91 pages long. There is also a psychological report by Dr. Cooper of the care givers. The assessor had several interviews with the caregivers and observed interactions with the child twice in each home. She also spoke to numerous services providers and reviewed voluminous material from health care providers, school records, children's mental health, and Ontario Provincial Police.

[35] The assessor recommended that the father have sole custody and decision-making and that the mother have access on alternate weekends from Friday after school until Monday morning. It was recommended that after a period of six months, she could have midweek access.

[36] The Society worker, despite these recommendations, believed the joint custody arrangement could be salvaged and recommended child protection mediation. The child protection mediation occurred on April 21, 2017.

[37] The family worker retired in April 2017 and a new worker was assigned to the family. At that time, the worker became aware that the mother had unilaterally changed the Risperidone medication regime. The child's teacher and the day care provider both called the society on April 19, 2017 with serious concerns about the child's behaviour. The child's teacher, Jenn Cooke, testified.

[38] Ms. Cooke described S.R.O. as a very polite, kind child who enjoyed taking on leadership roles. However, he could also be rude, defiant and aggressive. When on his medication, he is seen to be less fidgety, better able to focus and less aggressive.

[39] Previously, the child was having his medication at lunch time at school. This appeared to assist with his aggressive behaviours. In the fall of 2016, a trial of removing the lunch Risperidone was tried but all parties involved agreed that the child did better with the noon dose and it was reinstated. The teacher had described the child's behaviour to the worker as awful and chaotic in the afternoon when he did not take his medication.

[40] Ms. Cooke indicated that there had been a meeting with the parents in the fall of 2016 and it was agreed that the school personnel would ensure that S.R.O. would eat lunch and his two nutritional snacks because of the medication.

[41] However, around the end of March 2017, the mother contacted the school principal and indicated the child should no longer have his lunch or snacks.

[42] Ms. Cooke testified she was concerned because students at that age are very busy and need their nutrition.

[43] The mother had complained to the family doctor that the school was punishing the child for not eating his lunch by withholding recess and lunch break. The doctor wrote a letter to the school on April 6, 2017 indicating the child should be allowed to continue his physical activity. It said nothing about the child's medication or eating.

[44] Ms. Cooke confirmed that the child was not being punished for not eating his lunch, but he was being encouraged to eat his lunch and snacks as the parents had directed to the school at the beginning of the school year. Further, the school personnel noted the child did better in the afternoon after eating his lunch. The step mother in her affidavit indicated there was only one day the child was not allowed to attend recess or lunch break.

[45] This confusion is made worse by the mother's concern that the father was sending food for the child after the "best before date". She wanted the school to check the dates on snacks. The child was impacted and sometimes would not eat food sent by the father. The child was aware of the mother's concerns. The child would say that he did not have to eat his lunch or snacks because his mother told him. The mother also called the school during the father's parenting time to see how the child was doing.

[46] The worker had notes from speaking to the school principal who indicated on April 18, 2017 that the mother called indicating they were trying something else and the child would not receive his noon dose of Risperidone.

[47] Ms. Cooke testified that on April 19, 2017, she noticed a significant difference in the child's behaviour in the afternoon and in particular noticed the child had problems sitting up, he had glazed eyes, his cheeks were flushed, and he said that his belly didn't feel great. The teacher is and was extremely concerned. She said normally the child is excited to learn and help. She contacted the society worker as did the after school program worker, Ms. Casey. She was not aware that the medication change was not shared with the father or the society. Further she stated that the child's behaviour was better when he had his medication at lunch.

[48] I was impressed with the compassion that Ms. Cooke displayed for the child's very difficult position. She was painfully aware that he was in the middle of a long standing dispute between his parents. She described knowing when the parents were in Court was involved because his stuttering increased. What she wished for S.R.O. was for him to just be a child. The principal had also expressed concerns to the worker that the shared parenting arrangement was not good for him.

[49] The mother when asked by the worker about the medication change said the psychiatrist, Dr. Khan, had said she had received "emails" and it would be alright if the child had all three of his daily doses of Risperidone in the morning so he didn't have to worry about taking medication on an empty stomach. The mother told the worker that she told Dr. Khan that she could not contact the father and that Dr. Khan agreed to contact the father.

[50] Dr. Khan testified that it was the mother who called her office about the proposed change of medication and she called her back. She said that the parents could try what the mother suggested, but she told the mother to contact the father so they could decide together. Dr. Khan indicated she didn't have time to contact the father. She said she did not get any emails about this situation. I accept the evidence of the psychiatrist. The mother put her in a very difficult position.

[51] Dr. Khan testified that miscommunication is how mistakes are made and that the child's health could have been put at risk. She also indicated that it put her legally at risk because mistakes could be made by her concerning the care of her patient.

[52] She described the child as being in the middle of the conflict between the parents and she indicated that during this difficulty with the medication she felt very anxious and in the middle of the parents' conflict. She commented that the child's anxiety must be 500 times worse than her anxiety. I agree that this child is in a very difficult and potentially hazardous position when the parents do not communicate and unilateral decisions as to his care are made.

[53] I do not accept the mother's statement to the worker that the doctor called her to say she was adjusting S.R.O.'s medication. This is a fabrication. There is no reason that the doctor "out of the blue" would contact the mother solely to discuss changes in the child's medication.

[54] Although the mother had a different explanation in her affidavit from what she told the worker, she still said that the doctor recommended the change of medication. The doctor did not recommend the change. She was responding to what the mother told her. The mother told her the child was having problems eating at school. The doctor testified that Risperidone is a stimulant however and would ordinarily help with appetite.

[55] Dr. Khan said that the parents could try the mediation change but the mother had to contact the father to discuss. She said that they could then consider reliable observations as to how the child did with the change. Here the school can provide the best evidence that the child functions better when he eats his lunch and snacks and has his noon hour medication.

[56] Further, the mother had an obligation to advise the father and the worker of her requested change in medication. In the fall, the requested change was made with consultation of all the parties. Why was this change different in the spring of 2017? Further, the mother took so much offence to the father's position on the nighttime dose of Risperidone that in September 2016, she reported him and his wife to the College of Nurses.

[57] The mother knew that she could use the communication journal, family wizard, the school or the society worker to discuss the proposed change in medication with the father. She cannot abdicate her responsibility to contact the father to the psychiatrist.

[58] In addition to the issue of the food and medication, Ms. Cooke became aware that the mother was taking the child to an occupational therapist in Kingston even though the school had arranged for in-house occupational therapy. Once the school discovered that the mother had taken the child for an independent assessment they had an updated assessment completed and it was determined that the child did not need the intensive intervention, as the mother believed. Further, the mother had provided inaccurate information to the assessors.

[59] The occupational therapist, Ms. McAlpine, testified. She indicated that the mother completed a general information form on November 10, 2016, which indicated that the child lived with her and she had custody. She did not obtain the consent of the father and she told the occupational therapist that she could not contact the father because of a no contact order. It was not true that she had custody and it was not true that she could not contact him. Further, she did not tell the assessor that the child had received therapy through the school.

[60] The mother has clearly not abided by the interim joint custody supervision order by making unilateral decisions.

[61] The unilateral change in medication in April 2017 is sufficient to demonstrate that there has been a material change in circumstances since February 2016, which affected the risk of harm to S.R.O. In addition, the mother unilaterally made decisions to involve the child in services without consulting the father or society. Further, these changes are significant enough to vary the child's placement.

[62] I am advised that trial dates are not available until November and December 2017.

[63] I am concerned that this child will suffer more than he has already if a change in placement and custody is not made at this time.

Best Interest of the Child

[64] The child requires a stable consistent environment where timely decisions can be made about his medical, behavioural and educational needs. The shared and joint custody order does not meet those requirements. Lack of communication or miscommunication has impacted on this child emotionally and physically.

[65] Ms. Tripolitano, the assessor, testified at this temporary care hearing and her report has been filed. In her opinion, there were strengths and weaknesses in each home, but the father and stepmother can best provide for S.R.O.'s needs. She indicated that the stepmother in particular is able to put herself in the child's position and support his relationship with his mother.

[66] Perhaps understandably, the father is angry and bitter towards the mother given that she accused him of sexually abusing his son and reported him to his supervising College. However, the stepmother is able to see that despite these difficulties and challenges, the child loves his mother and that relationship needs to be supported. She is able to see how the conflict and police involvement have impacted the child, not just the father and step mother. The step mother seems more balanced and positive to the assessor.

[67] I was impressed with the testimony of the assessor. She was extremely fair, independent and balanced. Her evidence was very helpful. She had a most comprehensive assessment. She had taken considerable time and care to ensure the assessment was fair. She is a very experienced clinician who has conducted numerous section 54 and Section 112 reports for the Office of the Children's Lawyer pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.

[68] She observed that in the care of the father, the child seemed more relaxed and did not stutter and was able to follow direction. In the home of the mother, there was some stuttering and some difficulty in following direction.

[69] When the child was seen in the home of the mother, or at school during the mother's week, he would have a litany of complaints about the father's care, describing incidents that would have occurred when he was three years of age. However, in the care of his father, he appears to have a comfortable and loving relationship with his father, step mother and brother.

[70] It is the opinion of the assessor and a finding of this Court that the child has listened to adult conversations. This is confirmed by the child saying that he, his mother, and Mr. F.G. all believe that the father is a liar, among other uncomplimentary things.

[71] This child is in the middle of a terrible conflict. I agree that the parents cannot communicate and cooperate with each other and one parent needs to make the decisions with respect to this child, and in particular with respect to his education and health. The mother has failed to follow the Court orders for joint custody; she has made unilateral decisions to seek out occupational therapy and a change of the medical regime without consultation with the father.

[72] The child has been in the joint care of his parents for 16 months but this placement has not addressed the risk of harm because of the continued conflict between the parents.

School Placement

[73] In May 2016, the mother's counsel advised the father's counsel in writing that as the mother was moving out of the child's school district, the child would be enrolled at another school in another city. This was another example of the mother trying to make a unilateral decision in a joint custody order. As a result, the Court ordered that the child's school not be changed without Court order.

[74] The school board had allowed the child to remain in his present school despite that fact that neither parent lives in the area. This was to continue until this case was resolved. Given the trial will not occur until November 2017 or later, the issue of where the child will attend school in September 2017 must be decided.

[75] The mother in her affidavit asks to be given an opportunity to continue to parent her son in the shared arrangement. However, that time has passed. The child needs to have one consistent care giver but should also continue to enjoy expansive time with the mother. Now that the mother has moved, if the child was to travel to his school from his father's home he would be on the road for one hour each way. He should be in a neighborhood school where he may develop friendships.

Child's Wishes

[76] The mother states that the child will not do well in the sole care of his father. I disagree. The assessor, the school principal, and teacher have noted that the child does well in the care of his father. It appears in the mother's home that he hears negative things about his father and step mother. If there is less opportunity for negative discussions, the child, who is bright, will have an opportunity to see that what he has been told is not true.

[77] Further, the child has already adapted to moving from full time care with his mother to shared parenting. I am sure that he will adapt again. As Ms. Tripolitano described, it is a "risk benefit analysis". The benefit of the change in the child's residence over time will be higher for him than his upset about the move. The child may be initially upset but the parents cannot cooperate, communicate, and provide timely coordinated care for the child and this is having a negative impact on the child.

[78] The mother states that she supports the child's relationship with the father but her actions show otherwise. The repeated claims of unsubstantiated abuse and her unilateral decisions about medication and therapy show that she does not support the father.

[79] I have considered the paramount purposes of the Act and the best interests of the child and there is no less intrusive order that can be made that can protect the child.

[80] This matter will proceed to trial in November or December 2017 and there may be a different decision made but now one person or family needs to have the responsibility of making the educational, medical and other decisions about the care of the child. With one decision maker, there will be no opportunity for miscommunication and the Court, Society, school, family doctor, psychiatrist, and therapists can monitor the father and step mother's decisions. The parties have advised the court that they have agreed to a finding that the child is in need of protection.

Order

Therefore, the court orders:

[1] Pursuant to section 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act, the temporary care and custody order granted February 16, 2016 shall be varied to an order placing the child, S.R.O. (born […], 2009) in the temporary care and custody of his father, Mr. R.O. and step-mother, J.O. subject to the supervision of the Highland Shores Children's Aid Society and the following conditions of supervision:

a) All medical and educational decisions to be made by Mr. R.O. and J.O. Ms. J.L.O. to be informed of decisions and updates.

b) Ms. J.L.O. shall engage in personal counselling as outlined in the plan of care.

c) Mr. R.O. and J.O. to continue to ensure S.R.O. works with Pathways for counselling.

d) The parents shall ensure that S.R.O. is not exposed to adult conflict. The mother will support the child in his transition to his father's home.

e) Mr. R.O. and J.O. to continue to ensure S.R.O. sees Dr. Khan and Dr. Bonacci and takes medication as prescribed.

f) Parents to use Our Family Wizard to communicate regarding S.R.O. except for medical emergencies.

g) Mr. R.O. and J.O. shall ensure the physical, educational, medical and emotional needs of S.R.O. are met.

h) Mr. R.O. and J.O. shall allow the Society worker to have regular weekday announced and unannounced visits to their home, and also to speak privately with S.R.O. both at home and at school.

i) Ms. J.L.O. shall be prohibited from taking the child to other health care providers or attending at the child's school unless it is a prearranged parent teacher meeting or she is picking up or delivering the child for her parenting time or medical emergency.

[2] Access for Ms. J.L.O. with the child, S.R.O. (born […], 2009), shall be every second weekend from after school Friday to Monday morning, if Ms. J.L.O. can drop S.R.O. at school in Napanee, or, if Ms. J.L.O. cannot drop S.R.O. at school in Napanee on Monday morning, she shall drop him off at his father's home on Sunday night. During the summer, the exchanges to be at 3:00pm and the mother will attend at the father's home to pick up the child and at the end of access the father or step mother will attend at the mother's home to pick up the child.

[3] For July 2017, the alternate week access for the mother will continue, but effective Monday August 7, 2017 at 3:00 pm, the child shall be returned to the father. However if the mother cannot support the transition to the home of the father and the child is emotionally impacted, the father has discretion to terminate the extended access on consultation with the Society.

[4] The father shall keep the mother advised as to all major issues involving the child through Family Wizard. The parties will add the worker to the program if she wishes so she can monitor communication.

[5] The matter is adjourned to August 15, 2017 at 1:30 pm to confirm trial management and trial dates.

Oral decision and written endorsement: July 14, 2017

Written final decision: July 19, 2017

Signed: Justice Wendy Malcolm