Ontario Court of Justice

Date: May 4, 2022 Court File No.: FO-21-00041397-0000

Between:

Vaughan Beckford Applicant

— AND —

Sherisse Beckford Respondent

Before: Justice Roselyn Zisman

Heard on: April 25, 26, 27 and May 4, 2022 Reasons for Judgment released on: May 4, 2022

Counsel: Sidra Naseem, for the applicant Sherisse Beckford, on her own behalf

Reasons for Decision

Zisman, J.:

1. Background

[1] This trial is with respect to decision-making responsibilities, parenting time and child support.

[2] The parties were married on April 8, 2021.

[3] The parties have one child Justin Matthias Beckford born on […], 2015.

[4] The parties separated on February 4, 2020 when the Respondent (mother) left the matrimonial home with the child.

[5] The Applicant (father) describes their relationship as “difficult” whereas the mother describes it as abusive.

[6] The child has remained in the primary care of the mother since the separation with parenting time to the father on alternate week-ends and a few hours twice a week.

[7] When the matter was set for trial the contentious issue between the parties was primarily the father’s request for shared parenting time and joint decision-making responsibilities.

[8] However, on February 25, 2022 the mother left with the child for a “vacation” to Florida. The mother did not obtain the father’s consent prior to arranging this trip but he then consented to the mother taking the child to Florida from February 25 to March 13th. The mother then emailed the father and his counsel that her vacation would be extended due to bad weather conditions and that they had not done all the activities they had planned. No date for the mother’s return was provided.

[9] Counsel for the father emailed the mother advising that the father only consented to a trip up to March 13th and requested an exact return date and an accurate address. The mother then advised that she would not be returning due to economic reasons until she obtained employment and secured housing. The mother was then put on notice that if she did not return the child, counsel for the father would be proceeding to court.

[10] On March 28th, counsel for the father brought an urgent motion without notice to the mother on the basis the if the mother was aware of the motion she may move to another state as she had previously provided an inaccurate address in Tampa Florida.

[11] On March 29th, Justice Paulseth ordered the mother return the child to this jurisdiction within 14 days and that the mother be served with the motion and supporting affidavit and the endorsement.

[12] Counsel for the father emailed the mother to remind her that 14 days would be up on April 12th.

[13] At the commencement of this trial the mother and child remained in Florida. At the outset of the trial that was conducted by videoconference, the court asked the mother if she intended to return. The mother advised that she would wait for the outcome of the trial. The mother was reminded by the court that she was in breach of Justice Paulseth’s order.

[14] As a result of the mother’s removal of the child, the father’s position changed and he sought primary residence of the child and sole decision-making responsibilities. He also sought ancillary parenting orders with respect to obtaining government documents and travel. The father sought these orders whether the mother returned to this jurisdiction. If the child was in his primary residence or alternatively in the parties’ shared residence, child support would be in accordance with the child support guidelines. He sought to impute minimum wage income to the mother.

[15] The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making responsibilities. She offered parenting time to the father for alternate week-ends and an overnight during the week and she was flexible with any additional time requested by the father. She sought child support in accordance with the father’s stated income.

[16] During closing submissions, the mother was again reminded by the court that it was unlikely that the court would make the orders she sought unless she returned to the jurisdiction. The mother then stated she was prepared to return but was indefinite as to when that might be.

[17] The court made a temporary order that the mother and child were to return to this jurisdiction on May 4th and that that the mother and child and the father and his counsel were to appear in person on May 4th at which time the court would render its decision.

[18] The mother and child returned to the jurisdiction and attended court today.

2. Court proceedings

[19] The father issued his Application on April 12, 2021 with a first appearance on July 19, 2021.

[20] At the case conference held before Justice Sherr on September 24, 2021, the parties agreed that the matter needed to proceed to a temporary motion and timetables for serving and filing motion materials was set. The parties agreed to a temporary without prejudice order that the father to pay child support of $827 per month, based on his income of $89,012 as of October 1. 2021 subject to adjustment regarding a start date and amount.

[21] The mother had been represented by counsel up to this time but on November 8, 2021, mother’s counsel was removed due to breakdown in relationship. The parties decided not to proceed with a motion but proceed to settlement conference.

[22] At the settlement conference held on December 21, 2021, the parties were unable to resolve the issues.

[23] At the trial planning conference held on February 18, 2022, the case was set for a focused trial. The parties were encouraged to continue to attempt to settle the issues. A trial endorsement form was completed that set a timetable for serving and filing materials, times for oral examinations and page limits for the affidavits.

[24] The trial proceeded as scheduled. Counsel for the father complied with the timetable for serving and filing affidavits. The mother filed her affidavit late and it exceeded the page limit set by the court. As the mother was self-represented her affidavit was accepted by the court.

[25] The father relied on his affidavits sworn March 24th and 28th, 2022 and his reply affidavit sworn April 14th, 2022. He also relied on the affidavits of his landlords who both testified.

[26] The mother relied on her affidavit sworn April 8th 2020.

[27] Both parties provided brief oral evidence and were subject to cross-examination. The father’s witness also testified and were subject to cross-examination.

[28] The affidavits of both parties contained hearsay. The father’s affidavit outlined information he obtained from the mother’s relatives as to concerns about the mother’s mental health. Both the mother and father’s affidavits contained information from third parties about difficulties the parties had with daycare and school staff. As indicated during the trial, this evidence is not being accepted for the truth but only to explain steps the parties took because the information they obtained or to explain their concerns.

3. Credibility of the parties and their witnesses

[29] I found the father to be a credible witness. He answered questions directly and gave his evidence in a straightforward manner. His two witnesses were credible.

[30] The mother was not a credible witness. The mother testimony was non-responsive, evasive and contradictory. She changed or added information as she testified. Some of the explanations she gave for her actions made no logical sense. The mother made many accusations against the father and some of her family that lacked any semblance of truthfulness.

[31] Where there is a contradiction between the mother and the father, I accept the evidence of the father.

4. Applicable law

[32] The main issue in this trial related to the parenting arrangements for the parties’ child. In making parenting orders the court is required to only take into account the best interests of the child.

[33] Subsection 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) addresses the best interests of the child. It provides as follows:

Best interests of the child

24 (1) In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section.

Primary consideration

(2) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and wellbeing.

Factors

(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

(k) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(l) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

(m) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

Factors relating to family violence

(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under clause (3) (j), the court shall take into account,

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor.

Past conduct

(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person, unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of the person’s decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to the child.

Allocation of parenting time

(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

[34] Subsection 33.1 of the CLRA addresses the importance of the parties protecting children from conflict. It provides as follows:

(2) A party to a proceeding under this part shall, to the best of the party’s ability, protect any child from conflict arising from the proceeding.

4. Analysis of the best interests factors

[35] Although much of the evidence focused on the mother’s lack of stability and in particular her removal of the child to Florida, all of the factors relating to the child’s best interests must be considered.

[36] The CLRA provides that in considering a child’s best interests the court shall consider all factors related to the child’s circumstances and in so doing shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

[37] The court is required to weigh all factors to determine which parent can best meet the needs of this child, what parent is best able to make appropriate decisions and what parenting time is in the child’s best interests.

[38] I will outline my findings of facts in accordance with the best interests factors.

4.1 The child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being

[39] I find that both parents are able to meet the child’s physical safety. Both parents love this child and would not endanger him. I do not accept the mother’s evidence that the father ever slapped the child or harmed him.

[40] However, I find that the father is the parent best able to meet the child’s needs for emotional and psychological safety as well as ensuring his security and well-being for the following reasons:

a) The father can provide the child with stability which is important for a child’s emotional and psychological well-being and security. After the separation he remained in the matrimonial home until it was sold. He then obtained his current accommodations where he has now resided for about a year and a half. He has a close and loving bond with his child. This was confirmed by his witnesses.

b) The mother since separation has not been able to provide any stability for the child. Upon separation, she moved to 4 different accommodations. Although the reasons are not clear it appears that her relationships with the various relatives she was residing with broke down. Finally the mother moved with the child to a hotel for several months before she then left with the child for a vacation to Florida on February 25, 2022. While in Florida she moved between the homes of various friends and relatives and was not forthcoming with the father or this court as to the exact whereabouts of the child.

c) There are concerns about the mother’s own emotional stability. She has made allegations that the father and various relatives are maligning her and conspiring against her. She alleged that her phone was hacked implying that it was the father or her relatives who did this. She accused the father of drugging her for two years by putting something into her tea every morning. An allegation that she only made during her oral evidence. She blamed the father for losing her job which made no sense as he did not even aware of the details of her employment and then she gave other evidence that she lost the job due to a disagreement regarding her hours of work.

d) She has exhibited impulsive behaviour as evidenced by her trip to Florida. The mother testified that she completed an insurance course and was certified as a life and health agent. She also worked for 2 months as an unpaid trainee for the company. Although she testified that she was told on February 23rd that unless she agreed to work different hours, she could not work for the company she nevertheless decided to drive with the child to Florida as the child wanted to go on a road trip. The mother showed a serious lack of judgement in complying with the wishes of a child to go on a road trip in these circumstances instead of staying in the jurisdiction and trying to find employment and permanent housing.

e) The mother’s judgement to take a trip to Florida is also questionable as there was no necessity for this trip, the child was being removed from a school routine and there were health risks due to Covid.

f) The mother remained in Florida as of February 25th despite agreeing to return on March 13th and despite being then ordered on March 29th to return with the child within 14 days.

g) The mother offered to send the child who is only 6 years old back to this jurisdiction as an unaccompanied minor if the father agreed to pay half the cost and return him within 10 days. The father did not agree and questioned as does the court regarding the mother’s judgment in proposing that such a young child travel alone.

h) The mother is currently home schooling the child. Prior to the separation due to various issues the child attended at least 3 daycares that involved in some instances conflict between the daycare provided and the mother. The child was then enrolled in a private Christian school for Junior Kindergarten. Based on information the father obtained the mother advised the school they could not afford to pay the tuition. However, the father was always prepared to pay the tuition. It was the mother’s evidence that the school stated the child was not welcome to return. Whatever happened, the mother did not consult the father regarding where the child should attend school for September 2020. The mother then decided to home school the child again without the prior knowledge or consent of the father. The mother did not explain why she chose an unaccredited home school U.S. curriculum or why she did not enroll the child in public school. The mother has not provided the child with stable education and her parenting decisions do not reflect sound decision making.

[41] I find that the mother’s life is in such turmoil and so unstable at this time and for the foreseeable future that she has not demonstrated that she can meet the child’s needs.

4.2 The child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability

[42] The child is only 6 years old and needs a home that can provide him with stability, structure, predictability and ensures that he develops to the best of his capabilities. He requires a parent who can ensure that he receives a proper education, attends school regularly, socializes with friends and engages in appropriate extracurricular activities.

[43] The mother in addition to this present trip to Florida has previously removed the child from school during the school year. In November 2019 the mother told the father she was taking the child to Jamaica for 2 weeks. The father did not agree. The mother stayed in Jamaica for 2 months. In November 2021, the mother again took the child to Jamaica for 2 weeks without the father’s agreement. On February 25th, 2022 the mother again took the child out of the jurisdiction.

[44] It is the mother’s position as the child is now home schooled she can teach him anywhere. She also testified that she did not see an issue with removing the child from school, when he was attending in person, as he is bright and can easily do his work or catch up on any missed work. She also did not see an issue in the future with removing him from school during the school year. She testified that as holidays would be shared with the father she may have to take him out of school to enjoy a vacation with the child.

[45] The mother provided no evidence as to her routine with the child since separation and especially since February 25th, 2022. It is not even clear exactly where she has been staying with the child.

[46] Despite receiving about $150,000 after the sale of the matrimonial home in February 2021, the mother testified that she had no funds left and was relying on friends or relatives in Florida to support her and the child. As the mother did not provide an updated financial statement her current financial circumstances are not clear. But in the financial statement she filed sworn August 18, 2021, the mother had $100,388 from the sale of the matrimonial home and had purchased a vehicle. She had minimal debts. If she has no funds left, this raises concerns about the mother’s ability to manage her finances and provide for the child.

[47] The father has a BA and MBA and has been employed at his current job for the last year and a half as a procurement specialist in the health industry. He works from his home currently. His income has ranged from about $71,000 to $90,000 over the last several years. He has about $130,000 in savings from the sale of the matrimonial home.

[48] The father testified that after the sale of the matrimonial home he carefully chose his current place of residence. He has no immediate plans to move but in the long term he is hoping to purchase a home. He does not agree with the child being home schooled and would enroll him in school.

[49] I find that the father is the parent who can offer this child stability, stability in providing a home, stability in providing a routine, stability in providing him with an education and financial stability.

4.3 The nature and strength of the child’s age and stage of development with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life.

[50] I accept that the mother has a close and loving relationship with the child. The father has never questioned the mother’s relationship with the child. His concerns have focused on her attempts to marginalize his role in the child’s life, her questionable parenting decisions and the lack of stability she can provide for the child.

[51] I accept the father’s evidence that he was an involved parent prior to the separation although he was the parent that was working outside the home while the mother was on maternity leave for 1 year. When the mother returned to work, I accept his evidence that both parents shared the responsibility of raising the child. The father then stayed home with the child from about May to September 2017. When he also returned to work both parents again shared the childcare responsibilities.

[52] I do not accept the mother’s evidence that prior to the separation, the father had no relationship with the child, never spent time with the child or that he was impatient with the child. The father gave evidence about his role in getting the child ready in the mornings and taking him to daycare, participating in the bedtime routines and generally being an involved parent.

[53] Since the separation, the father has exercised the parenting time that was agreed upon although he has consistently maintained his position for a shared residential arrangement.

[54] The father testified to the activities he enjoys with the child such as teaching him to roller blade, ice skate, engaging him in science activities, STEM activities and other skill building activities. The mother diminished the father’s role even testifying that she was the parent that taught the child to roller blade.

[55] The father’s engagement and close relationship with the child was observed by both owners of the home here he resides. The father lives in a self-contained basement apartment where the child has his own room and all facilities but the child has access to the upstairs of the home and the outside amenities. The father and child spend time with the owners of the home and their teenage daughter.

[56] The evidence of the owners of the home as to the father’s parenting abilities was not diminished in cross-examination. The owners of the home are a child and youth counselor employed by the Toronto Board of Education and a child protection social worker. Although they did not give evidence in their professional capacity the nature of their employment does give the court confidence in their observations of the father’s abilities to meet the needs of this child.

[57] The father does not have any family in Ontario but he has maintained connections with several members of the mother’s family and arranged time for the child to spend with his cousins. When the child is with the mother, he is not allowed to spend time with some of the mother’s family with whom the mother no longer has an amicable relationship. The mother provided no evidence as to whom the child socializes with when in her care.

[58] The mother did not provide any clear evidence with respect to her relationship with her family members nor did she call any witnesses. Although she testified that since separation, various family members and friends have provided her with accommodations, paid for her travel expenses and other living expenses, there was no detailed evidence or other proof. Further, the mother seems to have moved from place to place which causes the court concerns about her ability to maintain any long term relationships.

[59] Based on the evidence I accept, I find that the child has a close and loving relationship with both of his parents. I have concerns that the child is isolated when in the care of his mother. I find that the father is the parent who would support the child having a relationship with his extended family members.

4.4 Each parents’ willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent

[60] The father has demonstrated that he is able and willing to support the child’s relationship with the mother. Although since commencing this litigation he sought a larger role in the child’s life, there is no evidence he has spoken negatively about the mother or diminished the importance of her role in the child’s life.

[61] I find that the mother has done everything in her power to diminish the father’s role and presence in the child’s life. This has been the pattern since the birth of the child. It was the mother’ evidence that the father is incapable of meeting the child’s needs.

[62] The mother did not see that there was any requirement for her to consult with the father prior to arranging trips both before and after the separation.

[63] With respect to the trip to Jamaica with the child in November 2021, when father’s counsel wrote to her advising the father did not agree with the trip, she replied that as there was no separation agreement in place or court order she could take the child.

[64] With respect to the trip to Florida in February 2022, the mother sent an email to father’s counsel stating that, “I do NOT need to consult your client when I am making MY arrangements I only need to inform him as it relates to our son and the time that he will be unavailable.”

[65] This email clearly shows the mother’s lack of support for the father’s role in the child’s life. The mother did offer a few days of extra parenting time before the trip. But then she did not return as previously agreed on March 13th. She has now deprived the father of almost 2 months of parenting time.

[66] The mother did not see any need to consult with the father regarding several educational decisions she has made in particular to withdraw the child from the Christian school he was attending and to home school him.

[67] The mother has made unilateral decisions about the child’s schooling. When the father asked to be involved in the child’s online schooling some time in March 2020 and later his home schooling, the mother took the position that the father could not take an active role in his child’s schooling as he was impatient and had a tendency to become rude and aggressive. She further stated that the child asked her not to let him take schoolwork when he is with the father.

[68] I do not accept the mother’s evidence on this issue regarded the father being impatient. In cross-examination, the mother explained that as the father was impatient with her, she feared he would be impatient with the child. She gave no evidence of any specific incident. The mother’s allegations are not supported by any third party. The mother’s evidence is also contradicted by the owners of the home where the father resides. The owners testified that they have had many opportunities to observe the father and child and that they have not heard the father shout or seen him lose patience with the child. They testified that the father is very conscientious and thoughtful in how he plans his parenting time and how he explains this to the child.

[69] The mother further stated that she gives the father the opportunity to build a relationship with their son that is just based on having fun. She distinguished between parenting time and school time and that the father should not be involved aspect of teaching their son. I find that it is clear that the mother sees herself as the only parent that can meet this child’s needs and that the role of the father is simply to have “fun.” child. I find that she will not encourage the development of a meaningful role for the father in the child’s life.

4.5 The history of the care of the child

[70] The mother has been the child’s primary caregiver. She stayed home for the first year of the child’s life from November 2015 to November 2016. The child has been in her primary care since the separation in February 2020.

[71] However, I find that the father was actively involved in the child’s life. He was the primary caregiver from May to September 2017. When both parents were working both parents were involved. I find the mother has greatly exaggerated her role and diminished the father’s role.

[72] I have considered that the mother has now had the child in her primary care for over two years. However, given the other concerns raised about the mother’s actions over these two years I do not find the present status quo to be determinative.

4.6 The child’s views and preferences giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained

[73] The child is too young to express any views and preferences as to the parenting arrangements.

4.7 Any plans for the child

[74] The father’s plan is straightforward. He will continue to reside in his present accommodations. He will enroll the child in school. He has a permanent stable job and is currently working from home and has flexible hours. If he is required to return to work in his office on a part-time or full-time basis, he will seek some accommodations from his employer or arrange for daycare or a babysitter.

[75] The father seeks sole decision-making responsibilities. Prior to the separation, the parties were able to make some decisions together. However, since separation their relationship they have not been able to do so. The current situation as exasperated the situation further. I find that the parties are not capable of making joint decisions and such an order will simply increase the conflict between the parties.

[76] The father proposes parenting time for the mother on alternate week-ends.

[77] The mother’s evidence as to her plans changed several times. Initially she advised counsel for the mother on March 14th, one day after her scheduled return, that due to weather conditions she and the child had not done all the things they had planned or visited all of her relatives. The mother failed to mention that on March 113th she made plans to spend a week in Atlanta. It is obvious the mother had no intention of returning on March 13th despite the agreement and signed consent.

[78] Counsel for the father immediately responded asking when she would be returning. The mother did not respond.

[79] On March 20th counsel for the father again requested an exact return date and an accurate address as the previous address provided by the mother turned out to be a UPS office.

[80] On March 21st, the mother responded that due to economic reasons she was extending her stay until she can secure housing accommodation and employment. In that email for the first time, the mother advised that she and child had been in Atlanta Georgia from March 13th to March 20th. She advised for the first time the address of where she had been residing in Tampa Florida. She stated that she and the child could return if the father agreed to pay for her accommodations or for a hotel until she found employment. The mother testified that her friend gave her the initial address and she did not know it was a mailing address. She then testified that she only became aware of the residential address when she crossed the border and it never occurred to her to provide that address to the father as he had her cell phone number.

[81] The mother confirmed that she was served on March 29th with the handwritten endorsement of Justice Paulseth and a copy of the urgent motion and affidavit. She testified that she filed a response and was waiting to hear from the court as she claimed the order was obtained under false circumstances. She never explained what that meant or addressed that issue in her affidavit.

[82] The mother confirmed that she received the email from father’s counsel that in accordance with the order of Justice Paulseth she was to return by April 12th. She further testified that she thought the matter would be addressed in this trial so she did not have to return. She confirmed she never called the court or sought any other legal advice.

[83] But she then testified that she was “uncomfortable” returning to this jurisdiction due to the father’s abusive conduct towards her and that he “abused” the child. She thought she may be able to return by July.

[84] The mother testified that she had no plans to reside permanently in the U.S. as she could only stay there for 6 months. She denied making any inquiries about relocating to Jamaica although she confirmed that her friend had made some inquiries about school for the child and she had thought about contracting her former employer in Jamaica. She also deposed that the easiest place for her to move would be Jamaica. Although the mother testified she had no intention of moving to Jamaica this statement and the mother’s other behaviour raises concerns about the mother’s long term plans.

[85] When the mother testified, she mentioned she was now in Orlando Florida and staying with an uncle. She further testified she may travel to Fort Lauderdale to another relative or return to Tampa.

[86] In closing submissions, the mother then stated she would return in a few months. The mother stated that until the end of the trial, she did not understand Justice Paulseth’s that she needed to return. As previously indicated the court made an order for the mother and child to return by May 4th.

[87] I do not accept the mother’s evidence that she did not understand that she was required to return with the child by April 12th. Justice Paulseth’s order is clear and unequivocal. The mother is an intelligent, well-educated person she has been able to navigate the court process. Her evidence that she was waiting to get a response from the court is not believable or logical.

[88] Despite the mother deposing and testifying that she has been “desperately” seeking employment for the last several months, she provided no proof. However, in closing submissions she then stated that she could find employment within 2 months.

[89] Accordingly, the mother’s plans at this time are uncertain. The mother did confirm that she wishes sole decision-making responsibilities as she has always made all of the major decisions and due to the father’s abusive and controlling behaviour they cannot make joint decisions. She proposed parenting time to the father on alternate weekends from Friday to Sunday with one overnight during the week and other times during the week if child had competed his homework.

4.9 The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child

[90] The father has demonstrated that he is able and willing to meet the needs of the child. Although his parenting time has been somewhat limited since the separation, during the time he has spent with the child there is nothing to suggest that he is not capable of meeting the child’s needs.

[91] The mother is willing to meet the needs of the child and it was evident from her evidence that she believes she has always acted in the child’s best interests and met all of his needs.

[92] For whatever reason, the mother has acted in ways that I find demonstrate that she has not acted in the best interests of the child or met his needs for consistency and stability. She has not met his needs to have a meaningful relationship with his father or met his need for stability in his place of residence or in his education. She has shown a concerning lack of judgement.

4.10 The ability and willingness of each parent in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child

[93] There has been a lack of communication between the parties. Since the court proceedings have commenced, all communication has been through counsel when the mother was represented and thereafter between the mother and father’s counsel.

[94] The tone of the mother’s communications and her comments to counsel for the father have been rude, abusive, aggressive and totally inappropriate. Counsel for the father has conducted herself entirely appropriately and her communications to the mother have been professional and courteous.

[95] It is abundantly clear that the mother sees no need to co-operate with the father. On all the trips she took with the child, she felt no need to obtain the father’s consent before arranging a trip. In her view if she advised the father of her plans after she made arrangements, she was fulfilling her obligations. She did not even advise the father of the correct address where she was residing in Florida until after being there for almost a month. She testified that she has other things on her mind. The mother did not seek the father’s input in the child’s education once he no longer was attending private school. The mother since the child’s birth has treated the father as a lesser parent.

[96] In view of her allegations against the father, her opinion of his role in the child’s life and the manner in which she communicates, I find that the mother does not have the ability or desire to work cooperatively with the father or communicate appropriately with him.

4.11 Family violence and outstanding criminal charges

[97] The amendments to the CLRA have expanded the definition of family violence and increased its importance in assessing the best interests of a child. Family violence is often hard to prove as it takes place in private generally with no witnesses. There are many reasons that such violence is not reported to the police or other authorities especially when it does not involve physical violence but consists of coercive and controlling behaviour and involves verbal and emotional abuse.

[98] The mother in her trial affidavit made allegations that the father was verbally and emotionally abusive. She alleged that he would shout, hit things, throw things, break things, physically restrain her that escalating into him threatening to assault her. She deposed that he did this in the presence of the child who would cling to her. She deposed that one time he prevented her leaving their guest room and another time he pushed her against the kitchen sink and shouted that he should take a knife and stab her and only stopped when she threatened to call the police.

[99] The mother also testified that while they were on vacation in 2018 in Orlando Florida, the child who was 3 years old at the time was fussing and the father became aggressive and hit the child so hard he cried uncontrollably. She alleges that the father has no control when he is angry. She admitted in cross-examination that this alleged incident with the child only happened once.

[100] Despite the mother being represented by counsel at the time, there is no mention of any family violence against the child in the mother’s 35.1 affidavit. The mother only states that the father was abusive to her.

[101] The father denied the mother’s allegations that he was abusive towards either the mother or the child. But he stated that he and the mother shouted in inappropriate ways. The mother in her oral evidence stated that she began to shout all the time but blamed it on the father drugging her.

[102] The mother never cross-examined the father regarding her allegations that he hit the child, drugged her, maligned her to her family and other people or somewhat interfered with her employment.

[103] The mother also testified that the father not selling the matrimonial home for a year after the separation was abusive behaviour as it prevented her from finding appropriate housing. The father was not cross-examined regarding him delaying the sale of the matrimonial home. Both parties were represented by counsel shortly after the separation so that if there were issues regarding the father delaying the sale, the mother could have commenced court proceedings to force a sale.

[104] The police or a children’s aid society has never been involved with the family. Although it is understandable that during a relationship a victim of family violence may not report such conduct, the mother did not explain why she did not do so after the separation or why these detailed allegations were not included in her court documents.

[105] There is no question that there were difficulties in the relationship between the mother and father but I find that none of the incidents are of such a nature that they impact the ability of the father to parent the child. I specifically find that the father never hit the child. These allegations against the father with respect to hitting the child, being impatient and being incapable of caring for the child for any extended time, do not coincide with her evidence that she would agree to the child taking the child on an extended trip to Jamaica.

[106] The father has conducted himself appropriately in these proceedings and there are no inappropriate communications he has sent the mother. His witnesses confirm that he does not shout, lose patience or otherwise act improperly with his son.

[107] In order to parent in a meaningful way and to ensure he did not harbour any anger against the mother for removing the child from their home, the father enrolled and completed an anger management seminar and attended for some counselling sessions with a psychotherapist to prepare him for parenting as a single father.

[108] I find that the mother exaggerated the nature of the relationship between herself and the father to bolster her case and to attempt to explain why she did not obey a court order to return with the child to this jurisdiction.

[109] Although the mother accuses the father of being rude, aggressive and a bully, the mother in her communications has been the party to demonstrate that she is rude, aggressive and a bully. She has acted as if she is in control and has no need to obey agreements made between the parties or court orders.

5. Protection of the child from conflict

[110] To the credit of both parties, they have managed not to expose the child to the conflict between themselves since they separated. Exchanges appear to have gone well.

[111] I expect that both parents will continue to shield the child from any ongoing conflict.

5.13 Conclusion and findings

[112] Despite the status quo since separation, I find in examining all the best interests factors that the child should have his primary residence with the father. The father is able to provide the child with a stable home, a consistent routine and meet his educational and other needs.

[113] I find that the father should make the major decisions about the child’s health, education and in the future any extracurricular activities. The mother since separation had made decisions that are not child focused or in the child’s best interests. The father should consult with the mother as it is important that she is involved in the child’s life. The father should consider the mother’s input but if she does not agree with his position then he shall have the authority to make the final decision.

[114] Both parents should be permitted to make decisions about the child’s cultural, religious and spiritual upbringing when the child is in their respective care.

[115] The father should be able to obtain government documents for the child without obtaining the mother’s consent as based on her conduct I am doubtful she would respond in a timely fashion to any such requests by the father.

[116] The mother shall be required to immediately provide the father with the child’s passport, health card, birth certificate and any other government documents pertaining to the child in her possession.

[117] With respect to travel, the father should be able to travel with the child without obtaining the mother’s prior written consent as long as he provides the mother with a full itinerary for any trip and provides contact information.

[118] I find that the mother should be required to obtain the father’s prior written consent before being permitted to travel with the child. I find that the mother is a flight risk in view of her removal of the child from Ontario several times without the prior consent of the father, her musings about moving to Jamaica, her lack of advising the father of her whereabouts in Florida and in view of her present conduct in disobeying a court order to return the child.

[119] The mother should be permitted to obtain information directly from the child’s school, doctors and nay other service providers as it is important that she remain involved in the child’s life.

6. Parenting time

6.1 Applicable legal principles

[120] The test for determining parenting time is based on what order is in a child’s best interests. The court is required to consider the best interests factors set out in subsection 24 (1) of the CLRA and any other relevant factors.

[121] Subsection 24 (6) of the CLRA provides that in allocating parenting time, the court should give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as s consistent with the best interests of the child.

[122] It is in the best interests of a child to have a loving relationship with both parents unless there is a danger to the child’s physical or emotional well-being.

[123] Both parents presented parenting plans that provides time for the child to spend with the other parent. The father proposed alternate weekends for the mother. The mother proposed the child spend alternate weekends and one overnight a week with the father. Neither parent provided a holiday schedule.

[124] Prior to the trial and up to the closing, the father was of course focused on whether the mother would return the child to Ontario. If the mother had not returned the father would have been required to take steps to have the child returned through the Hague Convention and commence proceedings in Florida.

[125] If the mother returns with the child, then she will not have a permanent residence and accordingly weekday parenting time may not be practical due to the distance between the residences.

[126] As indicated the father will have primary residence of the child. At the present time due to the uncertainty of the mother’s residence she will have parenting time on alternate weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 7:00 p.m. and other times as agreed in writing. However, in view of the flight risk the mother poses her parenting time will not commence until the child’s passport and other government identification is delivered to the father or his counsel.

[127] Once the mother obtains a stable residence, the parties are encouraged to attend for mediation to develop of detailed parenting time schedule that will include a sharing of the holidays.

[128] It is important that the parties be able to communicate with each other in a respectful child focused manner. In order to facilitate appropriate communication between the parties, the parties shall communicate in writing with each other about the child through Our Family Wizard, AppClose or other similar communication applications.

7. Child support

[129] As the focus of the trial was regarding the child, neither party spent much time on the support issues.

[130] There is a temporary without prejudice order that the father pay child support to the mother of $827 per month as of October 1, 2021. As the child will now be residing with the father, this order will be terminated as of April 30, 2022.

[131] The mother has been unemployed since April 2019 when she testified that she left her job to care for the child.

[132] The mother is well educated with a BA in management and accounting and an MBA in finance and business. She was previously employed for 6 years in accounting. She now is also certified as an insurance agent. In 2018, the last year the mother worked full-time she earned $36,540.

[133] Although the mother states she has been “desperately” seeking employment, she provided no evidence except to state she has applied online and is looking to work remotely. She then stated that she could obtain employment within 2 months.

[134] Given the mother’s lack of employment since 2019 and her inability to currently find employment I believe that she is being overly optimistic and that it may take more time for her find employment.

[135] The father is seeking that minimum income be imputed to the mother and that any child support order not commence for 2 months to give the mother time to find employment.

[136] No evidence or submissions were made with respect to the issue of retroactivity. The mother in her Answer makes a claim for retroactive child support to the date of separation.

[137] I require further brief evidence and submissions on this issue. I will therefore defer my decision regarding the issue of the mother’s claim for retroactive child support and the commencement of the date for the mother to begin to pay child support as the issues may become intertwined. A date for brief evidence and submissions will be set.

8. Spousal support

[138] The mother’s Answer and Claim sought spousal support. No evidence or submissions were made on this issue.

[139] The claim for spousal support is dismissed.

9. Order

[140] There will be a final order as follows:

1. Commencing May 4, 2022, the Applicant, Vaughn Beckford, shall have primary residence of the child, namely Justin Matthias Beckford, born […], 2015.

2. The Respondent, Sherisse Beckford, shall have parenting time with the child, namely Justin Matthias Beckford, born […], 2015 every other weekend from Friday 5:00 p.m. until Sunday 7:00 p.m. and other times as agreed by both parties in writing. The Respondent shall be responsible for all transportation to exercise her parenting time unless the parties otherwise agree in writing.

3. The Respondent Sherisse Beckford shall immediately provide the Applicant or his counsel with the child’s passport, health card and any other government issued documentation and provides an address and contact information where she and the child will be residing.

4. The Respondent Sherisse Beckford’s parenting time shall not commence until she has complied with paragraph 3 of this order.

5. The Applicant, Vaughn Beckford, and the Respondent, Sherisse Beckford, may make decisions about the child’s culture, language, religious and spiritual training as they see fit when the child is in their respective care.

6. The Applicant, Vaughan Beckford shall otherwise have sole decision-making responsibilities for all major parenting decisions for the child, namely Justin Matthias Beckford, born […], 2015 including, all decisions with respect to the child’s health, education and significant extra-curricular activities.

7. The Applicant, Vaughan Beckford shall advise the Respondent Sherisse Beckford of any contemplated significant decisions regarding the child in writing. Within 10 days after receiving this information the Respondent may provide her written response with her views. If the parties do not agree or if the Respondent does not respond within 10 days, the Applicant shall make the final decision.

8. The Respondent Sherisse Beckford shall have the right to obtain information directly from the child’s school, doctors or other service providers pursuant to s. 20 (5) of the Children’s Law Reform Act. The Applicant shall execute any authorization or consent to permit the Respondent to obtain this information.

9. The parties will communicate in writing regarding the child using a communication application such as Our Family Wizard, Appclose or such similar communication application.

10. Both parties shall keep each other advised in writing of any change in their residence or contact information within 2 days of such a change.

11. The Applicant Vaughan Beckford shall be permitted to travel with the child without the Respondent Sherisse Beckford’s prior written consent. The Applicant shall provide the Respondent with a detailed itinerary, full particulars of his travel and contact information.

12. The Respondent Sherisse Beckford shall not be permitted to travel with the child outside of Ontario without the prior written consent of the Applicant Vaughan Beckford. If travel is agreed upon, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a detailed itinerary, full particulars of her travel and contact information.

13. Aside from any scheduled travel, the Respondent shall not remove the child, namely Justin Matthias Beckford, born […], 2015, from the Greater Toronto Area, without first obtaining the written consent of the Applicant.

14. The Peel Regional Police, Sheriff’s office, and/or such other law enforcement agencies shall have jurisdiction and be directed and authorized to enforce the above parenting time and non-removal orders.

15. An Order that pursuant to s. 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, police forces in the Province of Ontario, including but not limited to the Peel Regional Police, shall be directed and authorized: a. To do all things that may be reasonably be done to locate and apprehend the child, namely Justin Matthias Beckford, born […], 2015, and deliver him into the care of the Applicant, Vaughn Beckford, to enter and search any place, at any time of the day or night, where he or she has reasonable or probable grounds to believe the child, Justin Matthias Beckford, born […], 2015, may be, with such assistance and such force as are reasonable in the circumstances.

16. This order to apprehend the child shall expire seven years from the date of this Order, unless extended or terminated earlier by further court order.

17. The temporary order of September 24, 2021 is terminated as of April 30, 2022.

18. The Respondent shall within 7 days of obtaining full or part-time employment provide to the Applicant the name and address of her employer and provide proof of her income.

19. The issue of the Respondent’s claim for retroactive child support and the start date of the Respondent’s child support obligation shall be adjourned for further evidence and submissions on a date to be set by the court.

20. The Respondent’s claim spousal support is dismissed.

21. The Applicant’s counsel shall prepare this order and email it to the trial coordinator office to my attention. Approval of the order by the Respondent is dispensed with in order to expediate the issuance of the Order. This order is effective as of today.

22. Support Deduction Order to issue.

23. As the successful party the Applicant is presumed to be entitled to costs. Counsel for the Applicant shall serve and file her cost submissions, limited to 3 pages within 30 days. A bill costs and any offer to settle can be attached to the costs submissions. The Respondent shall have 30 days thereafter to respond on the same terms. Cost submissions should be emailed to the trial coordinator.

Released: May 4, 2022 Signed: Justice Roselyn Zisman