Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2024 02 26 Court File No.: Chatham 6/24-0000

Between:

J.A.D. Applicant

— AND —

J.C. Respondent

— AND —

J.D. Respondent

Before: Justice M. Vickerd Heard on: February 15, 2024 Reasons for Judgment released on: February 26, 2024

Counsel: Anita Osmani, counsel for the applicant Liam Thompson, counsel for the respondent

Vickerd J.:

Overview

The Applicant “J.A.D.” advances an urgent motion concerning parenting time, addressed within the context of an Application and before a Case Conference has been convened. This motion was addressed without notice to the Respondent “J.D.” as the Applicant does not have information sufficient to locate him.

The Respondent “J.C.” requests the dismissal of J.A.D.’s motion.

Background

[1] The subject child of this proceeding is L. born […], 2017.

[2] J.A.D. is the stepfather of the child.

[3] J.C. is the child’s mother.

[4] J.A.D. and J.C. had a relationship which spanned from January 2017 to January 2023. For periods they cohabited. Their last period of cohabitation ended in May 2021, but they continued to maintain their relationship until January 2023. J.C. deposes that the parties attempted to reconcile approximately six times from 2019 to 2023.

[5] When J.A.D. and J.C. began their relationship, J.C. was four months pregnant with L.

[6] J.A.D. was present at L.’s birth and has acted as a father to L. for the entirety of his life.

[7] The Respondent “J.D.” is the child’s biological father. L. and J.D. do not have a relationship. Until at least October 2023, the child had no contact with J.D.

[8] J.A.D. deposes, and it is not disputed by J.C., that L. was unaware that J.A.D. is not his biological father until after the parties separated. J.A.D. deposes that J.C told L. in or about May 2022 that J.A.D. is not his father. This disclosure was undertaken by J.C. without notice to J.A.D. J.C. confirms in her Affidavit that she has begun “the process of planning how to gradually introduce L. to [J.D.].”

[9] When the parties separated on a final basis in January 2023, they entered into an arrangement with J.A.D. having regular parenting time with L. occurring with at least one overnight visit per week. J.C. confirms that J.A.D. had L. once a week from Tuesday in the morning (when she dropped L. off to his home) to Wednesday when J.A.D. took L. to school.

[10] On October 3, 2023 J.A.D. was committed to retrieve L. from school. J.A.D. fell asleep and failed to attend at the end of the school day. Following this incident, J.C. communicated to J.A.D. that he would no longer have any parenting time. Since that date, she has refused to allow contact between J.A.D. and L.

Issues

[11] The issues to be determined are:

(a) Is J.A.D.’s parenting time an urgent matter which should be addressed in advance of a Case Conference? (b) If urgency is established, what order for parenting time is in the best interests of the child?

Positions

[12] J.A.D. argues that J.C.’s unilateral decision to terminate his contact with the child requires that this court make an order for parenting time. He argues that this is an urgent issue as the mother’s behaviour imperils his relationship with L. He advocates that the complete forced cessation of their contact is not in L.’s best interests.

[13] J.C. requests a dismissal of J.A.D.’s motion as it is advanced before a Case Conference. She argues that the termination of J.A.C.’s parenting time does not meet the urgency test. Further, she argues that it is in L.’s best interests not to have any contact with J.A.D. She deposes that she was in a difficult relationship with J.A.D. for a long time and she has fought to extricate herself from it. She states that L. is happier, healthier and calmer without J.A.D. in his life. Further, J.C. argues that J.A.D. does not have proper accommodations to facilitate care of L. and that he has not made L.’s needs a priority.

Analysis

Is J.A.D.’s parenting time an urgent issue which should be addressed in advance of a Case Conference?

[14] Motions are discouraged as the first step in family law litigation. The philosophy of the Family Law Rules is to encourage parties to resolve their disputes as early possible and without the need for protracted litigation. As stated in Rosen v Rosen, [2005] O.J. No. 62,

There is a deliberate attempt to try to avoid the damage that flows from the nasty ‘affidavit war’ that accompanies the filing of a motion. This approach has been tremendously successful. The vast majority of cases are resolved at a case conference without the need for a formal motion.

[15] Family Law Rule 14 (4) provides that:

No notice of motion or supporting evidence may be served and no motion may be heard before a conference dealing with the substantive issues in the case has been completed.

[16] Rule 14(4.2) states that the above restriction does not apply if the court is of the opinion that there is a situation of urgency or hardship or that a case conference is not required for some other reason in the interest of justice.

[17] The onus is on the Applicant, as the moving party, to establish that there is situation of urgency or hardship or other reason in the interest of justice that his motion should be addressed before a Case Conference.

[18] J.A.D. argues that J.C.’s termination of his contact with L. has created a situation of urgency, the resolution of which must not be delayed due to the potential detrimental impact on his relationship with L.

[19] In the case of Rosen v Rosen, [2005] O.J. No. 62, Justice Wildman discusses the factors necessary to determine urgency. He points out that the court must consider when case conference dates are available and whether the parties have engaged in settlement discussions in an attempt to arrange a short-term agreement to get to a case conference without a motion.

[20] Justice Marshman in Hurd v Hurd [2006] O.J. No. 1840 confirmed that where there is no willingness to arrange access for a parent, urgency may be established. She further confirms that where a parent is using the Rules to deny any contact whatsoever, urgency can be found. She clearly states: “No parent should be allowed to hide behind a rule of procedure of this court to deny any contact whatsoever between the children and the other parent.”

[21] Justice Madsen also adopted this reasoning in Gifford v Gifford [2016] O.J. No. 6984. She confirmed that where one parent was withholding contact between the child and other parent, urgency can be found:

The combination of leaving the residence with the child, providing no address and then not complying with the access terms negotiated between counsel, in my view makes this matter urgent within the meaning of Rule 14(4.2).

[22] In this matter, there is a delay to obtaining a Case Conference. Applicant’s counsel made inquiries of the trial coordinator and confirmed this fact. This is not disputed.

[23] Secondly, it is uncontested that J.A.D. made efforts on his own, and with counsel, to negotiate an interim resolution to the dilemma of his parenting time. This was underscored by J.A.D.’s agreement to adjourn his motion from February 1, 2024, to February 15, 2024, to allow J.C. the opportunity to provide responding motion materials and the parties a chance to negotiate. He is met with J.C.’s refusal to negotiate any contact between him and L. She is entrenched in her position that no contact between J.A.D. and L. is best for the child. These circumstances are distinguishable from cases where a parent is unhappy with the parenting time they are afforded with a child – this is a situation where there is no contact occurring due to the residential parent obstructing the relationship.

[24] I find that J.A.D. moved with haste to bring the issue of his parenting time to court. If this matter were required to proceed to the first appearance scheduled for March 15, 2024 for the setting of a case conference, many months would pass before a motion could be argued.

[25] From my perspective although Rule 14 seeks to avoid unnecessary litigation and to move parties to resolution, this must be considered in light of the purpose of the Rules found in Rule 2(2) which is to “enable the court to deal with cases justly.” Dealing with a case justly includes:

(a) ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties; (b) saving expense and time; (c) dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and (d) giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases

[26] In a situation such as this, where a parent is so entrenched in her position that she will not consider any compromise, there is not much hope for resolution at the case conference stage. If no consensus will be achieved at a case conference, the matter is further delayed. The impact of the net delay to the determination of interim parenting time, which may be months in this case, could have a lasting detrimental and irreversible impact on the relationship between L. and his father.

[27] Further, as noted by Justice Marshman in Hurd, above, no parent should be allowed to hide behind a rule of procedure of this court to deny any contact whatsoever between a child and a parent.

[28] It is clear that without court intervention, J.C. will not facilitate any contact between father and child.

[29] In all these circumstances, I find that there is urgency to the Applicant’s claim for parenting time and he is granted leave to have this motion addressed in advance of a Case Conference.

What parenting time order is in the best interests of the child?

[30] In any decision regarding parenting time, the court is obliged only to consider the best interests of children (section 24(1), Children’s Law Reform Act). Section 24(2) provides that:

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 well-being.

[31] A list of best interests’ considerations is found at section 24(3), which includes:

(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, (i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and (ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and (k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

[32] The list of best interests’ considerations in the CLRA is not exhaustive (White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736). The list of best interests requires a holistic look at the child, his needs, and the people around him (Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480).

[33] Every parenting dispute must be decided on its own facts, in relation to the factors that are present with the primary consideration being the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being (M.Q v. R.C, 2022 ONSC 1753).

[34] The focus is on the child’s perspective. Adult preferences or “rights” do not form part of the analysis except insofar as they are relevant to the determination of the best interests of the child (Young v. Young; E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264 (SCJ); K.M. v. J.R., 2022 ONSC 111).

[35] Regarding J.A.D.’s role in L.’s life, the following facts are undisputed in the evidence:

• J.A.D. was present for L.’s birth and had skin to skin contact immediately following his birth. Members of J.A.D.’s family were also present including his parents, sister, brother-in-law and niece;
• J.A.D. believed that he was listed as L.’s father on his birth certificate;
• L.’s middle name was chosen by the parties to connect him with J.A.D.’s middle name;
• J.A.D. is the only father than L. has known. Until May 2023, L. believe that J.A.D. was his father. L. referred to J.A.D. as “dad” and J.A.D. referred to L. as his “son”;
• During the parties’ relationship, both parents participated in caring for L. They were both involved in his bathing, feeding, potty training and discipline. They were both involved in his leaning and actively taught his numbers, letters and reading. The parties made joint decisions for L. and discussed his rules and boundaries. They filled out his school enrolment forms together. Both were involved in making medical decisions for him including doctor and dental matters. J.A.D. assisted in arranging L.’s medical and dental appointments. J.A.D. registered L. in sporting activities.
• After the parties moved apart in May 2021 and until January 2023, J.A.D. had care of L. three to six times per week. The parties were flexible in their parenting schedule. J.A.D. confirms that during this period he was also responsible for getting L. to and from school, maintaining his regular routine, taking him to scheduled appointments and to his sporting activities. During this period, J.A.D. also attended L.’s weekly sporting events including lacrosse and baseball. J.A.D. also continued to take L. to church on Sundays.
• J.A.D. was listed as a “parent” for L. on his school registration.
• J.A.D. coached L.’s baseball team in 2022;
• J.C. relied on J.A.D. to care for L. and offered him extra time with L. following the end of their cohabitation.
• J.A.D. participated in important life events with L. including walking him to school on the first day of the school year in September 2023.
• J.A.D. was listed as a parent and emergency contact for L. with his school until October 12, 2023. At that time, J.C. requested that the school administrators remove him as a contact.
• J.A.D. participated in activities with L. such as crafting, outdoor activities, playing boardgames and videogames, trips to the park, attendance at the Aquarium in Toronto, visiting Greenview Aviaries and enjoying the Monster Truck Jam.

[36] In addition to the foregoing, J.A.D. expresses in his Affidavit an understanding of L.’s needs and deposes that he helped L. with self-regulation through deep breathing techniques. J.A.D. expresses an understanding that consistency and stability are important for L.

[37] J.A.D.’s mother (“Meme” to L.) has provided a detailed affidavit in which she addresses her involvement in L.’s life, her observations of the parties and J.A.D.’s role to L. This Affidavit confirms the depth of L.’s connection with J.AD.’s entire family. It is clear that despite L. and J.A.D. having no biological connection, all J.A.D.’s family members consider L. to be his child. J.A.D.’s family member loved and treated L. as J.A.D.’s son. “Meme” confirms that she provided childcare for L. when both parties were working. She assisted with his daily routine including potty training, teaching him to brush his teeth, wash his hands and bathe. She deposes that she made him meals and supported his development. She also confirms that she participated in activities with L. and his cousins including family walks, playing in the park, attending play groups, playing with playdough, drawing with chalk, etc. She deposes that she and L. conversed, sang, and discussed his feelings. “Meme” confirms that L. shares a close relationship with his paternal cousins whom his grandmother also cared for, describing the children as “best friends.” The parents and L. also lived with “Meme” from September 2019 to Spring 2021, allowing for extensive daily contact. As a grandmother, she also attended L.’s school functions and concerts. She confirms that L. is an important person in their family.

[38] Based upon all these facts, I agree with the characterization by Applicant’s counsel, that J.A.D. was “authentically parenting” L. prior to J.C.’s decision to end their relationship.

[39] J.C. concedes that J.A.D. stood in place of a parent to L. “for a short period of time” – which I take to mean the period of their relationship – but she also states that he withdrew from this role. She does not specifically identify how J.A.D. withdrew from the role of father to L. J.C., although acknowledging the facts above, minimizes J.A.D’s role in L.’s life by stating that she was the one who propped up their relationship by purchasing “Dad” cards and t-shirts referenced by J.A.D. to attempt to improve her relationship with J.A.D. “for the benefit of L.” She states that her attempts to “create a health[y] family unit were ultimately in vain.” Many of J.C.’s complaints about J.A.D. noted in her Affidavit evidence relate to the adult relationship and J.C.’s perception that J.A.D. was less than a full partner to her. For example, J.C. cites concerns about J.A.D.’s inability to maintain employment, his failure to pay their vehicle debt and his conflict with their landlord. Further, she characterizes their relationship as “toxic and inconsistent.” These issues are adult matters and do not relate to J.A.D.’s parenting of L.

[40] J.C. confirms that she agrees with J.A.D.’s outline of the time he spent with L., but also she deposes that she has “no evidence of a close or loving bond.” She confirms that L. did have a close bond with J.A.D.’s mother (“Meme”) and J.A.D.’s nieces – she states L. spent more time with them than J.A.D. J.C. does not address in her Affidavit the loss experience by Landon due to termination of his contact with these extended paternal family members. Nor does J.C. offer any opportunity for L. to continue connections with those family members.

[41] J.C.’s reasons for terminating contact between father and child bear some scrutiny. First, J.C. cites concerns that J.A.D. lacks commitment to prioritizing L.’s needs. She points to the fact that J.A.D. failed to retrieve L. from school on October 3, 2023. J.C. does not provide any other examples of such negligent behaviour, nor does she suggest there was a pattern of such behaviour. Although the failure to retrieve L. at school was egregious on J.A.D.’s part, it should not be fatal to his relationship with L. Further, I note that once J.A.D. became aware of his mistake, he immediately attended at L.’s maternal aunt’s home in person to apologize to him. All parents may make mistakes from time to time. This does not mean that one should be irrevocably cut from their child’s life.

[42] J.C. alleges that J.A.D’s residential accommodations are not appropriate for care of L. citing concerns about mice feces and urine in the insulation and that there is a “musty smell” in the kitchen and under the house. J.A.D. confirms that J.C. refers to a period in 2022 when he was renovating his home and replaced his paneling and insulation in his home. Again, these concerns are dated. These concerns must be tempered with the fact that J.C. was allowing J.A.D. to exercise parenting time at this home, including overnight visits, until October 2023. Further there is no evidence that the home was in such a state of disrepair as to be a risk to the child. I find that this concern should be accorded little weight.

[43] More concerning to this court are J.C.’s allegations of abuse by J.A.D. Section 24(4) of the CLRA requires a court to examine family violence when determining best interests of a child. J.C. alleges that the parties’ relationship was “toxic” that J.A.D. was “abusive and controlling.” The types of abuse identified by J.C. include:

• J.A.D. used coercive manipulation;
• J.A.D. had sexual intercourse with her on one occasion which was not consensual.
• J.A.D. did not follow her directions around the birth of L., allowing his family members to visit at the hospital and limiting her family members’ contact.
• J.A.D. prohibited her from allowing a relationship between L. and his biological father to develop.

[44] J.A.D. further responds to the allegations of abusive behaviour, denying that it occurred and specifically that the non-consensual sex was something he would never do. He states that he followed J.C.’s directions on Landon’s relationship with his biological father.

[45] It appears, although not explicitly addressed in J.C.’s affidavit, that L. was exposed to adult conflict between the parties. J.C. also deposes that L. would insert himself into the parties’ disputes and tell them to stop arguing and fighting. J.C. does not identify when L. was exposed to this conflict. J.A.D. confirms that the parties engaged in conflict in L.’s presence and that he did his best to remove L. from witnessing any conflict between. J.A.D. deposes that L. once told friends in his presence that J.C. yells at his dad [J.A.D.] “alot.”

[46] In support of her position that J.A.D. was abusive, J.C. has filed the Affidavit of her friend, C.W. C.W. deposes to concerns about events that she witnessed while J.C. was pregnant (that J.A.D. would attend at her work unannounced) and specific to a birthday party in January 2018. These are limited observations of these parents which are over five years old. C.W. does not offer any specific recent observations of the couple or of J.A.D.’s parenting of L. She purports to relay information that J.C. told her about her relationship with the Applicant – obviously this is inadmissible evidence. C.W. also purports to provide an opinion about changes in L.’s behaviour, comparing when he was visiting with J.A.D. and since J.C. terminated their contact. C.W. has not been qualified as an expert. Her evidence has little weight for this court.

[47] J.C. does not allege any incidents between the parties beyond the time of their final separation of improper communications, harassing behaviours, physical abuse, name calling or other abuse. There is no evidence that L. was exposed to adult conflict beyond the parties’ final separation.

[48] I also note that there is no substantive corroborating evidence to J.C.’s claims and specifically no suggestion of any police intervention or child protection agency involvement relating to the alleged abuse. In the parties’ evidence there is one mention of police attending when J.C. went to J.A.D.’s home demanding the return of all L.’s personal belongings in October 2023.

[49] Regarding the allegations of violence, I have also considered that J.C. was allowing significant weekly contact between J.A.D. from the end of their cohabitation in May 2021 to October 2023 despite her characterizations of their relationship and allegations that J.A.D. was abusive.

[50] There is no evidence connecting the allegations of abuse to the parents’ ability to care for the child. Given the circumstances, the evidence adduced by J.C. of the conflict and abuse in her relationship with J.A.D. does not supersede L.’s right to a relationship with his father. Terms will be imposed by court order designed to minimize contact between the parties and to set parameters on their communications to ensure that J.C. is not in a position to be abused.

[51] Lastly, in support of her denial of parenting time, J.C. argues that since she terminated contact between L. and his father, L. has experienced a decrease in tantrums and increased self-regulation. This evidence is not conclusive of a connection between L.’s contact with J.A.D. and his behaviours. The change in the child’s behaviour could be attributed to many changes in his life including his maturing and developmental growth as a six-year-old. I cannot conclude on this evidence that L. is better without J.A.D. in his life.

[52] I am concerned that J.C. may not be acting in L.’s best interests. She has terminated completely all contact between L. and his psychological father. She has told L. that J.A.D. is not his biological father. She has not allowed any contact between L. and members of J.A.D.’s family including his “Meme” and his cousins and aunt and uncle. J.C. has arranged that J.A.D. is not permitted to attend at L.’s school to support his participation in his special events. J.C. has refused to allow J.A.D. to give L.’s gifts.

[53] Notably, from the child’s perspective, J.AD. is the only father that he has known to date. J.A.D. has been an involved and active parent for L. The fact that the parties ended their relationship should not result in the termination of the father-son relationship.

[54] J.C. advocates for the dismissal of the motion absent a Case Conference. Reasonably, her counsel argues that for the current motion, the evidentiary record is limited. Counsel suggests that if the parties moved to a Case Conference, consideration could be given to the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer or other assessor. On these points I note that J.C. was afforded an opportunity to respond to the motion. She has filed her own affidavit and an affidavit from a friend in support. Additionally, L. is presently six years of age – the value of having OCL appointed for the child is limited at this point. Additionally, if a section 112 investigation were undertaken, it could be 6 to 14 months before any report is generated. This path will only lead to further delay and estrangement between father and son.

[55] Absent from J.C.’s evidence is any mention that J.A.D. was not meeting L.’s needs independently, that he was abusive to L. or that he has placed L. at risk of harm. There has not been any involvement with local police service or child protection agency with this family unit. Without this type of evidence, I find that there is no good reason to interfere in the natural relationship between father and son.

[56] J.C. further argues that her plan to introduce L. to his biological father is a “delicate” one that will occur slowly. She argues that she is concerned that any order for parenting time in favour of J.A.D. may interfere with that plan. This plan is questionable in light of the court’s inquiries about the mother’s knowledge of contact information for the respondent J.D. Her counsel advised that she does not have J.D.’s address or telephone number. Her counsel relayed to the Court that she communicates with J.D. via Facebook Messenger. If J.C. were truly arranging for L. to connect with his biological father, I suspect, she would know where he resides and how to contact him by telephone. Also, on the uncontested evidence, J.C. told L. in May 2023 that J.A.D. is not his biological father but does not appear to have taken steps to institute a relationship between L. and his biological father by the time that this motion was argued in February 2024. Regardless, any relationship that L. may establish with his biological father does not “trump” his existing, deep relationship with J.A.D. One father cannot replace the other. I am concerned that J.C.’s asserted plan is nothing more than one further impediment that she has created to disrupt the connection between J.A.D. and L. The fact that J.C. advised L. in May 2023 that J.A.D. is not his father and then stopped all contact appears cruel and without thought to the child’s best interests. If she were successful in her desire to terminate all contact, the impact for L. is that he loses a person who has been an integral part of his life as well as his extended paternal family members. This would be a big change for a six-year-old child.

[57] In these circumstances, I find that it is in the child’s best interest that the Court intervene and impose a “without prejudice” order that restores ongoing contact between father and son. Given L.’s age, this contact should be weekly and include overnight visits.

Conclusion

[58] L. should not be deprived of the love of a committed parent. J.A.D. is the only father that L. has known in his life.

[59] This litigation has clearly begun with a difficult start. I encourage the parties to consider consent-based options for resolution of the parenting issues, in L.’s best interests.

Order

[60] Based upon the foregoing, an interim interim (“without prejudice”) order is made on the following terms:

(a) Pursuant to Family Law Rule 14(4.2), leave is granted to the Applicant J.A.D. to have his motion addressed in advance of a Case Conference

(b) The Applicant J.A.D. shall have parenting time with the child L., to occur:

i. Beginning March 1, 2024, alternate weekends from Friday at 3:15pm. or pick up from school to Sunday at 6:00pm.; ii. Each Tuesday from 3:15pm. or pick up from school until Wednesday at 9:00a.m. or drop off at school; iii. other times as can be agreed between parties and confirmed by counsel.

(c) Regardless of the care schedule, the Respondent J.C. shall have care of the child L. for Mother’s Day in 2024.

(d) Regardless of the care schedule, the Applicant J.A.D. shall have care of the child L. for Father’s Day in 2024.

(e) The parties shall share equally care of L. for Easter weekend in 2024.

(f) In addition, to the regular weekend time set out herein, the Applicant, J.A.D. shall have care of L. for an additional 24 hours in March Break 2024;

(g) Neither party shall speak negatively of the other in the presence of the child L. nor allow anyone else to do so;

(h) Neither party shall speak to the child L. about this litigation;

(i) The parties shall be civil and respectful of one another at the care exchanges;

(j) The parties shall communicate with one another in a civil and respectful manner about issues only pertaining to the child L. and shall do so primarily by text message or email. If a situation of medical emergency arises for the child, L., the parent having care of L. shall immediately telephone the other;

(k) The Respondent J.C. shall immediately provide through counsel, confirmation of L.’s biological father’s name, all contact information that she has for the child’s biological father J.D. to facilitate service of the Application upon him;

(l) The Respondent J.C. shall immediately provide to Applicant’s counsel a copy of the child L.’s birth certificate.

(m) The Applicant J.A.D. is the successful party on this motion and presumptively entitled to costs. The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs. If the parties cannot resolve the issue of costs for this motion, they may file brief written submissions not exceeding three pages exclusive of the Bill of Costs and other attachments. The Applicant shall file his submissions by 4:00pm. on March 8, 2024. The Respondent shall file her submissions by 4:00pm. on March 18, 2024. The Applicant shall have until 4:00pm. on March 25, 2024 to file a brief reply (not to exceed one page).

Released: February 26, 2024 Signed: Justice M. Vickerd