SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: F755/04
DATE: 2012/09/28
RE: Freba Rahmaty, Applicant
AND:
Lucan Armstrong, Respondent
BEFORE: Parayeski J.
COUNSEL: Applicant and Respondent self-representing
HEARD: September 14, 2012
ENDORSEMENT
1The respondent father brings a motion to change the final order of Lafreniere J., dated December 11 th , 2011. Essentially, that order provided for the father to have supervised access to the child of the marriage at a YWCA facility. It prohibited the father from attending the child’s school. By way of his present motion, the father seeks unsupervised access, telephone access, his being provided with “all information regarding [the child’s] educational, medical, recreational, and general information”, and being permitted to attend the child’s school.
2In the mother’s response to the present motion, she asks that access be in her discretion. In her various affidavits in response, however, she appears to be seeking termination of access. At the opening of the hearing, I asked for clarification. The mother indicated that she indeed did want termination of access, and I ordered that the motion proceed on that basis.
3I am satisfied that the refusal of the YWCA to work with the father and to supervise his access, as contemplated by the order of Lafreniere J., is a material change in circumstances, which is a condition precedent to the bringing of this motion.
4The key issue is that of access by the father to the single child of the marriage, that being Gabriel Clare Armstrong, who was born on July 28 th , 2003. The mother has custody, and the father is content with that.
5The father’s history with regard to supervised access is not one of success. For a period of some months, the father’s uncle, Mark Dennis, provided supervision. He and the father fell out, apparently over their differing religious views, and the uncle refuses to supervise. The paternal grandmother, Margaret Lafleur, then did limited supervision. She was unable to continue this due to either her health issues or disputes with the father. The parties do not agree on the cause.
6The paternal grandmother has volunteered to provide supervision once again. While I do not doubt her sincerity in making that offer, I am not prepared to find that she is capable of providing the supervision necessary in this case based upon the incomplete and conflicting evidence before me.
7For a period of time, the father’s sister, Kathleen Armstrong, supervised the access visits. This broke down after an angry confrontation which took place on October 11 th , 2011. The incident is described in a letter or note attached as Exhibit “A” to the mother’s affidavit sworn on June 6 th , 2012 (Tab 5 in the motion record). In that signed communication, the sister says that she had learned that the father was not taking his medication for a bi-polar condition. The father disputes the sister’s version of things, and argued that there was fraud involved with either the note itself or in its being tendered. There is no evidence whatsoever of fraud, and I reject that submission utterly.
8Lastly, a letter from the YWCA dated January 26 th , 2012, (attached as Exhibit “B” to the mother’s affidavit at Tab 5 of the motion record) spells out what it says happened during an initial intake interview attended by the father. That interview deteriorated into yet another angry confrontation. The father once again disputes who was to blame for this, but, regardless of the cause, the fact is that the YWCA refuses to provide supervision services.
9One would think that someone in the father’s position would have been on his best behaviour at that interview. It plainly represented something of a last chance to facilitate the access he says he wants very much.
10While the father plainly loves the child and I recognize that access is a fundamental right belonging primarily to the child, it is clear that the father lacks self control. While capable of being amenable and articulate when things are going his way, he reverts to assertive anger when he perceives challenge in any form. I observed this when I declined to hear another motion he brought on July 27 th , 2012, on an allegedly urgent basis.
11If the father cannot conduct himself appropriately in supervised circumstances, there is no rational basis upon which to grant him unsupervised access. The two month parenting course which he took over the summer in 2011 predated his falling out with both his sister and the YWCA. Regrettably, it did not teach him self control.
12Access between the father and the child of the marriage is terminated, save for telephone access at the sole discretion of the mother. She indicated at the hearing that she was content that there be such communication. The mother shall provide the father with basic information concerning the child’s health and education issues.
13It appears that the mother has communicated appropriately with the Family Responsibility Office, and there should be no bar to the father beginning support payments as previously ordered through that office. Otherwise, the motion to vary is dismissed.
14There shall be no order as to the costs of this motion.
Parayeski J.
Date: September 28, 2012