ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY COURT

COURT FILE NO.: F1242/11
DATE: December 12, 2012

BETWEE N:

Kurt Desmond Edwards

Kurt Desmond Edwards in person

Applicant

• and -

Amy Drulard

Christos Vitsentzatos for the respondent

Respondent

HEARD: December 6, 2012

HENDERSON J.

[ 1 ] The applicant seeks access to his daughter, Brooklyn Drulard, born July 9, 2011. The respondent has custody of the child on consent by order of Templeton J. dated June 13, 2012. The applicant opposes his request on any terms.

[ 2 ] The respondent seeks a restraining order against the applicant in respect of both herself and the child. In the middle of the trial, the applicant consented to a restraining order being issued in respect of the respondent and that order has been issued.

[ 3 ] The applicant opposes the respondent’s request that the restraining order be extended to include the child.

[ 4 ] The applicant is 35 years of age and the respondent 36.

[ 5 ] The parties had a brief and turbulent relationship in late 2010 during which they cohabited for a few weeks. The child, Brooklyn, is the product of that relationship.

[ 6 ] According to the respondent, she was subjected to verbal and physical abuse by the applicant. This abuse culminated in an incident on December 6, 2010 which resulted in the applicant being charged with several criminal offences. This ended the relationship.

[ 7 ] The child was born July 9, 2011 and the applicant commenced his application July 27, 2011. He has had no access to his daughter since her birth.

Discussion

[ 8 ] Section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 12 governs the applicant’s request for access. Subsection (1) states that the merits of the application shall be based on the child’s best interests. Subsection (2) mandates the court to consider all the child’s needs and circumstances and then sets out certain factors to be included in that consideration. Subsection (3) states that past conduct shall only be considered in accordance with subsection (4) or if the court is satisfied that it is otherwise relevant to the permissibility to act as a parent. Subsection (4) is especially applicable to the current case and is set out as follows:

(4) In assessing a person’s ability to act as a parent, the court shall consider whether the person has at any time committed violence or abuse against,

(a) his or her spouse;

(b) a parent of the child to whom the application relates;

(c) a member of the person’s household; or

(d) any child.

[ 9 ] I find it not to be in the child’s best interests that the applicant should have access to his daughter for the following reasons:

[ 10 ] The applicant has an extensive criminal record going back into his youth. Many of his offences include violence against girlfriends he had at the time. With respect to the respondent, he was convicted of uttering threats, mischief and forcible confinement. He spent 100 days in pre-trial custody and was granted a suspended sentence with probation. According to the applicant, he was also ordered to provide a DNA sample and received a lifetime prohibition regarding weapons.

[ 11 ] At trial, he testified that he is to be sentenced December 11, 2012 in respect of two assaults in April for which he has been convicted. The applicant indicated that the Crown is seeking a sentence of 30 days in jail.

[ 12 ] The applicant has had no stability in his life since coming to London in 2010. He has been unable to hold a job.

[ 13 ] He has lived in 16 different residences, including two short stints at the respondent’s home and two periods of incarceration. He also is facing a possible third incarceration shortly.

[ 14 ] He continues to battle substance abuse issues which seem to trigger his aggressive behaviour. He acknowledges that he carries a lot of anger and does not always deal with it in the best way, especially when he is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The applicant admitted that he directs his anger at those he feels threatened by and he said that when they were together, he felt threatened by the respondent. He did not explain why.

[ 15 ] The applicant admits that he has made poor choices. However, he points out that he is attending his NA meetings, although not consistently. He has sought counselling and completed programmes such as Changing Ways, designed to address anger management issues. Despite these efforts, however, it is clear the applicant’s track record shows no progress on his ability to deal with his demons. He continues to get into trouble.

[ 16 ] He has had no contact with the child since her birth. Besides bringing this application, he has done nothing to demonstrate that he has a real interest in seeing his daughter. He did not bring a motion for temporary access. He has not completed and filed the intake forms at Merrymount to initiate even supervised access.

[ 17 ] He has shown the same lack of interest in his 13 year old son from another relationship. His contact, on his own admission, has been erratic. He last saw the child a year ago and there is little communication with the child or his mother.

[ 18 ] This child will receive no benefit from a father who casually floats in and floats out of her life as she grows up.

[ 19 ] The applicant continues to be a threat to the respondent. I have a serious concern that the applicant continues to stalk her. The respondent cited too many instances, since the applicant left jail in 2011, where she has encountered the applicant for it all to be coincidence. The applicant even admitted that his probation officer had cautioned him against attending the applicant’s home NA meeting and a baseball game in the summer. Despite the caution, he attended both events, much to the discomfort of the respondent.

[ 20 ] The respondent testified that she remains afraid of the applicant. Her sense of insecurity has forced her to change her routines and be constantly vigilant. Her constant fear is no doubt transferred to the child. I am very concerned that the applicant would use access, not to benefit the child but as another means to cause the respondent fear and apprehension.

[ 21 ] For these reasons, I conclude that it is not in the child’s best interest for the applicant to have access to or contact with the child. Similarly, for the same reasons, I conclude that the restraining order issued in respect of the respondent shall be extended to include the child, on the same terms.

[ 22 ] There shall be no order as to costs.

“Justice Paul J. Henderson”

Justice Paul J. Henderson

Released: December 12, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: F1242/11

DATE: December 12, 2012

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY COURT BETWEE N: Kurt Desmond Edwards Applicant - and - Amy Drulard Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HENDERSON J.

Released: December 12, 2012