SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: FC-12-2322
DATE: 2013/08/22
RE: CAROLE RHEA THOM, Applicant
AND
BLAIR WALLACE THOM, Respondent
BEFORE: Kane J.
COUNSEL:
Marc J. Coderre, counsel for the Applicant
Michael D. Wonham, counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: August 14, 2013
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Applicant mother brings a motion for an order that:
(1) the two children have their primary residence with her,
(2) Camile attend L’École Franco-Ouest,
(3) Mathieu attend L’École Jean Paul II, and
(4) Mathieu be enrolled in the Richmond minor hockey association league as of August 27, 2013.
[2] The Respondent father by cross-motion asks for an order that:
(1) the issue of primary residence of the children be adjourned on an interim interim basis,
(2) the parties exercise equal access to their daughter Camile on a week-on week-off basis with additional access in accordance with the custody evaluation report of Chantal Bourgeois,
(3) on an interim interim basis, the Respondent to exercise access to Mathieu in accordance with the custody evaluation report of Chantal Bourgeois,
(4) Camile attend L’École Secondaire Pierre Savard, or in the alternative, that the Respondent’s additional expenses incurred for Camile’s attendance at L’École Franco-Ouest are deemed to be extraordinary expenses as defined in s.7(d) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines in the amount of $475.21 per month,
(5) Mathieu attend Pierre Elliot Trudeau elementary school,
(6) Mathieu try out for competitive hockey in Nepean and if unsuccessful, he will play Nepean recreational house hockey, and
(7) the parties facilitate the children’s attendance at counselling with Dr. Munt, including the coordination of benefits to mitigate the cost thereof.
[3] This father and mother are 47 and 46 years of age respectively. They married in 1997 and have two children. Each parent is employed.
[4] Camile and Mathieu are 11 and 9 years of age and completed grades 6 and 4 respectively in June, 2013. A school must be chosen for Camile given that she will start grade 7 in September.
[5] The parents had problems in their relationship. Counselling was unsuccessful. The mother was unhappy and was involved in extra-marital affairs. The parents decided to separate in February, 2011. They moved into separate residences in the same general area of the city in September, 2011.
[6] The mother commenced a new relationship with her now fiancé in November, 2011. They bought a house together in Richmond outside of Ottawa where they have lived together since August, 2012. The distance between these two homes is approximately 25 kilometres.
[7] Ms. Thom, or Cardinal by her maiden name, became engaged to her fiancé early in 2013. Mr. Beauchamp is 40 years of age and works as an air traffic controller in northern Canada three weeks out of six. He at one time played junior hockey.
[8] In May, 2011, these parents agreed the children would alternate weekly and reside equally with each parent. An agreement was prepared through mediation adopting this shared parenting regime but according to the mother was not signed. While a separation agreement was not signed, the mother states she forgot that she and the father had signed a shared parenting/custody agreement with the children alternating weekly on May 31, 2011.
[9] Alternating weeks with each parent existed between August, 2011 until December 23, 2012 when Mathieu refused to leave on vacation with his father and sister. Mathieu has subsequently refused to see his father. Mathieu was angry, rude and abusive towards his father during the two joint interviews conducted with his father and Ms. Bourgeois in preparation of her Custody Evaluation Report dated June 11, 2013 (the “Report”). His comments do not originate from him alone.
[10] There is a serious rupture in the relationship of this father and son. Each parent blames the other for causing that. Each of them could have prevented this happening but their animosity towards one another was more important. By agreement of the parties, the services of Dr. Munt were retained to work with this family and hopefully address this issue. Ms. Thom cancelled one or two appointments in July, 2013 between Dr. Munt and Mathieu because she states, this 9 year old did not want to attend.
[11] Each of these parents has a good education. Each has a lot to offer their children. Each of these parents however have individual issues which are causing problems between them and negatively affecting the children.
[12] The following factors have contributed to and fuelled the estrangement between this father and son which in turn escalated the acrimony between the parents and undermined the joint parenting agreement, namely:
(1) The mother’s move outside of Ottawa to Richmond has logistically created complications, added travel time and costs related to the children. The mother since her move to Richmond has sought and encouraged her children to seek changes in the daughter’s and then both children’s schools and location of their sports activities. She and her fiancé have criticized the father for opposing the changes she seeks which she portrays as the wishes of and therefore in the best interests of the children. Ms. Thom is promoting her own agenda under the guise of wishes of the children. Her agenda is to reverse her agreement of joint parenting and gain sole custody.
(2) There is an abundance of evidence in the Report of the mother enticing, overpowering and encouraging the children to pursue her agenda thereby undermining the father. Suggesting these are merely the wishes of the children is untrue and ignores the accommodation and compromise needed during the transitional period and after a separation. To do otherwise is contrary to the best interests of the children. Her purchase of Mathieu’s hockey sweater with the name “Cardinal” and permitting that in the current inflamed environment heightens the damage already done and rewards the son for distancing his father.
(3) The mother’s daily attendances to say hello to her children during their week with their father and insisting she and her boyfriend attend all children activities during the father’s week in the current environment, is not a demonstration of her love for the children. It rather is her need of the children but is disrespectful of the children’s time with their father during the transition following a separation. Ms. Thom has not yet accepted the inevitable partial absence of her children resulting from a separation she decided was necessary.
(4) Ms. Thom’s attempts to involve police were unjustified and harmful to her children.
(5) Commencing September, 2011, Ms. Thom over 17 months has changed the lives of her children repeatedly to accommodate her choices and expected the members of this family to accept the consequences. These changes include:
(i) This separation was more difficult and inflamed by her extra-marital affaires,
(ii) She has changed the children’s residence twice since separation,
(iii) She has introduced another adult male into the lives of the children,
(iv) She then had that male move in with she and the children,
(v) She announced her engagement to the children,
(vi) The mother announced her wish to change Mathieu’s present school after completion of the Report in June, 2013 and then blamed the lack of consideration of that issue in the Report on Mathieu forgetting to tell the evaluator that he preferred that school.
(vii) She seeks to change her son’s hockey district, so that her fiancé might be Mathieu’s coach, from Nepean where the father previously coached children’s hockey.
[13] Single adults without children have the right to live their life as they choose. Few 9 and 11 year olds could absorb this amount of change in 17 months without consequences which this mother faults this father for not accepting.
[14] Mr. Beauchamp, with the support of the applicant who should be preventing it, is fully engaged as a participant in what should be a dispute between the parents. Mr. Beauchamp fails to recognize that his is a secondary role and that he is fuelling the parental dispute and harming these children with his involvement. He is actively supporting the wedge between Mathieu and his father. With knowledge of the Applicant, Mr. Beauchamp is criticizing the father in front of Mathieu and encouraging the boy’s defiance of his father.
[15] The role of a step-parent can be a difficult balancing act. Mr. Beauchamp is demonstrating no balance in his active, intentional undermining of the father’s parental role. Mr. Beauchamp dislikes Mr. Thom and demonstrates it. His performance at Tim Horton’s and at the children’s school was beyond unreasonable. It demonstrates his aggressive misunderstanding of his recent position as a non-parent who happens to be in the children’s lives.
[16] The Respondent father has been confrontational, rigid and less than imaginative in handling the challenges his son and this mother have presented. His former, and perhaps current, quantity of communication to this mother is harassment.
[17] His unannounced withdrawal of the children from school and refusal to leave Ms. Thom’s home faced with Mathieu’s refusal on December 23, 2012, demonstrate his rigidity and unjustified escalation with direct harm to his children.
[18] His practice of leaving the children unattended at their ages for his convenience was inappropriate.
[19] Faced with the adamant pursuit of the Richmond hockey issue by the mother, including an emergency motion in October, 2012, Mr. Thom lacked sufficient parental insight to know that being right did not protect his son who was being led by his mother and her fiancé to believe that his NHL dream was more attainable playing in Richmond. Notwithstanding the child being placed in this position by the mother who has fought the issue through the courts, Mr. Thom had the opportunity to see what was being done to Mathieu, to relent and thereby de-escalate the fighting in order to protect his son. Instead Mr. Thom chose to stand firm and let Mathieu become enraged and empowered as his mother pressed forward thereby convincing Mathieu that his father was “destroying his future”.
[20] Mr. Thom needs to get beyond his anger as to his wife’s pre-separation conduct. It is anger and not jealousy as the mother alleges. He also needs to improve his personal awareness and the skills and knowledge required of a separated single parent whose responsibility is to protect his child.
[21] Should there be any doubt as to the above factors, I urge the parties to re-read the concerns expressed at pages 39 to 42 of the Report.
[22] This father is not the first nor will he be the last parent with reservations about launching their child into competitive hockey. His reluctance has fed this mother and her partner’s criticism of the father which Mathieu heard.
[23] The alleged issue whether this 9 year old plays competitive hockey in Nepean where this family lived is an issue created by adults. Given the estrangement of Mathieu and his father, it is obvious that the mother should not have pressed Richmond hockey and set her son up for disappointment faced with the father’s reluctance. She pursued this not for Mathieu’s benefit but because she wanted her fiancé to be Mathieu’s coach and was determined her position would prevail regardless of the impact to the child.
[24] Mathieu tried and was unsuccessful at tryouts last year for competitive hockey in Richmond and Nepean. He had played hockey for two years in Nepean. Having failed to qualify for competitive hockey in two districts, his past involvement in Nepean and the need to slow reduce the changes in the lives of these children indicated he should have continued first year in Nepean having not qualified at the competitive level in two districts.
[25] The mother stood at her door on December 23, 2012 and supported her 9 year old son’s refusal to depart on a planned vacation with his father and sister. She failed to respect the necessity that each parent support the other parent’s role by stating in front of Mathieu that he did not have to go with his father if he chose not to. She then told the father to leave her home and then contacted the police. Mathieu was present and saw all of this. Assertions now that she wants her son to have a good relationship with his father ring untrue.
[26] Ms. Thom on the above facts is not now to be rewarded with an interim order that the children’s principal residence be with her. She has shown no less rigidity or disregard of her children’s interest than the father.
[27] I am prevented from ordering Richmond hockey for Mathieu as I will not give this mother on her conduct the opportunity to present Mathieu with her victory of the issue and thereby prove to this 9 year old that mother was right all along and father was wrong thereby justifying this boy’s alienation from his father. Mr. Thom still holds a key on this issue but that is best determined between himself and Dr. Munt.
[28] Mathieu’s relationship with his father is currently damaged. That reality must be recognized.
[29] This court grants the following interim orders:
(1) Camile shall continue living alternate weeks with each parent as recommended in the Report. There is no reason, or request by Camile, to change the shared parenting approach.
(2) The services of Dr. Munt must be implemented as soon as possible. Each parent must support that engagement and draw against any employment insurance benefit available to them to cover the cost thereof.
(3) Subject to the recommendation of Dr. Munt, Mathieu shall reside with his father at the level indicated in paragraph 2 (b) on p. 47 of the Report.
(4) Camile shall be enrolled for September at L’École Franco-Ouest. The Report recommendation and the school ranking referred to in the Report warrant this selection. She may have gone there even if these parents had not separated. The mother in her affidavit overstated the present benefits of this school to Camile and likely knew but did not disclose that both schools have an enriched program and her daughter had been accepted in each. Camile had no strong preference between the two schools. The father is correct that the location of that school is less convenient and results in additional travel expense for him. On balance however, the child slightly favoured the school recommended in the Report which recommendation I therefore adopt.
(5) Camile soon may be able to take public transportation or share travel with other parents and their children. Until then, Mr. Thom is responsible to make the necessary arrangements and get his daughter to school. Associated s.7 travel costs can be dealt with later. That claim is adjourned.
(6) Camile, if she wishes, shall continue her hockey in Nepean. This was not presented as a dispute.
(7) If he wants to play hockey, Mathieu shall do so in Nepean for the above reasons. This shall include his opportunity to qualify in Nepean competitive hockey. To order otherwise will lead to further over empowerment of this 9 year old and “prove” his current belief that his father prevented him playing hockey last year which is untrue and his “hockey future” is being impaired by his father. If Mathieu does not want to play hockey in Nepean and pursue his dream, he is old enough to make that decision.
(8) Mathieu is to continue at L’École Pierre Elliot Trudeau until the end of grade 6 as recommended in the Report. It was an appropriate school chosen by these parents for these two children. Changing Mathieu’s school to Richmond now only reinforces the estrangement between son and the father.
(9) Each parent is entitled to communicate with and receive information from education and health care providers as well as coaches/trainers/leaders of the children’s extracurricular activities.
(10) Outside of medical emergencies, the parents are restricted to electronic communication between each other. Mr. Thom is directed to reduce the frequency and length of his emails to the mother. A 90% reduction is a good target.
(11) Each parent is ordered to never criticize directly or indirectly the other parent within the presence or hearing of the children. That obligation includes preventing anyone else criticizing the other parent.
[30] Success on these motions has been divided. That normally would result in no order as to costs. The parties may however make brief written cost submissions within the next 30 days.
Kane J.
Released: August 22, 2013
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: CAROLE RHEA THOM, Applicant
AND
BLAIR WALLACE THOM, Respondent,
BEFORE: Kane J.
COUNSEL: Marc J. Coderre, counsel for the Applicant
Michael D. Wonham, counsel for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
Kane J.
Released: August 22, 2013