ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: FS-42-11
DATE: September 17, 2013
B E T W E E N:
TREVOR STROM
Claudia Belda, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
CHRISTINE NEILSON
Barbara Morgan, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD: August 27, 2013
at Fort Frances, Ontario
Mr. Justice D.C. Shaw
Reasons On Motion
[1] The applicant, Trevor Strom, brings a motion for unsupervised access to the child, Alexander James Anthony Jensen, born September 8, 2005. In the alternative, Mr. Strom requests an order granting him supervised access to the child. Mr. Strom also seeks an order that there be an assessment of the child by Dr. Albert Bosma, a psychologist, with the cost of such assessment to be shared equally by the parties.
[2] Ms. Neilson submits that Mr. Strom should have limited supervised access. She opposes the claim for appointment of Dr. Bosma. She seeks an order that the Ontario Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) represent the child.
[3] Ms. Neilson brings a motion for custody of Alexander. Mr. Strom does not oppose this claim. Mr. Strom agrees to the appointment of the OCL. If the OCL does not agree to represent the child, Mr. Strom will renew his request for the appointment of Dr. Bosma.
[4] The child was born in 2005. Mr. Strom was not aware he was the father of the child until January 2008 after genetic testing had been done.
[5] After Mr. Strom’s paternity had been established, arrangements were made for him to have supervised access at the Fort Frances Supervised Access program on March 30 and April 6, 2008. Further visits were cancelled by Ms. Neilson.
[6] Mr. Strom next saw Alexander, briefly, in Ms. Neilson’s driveway in April 2009 when Mr. Strom visited Ms. Neilson’s home to drop off Easter gifts for the child.
[7] In December 2009, visits were arranged and took place on December 27, 30 and 31, 2009 and January 4 and 6, 2010.
[8] At a settlement conference on May 15, 2012 before Justice Fitzpatrick, the parties agreed that Mr. Strom would have access on May 22, 2012 and further monthly access in June and July and two visits in August. Mr. Strom visited with Alexander at Legion Park in Fort Frances. On June 24, 2012, there was a second visit at Pithers Point Park in Fort Frances. On July 8, 2012 there was a visit at Alberton Park in Fort Frances. The visits were supervised by Ms. Neilson.
[9] No visits have occurred since July 8, 2012.
[10] Each of the parties has provided his or her perspective on how the visits went and why there have been no visits since July 8, 2012. The descriptions of the visits and how Alexander responded, and the reasons that there have been no visits for more than a year, differ markedly between the parties. It would serve no purpose to repeat each party’s position or to attempt on the basis of the affidavits to try to determine which, if either, of the parties have accurately recorded the arrangements, or lack thereof, surrounding access and how the visits went.
[11] Mr. Strom proposes that he now be given unsupervised access for one day a week, for three hours for eight weeks, followed by two daytime visits per week for eight weeks, followed by one daytime and one overnight visit each week for eight weeks. In the alternative, Mr. Strom proposes supervised access at the Fort Frances Supervised Access Program of one visit per week for eight weeks, and followed by two visits per week for eight weeks.
[12] Ms. Neilson proposes one visit per month for 1.5 hours through the Supervised Access Program, for six months, with a review after three months. The visits would then increase to two hours per month, for another six months, with Mr. Strom’s family to be involved. After a year, if Alexander had adjusted well, the visits would no longer be supervised. Ms. Neilson proposes a schedule for the second year.
[13] In my view, given that Alexander has not visited with Mr. Strom for more than a year, regardless of the reasons why, and given that before the three visits in May, June and July 2012, Alexander had only visited with Mr. Strom on half a dozen occasions, the next visits should take place at the Fort Frances Supervised Access Program so that Alexander who is only eight years of age, will have a sense of structure, security and continuity and so that there can be an objective recording by the Supervised Access Program staff of Alexander’s responses to the visits.
[14] I am of the opinion that going from no visits over the past year to weekly visits would be too large an adjustment for Alexander. On the other hand, a monthly supervised visit may space the visits too far apart for a relationship to develop with Mr. Strom. Ms. Neilson’s spouse, Mr. Peter Neilson, has raised Alexander since he was eight months of age and is the only father that Alexander has effectively had in his life.
[15] I believe that a six month schedule of visits of 1.5 hours every two weeks will give the staff at the Supervised Access Program an opportunity to make meaningful observations. It will also provide the Children’s Lawyer with an opportunity to gauge Alexander’s wishes and preferences in a meaningful context.
[16] An order shall go that commencing within the next four weeks, Mr. Strom shall have visits with Alexander every second week for 1.5 hours at the Fort Frances Supervised Access Program, for a period of six months.
[17] At the end of the six months, if the parties are unable to agree on a new schedule of access, they shall return to the court for a further order. In the event of unforeseen developments concerning the child, supported by documentation from the Supervised Access Centre, either party may return to court sooner for review of this order. The parties may arrange to appear in court in Thunder Bay by videoconference if time is of the essence.
[18] On consent, an order shall go requesting that the Children’s Lawyer provide representation for the child.
[19] The motion by Mr. Strom for appointment of Dr. Bosma to provide an assessment of the child is dismissed, without prejudice to renew the motion if the Children’s Lawyer declines to represent the child.
[20] On consent, Ms. Neilson is granted custody of the child.
[21] There shall be no order as to costs.
The Hon. Mr. Justice D.C. Shaw
Released: September 17, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: FS-42-11
DATE: September 17, 2013
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
TREVOR STROM
Applicant
- and –
CHRISTINE NEILSON
Respondent
REASONS ON MOTION
Shaw J.
Released: September 17, 2013
/nf