<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
ONTARIO
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
**COURT FILE NO.:** FC-09-2160
**DATE:** 2013/09/27
**BETWEEN:**
**O’NEILL ARMSTRONG**
Applicant
– and –
**ANN MARIE ELIZABETH VANNESTE**
Respondent
O’Neill Armstrong, Self-Represented
Ann Marie Elizabeth Vanneste, Self-Represented
**HEARD at Ottawa:** May 21-23, 27-31, June 17, 2013
# REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
M. Linhares de Sousa J.
# INTRODUCTION
[1] This is a very high conflict family law matter which has required substantial judicial case management to bring the case to preparedness for trial. There have been multiple court proceedings with appearances in both the family matter and the numerous criminal law matters. Even during the course of the family law trial before me, proceedings in criminal court have been ongoing. The parties have engaged and brought into the family law litigation a number of medical, social and mental health professionals who testified at trial, including agents and social workers of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa who currently supervise the access to one of the children in this matter. The parties have also drawn in their respective extended families into the matrimonial high conflict which appears to have only intensified and broadened the family conflict to which the two children of this couple have been exposed. Both parties profess to be acting in the best interests of their children.
# ISSUES AND POSITION OF THE PARTIES
[2] The contested issues raised in this trial by the parties are the following. For the Applicant, O’Neill Armstrong, he seeks an order of shared custody of his biological son, Quinn Jaden Armstrong, born October 10, 2008, now almost 5 years old. For Mr. Armstrong, a “shared custody” order would be an order granting him roughly equal parenting time with Quinn’s mother, the Respondent, Ann Marie Vanneste.
[3] In the alternative, Mr. Armstrong seeks an order granting him joint custody of the child Quinn with liberal, weekly access to him as stipulated by the court with a review of the parenting arrangement to take place in six months.
[4] Ms. Vanneste contests Mr. Armstrong’s application. She seeks an order granting her sole custody of the child of the marriage, Quinn, and of her biological son by another relationship, Roland Joseph Armstrong (also known as R.J.), born July 15, 1997, now 16 years old. Roland was legally adopted by Mr. Armstrong when he was 9 years old, shortly after the parties married. Roland has had and continues to have no relationship with his biological father so that Mr. Armstrong since coming into his life is the only father figure the child has had.
[5] Ms. Vanneste seeks an order of no access between Mr. Armstrong and Roland. She also seeks an order that access between Mr. Armstrong and Quinn continue to be supervised.
[6] Ms. Vanneste seeks an order for child support, including s. 7 expenses, for the two children, Roland and Quinn, in accordance with the [Federal Child Support Guidelines](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-97-175/latest/sor-97-175.html), S.O.R./97-175, as am. [Guidelines].
[7] Finally, Ms. Vanneste also seeks a restraining order against Mr. Armstrong prohibiting any contact between herself and Mr. Armstrong except as provided by the court.
# FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[8] In order to fully understand the issues in this matter and how this matter came to trial, it is useful to detail the factual background of this litigation and other intersecting litigation. For the most part, the following facts were not contested and are supported by the evidence.
[9] The parties met in July, 2004 in Montreal where, at the time, Mr. Armstrong was living and working and where his parents resided.
[10] At that time, Ms. Vanneste was living and working as a teacher in Ottawa, where she has and continues to enjoy a large, closely knit extended family, namely, her parents and various siblings and their children. In 2004, Ms. Vanneste was a single parent to Roland who was then 7 years old. Ms. Vanneste received substantial support from her extended family in Ottawa. Her parents had cared for Roland while she obtained her teaching qualifications in Canada upon her return from the United States. There is no question that the maternal grandparents are very attached to the child Roland.
[11] The parties conducted a long distance relationship for a brief period. In September of 2005, Mr. Armstrong moved to Ottawa to live with Ms. Vanneste and obtained employment in that city. In January of 2006, the parties married.
[12] Later that year, on June 16, 2006, Mr. Armstrong formally adopted Roland, who was then about to turn 9 years old. The evidence presented at this trial can only lead to a conclusion of fact that Mr. Armstrong’s legal adoption of Roland was the legal finalization of what had developed into a genuine father/son relationship between Mr. Armstrong and Roland. From the very beginning of his relationship with Ms. Vanneste, Mr. Armstrong treated Roland as his own son, helping support him and engaging with him in activities, especially sports which both enjoyed. Mr. Armstrong coached Roland’s basketball team. Roland called Mr. Armstrong “Dad” and effectively knew only him as a father, not having any contact with his biological father since an early age.
(Complete decision text continues exactly as in the source above, ending with:)
M. Linhares de Sousa J.
**Released:** **September 27, 2013**
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
**BETWEEN:**
O’NEILL ARMSTRONG
Applicant
– and –
ANN MARIE ELIZABETH VANNESTE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
M. Linhares de Sousa J.
**Released:** **September 27, 2013**
minicounsel