ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No.: 518/10
Date: 20140425
Between:
Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington
Tina Tom, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
A.L.
- and -
Stephen L. Zap, for the Respondent A.L.
D.L.
Respondents
D.L. appearing on his own behalf
Deborah Swartz, for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer
Heard: April 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24 and 25, 2014
WARNING
This is a case under Part III — Child Protection, of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11 and is subject to subsections 45(8) and 76(11) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with subsections 45(8) and 76(11), read as follows:
45(8) PROHIBITION: IDENTIFYING CHILD — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.
76(11) PUBLICATION — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a witness or a participant in a hearing, or a party to a hearing other than a society.
85(3) OFFENCES — A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(c) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
Byers J.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] Some problems are not fixable no matter how hard we try. This may well be that sort of case. The presenting issue is access by Mr. D.L. to his four children, ages four to ten.
[2] It is agreed that the children want and need to see their father on a regular consistent basis. And it is agreed that they have enjoyed their visits with him particularly at their grandfather’s farm where D.L. now resides. The children grew up on a farm nearby and are well familiar and comfortable with cattle and guns and fishing rods. And they live nearby with their mom who has custody and the fact that the children are doing well is a credit to her.
[3] And it is also agreed that the existing order which provides for supervised access has failed. Not enough supervisors were approved by the Society and for those few that were, the job of supervising D.L. proved to be too much to handle.
[4] In hindsight I think it was unfair to place that burden on friends and family. The result however was that the children lost far too many access visits with their father. Access turned out to be anything but regular and consistent. Those visits that did take place were good visits and D.L. co-operated with the supervisors.
[5] The new plan by the Society is that supervision must continue but not by them. They submit the responsibility should be handed over to the Salvation Army in a room in Sharbot Lake. I understand Mr. Zap for A.L. supporting that plan. After all she doesn’t really want D.L. to have any access and I appreciate her position.
[6] But I am not prepared to let the Society abandon its duty to facilitate access and at the same time to keep the children safe. I see the Sharbot Lake Plan as a last resort and not in the children’s best interests.
[7] The real issue is whether the access should be supervised at all. And that depends on whether or not an unsupervised D.L. presents a risk to his own children.
[8] D.L. has no history of violence toward anyone and I am satisfied he would never knowingly put his children at risk.
[9] But D.L. has some mental health issues which he himself acknowledges and these problems are not so easily dismissed. D.L. is hard to like. He presents as a very smart man who knows a lot about a lot of things. He acted for himself and throughout the trial he was determined to teach me about all those things, from how to grow garlic to how to protect the environment and all the endangered species in it. He even lectured me on the value of breast feeding.
[10] He thinks he’s absolutely right about absolutely everything. And he will not be moved. He has no insight. He cannot imagine that he might be the problem.
[11] He is obsessive compulsive. His intensive manner and his dominating personality frighten some people. He raised his family in a half-built house in the middle of nowhere. All his schemes and dreams of financial success have failed. He hasn’t really worked for years, and given his age and mental health issues, I expect he never will. The Family Responsibility Office took away his driver’s licence for non-payment of a child support he cannot afford. To me, that seems like piling on.
[12] But all that pales when we start talking about hallucinations and delusions.
[13] Dr. Fekins, his treating psychiatrist, gave evidence. He said D.L. has a strong sense of right and wrong and good Christian values which all bodes well for his ability to parent. But he also said that D.L. suffers from a delusional disorder. D.L. believes strongly that his wife A.L. is a psychopath who tried to poison him. D.L. told us in court that he has proof beyond a reasonable doubt about all this, and if he can just get his wife arrested then he can get custody of the children.
[14] Dr. Fekins wants to prescribe an anti-psychotic drug but fears that D.L. may not take it, cautions that it might not work for some time, or not at all. It seems that delusional disorder is hard to fix. Finally, Dr. Fekins opines that at this point the safer option is to continue supervision.
[15] I can’t ignore that opinion.
[16] In closing submissions D.L. surprised me and said he would take any medication recommended by Dr. Fekins. He better do just that. D.L. needs to understand that his mental illness is not his fault but if he fails to get treatment for it, he will eventually lose all contact with his children and they will grow up without their father in their lives and that will be his fault.
[17] And D.L. needs to understand and come to accept that his belief about his wife trying to poison him is his biggest delusion of all. If and when he gets better it will disappear.
[18] So I am not prepared to send the children to Sharbot Lake for access. I see that as a last resort and not in their best interest.
[19] I propose to change the existing access order as follows:
Sunday access will continue at the farm. The Society itself will supervise those visits. Supervision is not to be off-loaded on a volunteer. I appreciate the extra financial burden but this is a special case.
The weekly mid-week two-hour access is cancelled. The burden on the children is just too much. I will not provide D.L. with a teaching moment. I know how painful that can be.
The Society is to make all reasonable efforts at substituting at least some of the lost time with the occasional pre-planned unsupervised access at public events in the community. In the past, those have gone well.
The Society will supply Ariel with a pre-paid cell phone. Ariel can use that phone to contact her mother and for no other purpose.
D.L. is not to speak ill of A.L. in front of the children.
Access at the request of D.L. is not to be revisited for at least six months. No filings in that regard will be accepted at the counter.
If and when access is revisited, D.L. will supply a report from his treating psychiatrist, outlining what progress if any has been made, and what medication D.L. has in fact taken. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to Dr. Fekins by the Society.
[20] No costs. The formal Order can be sent to the Picton courthouse for my signature.
Mr. Justice Richard Byers
Released: April 25, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: 518/10
DATE: 20140425
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington
Applicant
- and -
A.L.
- and –
D.L.
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Byers J
Released: April 25, 2014