Ashley Patchett v. Scott Puckrin, 2015 ONSC 408

COURT FILE NO.: 115/09

DATE: YYYYMMDD

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Ashley Patchett

Applicant

– and –

Scott Puckrin

Respondent

Christopher Spear, for the Applicant

Shawn McNamara, for the Respondent

HEARD: January 13, 14, 15 and 16, 2015

Justice B. G. MACDOUGALL

[1] In September 2007, Ashley Patchett (the mother), now age 28 went to work for Scott Puckrin (the father) , now age 52, as a laborer in his construction business.

[2] Several months later they began a “romantic relationship”. Ashley was living in a rooming house in Peterborough during the fall of 2007 and in December 2007 Scott moved Ashley into a motel and then into a cabin that was situated on Chemong Lake where she lived there over the winter while continuing to work for Scott in completing a home he was building for himself in Buckhorn. Ashley became pregnant with their child and Dylan was born on February 3, 2009. Following Dylan’s release from hospital, Ashley and Dylan moved into Scott’s home. Relatively shortly after that, issues developed between Scott and Ashley resulting in her leaving Scott’s home with Dylan for a period of time and then returning to Scott’s home.

[3] In March 2009 the conflict between Ashley and Scott increased to the point where the police were called and Ashley was charged with assaulting Scott. She spent five days in custody before being released on a recognizance. During that time Dylan stayed with the father. This began the Family Court proceedings that have continued on between the parties to the present time. Other than temporary orders, Settlement Conferences and Trial Management Conferences, the matter comes to this court for a detailed review.

[4] The parties have had major conflicts between them which were ongoing despite the involvement of, the Children’s Aid Society, the Kawartha Family Court Assessment Service, a social worker retained by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, over 50 contacts to the police, private mediation and numerous Family Court attendances.

[5] In May 2010 the Children’s Lawyer Office (Andrew Harris, MSW) completed its investigation.

[6] In 2010, Andrew Harris’ recommendations included:

• Dylan’s care to be shared equally between the parents with Dylan being with the mother each day through the week from 7 AM to 6 PM (or 7 PM) and from Sunday at noon to Monday evening.

• Dylan was to be with the father each night, except Sunday night and all day Saturday.

• The Children’s Lawyer’s office (the OCL) recommended that these access arrangements be maintained, including shared custody. It was also recommended that both parents abstain from alcohol and that no one in their extended families to be present if they are using alcohol.

• As Dylan matured, the access arrangements would become impractical and would need to be reviewed.

[7] On May 4, 2010 the parties signed a “Consent to Final Order” involving Dylan.

[8] Among other things, the parties consented to having joint custody and Dylan was to reside equally with each of the parties. Dylan was to live with the mother each weekday from 7 AM until 6 PM and every other weekend from Friday at 6 PM to Sunday at 6 PM and Dylan was to live with the father at all other times.

[9] The parties were to share equally in the transportation of Dylan according to the schedule.

[10] On June 19, 2010 the mother was charged with impaired driving and subsequently lost her driver’s license. This compounded the already existing conflict over the exchanges for Dylan.

[11] Subsequently, the father lost his driver’s license, firstly as result of demerit points and then for a driving over .08

[12] In December 2010 the matter came back to Family Court mainly on the issue of the daily exchanges, given that the father was residing in Buckhorn and the mother was residing in Peterborough. On consent, the court ordered a custody/access assessment to be completed by the Kawartha Family Court Assessment Services. That report was completed on March 3, 2011.

[13] The matter was back in court on May 2, 2011 and again on May 9, 2011 involving issues arising over alleged alcohol use, and problems with the exchange location, among other things . The case came back to court again on June 27, 2011. At that time, the matter was adjourned to October 13, 2011 for a Trial Management Conference. On October 13, 2011, the father had not completed his Trial Management Conference Brief and requested an adjournment for an updated assessment and questioning of the mother. The matter was adjourned to October 27, 2011 for a Trial Management Conference. It appeared that there was some expectation that the matter might proceed to a trial during the November 2011 trial sittings.

[14] On October 28, 2011 as result of receiving the recommendations in the report of David Tonge of the Kawartha Family Court Assessment Services, the parties consented to a final order.

[15] The parties consented to, among other things that:

(1) The parties shall have joint custody of the child, Dylan Patchett-Puckrin, born February 3, 2009;

(2) Commencing November 4, 2011:

(a) the child shall reside with the mother from 8 AM Monday morning until 3 PM Friday afternoon;

(b) the child shall reside with the father from 3 PM Friday afternoon until Monday morning at 8 AM.

(3) Special access times shall be shared in accordance with the attached Schedule.

(4) Police shall be authorized to enforce the access provisions of this order.

(5) The Mother and Father shall each have telephone access with the child on Tuesday at 7 PM and on Sunday at 7 PM. In the event the mother is unable to receive telephone calls she shall telephone the father on the child’s behalf to effect the conversation.

(6) Access exchanges shall take place at Subway at Parkhill and Water St., Peterborough;

(7) The Respondent [the father] shall continue to provide transportation for access purposes. In the event that the applicant’s [mother’s] driver’s license is reinstated, the parties shall share and transportation for access purposes.

(8) Neither party shall consume alcohol while the child is in their care and the applicant’s father shall not be allowed to have contact with the child if he has consumed alcohol.

(9) The respondent [father] shall have the right to require a further custody and access assessment, at his cost, at any time after March 1, 2013 and shall have the right to return the matter to court for further determination of incidents of custody prior to the child commencing school.

(10) In the event that the matter is not returned to court, paragraph 4 of the attached Schedule [David Tonge’s recommendations] shall take effect, such that the child shall reside with the respondent from Thursday at 5 PM until Monday at 8 AM 3 weekends out of every 4, commencing the second weekend of September 2013.

[16] Paragraph 4 of David Tonge’s Recommendations (the Schedule) provided as follows:

It is recommended that this time-sharing arrangement to be in place until Dylan enters school. If Ashley continues to remain off of alcohol, has stabilized her life and is providing well for Dylan, then the time-sharing should be switched to Ashley caring for Dylan during the school week and for 1 weekend out of 4. Dylan would then be cared for by Scott 3 out of 4 weekends, from Thursday after work [as available] until Monday mornings. This would maintain the same 12 evenings every month with Scott, keeping the number of transfers between the parents to a minimum and would allow a good balance of time with both parties.

[17] In May 2012, issues again arose with respect to the exchange locations. The father brought a Contempt of Court motion against the mother and the mother brought a motion against the father. Because of the number of motions and issues raised by the parties, a Case Conference was set for September 26, 2012. On that date the parties consented to mediation and the Case Conference was adjourned to January 9, 2013.

[18] As result of the private mediation the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on January 31, 2013 that covered, Phone access, Special Days access and Access Exchange Locations. The mediation unfortunately did not resolve the conflicts between the parties.

[19] The matter was placed on the May 2013 trial sittings. For a considerable period of time after the October 28, 2011 Consent Order, the parties were without legal counsel. The matter did not proceed in the May 2013 trial sittings as the parties’ pleadings were not in any condition to clarify the actual issues before the court.

[20] On May 21, 2013 the parties consented to have the Children’s Lawyer’s Office reappointed to conduct an updated report and it was so ordered by the court.

[21] On April 1, 2014 Andrew Harris, clinician for the Children’s Lawyer’s office completed the updated report.

[22] In Mr. Harris’ report, he summarized the “Relevant Intervening Events” as follows:

Summary of Relevant Intervening Events

• In 2010 the mother became involved in a romantic relationship with a former friend, Mr. Manion. They have a son, Ethyn, born June 29, 2011 and the child Ethyn is and always has been in the mother’s care.

• In March 2012, the mother, having approved for subsidized housing moved into a three-bedroom apartment where she continues to reside with her two children, Dylan and Ethyn.

• In September 2013, Dylan started Junior kindergarten at Roger Nelson public school in Peterborough.

• Dylan’s school is across the street from the mother’s residence.

• The mother’s relationship with Mr. Manion was highly conflictual. Generally this was a result of Mr. Manion’s alcohol use and involved assault charges against Mr. Manion and against the mother. There were numerous requests by the mother to have Mr. Manion removed from her home by the police because of his alcohol use.

• In 2014 at Mr. Manion’s request to try to rekindle their relationship, the mother and Mr. Manion got together for a very brief interval which didn’t last. The mother now says that Mr. Manion and she are no longer in any kind of a relationship. Mr. Manion comes by the house to pick up Ethan for a visit from time to time but does not stay at her residence.

• The mother returned to school full-time, in November 2013 for upgrading and she is expected to have completed her high school courses by June 2015. She has plans to further her education by attending college or university.

• In 2010, the mother attended a series of counseling sessions at FourCast for her alcohol abuse in 2010.

• The mother claims that she has not consumed any alcohol since her motor vehicle accident.

• In 2009, the mother successfully completed a 10 week Anger Solutions program for women put on by Elizabeth Fry Society required to be taken as result of the conditional discharge she read received on the assault charge against the father (by pulling his hair). The report from the Elizabeth Fry Society confirm that to the mother “…was punctual, attentive and never missed a lesson. Ashley always showed great focus and a desire to integrate the course material into her daily life. She was a wonderful addition to the group”.

• In July 2010, the mother entered the Addiction Services Initiatives and attended five appointments. She also enrolled in the Collective Kitchens program put on by the City of Peterborough and the Peterborough City County Health Unit.

• The Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society (the CAS) did have involvement with the parties 7 times between August 30, 2010 and May 29, 2013 mainly at the request of the father. In December 2011 the CAS reported that they closed their file as they had seen the mother on a monthly basis and there were no child protection concerns present during any of the scheduled home visits.

• In January 2013, the CAS reported that as result of an investigation, they could not verify that the mother was a “caregiver with a alcohol problem that affected her ability to parent”. It was also not verified that she had “limited caregiving skills”. The CAS closed their file after the investigation on January 28, 2013.

• Between January 1, 2010 in August 17, 2013 there were 26 were police reports of incidents involving interactions between the mother and father, mostly involving disputes over access exchanges, particularly the place and time of the exchanges and the fathers missed telephone calls to Dylan. There were no charges laid as result of the involvement of the police.

The Position of the Parties

[23] The mother first initiated the Request to a Change to the October 28, 2011 Consent Order by commencing an Application on April 16, 2012.

[24] In that Application, she was seeking an order for child support and a change in the pickup and drop off location for Dylan from the Subway location to her current residence.

[25] On June 11, 2012 the mother brought a motion to change the order of October 28, 2011 seeking a change in Dylan’s residency schedule so that she have Dylan every other weekend

[26] The father responded by opposing the mother’s requested changes and requested that he have Dylan with him on a full time basis with the mother having access every other weekend. He also requested that the Office of the Children’s Lawyer do an assessment.

[27] On May 15, 2013 the mother brought an amendment to her Request to Change. She sought an order that Dylan remain in her primary care, reside with her from Monday to Friday and the last weekend of every month when he was to start school on a full-time basis and other minor changes regarding Special Days as set out in the Schedule of the order.

Parties’ Current Position

[28] As result of the recommendations in the updated OCL report of April 1, 2014, the father is seeking an order that Scott have the primary residence for Dylan with the him and the mother having alternate weekends along with one midweek visit after school until 7 PM, one half the Christmas break, the school’s spring break and alternative weeks or alternate two-week blocks in the summer and on Mother’s Day.

[29] The mother is seeking the reverse of that order so that she has primary residence for Dylan, and the father is to have Dylan 3 weekends out of 4 and the sharing of the Special Days.

Discussion of the OCL Report and the Testimony of Andrew Harris

[30] Mr. Harris conducted his assessment between July 25, 2013 and March 2014. He acknowledged that he was not aware of what changes, if any, have occurred with respect to the parties since March 2014.

[31] In his report, he considered three options for the custody and access arrangements:

(1) Leaving the current arrangement in place. This arrangement, however, would cause great problems as Dylan would, as he got older, want to spend more time on weekends with his school friends. Also, the mother had no weekend times with Dylan and the father had no weekends free from Dylan. Both parents were seeking changes to this arrangement.

(2) Leaving the current arrangement in place however providing the mother to have one weekend out of four. This was, in Mr. Harris’s view, a reasonable request, as otherwise she would never have a weekend with Dylan. The mother was offering in exchange for the one weekend per month, midweek access to the father to compensate for his reduced time. This was the option recommended by the Family Court Assessment report of March 2011.

(3) Establish more traditional access arrangement with Dylan living with one primary parent for the week with alternate weekend access to the other parent plus a midweek access. Andrew Harris stated:

This option recognizes that both parents have taken equal responsibility for Dylan’s care, including his education and his social life. It allows Dylan to develop friendships at both of his parents’ homes, both on weekends and through the week. This option also ensures his ongoing relationship with his half-brother, Ethyn.

[32] Mr. Harris’ report then goes on to state:

Upon consideration, the third option is the most appropriate for Dylan as he matures. The challenge is then to determine which home will be considered his primary residence, being the home from which he attends school. Because of the geographic distance between the parents’ two homes being about 40 km apart, and two different available school, one home must serve as Dylan’s primary residence.

[33] As result of preferring the third option, Mr. Harris then had to consider each parent’s suitability for providing Dylan’s primary residence.

[34] In that regard, his report stated:

It is apparent that although both parents have their strengths and weaknesses, Mr. Puckhrin’s home has been the most consistent and stable through Dylan’s life. Both parents have had difficulty in establishing a stable relationship with a partner and Mr. Puckrin remains alone. On the other hand, Ms. Patchett continues to have problems with her relationships. The police have been called to her home in numerous occasions and she is currently facing charges of assault and theft. Mr. Puckrin has an extended family, including his adult children and their mother, who remain supportive. Ms. Patchett acknowledged that her own family has struggled, although she is supported by her two sisters. Within this context, and on balance, it is recommended that Dylan live with Mr. Puckrin as his primary residence.

[35] In his testimony, Mr. Harris acknowledged that the both of the parents are good parents and that Dylan is thriving in their care. Both parents also have problems. He stated that only because of the geographical differences in their homes and the fact that Dylan is now in school he would have recommended a “true shared parenting” arrangement where Dylan spends the week about with each parent. He observed that the main difficulty is the conflict between the parents when they are in contact with one another over their exchanges, the problems around the father’s telephone access to Dylan, the mother’s relationship with Ethan’s father as well as with her own father who is an acknowledged alcoholic.

[36] Mr. Harris also agreed that for these parties if one parent is the primary parent this imbalance in the primary relationship will be a source of conflict between the parties.

[37] He also agreed that one of the problems with the third option was that as Dylan grows older, he will not likely want to spend all his time during the week with one parent and all his weekend time with the other parent. He will not likely want to be away on weekends from his school chums and his community and this will likely be frustrating for Dylan.

[38] In terms of the considerations referred to above in coming to the recommendation in his report that if one parent was to be the primary parent, it should be the father, he acknowledged that he was unaware of the changes that may have taken place since he completed his investigation.

[39] He stated that at the point in time when he completed his investigation in March 2014, “the father appeared to be more stable.” The father at that time had more stable housing and more stable circumstances in which he was living. The mother was facing outstanding criminal charges and that as the OCL investigator, his “job was to make a decision”. He said, “This is not a “black and white situation but he needed to make a call.” He stated that he was not arguing that one parent was a better parent or one parent has a better history.

[40] With respect to Dylan’s relationship with his half-brother Ethyn that Mr. Harris confirmed “had to be protected”, he stated that he observed that, “the boys are inseparable, they were very much engaged with each other and obviously they have a good relationship between them”, from his observations.

[41] Dylan was also very much engaged with the father’s adult children.

Analysis

[42] In considering the OCL report and Mr. Harris, testimony, I find there have been significant changes from the evidence that I accept that clearly need to be considered in whether the OCL recommendation is now in the best interests of Dylan.

[43] In terms of stability as it relates to the parents’ housing situation, it is true that the father has been residing in his residence in Buckhorn since Dylan was born. The mother has moved several times but for the last two years and nine months, her housing situation has stabilized in that she is living in “geared to income housing” and there is no likelihood that in the near future she would be moving from that housing. Although Dylan would be familiar with his father’s home, nevertheless Dylan has spent more than 50 percent of his time with his mother living elsewhere from the father’s home.

[44] Accordingly, the concern for the housing stability is no longer a factor and both parents now have “stable housing”.

[45] In terms of stability as it relates to people in the mother’s life as compared to the father’s, at the time that Mr. Harris conducted his investigation, the mother was in a very troubling relationship with Ethyn’s father. If that relationship was still ongoing, that would have caused serious concerns to the court about the effect that the mother’s relationship with Ethyn’s father could have on the Dylan’s well-being, a concern raised quite properly by the father.

[46] Ethyn’s father is therefore at this point in time at least, not a significant negative factor.

[47] Nevertheless, I accept the mother’s testimony that that relationship with Ethyn’s father is now over and that any contact between Ethyn’s father and Dylan is when Ethyn’s father comes by the mother’s home to pick up Ethyn for a visit. Also when Dylan wanted to accompany his half-brother when Ethan’s father was taking Ethyn out for a treat, the mother confirmed that Ethyn’s father had not been drinking and that the visit was for only a short period of time.

[48] On balance, the father has had at least one other short-term relationship and that on one occasion, a problem arose that the father required the involvement of the police. The mother suspects that the father has several other women in his life which the father denies. In the past, the father has been married twice before and did have a girlfriend at the time he first met the mother.

[49] The other “relationship concern” has to do with the concern the father has with the mother’s father being involved in Dylan’s life.

[50] I accept the evidence of the mother and her twin sister, Amber Patchett, who testified that the mother’s father resides with the mother’s sister in Havelock but does spend some time visiting with the mother. I accept the evidence from the mother and the mother’s sister that the father has terminal cancer and is not expected to the survive that cancer in the near term.

[51] I also accept the mother’s testimony that all previously outstanding criminal charges against her have been withdrawn. The suspension of her driver’s licence will have fully expired within the next five months.

[52] In the October 28, 2011 Consent Order, the mother, did agree to a provision that the mother’s father was not to be allowed to have contact with Dylan if he had consumed alcohol. I note that when the father contacted the police and the CAS to attend the mother’s home because he suspected the mother’s father was there and was drinking, the police and the CAS did attend but found that the father had not been drinking.

[53] With respect to this concern, I am satisfied that, given the circumstances of the father’s health, the fact that the father does reside with the mother’s sister in Havelock, and that the mother is aware that her father should not be with Dylan when he has been drinking, this concern has been considerably minimized at the present time.

[54] In terms of family support, the mother does have a very close relationship with her sister, Amber, and they spend a lot of time in each other’s company. Amber also has a close relationship with Dylan. The father spoke positively about the Amber sister and he has no issue with Amber being involved in Dylan’s life.

[55] As a result of what I find to be positive changes in the mother’s life from the time that Mr. Harris completed his investigation, I find that the factors that Mr. Harris used in his report to come up with the recommendation that the primary parent should be the father are now not factors weighing against the mother and in the father’s favour but are “neutral factors”.

[56] Accordingly, in the circumstances, the issue is whether significantly changing the “status quo” is in Dylan’s best interest?

[57] As confirmed by both assessors, David Tonge and Andrew Harris, the goal should be to minimize opportunities for conflict between the parties that has mainly been triggered by differences of opinion as to the precise requirements of the previous access orders, the father’s telephone access on Tuesdays, the Special Day exchanges and the place for the access and exchanges.

[58] As noted by both assessors, the father’s extensive use of the police to “enforce his rights” is not in the best interests of Dylan even though the consent order provided that the police could be used to “enforce access”. The record before me discloses repeated use by the father to have the police and the CAS involved unnecessarily in this family’s life. In that regard, I find the father has exercised very poor judgment. Apparently, even though he feels that he was “within his rights” to use the police and the CAS, he was not aware of the effect this could have on his young son, Dylan, and also how it could also negatively impact on Dylan’s relationship with Dylan’s mother.

[59] As David Tonge has pointed out, if the father was the primary parent, given his well demonstrated disrespect for the mother, and if he had the controlling voice, there is a strong likelihood that the mother’s relationship with Dylan would be negatively affected.

[60] I find on balance that in terms of flexibility, the mother is more inclined to deal with normal scheduling problems that occur in most families lives that require an adjustment. The father clearly demonstrated his rigidity when it comes to time and scheduling. In his testimony, the father stated that he grew up with values that there is “black and white and no gray”. This approach obviously will lead to potential problems when particularly, with young children, when often normal life situations fall into the “gray area” that requires compromise between parents. Ideally, this should be dealt with without undue conflict if parents have a mature and rational understanding and the ability to place the child’s best interests in the forefront and ahead of their own interests.

[61] While there are certainly ongoing challenges for the mother, given her very dysfunctional family background and her struggles that will remain long-term as she strives to maintain a stable healthy environment for her children, I find at this point in time the father’s attitude the more problematic of the concerns.

[62] I find that the recommendation in the OCL report would require a significant change of Dylan’s status quo.

[63] As Andrew Harris agreed, it would mean:

(i) Dylan would be changing schools from the school that is located across from his home in Peterborough to a rural school that would require him to be picked up and returned by school bus;

(ii) Dylan would be removed from his current school community where neighborhood children attend and where his half-brother will be attending in the near future to a new school that is some distance from his home and is in a rural setting without close neighbors nearby.

(iii) On his return after school Dylan would be cared for during the months that his father is working in his business by either the father’s daughter who is attending Trent University or by an employee of the father’s business;

(iv) Because the father is very busy during the construction season where he works long hours for a considerable part of the year other than the weekends, Dylan would not be cared for by his father, but he would be cared for by either other members of the father’s family or by babysitters;

(v) Dylan would be spending each week away from his half-brother Ethyn and this would likely have a diminishing effect on the close bond they have developed, as Dylan has been Ethyn’s “big brother” since Ethyn’s birth.

Considerations of Andrew Harris “best option” of a true shared parenting regime.

[64] In his testimony, Mr. Harris suggested that a “true shared parenting regime” could work for this family and be the best option. It would not create an “imbalance” between these parents on the parenting issue and it would reduce the contact between the parties as the exchanges would be minimized. Also, there would be no need for telephone access by the parents when Dylan is with the other parent. When Dylan is with the one parent for the week, that parent would be the “primary parent and the following week the other parent would be the “primary parent”.

[65] As noted above, Mr. Harris did not pursue this option given where the parents lived and, at that time, neither were prepared a willingness to relocate.

[66] In the closing submissions of father’s legal counsel, the court was advised that should the court be open for that change in the order, the father would be prepared to leave Dylan at the same school in Peterborough and drive Dylan to school each morning and pick Dylan up each morning from school during the week that Dylan was residing with him.

[67] The father is to be commended for his willingness to undertake to do this driving to and from, Peterborough every second week. However, after taking into account the benefits of this arrangement as described by Mr. Harris, nevertheless, I find that in the present circumstances there would be some counterbalancing the positive features to this regime, having regard to what is in Dylan’s best interest.

[68] On balance, the community that Dylan is currently enjoying with his friends, including neighborhood friends and school friends and the relationship that he has with his younger brother would suffer if he was away every second week living with his father. Although there are positive features about the father’s home and surroundings and that Dylan has a close friend in his father’s neighborhood and the support of the father’s family, nevertheless, the father is in business for himself, needs to be away at work and his home is located in a somewhat isolated area and not in a neighborhood.

[69] Although the week about could work when the father is not working in his construction business during the winter months, I find that Dylan would be cared for a considerable period of time during the construction season (which generally would be considered to be from April until the end of November) being a significant part of the calendar year by other persons.

[70] As well, once Etyan attends school, the parties would both have to be at the school each school day, twice a day every second week of the school year. As clearly demonstrated in the past, these parents should not be in each other’s company, considering their ongoing high conflict situation.

[71] Again, I find that in the circumstances this “shared parenting regime” even when considering it the “best option” as stated by Andrew Harris, would result in a significant change to the status quo. After having considered this option, I find that on balance, given that Dylan is thriving in the current arrangement and that the mother has made significant positive changes in her life in the last two years, that it would not be in the best interest of Dylan to have the status quo significantly changed.

[72] Accordingly, I find that the recommendation of David Tonge as set out in paragraph 11 of the October 28, 2011 order should be implemented.

Summary

[73] The consent order of Ingram J. dated October 28, 2011 will be varied as follows:

(1) The parties will continue to have joint custody of the child Dylan Patchett- Puckrin, born February 3, 2009;

(2) Commencing Friday, February 6, 2015, Dylan will be in the mother’s care each week day from Monday morning when the father delivers Dylan to school to Friday afternoon when the father will pick up Dylan at the end of the school day. The father will have Dylan in his care for 3 consecutive week-ends as of Friday February 13, 2015 from after school until the commencement of school on the Monday morning.

(3) During school days, the father will deliver Dylan to school for the start of school Monday morning. If for any reason, Dylan cannot be returned to school on Monday mornings after the father’s week-ends, the father is to notify the school and text the mother as to why Dylan is not being returned to school.

(4) When Dylan is not in school, for the father’s weekends, the father will pick up Dylan from the mother’s residence at 3:10 p.m. and return Dylan to the mother’s residence at the end of the weekend by 8 a.m.

(5) Commencing on Friday, February 6, 2015, the mother will retain Dylan in her care for the weekend. This pattern will continue where the mother gets every 4th weekend so that the mother’s next weekend would be the weekend commencing March 6, 2015.

(6) Special access times shall be shared in accordance with the attached Schedule

(7) Paragraph 4 of the October 28, 2011 regarding police enforcement will be deleted.

(8) Paragraph 6 of the said order regarding telephone access will be deleted.

(9) Paragraph 7 of the said order regarding access exchanges will be deleted.

(10) Neither party shall consume alcohol while Dylan is in their care.

(11) Paragraphs 10 and 11 will be deleted.

[74] The parties wished to adjourn the issue of the Child Tax Benefit and the issue of child support. Both of these issues can be dealt with by way of a motion to be brought on notice by either party. The father is to disclose his 2013 income with all related documentation within 60 days.

[75] If the parties cannot agree on costs then the party seeking costs shall submit brief written submissions (no more than five pages) within 15 days from the date of release of this order and the responding party to reply within 10 days thereafter.

MacDougall, J.

Released: February 3, 2015

Ashley Patchett v. Scott Puckrin

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Ashley Patchett v. Scott Puckrin

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MacDougall, J.

Released: February 3, 2015

Holiday and Special Times

Summer:

1. (i) Dylan to spend 2 – one week periods of time (non-consecutively) with each parent. The balance of the vacation should consist of the regular schedule.

(ii) Arrangements for summer vacation periods be made no later than March 1st of each year. It is recommended further, in this regard, that one parent choose their two – one week periods first in alternate years, no later than February 15th, with the other parent then selecting their two week period of vacation with Dylan by March 1st. Mr. Scott Puckrin to make the first selection in even numbered years and Ms. Ashley Patchett in odd numbered years.

Christmas:

2. The Respondent shall have the child in his care for the first half of the Christmas school break in odd numbered years, commencing in 2015. In even numbered years, the Respondent shall have the child for the last half of the Christmas school break, commencing in 2016.

3. The Applicant and the Respondent shall share equally Christmas Day, with the Respondent having the child on Christmas morning until 12:00 noon in odd numbered years; and from 12:00 noon until 8:00 p.m. in even numbered years.

March Break:

4. The Applicant and the Respondent shall share equally the March Break of the child, with the Respondent having the child in his care for the first half of the break in off numbered years, commending in 2015 and the second half of the break in even numbered years, commencing in 2016.

5. Exchange times for the March break shall be from after school on the Friday until Wednesday at 12:00 noon in odd numbered years and from 12:00 noon on Wednesday until Monday morning when the Respondent shall take the child to school in even numbered years.

Thanksgiving, Easter, Family Day, Victoria Day, Canada Day and Labour Day:

6. The Respondent shall have the child in his care for Victoria Day weekend and Labour Day weekend every year commencing 2015.

7. Exchange times for these long weekends shall be from Friday after school until Tuesday morning when the Respondent shall return take the child to school.

8. The Applicant shall have the child in her care for the Family Day weekend and the Canada Day weekend every year commencing in 2015.

9. Exchanges for these long weekends shall be from Friday after school or Friday at 3:00 p.m., in the instance of Canada Day until Tuesday morning, when the Applicant shall return the child to school.

10. The Applicant and the Respondent shall share equally the Easter weekend and the Thanksgiving weekend, with the Respondent having the first half of the weekend in odd numbered years, commencing in 2015 and the second half of the weekends in even numbered years commencing in 2016.

11. The exchange times for the Easter weekend shall be from Thursday after school until Saturday at 12:00 p.m. in odd numbered years and from 12:00 p.m. Saturday until Tuesday morning in even numbered years.

12. The exchange time for Thanksgiving weekend shall be from Friday after school until Sunday at 12:00 noon in odd numbered years and from 12:00 noon until Tuesday when the child returns to school in even numbered years.

Professional Development Days:

13. The party who has the child in their care under the normal access schedule shall continue to have the child for the Professional Development day.