SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-1327
DATE: 20150703
RE: RVD, Applicant
AND
MSC, Respondent
BEFORE: J. Mackinnon J.
COUNSEL:
Peter Stieda, Counsel, for the Applicant
Steve Duplain, Counsel, for the Respondent
HEARD: June 18, 2015
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The parties consent to the release from the proceeds of sale of their matrimonial home currently held in trust the sum of the money necessary to discharge their joint line of credit at the RBC. They also agree that their four children should begin to receive counselling as soon as possible at the Family Services Ottawa with a view to restoring their relationship with their father, who is the applicant in this case. An order will go in these terms. They agree to an order that the applicant shall pay $4,344 in arrears of child support for the year 2014, and shall commence to pay monthly child support in the amount of $267 as of January 1, 2015. The balance of the cross motion brought by the respondent on short notice is adjourned to another date to be set.
[2] The applicant’s motion relates primarily to his desire to exercise access to his four daughters, ages 14, 11, 9 and 6. The children have resided with their mother since the parents separated in March 2013. The father did exercise access until mid-September 2013 when allegations were made of sexual touching by him of the three oldest girls. For reasons I am unaware, the CAS interviewed one child on September 19, the second child on October 4 and the third child on November 13. The CAS investigation concluded sexual abuse was verified. The police also investigated, including conducting a polygraph test of the father, and did not lay any charges.
[3] I note that although the children have been interviewed by the CAS and video interviewed by police authorities, the only evidence I have as to what they disclosed against their father is contained in an affidavit deposed by the mother. She provides three brief paragraphs consisting of 9 lines of information at least some of which appears to be second hand hearsay.
[4] The CAS recommended to the mother that she only allow supervised access to the children and recommended that the father submit to a sexual behaviours assessment. The CAS offered to contribute $3,500 to the cost of that assessment. The father did not agree. When the case first came before me I inquired whether the CAS would assist by supervising the resumption of access between the father and children in a supervised, therapeutic format, and whether it would allocate the sum of $3,500 towards a Family Court Clinic Assessment instead.
[5] The CAS did not agree to proceed in this fashion. The parents then arranged for the father to have supervised access to the children at a supervised access facility. Apparently, that centre only permits 30 minute visits alternate weeks in cases where allegations are made such as were made here. Four visits have taken place commencing in January 2015. All children attended for the first visit. Three attended for the second visit. All four were brought for the third and fourth visits but only the two younger girls actually visited with their father. The fifth visit was cancelled because the children declined to enter into the access room.
[6] The father believes the children are being alienated from him. It would be premature in the case to reach such a conclusion. However there is evidence in the record that could be indicative of alienating behaviour by the mother. This is particularly so with respect to the one child who was engaged in individual therapy and made a variety of statements to her therapist describing her mother denigrating the father and telling her to tell professionals she does not want to see him. This child denied any abuse by her father, said she is afraid of her mother, and wants to see her father but cannot.
[7] This child was in individual therapy with a therapist who wrote that the focus of her sessions was on her relationship with her mother. The therapy was discontinued by the mother. Her counsel advises this was for financial reasons, prior to her having seen or received any feedback from the therapist.
[8] In addition it does appear that the mother has now insisted that unless all four children visit together, there shall not be a visit with any of the children.
[9] Very recently the OCL was requested to carry out a clinical investigation of this family.
[10] The mother agrees that access should recommence but feels it needs to be in a context where the children are comfortable and not placed in the middle of the parental conflict. She suggests the supervised access facility could be re-engaged if there was also therapeutic support for the children. On January 8, 2015 I had issued an endorsement stating that access should be reinstated with preparatory steps such as a supervised therapeutic access format for reintegration of the children with the father. This did not happen.
[11] Now the court is faced with a very troubling situation where it lacks specific information about allegations against the father which have been relied on to restrict his access for a very long time. There are other serious factual disputes in this case that cannot be determined with accuracy on a motion. The passage of more time is unlikely to improve matters.
[12] For these reasons I make the following order:
A copy of my endorsement dated January 5, 2015 and of this endorsement shall be delivered to the Family Services Ottawa, with the request that confidential counselling for three children be commenced as soon as possible. The cost shall be payable from the proceeds of the sale of the sale of the matrimonial home.
The parents shall forthwith retain a social worker in private practice with experience in dealing with children of separated parents in high conflict situations. If they do not agree on the person to retain, then I order that they choose the first available of Sally Bleeker, Nadine Crawley or Janet Claridge, being three highly experienced individuals all well known to the Ottawa Family Court.
The social worker shall be retained to observe four community visits between the father and children, to make observations of the visits and to report the observations in writing to me and to counsel. The social worker shall identify the location of the visits. The mother shall deliver the children to the location and immediately depart. She shall return two hours later to the same location to pick up the children. The social worker shall remain with the children throughout the two hours and may exercise discretion as to whether the father should also remain for the duration, or depart earlier. The father shall respect the social worker’s decision as to the timing of his departure.
The first visit shall involve all of the four children. The next two visits should include the two older children together for one visit, and the two younger children together for the other visit. The ordering of these visits is in the discretion of the access supervisor.
The fourth visit should include all four children and the father.
All four visits shall be concluded within 8 weeks of this date. A date shall be scheduled for a case conference before me during the week of September 8, by which time I expect the social worker’s observational report. So that there is no interruption in the access both parents shall forthwith re-engage with the supervised access facility with a view to resuming visits there, after the four visits delineated here are completed, and until further order of the court.
The costs of this retainer shall be paid out of the proceeds held in trust.
[13] Counsel shall provide me a copy of the response from the OCL as soon as it is received. In addition I require them to complete a timetable setting out the steps and timing of the steps they regard as necessary to bring the case to trial readiness. If any additional disclosure orders are required this should be particularized and attached to the litigation timetable.
[14] Costs of this motion are reserved.
J. Mackinnon J.
Date: July 3, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-1327
DATE: 20150703
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: RVD, Applicant
AND
MSC, Respondent
BEFORE: J. Mackinnon J.
COUNSEL: Peter Stieda, Counsel, for the Applicant
Steve Duplain, Counsel, for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
J. Mackinnon J.
Released: July 3, 2015