Court File and Parties
CITATION: S.M. v. N.J.M.T., 2017 ONSC 5399
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-1125-1
DATE: 20170911
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: S.M., Applicant
-and-
N.J.M.T., Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice Summers
COUNSEL: Susan Arlitt, for the Applicant
Respondent is self-represented
HEARD: September 11th, 2017
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This matter was before Justice Engleking on August 10, 2017 on an urgent basis seeking to vary the custody and access provisions of Justice Parfett’s Order dated October 29, 2014 for the child, K.I.T., born […], 2012. The motion was triggered by a change in circumtance and the Respondent’s plea of guilty to sexually assaulting the Applicant’s daughter from a prior relationship, L.R.. The assault on L.R. occurred when she was 7 years old. Justice Engleking made a temporary, temporary order suspending the Respondent’s access and requested the position of the CAS regarding the suitability of the paternal grandmother, S.T., to supervise the Respondent’s access. The matter was adjourned to August 29, 2017.
[2] The Applicant/mother requests temporary sole custody and no access to the Respondent/father. During the hearing of the motion before me on August 29, 2017, the Respondent confirmed, on the record, his consent to an order granting the Applicant temporary sole custody of K.I.T.. The question left to be decided is whether there should be any access between K.I.T. and her father and if so, when should it start and who should supervise?
[3] I it to be in K.I.T.’s best interest that access be restored. Prior to L.R.’s disclosure in December, 2012 that led to the sexual assault charges and his subsequent guilty plea, the Respondent had joint custody of K.I.T. and she was in his care during alternate weeks pursuant to Justice Parfett’s Order. After being released on bail on January 14, 2017, the Respondent had access with K.I.T. under the supervision of his mother, S.T., as approved by the Applicant. Supervised access continued until March 31, 2017, when the Applicant learned that Ms S.T.’s left the Respondent in the park with K.I.T. to be supervised by the 18 year old boyfriend of the his daughter from a prior relationship. Since that incident, the Applicant has been opposed to S.T. acting as the access supervisor with the result that K.I.T. has not seen her father in over five months. I find the absence of access to be contrary to K.I.T.’s best interests. She is almost 5 years old and had a well-established relationship with her father prior to recent events. That bond ought to be respected and facilitated in a manner that protects her from harm.
[4] The Applicant argues that if access is allowed, it should be suspended until the court is in receipt of the sexual behaviours assessment report that was ordered for purposes of the Respondent’s sentencing hearing on October 21, 2017. In my view, that approach risks leaving very little time for any meaningful access to take place in the likely event that the Respondent faces incarceration.
[5] The CAS, as requested by Justice Engleking, provided a report to the court dated August 25th, 2017. The report confirmed that “S.T. presented as a suitable and protective individual for potential supervised access visits between N.J.M.T. and his children. The Society would support S.T. as an access supervisor for short periods up to four hours, should access be granted to Mr. N.J.M.T. by the Court.”
[6] In their materials, both parties raise the option of access, if ordered, being supervised by Family Service Ottawa. At my request, Ms Arlitt, counsel for the Applicant, contacted the Director of the Supervised Access Program to inquire about the waiting list, if any. Ms Arlitt subsequently advised the court by letter dated August 30, 2017 that the expected wait time for new matters would be approximately six months. It’s the court’s view that a delay of that length in this instance is neither practical nor helpful in this case especially if the Respondent is incarcerated after his October, 2017 sentencing hearing.
[7] I find that the Respondent’s guilty plea to sexual assault of a minor and the corresponding risks raised for K.I.T. constitute a material change in circumstance since the Order of Justice Parfett dated October29th, 2017. For the reasons set out above, I find that K.I.T.’s best interests give rise to the following temporary order varying the custody and access terms of Justice Parfett’s Order:
[8] Commencing the weekend of Saturday, September 16th, 2017, the Respondent shall have temporary supervised access with K.I.T. for a period of 3 hours on either Saturday or Sunday at such times as may be agreed and arranged between the parties and S.T. who shall supervise all access visits.
[9] On consent, the Applicant shall have temporary sole custody of K.I.T., born […], 2012.
[10] If the parties cannot resolve the issue of costs between them, they may make submissions to the court not to exceed two pages in length excluding any offers to settle which are to be attached to their submissions. The Applicant shall have 10 days from September 11th, 2017 to serve and file her submission. The Respondent shall have 10 days to serve and file his response.
Justice D. Summers
Date: September 11, 2017
CITATION: S.M. v. N.J.M.T., 2017 ONSC 5399
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-1125-1
DATE: 20170911
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: S.M., Applicant
-and-
N.J.M.T., Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice Summers
COUNSEL: Susan Arlitt, for the Applicant
Respondent is self-represented
ENDORSEMENT
The Honourable Madam Justice Summers
Released: September 11, 2017