CITATION: Storing v Storing, 2017 ONSC 7685
COURT FILE NO.: 17-295
DATE HEARD: December 8, 2017
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Storing v Storing
BETWEEN: George Storing, Applicant and Darlene Storing, Repondent
BEFORE: Honourable Mr Justice Martin James
COUNSEL: Jessica Abou-Eid for the Applicant
Joseph Di Iorio for Respondent
Lori Gutoskie for Office of the Children’s Lawyer
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The respondent filed an access motion on September 1, 2017 (Tab 16). The motion was heard on September 8, 2017. A temporary access order issued at that time pending the receipt of information from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) respecting the views and preferences of the children, ages 15 and 8 respectively.
[2] The report of the OCL is now available and in anticipation of input from the OCL, the respondent filed a fresh notice of motion on November 14, 2017 for similar but not identical relief as that sought in the notice of motion filed in September.
[3] The respondent’s primary request is for week-about parenting time.
[4] Given Tiffany’s age I see no reason to change the current arrangement which is that she visits the respondent when she wishes which currently tends to be alternating Saturdays.
[5] Regarding Brooke, the respondent has now been able to arrange for bus transportation from her home to Brooke’s school on alternating weeks and this reinforces her position that shared parenting would be in Brooke’s best interests.
[6] The applicant says nothing has changed since the order that was made in September. He says the respondent’s motivation for more parenting time is partly based on the respondent’s need for additional income, failing which she may not be able to continue to afford her current 2 bedroom apartment.
[7] Ms. Gutoskie, on behalf of the OCL, spoke with the girls on three occasions in the month of November, 2017. She reported that Tiffany told her she visits the respondent every second Saturday. Brooke likes to visit when her sister Tiffany is there, day visits only, because Tiffany has the ability to redirect the respondent. Visiting at the respondent’s home is anxiety-producing; the applicant’s home is calmer. Ms. Gutoskie said both Tiffany and Brooke have anxiety issues.
[8] This position can be compared with the letter of Stephanie Murdoch dated October 4, 2017. Ms. Murdoch is an Intake Worker with Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County. In this letter she reported that Brooke indicated to her that she would like to spend more time with the respondent and would prefer a week-about parenting arrangement. This is completely at odds with the information provided by Ms. Gutoskie. I know nothing about the background and circumstances that prompted Ms. Murdoch’s comment and prefer the in-court submissions of Ms. Gutoskie, which is based on more recent information than the early October letter from Ms. Murdoch.
[9] I think Brooke will benefit from continued contact with the respondent but I am not prepared to implement a week-about parenting arrangement. For now, the evidence available to me would indicate that Brooke would be more comfortable with day visits, not overnights.
[10] The previous order ought to be adjusted for Brooke to provide for day visits each Saturday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. pending a further order. The applicant shall be responsible for transportation as the respondent does not have a vehicle.
[11] There may be occasions when Brooke expresses a desire to visit the respondent more frequently than the Saturday visits provided for in this order. The parties should make reasonable efforts to accommodate such requests. Generally speaking, children benefit most when they have regular contact with both parents.
[12] On the issue of the respondent’s request to attend and recover personal property from 442 Miller Street, if satisfactory arrangements cannot be worked out through counsel, either party may request a case conference date.
[13] No submissions were provided to the court on the issue of Christmas access.
[14] The issue of counselling for the children is dismissed without prejudice to a re-application on additional evidence or input from the OCL. This may also be addressed at a case conference.
[15] Both parties have requested a costs order in their favour. In the circumstances present here, my view is that neither party should be required to pay any costs.
James, J.
DATE: December 21, 2017
CITATION: Storing v Storing, 2017 ONSC 7685
COURT FILE NO.: 17-295
DATE HEARD: December 8, 2017
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Storing v Storing
BETWEEN: George Storing, Applicant and Darlene Storing, Respondent
BEFORE: Honourable Mr Justice Martin James
COUNSEL: Jessica Abou-Eid for the Applicant
Joseph Di Iorio for Respondent
Lori Gutoskie for Office of the Children’s Lawyer
ENDORSEMENT
James, J.
DATE: December 21, 2017