Court File and Parties

Jones v. Jones, CITATION: 2018 ONSC 3693

COURT FILE NO.: D26303/18

DATE: 2018-06-14

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Dana Michelle Jones, Applicant AND: Dallas Jones, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay

COUNSEL: Nathalie G. Fortier for the Applicant; C. Hiebert for the Respondent

HEARD: June 13, 2018 at Welland

Endorsement

[1] In this divorce proceeding the Applicant moves for a temporary order giving her custody of the parties’ two children with access to the Respondent on Wednesday evenings and alternate weekends from Friday afternoon to Sunday evening.

[2] The parties were married in 2003 and separated in May of 2017. They have two boys, now aged 7 and 4. On separation the Applicant took the children to a shelter. She alleges that the Respondent had been engaging in domestic violence and irrational behaviour and that he possessed a firearm. As a result FACS recommended that access by the Respondent should be supervised. The Society changed its mind about the necessity for supervision, but the Respondent did not find out until November 2017 by which time he had agreed to access supervised by his sister. In December 2017 the parties agreed to unsupervised access on Wednesday evenings and alternate weekends from Friday after school to Sunday evening.

[3] Given the Applicant’s agreement to unsupervised overnight access on alternate weekends, she cannot still hold the exaggerated concerns about the Respondent’s fitness that she initially put forward.

[4] The Respondent does suffer from depression and PTSD as a result of his service in the American armed forces in combat, but he is being treated by a VA psychiatrist in Buffalo. He is compliant with his treatment. He is functioning well. He is currently enrolled in university. He has not possessed a firearm since the family left North Carolina. He makes a credible denial of domestic violence that is supported by his children’s statements to FACS.

[5] The latest formal agreement on access has expired. There is now no court order or agreement in place. The Respondent has been allowing the children extra sleepovers at their request. This has turned into two weeknight sleepovers, and Sunday nights on alternate weekends, as well as taking one of the boys to music lessons on Monday evenings. I agree with the Applicant that the Respondent should not have extended access unilaterally. At this point, however, the real issue is the extent of access that is in the children’s best interest.

[6] The Respondent’s ultimate goal is parenting time shared equally. He believes that this should be accomplished gradually, not immediately. The Applicant’s position is that the children should be in her custody, with access to the Respondent Wednesday after school but not overnight and alternate weekends for two overnights, not three.

[7] The Applicant raises several concerns with the Respondent’s parenting. She says that he lets the boys stay up too late, he does not make them do their homework and he does not always make one of the boys wear his eyeglasses or eye patch, which are required to correct strabismus. He allowed the seven-year-old to have a one-and-a-half-inch knife. He does not take one of the boys to swimming lessons on Saturdays. He does not always sign their school agenda. He teaches his boys to “punch bullies in the stomach.”

[8] None of these strikes me as a serious concern, whether I take them individually or all together. They look more to me like the sort of thing someone would worry about who wants to dictate the other parent’s parenting style. They all have to do with issues on which both parents’ views fall within the bounds of reason.

[9] I cannot dismiss the Respondent’s ultimate goal of equal parenting time. Certainly at the moment it is in the boys’ best interests to have more exposure to their father than their mother would like. I worry that the Applicant is not committed to maximizing the boys’ time with both parents and that she undervalues the Respondent as a parent.

[10] Custody can be decided at trial. I propose to set out a schedule of parenting time that should serve its purposes for the few months that this matter should take to reach trial.

[11] The ideal situation involves the parents agreeing on an approach to important parenting issues. If they cannot do this, however, the second best option is for each to respect the other’s parenting time.

[12] I make the following temporary order:

a. The children’s principal residence shall be with the Applicant;

b. The children shall reside with the Respondent

i. on alternate weekends from Friday after school until beginning of school on Monday, or if Monday is not a school day until 7 pm Monday evening;

ii. on the Wednesday that precedes the Respondent’s weekend residence, from the end of school until the beginning of school on Thursday;

iii. on the alternate Wednesday, from the end of school until the beginning of school on Friday;

iv. for three non-consecutive weeks during July and August;

v. at other times as agreed by the parties.

c. The Respondent shall have care of Indy on Monday evenings to take him to guitar lessons.

[13] The Respondent was successful, but the Applicant had to bring this motion to establish a fixed regime. The parties will bear their own costs.

J.A. Ramsay J.

Date: 2018-06-14