Court File and Parties

Court File No.: F86/18 Date: July 30, 2018 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Family Court

Re: C.L.M.B, applicant And: A.A.C.B. , respondent

Before: VOGELSANG J.

Counsel: Kelsey Long for the applicant Michael H. Murray for the respondent

Heard: July 11, 2018

Endorsement

[1] This is Mr. B.’s motion for access to the children, V.M. (aged 12), R.B. (aged 5) and A.B. (aged 3). In his notice of motion dated June 14, 2018, he claimed an equal sharing of parenting time with the applicant and an interim order granting him joint custody. At the motion, he pursued only access.

[2] The parties began to cohabit in mid-2007 and married in October, 2014. They separated on November, 2017 when Ms. B. says Mr. B. hit her and threw her down, then damaged her personal property. She called police and he was charged with assault, assault with a weapon and mischief. His recognizance of bail prohibits any contact with Ms. B. While Mr. B. described what happened that evening as “false allegations,” Ms. B. swears that she went to hospital the next day to find her cheekbone and metacarpal had been broken.

[3] In argument, counsel conceded that the years of the parties’ relationship were “tumultuous” and that they were mutually aggressive with each other. Assaults in 2010 or 2012 led to conditional discharges and probation for Mr. B. Of real concern to me is the fact that the children seem not to have been shielded from the violence and there are complaints about rough treatment and abuse practised on the children and, as well, allegations of rude and intemperate behaviour on the part of G.B., Mr. B.’s mother, when in a caretaking capacity. Not surprisingly, V. is undertaking a course of counselling now.

[4] To make the whole factual background even worse, V. has been personally victimized by Ms. B.’s brother who was subsequently convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to a year in jail.

[5] The Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex investigated the family and Mr. B., at some juncture, was advised to undertake the “Changing Ways” programme to gain a better understanding about a father’s role and the quality of his relationships with the children. He has now completed the programme.

[6] To their credit, the parties themselves arranged supervised access for Mr. B. through the Merrymount Children’s Centre after the separation while the Children's Aid Society investigated. That access took place, apparently regularly, until mid-June when the Centre told Ms. B. that it wanted to change Victoria’s time to individual less-frequent sessions because she was demonstrating difficult behaviours. While the Centre misunderstood the situation and thought that there had been a Court order for access, Ms. B. withdrew the children, which precipitated this motion.

[7] I am far from convinced that making an order now for unsupervised weekend access with the children, as urged on behalf of Mr. B., would be consistent in any way with their best interests. The family was split only eight months ago by turmoil amid charges of real misconduct. The trial of the criminal counts faced by Mr. B. is fixed for October 18, and both R. and V. have been subpoenaed to testify for the Crown. I have described how the girls have been exposed to mistreatment and violence. They are in a vulnerable state and their safety and security is my prime concern.

[8] In the result, a temporary order will go permitting supervised access to the children, again at the Merrymount Children’s Centre, at times and in circumstances directed by the Centre. The parties are required to attend and complete the required intake procedure as quickly as possible.

[9] If costs are sought, written submissions may be tendered by Ms. B. (maximum four pages) to my assistant within 30 days, with Mr. B. having 20 days to respond and Ms. B. 15 days for a brief reply.

“Justice Henry Vogelsang” Justice Henry Vogelsang Date: July 30, 2018