Court File and Parties

Platz v. Steinmetz, CITATION: 2018 ONSC 5424

Court File No.: FS-15-329 Date: 2018-09-17

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Jeffrey Bernhard Platz, Applicant And: Corrie Steinmetz, Respondent

Before: Mr Justice Ramsay

Counsel: R. Startek for Applicant M. Massey for Respondent

Heard: September 14, 2018 at Brantford

Endorsement

[1] The parties separated in 2015 after 11 years. They have two daughters, now aged 13 and 6. Both parties move for temporary orders concerning residence of the children. Neither party has yet been awarded custody.

[2] After separation the Applicant complained to the CAS about the Respondent. The complaint was not verified but the Respondent’s access was restricted for a time. Most recently, and following the completion of an assessment under s.30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, Harper J. ordered on June 15, 2018, that the children reside with their mother one or two nights a week and alternate weekends. He also ordered the parties to initiate a coordinated therapeutic intervention and to share the cost. On July 20, 2018 Whitten J., on consent, named Michelle Hayes the therapist. The motions before me today arise from events that have happened since.

The therapist

[3] The Respondent paid Michelle Hayes her half of the retainer during the first week of September. The Applicant has not yet paid Ms Hayes or submitted the required paperwork. He deposed that the delay was caused by the inability to contact the Respondent’s lawyer. He did not need to contact the Respondent’s lawyer. He needed to pay Ms Hayes some money and fill in the usual papers.

August 22 and 30, 2018

[4] The children spent time with their mother over the summer, including the older child’s 13th birthday but on August 22 they came out of the Applicant’s house in the company of their stepmother and refused to go with their mother for scheduled access. The mother brought the present motion, returnable August 27. The children refused to go with her on August 30.

September 4, 2018

[5] The children attend the same school as the Respondent’s youngest child, the girls’ half-brother. According to the Respondent and another parent who was near by, when dropping off the little boy for the first day of school, the Respondent mother saw and approached the six-year-old and the two hugged and kissed. According to the Applicant, afterwards the daughter told him that his mother had kicked her hard in the shin. The father took the daughter to the O.P.P., who looked at the bruise and decided that it was obviously too old to have been made that day. A CAS worker looked at a bruise on her leg and thought it inconsistent with the blow alleged. I have no doubt that this allegation against the mother is a deliberate lie, either by the six-year-old or the Applicant. I suspect the former. These children seem to be very sensitive to their father’s feelings about them having contact with their mother.

[6] Since the start of school the principal has observed the children to be upset at the prospect of being picked up by their mother.

[7] The thirteen-year-old has written a letter that the Applicant has chosen to put into evidence. She makes negative comments about her mother. On my reading, if this letter was not dictated by an adult, it was obviously inspired by one. I do not find it helpful in determining the child’s views.

The motions

[8] The Respondent asks for a. police enforcement of the access provisions of the order of June 15, 2018 or in the alternative directions as to enforcement; b. an order compelling the Applicant to do his part in retaining Michelle Hayes; and c. make-up time with the children.

[9] The Applicant asks for a. a restraining order against the Respondent; b. suspension of access by the Respondent; c. temporary custody of the children; d. permission to change the children’s school. e. police enforcement; and f. a judicial interview with the children.

[10] I decline to consider make-up time. Parental rights are not my concern. I am concerned about the children’s best interests. In my view, in most cases asking for make-up time reveals upside down priorities.

[11] On the other hand, I think that the order of Harper J. should be observed. The request for a restraining order against the Respondent is entirely without foundation. Nor has she done anything to merit suspending her access or awarding temporary custody to the Applicant. There is no reason to change the children’s school apart from the Applicant’s convenience. I am not going to interview the children. They are obviously traumatized and need to be seen by an interviewer with special training of a psychological nature, not a legal professional. The 13-year-old’s views should be given some weight but that should be done after the therapeutic intervention. The child should not be used as a weapon to gain short term advantage in the litigation. So far, the Applicant has attempted to do this while the Respondent has not.

[12] The order of Harper J. should be observed but I think that forcing the mother on a reluctant teenager at this stage would be counter-productive. I do not foresee such grave problems with the six-year-old once she has made the transition to her mother’s intermittent care. I do not think that police intervention would be advisable at this point.

[13] The father has a clear duty as parent to see that his children visit their mother. It is in their best interest to have a positive relationship with both parents. So far, he has not fulfilled his duty. He has neglected to obtain the therapeutic intervention that they desperately need. He may have deliberately alienated these girls from their mother. Or he may have failed to insulate them from his negative views. Either way, it is his duty to take active steps to improve the situation. He needs to retain Ms Hayes without delay, actively encourage the children to see their mother, make extra efforts not to discourage them and keep his new partner out of the way.

[14] I make the following orders: a. The Applicant’s motion at tab 54 of the continuing record is dismissed in its entirety; b. The Respondent’s motion at tab 52 of the continuing record is granted to the following extent: i. The declare that the order of Harper J. dated June 15, 2018 remains in force, apart from paragraphs 5 and 6 which are spent; ii. The Applicant is directed to provide Michelle Hayes with all paperwork and his one-half share of the retainer money required by her within 3 days of release of this endorsement and to participate fully and readily with her therapeutic recommendations and to encourage the children to do so. iii. The Applicant is directed to take active steps to encourage Hailey to see her mother in accordance with the order of Harper J.; iv. The Applicant is directed to ensure that Samantha sees her mother in accordance with the order of Harper J. v. The Applicant is directed not to disparage the Respondent overtly or subtly in the presence of the children; vi. The Applicant is directed not to ask the children questions about their mother or spending time with their mother or permit them to be asked such questions by others in his household. vii. The Applicant is directed not to permit his new partner to take part in access exchanges.

[15] The parties may make written submissions to costs not exceeding three pages, to which a bill of costs and any offers to settle may be appended. The Respondent’s submissions are due on September 21 next by 4 pm. The Applicant’s are due on September 26.

J.A. Ramsay J. Date: 2018-09-17