Court File and Parties

Snow v. Calvert, CITATION: 2019 ONSC 1263 Court File No.: 325/15 Date: 2019-02-21 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Melissa Christine Snow, Applicant And: Chetwyn Calvert, Respondent

Before: Mr Justice Ramsay

Counsel: Paul A. MacLeod for Applicant Wayne Norris Brooks for Respondent

Heard: February 21, 2019 at St Catharines

Endorsement

[1] The parties lived together from 2012 to 2015. They separated because of issues related to the Respondent’s drug and alcohol problems and mental health issues. On September 22, 2015 MacPherson J. made an order giving sole custody of the parties’ child to the Applicant with no access to the Respondent. The Respondent now moves to change the order by giving him supervised access. He proposes that the access be supervised for three months by Pathstone and thereafter by Gordon Mooney.

[2] Gordon Mooney is a paramedic who is attached to the Hamilton Police Service. He helps people like the Respondent in their efforts to reintegrate into the community and reclaim their lives from problems such as the Respondent’s. He has been working with the Respondent and has developed a rapport with him.

[3] The child is now almost five years old. She has not seen the Respondent since her first birthday.

[4] The Respondent filed the present motion in September 2016. He averred at that time in Schedule A to his sworn change information form, Form 15A, that he no longer drinks alcohol, that he was scheduled for drug addiction treatment and that he no longer has suicidal feelings, having got counselling for that issue. He was unduly optimistic because since then he has been hospitalized 10 times at his estimation for his various problems, one at least of which involved suicidal ideation.

[5] The Respondent has taken a parenting course, anger management counselling and psychiatric therapy that involves medicine and cognitive therapy. He has social anxiety and mood problems.

[6] The Respondent told me that he is on ODSP because of anxiety, depression and hepatitis C. He also told me that he is still addicted to heroin. He is taking treatment involving Methadone. He is not allowed to take it home because he has relapsed too many times. He has to go to the pharmacy every day for his daily dose. He last used heroin three weeks ago and before that, one week earlier.

[7] I am not without sympathy for this young man. He has got himself into a deep well and he is trying to work his way out. Heroin addiction is a very intractable problem. I am convinced however that the Respondent does not appreciate the extent of his problem. He agrees that he is still struggling, but does not think that it will take much longer. That opinion is inconsistent with his recent and repeated relapses.

[8] It is not in the best interest of this child to be exposed to the Respondent at this time. It will only be confusing and upsetting. I have no confidence that contact will be lasting. The Respondent wants to be a father but he is not sufficiently equipped. He may be fit for the role one day, but by then the child will likely be grown up. In the mean time she needs a stable upbringing without the chaos that I think the Respondent would bring into her life.

[9] I come to that conclusion without needing to point out the obvious impracticality of the Respondent’s plan. I do not see sending a five year old child off with a stranger who has no place to take her and no way to get her there without help. He cannot afford Pathstone’s fees. He will have to rely on Mr Mooney to get him to Pathstone, and then to access visits. The plan would cause significant hardship to the Applicant, who is living at the margin of sustainability and who receives no financial support from the Respondent.

[10] It is a rare court order that would give custody to one parent without access to the other, but unfortunately this case calls for just that. The motion to change is dismissed. No one is asking for costs. There will be no order as to costs.

J.A. Ramsay J. Date: 2019-02-21