Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-18-1678 Date: 2019-04-05 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Ma.M., Applicant And: A.W.M., Respondent

Counsel: Edith Holly, for the Applicant Erin Lepine, Ira Marcovitch, for the Respondent

Heard: April 2, 2019

Reasons for Decision

Audet J.

[1] This is a motion brought by the Respondent father, A.W.M. (“the father”) seeking an interim order granting him sole custody of the parties’ 13 year old child, B.A.M. (“B.A.M.”), with no access to the mother for the time being. He alleges that the Applicant mother, Ma.M. (“the mother”), has engaged in alienating behaviours so severe that B.A.M. is now refusing any contact with him. The father also seeks a finding of contempt as a result of the mother’s failure to deposit B.A.M.’s Russian birth certificate with the court, as ordered by Justice Doyle on December 6, 2018.

[2] The mother is opposing the father’s motions and seeks an order granting her primary care of B.A.M., with supervised access to the father. This is her claim even though she has not filed a cross-motion seeking that relief. In her cross-motion, the mother seeks child and spousal support and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to represent B.A.M..

[3] Given the urgency of this matter, I have decided to release my Reasons for Decision on the issues related to parenting first, to avoid further delays. My Reasons for Decision with respect to the issues of contempt and support will be released at a later date.

[4] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the mother has engaged in significant alienating behaviors in relation to B.A.M. and that sole custody should be immediately given to the father. I have also concluded that the only way that B.A.M.'s relationship with his father can be repaired is to suspend the mother’s access to him for an initial period of two months, to be reviewed after two months and once B.A.M. has engaged in reunification counselling with his father.

Background

[5] The parties met online in 2003 while the mother was resident in Russia and the father living in Ottawa. They began a long-distance relationship and the mother became pregnant with B.A.M. in early 2005. B.A.M. was born in […] 2005, while the mother still lived in Russia. Both parties were previously divorced and have older children from those prior relationships. The father has two older adult children; C.A. (“C.A.”) and Me.M. (“Me.M.”). Both these children are living independently from their father. The mother has one older child from her prior relationship; S.P. (referred to as “S.P.” herein and also as “S.P.” by the parties). S.P. has been estranged from his mother for a period of time, but has reunified with her at some point in the past years and is currently living with his mother. He is 24 years of age.

[6] The parties were married in Russia in July 2007 and the mother, S.P. and B.A.M. immigrated to Canada in 2008. The parties separated on February 1, 2018. At that time, they continued to live together in the matrimonial home with B.A.M.. On May 18, 2018, the parties executed a partial separation agreement providing that they would share joint custody of B.A.M. and parent him on an equal, week about basis. It is not disputed that the mother did not follow the terms of the parenting agreement. On August 29, 2018, she filed her Application in court. As there is no affidavit of service in the Continuing Record, I am not sure when the mother’s Application was actually served on the father, but it was only filed with the court in October 2018. The father filed his Answer on November 1, 2018.

[7] On November 14, 2018, while the father was at work, the mother surreptitiously removed B.A.M. from the matrimonial home and brought him to one of her friends’ home. That evening, she lied to the father that B.A.M. was at home. Later than night, when the father became concerned and attempted to inquire as to B.A.M.'s whereabouts, the mother called the police. When the police arrived at the home, she became hysterical and was transported to the hospital by ambulance. While at the hospital, the next day, the mother told the police that she had been assaulted by the father. Police records filed in evidence reveal that the mother had denied any physical assault by the father when police attended the night before. As a result of these events, the police and the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) began an investigation.

[8] For over a week, the mother refused to allow access between B.A.M. and his father or to tell him where B.A.M. was residing. The mother alleged that she had been advised by the CAS not to allow access until the investigation was completed. I find, as a fact, that the mother did not receive this direction from the CAS. On November 23, 2018, a Case Conference was heard before Justice Shelston. On consent of the parties, an order was made precluding either party to remove B.A.M. from the City of Ottawa without the other’s consent. An order was also made on consent requiring the mother to deposit B.A.M.'s Russian and Canadian passports with the Clerk of the Superior Court by November 26, 2018. At that time, both parties were legally represented.

[9] As a result of the mother’s refusal to allow access, the father brought an urgent motion which was heard by Justice Doyle on December 6, 2018. On that day, the parties consented to an order granting them shared joint custody of B.A.M. and retaining Ms. Janet Claridge to conduct a s. 30 assessment, with the father assuming the costs on a without prejudice basis. The only issue left to be determined by Justice Doyle was the issue of the parenting arrangements for B.A.M..

[10] In her Endorsement, Justice Doyle ordered that the week-on week-off parenting schedule be reinstated immediately, beginning on December 7, 2018. She made the following findings:

• Since the execution of the (May 18) agreement, the mother has not been respecting the terms of the parenting schedule.
• The mother admits that the father has not abused the child. Her materials do not disclose an evidentiary foundation as to any deficiencies in the father’s parenting of B.A.M..
• The Court is very concerned of B.A.M.’s comments of being “slaves” and not learning ‘Russian’ as they appear to be comments made by his mother to him. If mother is trying to alienate the child from the father by these comments, then limiting B.A.M.’s time with his father will only serve to drive a wedge between father and son. The less time he has with his father, the more time the mother can make negative comments about the father.

[11] Justice Doyle also ordered the mother to deliver B.A.M.'s birth certificate with the Clerk of the Superior Court of Justice by December 11, 2018.

[12] B.A.M. transitioned into his father’s care on December 7, 2018, as ordered by Justice Doyle. The evidence before me convinces me that there was absolutely no issues during the father’s access during that week. Father and son had a great time and B.A.M. was happy to see his father, telling him on a few occasions that he loved him. He also spent meaningful time with his half-brother, who filed a detailed affidavit for the purpose of this motion providing details of his contact with B.A.M. over the Christmas holidays.

[13] On December 21, 2018, B.A.M. was to transition back to his father’s care for one week. Instead, B.A.M. texted his father and asked him to be allowed to stay at his mother’s home later than night because he had a birthday party planned for him. Later that night, he asked his father to stay the night at his mother’s house as he had arranged a sleep over with one of his friends. Not wanting to cause B.A.M. any deception, the father agreed. The mother stated that she had nothing to do with the planning of B.A.M.'s birthday party that night. I do not accept that evidence. At the very least, the mother would have been aware of this planned party, and as a reasonable parent, would have discussed this in advance with the father or would have changed the date explaining to B.A.M. that on that day he was to go to his father’s house.

[14] On December 22, which was the day B.A.M. was to be transferred to his father, the mother insisted on attending the matrimonial home to pick up some of her belongings. Against the father’s objections, she brought B.A.M. with her along with a police escort and a friend, and proceeded to pack up her belongings. Even though there was no specific conflict during this event, B.A.M. witnessed this whole scene. Despite this very unfortunate event, B.A.M. stayed with his father that day and he enjoyed the balance of his Christmas week with his father, his older half-siblings and his father’s extended family. By many witnesses’ account, B.A.M. and his father had a great time that week. B.A.M. transitioned back to his mother’s care as scheduled on December 28.

[15] On the day B.A.M. was to be returned to his father’s care on January 4, 2019, S.P. (the mother’s older son) called the CAS to report that the father had sexually abused him more than a decade ago. As a result, the CAS, once again, opened an investigation. Based on these events, the mother refused to allow B.A.M. to return to his father’s care. She took the position that the CAS had advised her not to facilitate contact between B.A.M. and his father until the investigation was over. I find, as a fact, that this was not true.

[16] It is important to note that S.P.'s allegations of sexual abuse were part of the evidence before Justice Doyle on December 6. Nonetheless, she reinstated the week-on week-off schedule. On January 4, the mother advised the CAS worker that B.A.M. had said over and over that he did not want to be with his father. When interviewed by the CAS, B.A.M. stated that he could not go see his father because of an incident between him and S.P. and that he “assumes it’s inappropriate in nature”. He also told the CAS worker that “we tried to love dad but he didn’t want our love.”

[17] On January 9, 2019, the CAS advised that none of the allegations that were being investigated related to B.A.M..

[18] On January 21, 2019, the father served the mother with an urgent motion returnable the next day to address the unilateral termination of access. Within hours, the father was contacted by the police to advise that charges were being laid against him as a result of S.P.'s allegations of sexual abuse and the mother’s allegations with regards to the events of November 14, 2018. As a result, the motion did not proceed.

[19] On January 17, 2019, B.A.M. was interviewed by the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Unit of the Ottawa police. When asked why he was there, B.A.M. responded “because my mom and dad have a problem. I am in the middle, and I have to talk on my own. I have to tell my thoughts on the situation.” B.A.M. told the police that he was constantly forced to clean everything and that his dad would force him to clean the house, wash the floors, and make him meals, even when he was sick. The police concluded that they did not believe that the father had acted inappropriately towards B.A.M..

[20] On January 23, 2019, the father was arrested and attended his show cause hearing. The court was advised as to the status of the family law proceedings and expressed concern regarding the “questionable genesis of the allegations” and that there “certainly is some smoke” that surrounded the mother’s and S.P.'s allegations. The court ordered that the father was to have no contact with the mother or S.P., but that his contact with B.A.M. would be pursuant to a further family court order or with the approval of the CAS. The judge refused to impose release conditions that would restrain the father to be in the presence of children under age 16. The judge stated “I’m loathe to impose that kind of thing […] given the nature of and the manner in which the allegations have come forward.”

[21] The mother refused to consent to any order allowing the father’s contact with B.A.M. at that time. By this point, the CAS advised that it was supportive of supervised access between B.A.M. and his father. However, after being asked by the father’s counsel, the CAS confirmed that it would file a protection application if the family court ordered unsupervised access between B.A.M. and his father. The CAS file was thereafter closed.

[22] Despite this, the mother refused to allow unsupervised access between B.A.M. and his father.

[23] In order to gain some contact with B.A.M., the father agreed on a without prejudice basis to supervised access which caused him to seek the CAS’s approval of his older children and C.A.'s spouse as acceptable supervisors. All three were promptly approved by the CAS. Despite this, the mother refused to consent to C.A. and his partner supervising access, and would only allow Me.M. (who lives much farther away) to do so.

[24] On February 7, 2019, a proposal was made by the father for interim supervised access. The mother did not respond to that proposal. Instead, on February 8, 2019, B.A.M. wrote a letter to the CAS worker, which included the following:

I have heard the news of my seeing my dad in the supervisors being children. I HIGHLY do not approve of this, and the fact that you approved this decision is outstanding. Mainly because only made it harder for me to not see my dad, as that is what I wanted since I first ever talked to you […]

I know the how my dad and his lawyer can twist things […]

As my social worker, it is your responsibility to talk on behalf of me, not yourself […] I would like to demote (I’m not sure what it is called) you from being my CAS lawyer. I need someone who can help me, not make it harder for me.

[25] Given B.A.M.'s direct involvement in this litigation and the concerns raised by his letter to the CAS worker, a motion for leave to have the within motion heard on an urgent basis was heard on February 19, 2019. In the context of that motion, the mother sought an order appointing the OCL for B.A.M., and tendered two additional letters purportedly written by him; one was addressed to the court and read:

I wrote a letter to tell you that I do not want to talk or see my dad. […] I would like to ask whether you know where I could get a children’s lawyer. It would benefit me greatly so that I could and all this arguing with my mom and dad and just say in court that I don’t want to see him

[26] The other letter was addressed to the father and read:

I have spoken with CAS and I have learned today that nobody can force me to be beside you or to talk to you. With this knowledge, I decided to write you a letter on behalf of myself telling you that I don’t want anything to do with you. […]

Your clearly abusing your power of money by trying to be seductive to me so that I live with you. It is unbelievable that you will not even pay me and my mom enough money to go to my tennis or karate. BUT if I am at your home you will gladly do it for me. THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR IDEA IS THAT I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO NICE AND FANCY THINGS, BUT TO KIND HEARTS […]

Your atmosphere is toxic […] In perspective, you are just a garbage man, and when your job is done, you throw all of that garbage from everywhere into the dump. The dump in this case is me and mom. To you, we are just a place to let your anger out. I know that this whole situation has anger building in you, but this time I’m not going to be your dump.

[27] Given the language used by B.A.M., I have significant concerns that these letters were written by him under his mother’s watchful eye and with her careful assistance. Even if they were B.A.M.'s own words and thoughts, the fact that the mother allowed (and likely encouraged) B.A.M. to send them shows the mother’s complete lack of insight into how her behaviour is highly detrimental to B.A.M. and is likely to cause him significant emotional harm.

[28] In any event, on that day Justice Parfett found that the issue as to whether or not counsel should be appointed for B.A.M. was urgent, and she allowed that motion to proceed on February 26, 2019. All other matters were adjourned to a further motion hearing on March 26, 2019.

[29] On the return of the motion on February 26, 2019, Justice Doyle adjourned the issue of the appointment of the OCL to the motion hearing scheduled for March 26, 2019. She was of the view that the motion judge would be in a better position, after determining the issues of access and whether the parties were to proceed with an assessment and or reunification counselling, to decide whether B.A.M. should have legal representation. In her Endorsement, Justice Doyle stated:

My previous Endorsement of December 6, 2019 expressed concerns that the mother may be influencing B.A.M. and involving him in the litigation.

The evidence before the court suggests that there may be some influencing by the mother. However, at this interim stage, when investigations are still ongoing, the court is not prepared to make findings of alienation and parent manipulation.

[30] While at court on that day, the parties consented to the father having a visit with B.A.M. on Saturday, March 2, to be supervised by Me.M.. On that day, Me.M. arrived at the agreed exchange point to meet B.A.M., who had been driven there by the mother’s friend. The father was of the view that B.A.M. might be more willing to come to the visit if Me.M. was picking him up rather than himself, and also wanted to avoid exposing B.A.M. to any potential conflict between him and the mother. B.A.M. exited his mother’s friend’s car and told Me.M. that he did not want to see his father and that he had hoped his father would be there so he could tell him personally. B.A.M. then returned to the car and the visit did not proceed.

[31] Despite a consent order requiring the parties to proceed with a s. 30 assessment with Ms. Janet Claridge, the mother refused to sign the retainer. Her objections were based on the fact that Ms. Claridge’s standard retainer contains a clause, common to most s. 30 assessment retainers, that if necessary the parties would subject themselves to additional assessments such as substance abuse, or psychiatric assessments. The mother was not prepared to consent to being subjected to additional assessments, which in her view are far too intrusive.

[32] The father has not seen B.A.M. since he was returned to his mother’s care on December 28, 2018. He last spoke to him on January 4, 2019.

Analysis

[33] A finding of parental alienation can be made at the interim stage and on a written record, particularly when the evidence overwhelmingly points to this conclusion. As the court noted in Hazleton v. Forchuck, 2017 ONSC 2282, 93 R.F.L. 7th 254, at para. 2, the urgency raised by parental alienation necessitates early and decisive intervention by the court. In Malhotra v. Henhoeffer, 2018 ONSC 6472, Justice Nicholson held that parental alienation was a legal concept as opposed to a mental health diagnosis, and as such, the court could make a finding of alienation on an elaborate analysis of the facts alone without expert evidence.

[34] In Fielding v. Fielding, 2013 ONSC 5102, 39 R.F.L. 7th 59, Justice McKinnon heard expert evidence in the context of a trial in which parental alienation was alleged. According to the expert’s opinion, which was accepted by Justice Mackinnon, parental alienation is established if:

• there was a prior positive relationship with the targeted parent;
• there is an absence of abuse by the targeted parent;
• the alienating parent uses many of the alienating strategies; and
• the child exhibits most of the alienated child behaviours.

[35] The expert listed a total of 17 alienating strategies used by alienating parents to impair a child’s relationship with the other parent. She then provided a list of behaviours usually exhibited by alienated children. I find that this Decision provides a comprehensive framework to analyse and detect alienating behaviours on the part of a parent.

[36] In this case, it is uncontested and readily admitted by the mother that the father, C.A., his partner, and Me.M. all shared a positive, close and loving relationship with B.A.M. prior to the mother’s removal of B.A.M. from the matrimonial home. It is also uncontested that there is absolutely no evidence of the father ever having been abusive to B.A.M., physically, emotionally or psychologically. There is not a shred of evidence before me that would suggest that the father’s parenting abilities are deficient in any way.

[37] In addition, no explanation whatsoever is provided by the mother to explain B.A.M.'s sudden change of heart about his father. While she continues to allege that B.A.M. does not want to see his father, she offers no rational explanation as to why that might be.

[38] On the contrary, the evidence establishes that the mother has engaged in a number of the alienating behaviours that were identified in Fielding, above. Among other things, I make the following findings of facts based on all the evidence before me:

• the mother has badmouthed the father to B.A.M. and has told him that the father did not love him;
  • this is made clear by reports from third parties that B.A.M. stated that his father wanted an abortion when the mother was pregnant with him, that the father physically assaulted the mother and that he had behaved inappropriately with S.P., among many other examples;
• The mother has limited, and then terminated, contact between B.A.M. and his father;
  • she surreptitiously removed B.A.M. from the matrimonial home despite an agreement negotiated through counsel providing for equal parenting time;
  • she refused to facilitate contact until after Justice Doyle made her December 6, 2018 order and then terminated it for no valid reason;
  • she arranged or facilitated the organization of a birthday party for B.A.M. on the day that he was to be returned to his father on December 22;
  • she refused to allow B.A.M. to return to his father on January 4 based on allegations of sexual abuse by S.P., when those allegations were clearly in front of Justice Doyle on December 6 and were disregarded by her;
  • she resisted supervised access, and refused to agree to two of the supervisors approved by the CAS, for no legitimate reason. She refused to allow access based on false assertions that this had been required by the CAS and the police;
  • the mother has not even allowed telephone communications between B.A.M. and his father for three months. To this day, the father does not know where B.A.M. resides with his mother;
• the mother is allowing and encouraging B.A.M. to make his own decisions about contact with his father;
  • the mother has told the CAS her views that it should be up to B.A.M. when he sees his father;
  • the mother approved of and likely encouraged B.A.M. to write three letters expressing his contempt for his father and clearly reflecting a belief on the part of the mother that B.A.M. alone should determine when he sees his father;
  • the mother has told the CAS worker B.A.M. should live with her and see his dad on Sundays “but that is ultimately up to B.A.M.. And B.A.M.'s happiness and B.A.M.'s wellbeing”;
• the mother in her evidence and by her actions shows absolutely no concern about the fact that B.A.M., who by her own admission had a positive relationship with his father before November 2018, has had absolutely no contact with his father in three months;
• the mother has behaved in ways to create the impression in B.A.M. that the father is dangerous and portraying the father as dangerous in front of B.A.M.;
  • the mother has told B.A.M. that she had been abused by his father;
  • when the mother and B.A.M. were still living in the matrimonial home in the later weeks before she removed B.A.M. from the home, she co-slept with B.A.M. and eventually moved his bed into her own bedroom, against the father’s objections. Each night, they both slept together behind closed doors, giving B.A.M. the impression that they needed to be protected from the father;
  • B.A.M. has reported that he and his mother were the father’s “slaves”;
  • the mother has refused to tell the father where B.A.M. is currently residing out of her alleged fear for B.A.M.'s and her own safety. Yet, the mother has never sought a restraining order against the father. Not in her originating application and not after;
  • on the day that B.A.M. was to be returned to his father’s care on December 22, instead of delivering B.A.M. to his father at a local restaurant in accordance with their agreement, she chose to bring B.A.M. to the matrimonial home under police escort, giving B.A.M. the clear message that she needed to protected by the police against his father;
• the mother has involved B.A.M. in this litigation;
  • this is clearly evidenced by the content of B.A.M.'s letters in which he refers to the father and his lawyer “twisting things”, the father refusing to pay for tennis and karate and his right to speak his mind and make his own decisions in this litigation;
• the mother has influenced B.A.M. into rejecting the father;
  • In addition to this being made quite clear by B.A.M.'s own letters, the evidence showed that on the wall of the mother’s bedroom where she and B.A.M. slept while nesting in the matrimonial home, markings were found written in invisible ink (they were barely visible in the light, but quite clear under UV lamp) in B.A.M.'s handwriting stating “help I am under as a hostage for 10000000 days”, “Haha dad you suck” and a heart with the words “mom, B.A.M., S.P.” (which is the name used for S.P.);
• The mother’s allegations of physical abuse by the father are not supported by any objective evidence. Other than her bald assertions that the father was physically abusive to her during the relationship, her evidence contains no specific details of events where the father would have physically or otherwise abused her. The fact that the mother gave two very different accounts of the events of November 14 to the police undermines the mother’s credibility in regard to these allegations;
• Similarly, S.P.'s allegations of sexual abuse allegedly committed by the father over ten years ago, which were before Justice Doyle on December 6, and which were only reported to the police on the day that B.A.M. was to be returned to his father’s care, raise significant concerns as to the “questionable genesis of the allegations”, as concluded by the court in the context of the criminal charges laid against the father;
• Despite the parties’ joint custodial agreement, the mother;
  • enrolled B.A.M. in a High School without any consultation with the father, and without even notifying him after the fact in January 2019;
  • failed to keep the father informed of B.A.M.'s medical appointments, or the results thereof;
  • proceeded to have B.A.M. immunized without any prior discussion with the father.

[39] The evidence as a whole makes it clear to me that B.A.M. is exhibiting the signs of a child who has been alienated by his mother and influenced in vilifying his father while idealizing his mother. Over the past two months or so, B.A.M. has repeatedly told the CAS that he views his father as bad, mean or abusive, despite being unable to explain why or to give specific examples of why that was. He has resisted contact with his two half-siblings with whom he was very close. There is no ambivalence in B.A.M.'s message: he hates and rejects his father completely and he is totally aligned with his mother, whom he victimizes and whom he views as nothing blameless.

[40] Once again, it bears repeating that the uncontested evidence before me, including the mother’s own evidence, is that B.A.M. and his father shared a positive relationship up until December 2018; they spent a significant amount of time together, and they enjoyed all sorts of activities together. The mother readily consented to an equal parenting arrangement shortly before the parties’ separation, while duly represented by counsel. No allegations of abuse were made at that time. There is no allegations prior to December 2018 that B.A.M. did not want to spend time with his father. There is no allegation that the father was ever abusive in any way towards B.A.M..

[41] The mother offers no explanation as to why B.A.M. no longer wishes to have contact with his father and siblings. Through her counsel, she confirmed her position that she is afraid of the father, and that since she is afraid (there is no allegation that B.A.M. is equally afraid), there should be nothing but supervised access between B.A.M. and his father. She further rests on the fact that B.A.M. has chosen not to see his father and that his decision in that regard should be respected. She clearly encourages him to relay that message loud and clear to whomever is involved in this matter.

[42] Since B.A.M. has not had any contact with his father since January 2019, and since he has been in his mother’s continuous and exclusive care since that date, the only conclusion that I can draw based on all of the above is that B.A.M. has been significantly influenced and encouraged by his mother to reject his father; and that B.A.M.'s rejection of his father and paternal family is the result of the mother’s alienating behaviours. Whether or not this fits the clinical definition of parental alienation is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the mother has engaged in a pattern of behaviour which is extremely damaging to B.A.M.'s emotional and psychological health. This cannot be allowed to continue.

[43] In Hazleton, at para. 75, Justice Gray stated:

Where parental alienation exists, it is manifestly important that steps be taken immediately. If they are not, the situation will only get worse. If the alienating parent continues to have unfettered access to the children, there is little doubt that the poisoning of the children’s minds will continue. At some point, the restoration of a relationship with the other parent becomes much more difficult, if not impossible.

[44] I am encouraged by the fact that the mother’s alienating behaviours have only been going on for less than a year and have only significantly increased over the past three to four months. As of December 2018, B.A.M. still shared a close and loving relationship with his father and his half siblings, C.A. and Me.M.. With swift action, I am hopeful that these relationships can be salvaged and repaired. This will not happen if B.A.M. is allowed to continue to live in his mother’s primary care. It is also highly unlikely to happen if B.A.M. continues to have ongoing contact with his mother while the repair work is being done.

[45] Finally, in light of my findings above, the appointment of a lawyer for B.A.M. is entirely pointless at this time. It is clear that, given the alienating behaviour of the mother and their impact on B.A.M.'s views of his father, B.A.M.'s current wishes and preferences in relation to his contact with each of his parent will have absolutely no weight on this Court’s determination of the parenting arrangements that would be in his best interests. The issue of whether or not B.A.M. should have his own legal representation will be revisited at a later time and will depend on B.A.M.'s progress and overall emotional and psychological well-being.

[46] As a result, the following temporary order shall issue:

1. The Respondent father, A.W.M. (“the father”) shall have sole custody of the child, B.A.M., born […], 2005 (“the child”). B.A.M. shall reside exclusively with his father for the time being.
2. The Applicant mother, Ma.M., shall have no access to the child until further order of the court.
3. As the sole custodial parent, the father is permitted to retain the services of Janet Claridge (or any other professional of his choosing if Ms. Claridge is unable or unwilling to act) to provide reunification counselling to him and the child, without the mother’s consent. As the sole custodial parent, the father has the unfettered discretion to engage the child in any type of therapy or counselling that, in his view, will provide B.A.M. with the emotional and psychological support that he needs through this transitional time. The mother’s consent to any form of therapeutic intervention or counselling is hereby dispensed with.
4. On a without prejudice basis, the father shall be solely responsible for the payment of any costs related to therapeutic or counselling treatment for the child.
5. The mother shall not communicate directly or indirectly with the child in any way, including in writing, by telephone, through social media or by in any other form of communication, until further order of the court or unless specifically consented to by the father.
6. The mother shall not attend the child’s school, the father’s home or any place where she knows B.A.M. to be.
7. Upon request by the father and receipt of this order, pursuant to s. 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, the police force having jurisdiction in any area including but not limited to the Ottawa Police and/or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.) and/or any border services where it appears that the following child, namely, B.A.M., born on […], 2005, may be, shall locate, apprehend and deliver the child to the Applicant father, A.W.M., at 4434 Ramsayville Road, Ottawa, Ontario, in a manner that is sensitive to the child.
8. For the purpose of locating and apprehending the child, a member of a police force having jurisdiction in any area including but not limited to the Ottawa Police and/or the R.C.M.P. may enter and search any place where he or she has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child may be, with such assistance and such force as are reasonable in the circumstances and such entry or search may be made any time.
9. This motion shall return before me at a date to be fixed by the parties through Trial Coordination in two months, for the purpose of providing the court with an update as to the child’s overall well-being and progress. At that time, the issue of the mother’s access to the child and the need for a lawyer to be appointed for him will also be reviewed. Evidence from any professionals involved with the child shall be provided to the court at that time.
10. I remain seized of any motions in this matter, and Justice Doyle remains seized of any case conferences, settlement conferences and trial management conferences.

[47] To ensure that the father is able to retrieve B.A.M. from his school prior to the end of classes today, and without undue interference by the mother, I have requested that these Reasons for Decision and Issued Temporary Order be released to the father’s counsel at 10 a.m. today, and that it only be provided to the mother’s counsel at 2 p.m. today. I suspect that B.A.M. may not willingly leave the school with his father, and that some form of intervention with the assistance of the school may be required to compel him to leave with his father. The father is free to provide B.A.M.'s school principal with a copy of these Reasons to facilitate the school’s understanding of this very difficult process, and obtain their cooperation.

Madam Justice Julie Audet Released: April 5, 2019