COURT FILE NO.: FS-17-88633-00
DATE: 2019 10 11
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Jason Flowerday
Jenna Beaton & Faria Marlatt for the Applicant/Responding party, J.F., jenna@mccarthyco.ca, and faria@mccarthyco.ca
Applicant
- and -
Angela Flowerday
Samantha Coomaran for the Respondent/Moving Party, A.F., sam@maddalenafuller.com
Respondent
HEARD: 9 August 2019
ENDORSEMENT
TRIMBLE J
INTRODUCTION
[1] Mr. Flowerday brought this motion (vol. 5A of the Continuing Record, tab 7) with respect to certain corrections to my endorsements dated November 28, 2018, and January 10, 2019 which addressed financial issues. Mrs. Flowerday brought an Amended Notice of Motion (vol. 5A of the C.R., tab 9) amending a motion originally returnable in August 2018) seeking unsupervised access with the children, A. (born April 11, 2002), B. (born May 25, 2015 2005), and C. (born May 30, 2007).
[2] The argument in front of me concerned the issue of access. The parties agreed that I should decide the financial questions Mr. Flowerday raised on the written record. I will address the financial questions by separate endorsement.
1. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Mrs. Flowerday
[3] Mrs. Flowerday sought increasing unsupervised access from July 30, 2019 to August 17, 2019, and then sought unsupervised access from August 19, 2019 until June 22, 2020 as follows:
a) If she returns to Qatar, the parties will share the 2019 Christmas holiday, 2020 March break, equally with the schedule to be consented to between the parties, and, if Mrs. Flowerday is able to take a vacation in Canada, she will see the children two weeknights during that period from after school until 8 PM and then for the whole of any weekends that she will be in Canada.
b) If she remains in Canada, her access would be on Wednesdays after school until Thursdays before school with pickup and drop off at school, alternating weekends with pickup and drop off at school, and further access as the parties may negotiate.
[4] At the argument of the motion, Mrs. Flowerday advised that she was not returning to Qatar pending release of these reasons.
[5] Mrs. Flowerday says that she has complied with the requirements that she seek counselling and address her alienating behaviours in a meaningful way. She says that she now understands her behaviours, and that distance from the separation has given her perspective. She says that she is now able and willing to abandon her alienating behaviours and encourage and support a meaningful relationship between the children and both parents.
B. Mr. Flowerday
[6] Mr. Flowerday’s position is that the current orders prohibiting any contact between Mrs. Flowerday and the three children should continue until each of the children reaches the age of 18, at which time they are no longer children of the marriage for access purposes.
[7] Mr. Flowerday says that Mrs. Flowerday continues to avoid complying with court orders. She continues only to do what she thinks constitutes compliance with orders, arguing that it is ‘close enough’. She has not addressed her alienating behaviours. She continues with them. She continues to actively resist compliance with my orders.
2. THE EVIDENCE
[8] I reviewed several affidavits from each of Mr. and Mrs. Flowerday, and affidavits from Lisa Young, Karen Raymond (mother to one of A.’s close friends), Allison Rockwell (Mr. Flowerday’s fiancé), Jeff Polowin (Mr. Flowerday’s step-father), and René Brosseau (C.’s basketball coach). I have reviewed the June 5, 2018 report of Dr. Rex Collins, psychologist, and heard him cross-examined at the hearing. I also received excellent submissions on behalf of both parties.
[9] There was no direct evidence from the children. More important, there was no evidence from Family Bridges’ personnel or from any other professional who were acting in a therapeutic or assessing capacity trained in eliciting evidence from children. Evidence of the children’s status came through the lay people who swore affidavits.
[10] Mr. Flowerday attempted to introduce evidence from Dr. Loredos as an expert in parental alienation and the impact of treatment on children. I conducted a voir dire, following which I gave oral reasons to the effect that while the doctor was qualified under the White Burgess analysis, based on the necessity prong of the Mohan test, the doctor’s evidence was not necessary. I excluded his evidence.
A. Evidence filed by Mrs. Flowerday
[11] Mrs. Flowerday’s evidence can be summarized under three headings: what she has missed with respect to the children, what she has done to address her behavior, and that she has complied with all that she has been ordered to do.
What has she missed?
[12] Mrs. Flowerday says that since her access was suspended, she has complied with the orders of the court and not communicated with the children at all. The impact of this is that she has missed all of the children’s birthdays, holidays, and important events such as graduations and confirmations. She has been prevented from sending them cards or presents on birthdays or Christmas, and letters. She has missed all of the “everyday small moments that parents cherish with their children.” She has missed all the opportunities in the last few years to be mother to her children.
What has she done to address her behavior?
[13] Mrs. Flowerday says that she has made great strides in putting her life together and is looking forward to the future. She’s temporarily working, living and studying for her Ph.D. in Doha, Qatar. Since August 2018, Mrs. Flowerday has been a part-time instructor at the School of Business Studies at the College of the North Atlantic in Qatar. She has a new relationship in her life and is completing her PhD at the same school. She says her move to Qatar has given her the chance to heal, seek help, and address what has happened and what went wrong with her marriage.
[14] Following the release of my March 13, 2017 Endorsement, Mrs. Flowerday saw Dr. Collins from March 22 to September 6, 2017 during which time they explored Mrs. Flowerday’s emotional volatility and its impact on her children, her anger towards Mr. Flowerday and the ongoing conflict, possible “parentifying” of A., her alienating behaviours, and her lack of insight into her behavior. Dr. Collins reported that she had, to his knowledge, abided by Court orders. The constraints of ongoing litigation, however, made it difficult to establish the degree of privacy and confidentiality needed in a therapeutic relationship required for a deep understanding of underlying issues. An end to litigation was required. His first report, comprising 1¼ pages, was dated September 4, 2017. I reviewed and commented on that report in my January 17, 2018 Endorsement.
[15] Following the release of my January 17, 2018 Endorsement, Mrs. Flowerday attended 12 more counselling sessions with Dr. Collins between January 24 and June 4, 2018. She says that Dr. Collins read the continuing record, documents, orders, and endorsements in order to ensure that his counselling was appropriately structured to address the issues identified by the court. Dr. Collins produced a report comprising two pages, dated June 5, 2018, on which I will comment, shortly.
[16] In addition to her counselling with Dr. Collings, after moving to Qatar in August 2018, Mrs. Flowerday received counselling through her extended health benefits plan. She saw two different counsellors for psychotherapy and clinical supervision, one from October 8 to December 2018, and the other from January to April 2019. Mrs. Flowerday reports that this counselling focused on her alienating behaviours, building emotional intelligence, and building resilience.
[17] Mrs. Flowerday says that she made significant progress in all of these areas. She has been able to work through her anger with Mr. Flowerday and now has insight into her problems and takes accountability. Ultimately, she says that she is ready to move on and build a new and better relationship both with Mr. Flowerday, and the children. She said at paragraph 19 of her June 3, 2019 affidavit “… this time, I did not only superficially engage in therapy, but engaged deeply with my counselling. I did not just try to do the bare minimum.” She has learned how to speak to her children about family conflict and how to answer their questions. She is learned not to let any conflict she has with Mr. Flowerday affect the children.
[18] In her affidavits she also addresses certain posts that C. made or shared indicating that she missed her mother and is having difficulty with Mrs. Flowerday’s absence.
[19] Because she has had no contact with the children, Mrs. Flowerday had no evidence to offer with respect to the children’s wishes or preferences. She did indicate that at the age of her children, they needed their mother in their lives to help them and guide them.
Has she complied with orders?
[20] From the foregoing evidence, Mrs. Flowerday says that she has complied with all that has been required of her.
B. Evidence filed by Mr. Flowerday
[21] Mr. Flowerday’s evidence can be summarized under four headings: How are the children doing? What has Mrs. Flowerday done to address her behavior? Has Mrs. Flowerday complied with orders? Is it in the best interests of the child to re-establish her access?
How are the children doing?
[22] All the children are doing well.
[23] A., the eldest daughter, is now 17 ½ years old and is in grade 12. Her academic performance has steadily improved. She excels at school and in extra-curricular activities which are largely the swim team and the water polo team. She has participated in Ironman races, Outward Bound kayak trips, and camp. She began researching university options in September 2018. Last year she requested permission to see a counsellor about an unspecified issue dealing with her family’s current situation. Mr. Flowerday encouraged and supported this counselling. I was not provided with the issue or the outcome of counselling.
[24] B., the party’s, who is 14 years, 5 months old, made the transition from elementary school to high school when he began grade 9 in September this year. He has also made strides academically and in extracurricular activities. While he is a top student, Mr. Flowerday found that playing on every school team in highly competitive sports was too much for him. B. has ceased playing competitive baseball and focuses only on basketball.
[25] B. has had some instances where he has been bullied and taunted at school. He handled this well by not retaliating. Instead, he showed empathy for the bully. His friends rallied to his defence.
[26] B. has many friends and good relationships with his many cousins. He has grown in confidence and strength of personality. He, like the other children, enjoys the family cottage and friends.
[27] C., the youngest daughter, is now 12 years, 5 months old. She is the most disciplined of the children when it comes to her homework, music lessons, and sports activities. She is integrated with her extended paternal family. She takes piano and violin lessons and continues to excel at basketball.
[28] Mr. Flowerday and his children’s lives have changed much in the last year. Mr. Flowerday’s mother and stepfather, Mr. and Mrs. Polowin, relocated to Toronto from Ottawa in order to assist with the children. The children are well bonded with them. Mr. Flowerday became engaged to Allison Rockwell in December 2016. Ms. Rockwell has two children, ages 14 and 12. The two families of siblings have accepted each other openly. The two families now cohabit pending the marriage of the parents.
[29] Mr. Flowerday reports a disturbing fact - the children do not ask frequently about their mother. Mr. Flowerday admits another disturbing fact - he has not fulfilled his obligation under court orders that he report frequently to Mrs. Flowerday about the children. He indicated that engagement with Mrs. Flowerday has not turned out well and therefore he avoided it.
What has Mrs. Flowerday done to address her behavior?
[30] Mr. Flowerday says that Mrs. Flowerday has not addressed her alienating behaviour. He bases this opinion on his review of her affidavits filed in this matter and his experiences with her in her bankruptcy, in which is the main creditor.
[31] Mr. Flowerday’s evidence on this question is of relatively little value, for several reasons. First, most of it is opinion. His opinion is merely that – his opinion. It is not admissible as evidence. Second, it is the Court’s job to determine the extent to which Mrs. Flowerday has addressed her alienating behaviour and observed orders. Mr. Flowerday is in no better position to assess her behaviour than the Court. Further, the information that Mr Flowerday provides from the bankruptcy process is hearsay to this Court. The reasons of the Registrar in Bankruptcy are admissible. Mr. Flowerday relies on them for the credibility assessments made therein. These are not binding on me. I have made my own credibility assessment in this matter, as expressed in various endorsements. My credibility assessment of Mr. and Mrs. Flowerday has not changed. I adopt my assessments from earlier Endorsements.
[32] Mr. Flowerday considers Mrs. Flowerday’s affidavit of June 3, 2019, as another attempt to convince the court that she has seen and mended the error of his way of her ways. He says this is a sham. Mrs. Flowerday says, in effect, that “this time” her intentions are honourable, progressive and will succeed. Mr. Flowerday says that this is the same position she has taken at every attendance with respect to access, and it is not true this time as much as it was not true on previous occasions.
[33] He says the following with respect to Mrs. Flowerday:
Mrs. Flowerday continues to prioritize herself over her need to do what is required to re-establish a relationship with her children. Mrs. Flowerday originally brought her motion for access in August 2018, and only in response to Mr. Flowerday’s motion to address certain discrete financial issues. Time was set aside to hear Mr. Flowerday’s motion. Mrs. Flowerday’s motion could not proceed because the time allotted was insufficient for both motions.
The timing of Mrs. Flowerday’s motion and her proposed access regime are all designed to suit her career, her educational pursuits, her travel plans, and her new lifestyle. The access plan is not in the interests of the children, nor is it child focused. Mr. Flowerday questions whether Mrs. Flowerday’s choice to pursue employment and education and Qatar had any connection to needing to allow her to heal and seek help.
Mrs. Flowerday has prioritized finishing her doctorate and employment in Qatar over finishing the therapy and counselling necessary to re-establish relationships with her children.
Mrs. Flowerday arranges and participates in counselling only to satisfy court orders. Her participation continues to be superficial.
Mr. Flowerday says that Mrs. Flowerday only recommenced seeing Dr. Collins because I did not restore access in my Endorsement of January 17, 2018.
Mrs. Flowerday’s statements to the Court and to Dr. Collins that she has learned to understand and address her alienating behaviour is not true. Her contemporaneous actions say otherwise. She has continued to wage a campaign against Family Bridges and its therapists. Further, Mrs. Flowerday is an active participant in an Internet group Twitter account used by those who actively oppose reunification and, Family Bridges, which the Twitter site indicates is a sham that hides behind the courts.
Has Mrs. Flowerday done what is required of her?
[34] Mr. Flowerday says she has not. He says that she continues to ignore court orders by taking therapy she thinks is sufficient, not that which was ordered, and continues to refuse to participate in the Family Bridge’s educational sessions that were ordered. Where she has complied, her compliance is superficial.
3. ANALYSIS
A) The Nature of the Motion
[35] Mr. Flowerday submits that Mrs. Flowerday’s motion is a motion to change. Therefore, Mrs. Flowerday has the burden to establish a material change in circumstances. Mrs. Flowerday did not address this question directly, but her approach to the motion, overall, indicates that she considers her motion to be an extension of the access review hearing referred to in my trial judgment in February 2015.
[36] This motion is a motion to change. The review hearing provided for in my initial trial judgement has been spent. In my subsequent endorsements I defined the material change that Mrs. Flowerday must show, as I put it in paragraph 73 of my January 17, 2018 Endorsement, that “… she satisfies the Court that she has complied with all Court orders and shown improvement in her alienating behaviours and the reasons for them. In order to do the latter, she must continue and comply with treatment for her alienating behaviour with Dr. Collins or his nominee.”
[37] Mrs. Flowerday must meet her onus on the balance of probabilities.
[38] Motions such as this motion, should not be decided, where possible, solely on onus. It is preferable that the Court is guided to its conclusion based on clear, unequivocal evidence.
[39] As in all matters of custody and access, the Court must be guided by the best interests of the children.
B) Jurisdiction over the Children.
[40] Mrs. Flowerday submits that the Court has no jurisdiction over A. as she is now 17 ½ years old. Mr. Flowerday does not speak to jurisdiction, specifically, but wishes that the Court continue to exercise its jurisdiction over A. until she turns 18, and “ages out” of the Court’s jurisdiction.
[41] Chronologically, A. is a “child of the marriage” until she reaches the age of 18, and perhaps thereafter for or many purposes, and the Court’s jurisdiction continues. The question is whether the Court should continue to exercise its jurisdiction over A. with respect to access with Mrs. Flowerday?
[42] In my view the Court should not continue to exercise its jurisdiction over A. with respect to matters of access. All the evidence, such as it is, indicates that A. is a mature and successful 17 ½ year old young woman. She is at the age and stage of development which lead me to believe that she can make her own decisions with respect to seeing her mother. Custody matters, however, remain in Mr. Flowerday’s hands.
[43] B. and C. are 14 years and five months and 12 years and five months old, respectively. They remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
[44] While I have decided that the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction over A., I do so with reluctance.
[45] In my Endorsement of December 14, 2017, I reinstated limited access to Mrs. Flowerday. Mrs. Flowerday’s reaction to receiving limited access was to resume her alienating behaviour. Her behaviour indicated that she had done little to address her alienating and destructive behaviour. A.’s reaction to Mrs. Flowerday’s continued behaviour was to revert, almost immediately, to her own former pattern of behaviour. The result of Mrs. Flowerday’s continued behaviour was that A.’s relationship with Mr. Flowerday, B. and C., and the balance of the F. family was damaged and had to be repaired. Further, A.’s ability to restore her relationship with Mrs. Flowerday’s family was delayed. None of this was A.’s fault.
[46] Today, A. is an adult for access purposes. In another six months, she will be an adult in all aspects, in the eyes of the law. She will be entitled to vote, to marry, to make her own decisions about her body and health.
[47] While A gains freedom with adulthood, so too she gains responsibilities. A. must be aware that her actions have consequences that reach beyond herself. She must accept responsibility for the consequences of her actions, positive and negative.
[48] In the context of this motion, being treated as an adult means that should A. chose to re-establish a relationship with Mrs. Flowerday, and if Mrs. Flowerday has not changed her alienating behaviours, A. has a choice:
a) A. can use her maturity and the tools she acquired from Family Bridges with respect to dealing with her parents’ conflict and build a relationship with Mrs. Flowerday that is healthy and does not affect her relationships with her father, her siblings, or her father’s extended family; or
b) A. can choose to return to her own pre-February 2016 pattern of behaviour, become aligned, again, with Mrs. F’s wants and needs, and become a conscious or unconscious tool by which Mrs. Flowerday exerts pressure on B. and C. to do the same.
[49] The choice is A.’s.
[50] As I have set out below, evidence to date indicates that Mrs. Flowerday has not changed her alienating behaviours. I have faith, however, that A. will make the correct choice. If she does not, she risks plunging this family back into a cycle of alienation by which B and C will also be affected. That will bring this family back into court. The Court will have to make decisions as to whether A. should have access with B. and C.
C) What must Mrs. Flowerday do to Restore Access?
[51] In paragraph 73 of my January 17, 2018 Endorsement, that Mrs. Flowerday must “… satisf[y] the Court that she has complied with all Court orders and shown improvement in her alienating behaviours and the reasons for them. In order to do the latter, she must continue and comply with treatment for her alienating behaviour with Dr. Collins or his nominee.”
[52] Because my January 17, 2018 Endorsement required Mrs. Flowerday to comply with earlier orders, I review those orders, starting with my trial Judgment of February 6, 2016, in which I ordered that Mrs. Flowerday:
i) Continue counselling with the counsellor of her choice;
ii) Provide regular updates to Family Bridges so that Family Bridges could coordinate treatment approach;
iii) Provide to Family Bridges authorizations to provide to Family Bridges any information that they required concerning her from her counselors; and
iv) She participates in the Family Bridges’ Program as required by Family Bridges’ staff.
[53] Mrs. Flowerday did not comply. As I set out in my Endorsement of March 13, 2017, Mrs. Flowerday saw Dr. Goldstein only twice, discharging him after he produced his report. She did not participate in the Family Bridges’ Program, fully. She attempted to re-negotiate the terms of her involvement with Family Bridges and truncated her participation. When Family Bridges did not accept her version of her participation, Mrs. Flowerday accused Family Bridges of being in a conflict of interest. She threatened to report Family Bridges’ therapist, Ms. Vanbetlehem to her College and Family Bridges’ psychologist, Dr. Parnell to his College for discipline because of the allege conflict, which I held was done only to gain advantage in this litigation. She also disputed Family Bridges’ accounts.
[54] Based on the evidence at that time, and notwithstanding Mrs. Flowerday’s expressions of remorse, her view that she had done what was asked of her, and her promise to do better, I held that she had not done what was ordered. However, because of the children’s plea as advanced through A., I allowed Mrs. Flowerday limited access in a public place.
[55] On September 26, 2017, I conducted another access review. In my December 14, 2017 Endorsement, I noted that Ms. F. had still not complied with Family Bridges’ requirements. She completed the educational component, but only superficially. She had not completed the monitored contact component. Family Bridges terminated the monitored contact component because Mrs. Flowerday’s conduct had not changed. She still placed A. in a “loyalty bind” and was still attempting to damage A’s relationship with Mr. Flowerday, the other children, and his family. A. had regressed since contact re-established between A. and Mrs. Flowerday and the children.
[56] I concluded that Mrs. Flowerday had not changed her alienating behaviours, had not completed the Family Bridges’ Program, and had not internalized what she had been taught. Therefore, I restricted the access previously granted.
[57] In my Endorsement of January 17, 2018, I held that Mrs. Flowerday continued to breach orders. She had contact with the children outside permitted access. As set out in my June 21, 2017 Endorsement, Mrs. Flowerday surreptitiously had text contact with A. in violation with my March 31, 2017 Endorsement. She instructed A. to delete the texts. She deleted texts. I had to address it again in my June 2017 Endorsement.
[58] Further, Mrs. Flowerday used her ability to attend the children’s school events to engage in disruptive contact with Mr. Flowerday and his family. She violated my March 31, 2017 Endorsement by taking the children to her home. She did not continue with counselling as ordered. She saw Dr. Collins for “supportive therapy,” only. He would not see her for therapeutic purposes so long as litigation was ongoing. He was not given a complete copy of the file.
[59] As of January 17, 2018, I held that Mrs. Flowerday had not abandoned her alienating behaviours. She intentionally and repeatedly violated orders. She continued to attempt to alienate the children from Mr. Flowerday.
D) What has Mrs. Flowerday done since January 2018?
[60] Mrs. Flowerday has taken great strides in completing her education and improving her ability to realize her full income earning potential. She has changed jobs, enrolled a PhD program, changed countries of residence (Qatar, temporarily), and has a new relationship in her life. This is all commendable.
E) Has Mrs. Flowerday complied with Court Orders?
[61] Mrs. Flowerday has not satisfied me that she has changed her alienating behaviours and has complied with court orders. Why do I say this?
Family Bridges
[62] Mrs. Flowerday has not completed the Family Bridges’ Program. Instead, she continued her campaign against Family Bridges. She continues to be defiant in her non-compliance.
She provided an Affidavit in an unrelated family proceeding in Newmarket Superior Court in which she complained of the cost of the Family Bridges’ Program, said that Family Bridges had changed the 2 day after-care program for non-custodial parents to a 2 to 3-month program for her. She did not indicate in her Affidavit that the cost of the Family Bridges’ Program was because of her own actions, and the extended after care program was necessary to deal with the deep entrenchment of her own behaviour, according to the Family Bridges’ professionals.
In August 2018, Mrs. Flowerday made a complaint against Dr. Rand, Family Bridges’ founder, to the California Board of Psychology, alleging that he was practicing without a licence. As part of her complaint, she executed an authorization to produce B. and C.’s Family Bridges’ file to the Board. Before trial, and in the context of informing her expert for the initial trial, she also executed authorizations to obtain records with respect to B and C for her expert to review. At neither time did Mrs. Flowerday have the power to execute the authorization. Mr. Flowerday had custody.
In December 2018, and January 2019, Mrs. Flowerday emailed Dr. Parnell, psychologist at Family Bridges, attached video links to news stories in which now adult children who had been through the Family Bridges’ Program expressed their dislike of the program, and blamed Dr. Parnell and Family Bridges for “ruining” those children’s lives. She predicted that the lives of her children and the children in the Newmarket action would be the next to be ruined.
In March 2017, Mrs. Flowerday joined, became a participant in, and follower of “@reunifyscams,” a Twitter account whose participants are opposed to reunification services. On February 28, 2018 she accused Family Bridges of being a sham that hides behind the Courts.
[63] Mrs. Flowerday says that members of the anti-reunification community searched her out. They informed her of “statistics regarding the Family Bridges’ program” which she found to be shocking and concerning. She began to meet with now-adults of six families who had been part of the Family Bridges’ program who spoke of their disappointment. Mrs. Flowerday determined that where Family Bridges claimed to have helped, it failed. She does not want her children to be like those “forced” to participate in the program.
[64] Three things are of note in Mrs. Flowerday’s response.
The parties agreed to enter into the s. 30 Assessment process long before the trial. The s. 30 Assessor recommended the reunification process that included Family Bridges as part of Phase 2 of the reunification plan. Mrs. Flowerday made no complaint about Family Bridges at that time. Her anger with Family Bridges arose after the Phase I component of the s. 30 Assessment failed because of her actions, thereby activating the Family Bridges’ program as Phase 2 of the s. 30 Assessment reunification plan.
Mrs. Flowerday was silent about her complaints with Family Bridges not being therapeutic or being unsuccessful. Her issues with Family Bridges had been mainly financial. They turned to being qualitative in 2017 when Mrs. Flowerday could not re-negotiate the terms of her involvement with Family Bridges (at which time she complained about conflict of interest). Her complaints only progressed to opposition to Family Bridges at large, on December 26, 2018, shortly before she joined the Twitter group.
Rather than bring a motion to vary the access order based on her new information about Family Bridges, Mrs. Flowerday continued to breach the order to participate in the Family Bridges’ program, while pursuing her campaign against Family Bridges and its individual therapists online and in the Newmarket action.
Continued Therapy
[65] Mrs. Flowerday’s continued therapy has been inconsistent, often motivated by court dates. I say this because:
In my Endorsement of March 13, 2017, I noted that Mrs. Flowerday had discharged Dr. Goldstein after two sessions and after obtaining his report for the June 24, 2016 access hearing. Mrs. Flowerday’s pattern in this respect continues. She saw Dr. Collins between December 2016 and September 6, 2017. He provided a report for the September 26, 2017 access review in which he reported that Mrs. Flowerday was going to continue to see Dr. Collins to work at understanding and ceasing her alienating behaviours. Mrs. Flowerday did not return to Dr. Collins until January 24, 2018, after my December 14, 2017 and January 17, 2018 Endorsements, the latter of which terminated her access. She saw Dr. Collins last on June 4, 2018, following which he prepared a report dated June 5, noting again that Mrs. F said she was going to continue seeing Dr. Collins to work at understanding and ceasing her alienating behaviours. She did not see Dr. Collins after June 4.
Dr. Collins report, itself, is not of significant help. Given the number of sessions, the two-page report seems rather light in detail, diagnosis or prognosis. Further, it is not clear that Dr. Collins was given every endorsement, order, and affidavit up to the date of his date of his report, or the date of the hearing in August 2019.
Mrs. Flowerday was not forthcoming with Dr. Collins about her continued anger and frustration with Family Bridges and her obligation to continue in the aftercare program.
[66] Dr. Collins was aware that Family Bridges was a concern for Mrs. Flowerday but said that it was merely one issue among many. His notes support this evidence as they mention Family Bridges rarely. He was not aware of the depth of her feelings toward Family Bridges. More specifically, Dr. Collins was not aware that a) Mrs. Flowerday had complained about Dr. Rand to the California Board of Psychologists and about Dr. Parnell and Ms. Vanbetlehem to their respective Colleges in Ontario, b) Mrs. Flowerday had sent emails to Dr. Parnell attacking Family Bridges and accusing it of destroying her family as well as others, or c) about Mrs. Flowerday’s involvement in anti-Family Bridges’ activities and Twitter group.
[67] Mrs. Flowerday reported that she was involved in counselling in Qatar through her extended health care benefits through her employer, through which she said she made strides with “my alienating behaviour and my resentment and anger toward Mr. Flowerday” While in Qatar, Mrs. Flowerday said that she had sessions with Dr. Mary Allen, accredited in counselling, psychotherapy and clinical supervision from October to December 2018, and with Dr. Aju Abraham, a psychiatrist from January to April 2019. Her sessions, she said, focused on “alienating behaviour and on building emotional intelligence and resilience.” She continued:
I believe that I have made significant progress in all these respects. I have a better understanding of myself, of the stress I was going through at the time of my alienating behaviours.
I have also been able to work through my anger at Mr. Flowerday I have been able to look back at the breakdown of the relationship and examine my own behaviour with insight and in order to take accountability.
I have a deeper understanding of the reasons about how I felt about Mr. Flowerday in the past. I understand that I have inappropriately involved my children while dealing with my anger at Mr. Flowerday I have learned how to manage my emotional reactions.
I believe that I am ready to move on to build a new and better relationship with Mr. Flowerday, for the sake of the children. This time, I did not only superficially engage in therapy, but engaged deeply with my counseling. I did not just try to do the bare minimum. I left the country, I pursued a new job, I pursued education, I pursued a new perspective, I met a new romantic partner, I travelled the world to places like Asia and the Middle East. I worked on myself
extensively in this process. I gave myself the space, time and counseling to actually come to terms with what happened and acknowledge my own responsibility. This was not an easy thing.
[68] As a matter of evidence, I accept Mrs. Flowerday’s statements as her self-appraisal. I cannot accept Mrs. Flowerday’s self-appraisal as wholly true. Throughout this litigation, Mrs. Flowerday has sworn that she is contrite, has accepted responsibility for her actions, has taken therapy and counselling that has helped, has grown as a person, and has learned how to curb her alienating behaviour and anger at Mr. Flowerday Her actions have shown that her self-report is not accurate.
[69] Unfortunately, I have no report or notes and records from the therapists Mrs. Flowerday consulted while she was in Qatar. I have no indication of the number of sessions, and what was done at any of those sessions. I have no opinion from the therapists with respect to diagnosis and prognosis. Further, it does not appear that there has been any therapy or counselling since April 2019. Given the opinions available at trial and since from Family Bridges, Mrs. Flowerday will need continued therapeutic support for some time.
F) Mr Flowerday’s Conduct
[70] Mr. Flowerday confirmed Mrs. Flowerday’s complaint that Mr. Flowerday has not reported regularly. Neither appears to have subscribed to My Family Wizard.
[71] In my endorsement of December 14, 2017, I ordered that Mr. Flowerday must post messages every Monday and Thursday on My Family Wizard summarizing the children’s activities and status since the last report and attaching relevant documents. If there was a medical appointment, school appointment, or the children received report cards, he was to report on these issues within 24 hours, with supporting documents.
[72] That order has never been rescinded. It remains in effect.
[73] Mr. Flowerday says that since contact with Mrs. Flowerday ends badly, he has avoided engagement with her even through contact about the children as ordered.
[74] Within 24 hours of the release of this Endorsement, Mr. Flowerday will enroll in My Family Wizard and begin posting updates. Mrs. Flowerday will enrol in My Family Wizard within 48 hours of release of these reasons.
ORDER
[75] This Court no longer exercises its jurisdiction over A.
[76] This Court continues to exercise its jurisdiction over B. and C., who remain children of the marriage.
[77] Mrs. Flowerday shall have no contact with B. and C. until she has complied with all Court orders.
[78] Mr. Flowerday, within 24 hours of release of these reasons, shall enrol in My Family Wizard and begin posting updates as required by my December 14, 2017 Endorsement.
[79] Mrs. Flowerday, within 48 hours of release of these reasons shall enrol in My Family Wizard.
COSTS
[80] Mr. Flowerday, through an unsolicited email said that Mrs. Flowerday is now discharged from bankruptcy.
[81] If that is the case, I will address who shall pay whom costs, and in what amount. Submissions will be limited to 3 double-spaced pages, excluding cases and bills of costs. Mr. Flowerday’s costs submissions are to be served and filed by 4 p.m. 31 October 2019, and Mrs. Flowerday’s by 4 p.m., 21 November 2019.
Trimble J.
Released: October 11, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: FS-17-88633-00
DATE: 2019 10 11
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Jason Flowerday
Applicant
– and –
Angela Flowerday
Respondent
Counsel:
Jenna Beaton & Faria Marlatt for the Applicant/Responding party, Jason Flowerday, jenna@mccarthyco.ca, and faria@mccarthyco.ca
Samantha Coomaran for the Respondent/Moving Party, Angela Flowerday, sam@maddalenafuller.com
ENDORSEMENT
Trimble J.
Released: October 11, 2019