Court File and Parties

C.A.S. v. A., Citation: 2020 ONSC 3908 Court File No.: 102/17 Date: 2020-07-02 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: The Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region And: S.A. (mother) and C.C. (father) Respondents

Before: Mr Justice Ramsay

Counsel: Paul Heinen for the Applicant Bernadette McCartney for S.A. Miranda Belansky for C.C.

Heard: July 2, 2020

Endorsement

[1] In this Application for a status review under s.113 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act the Respondent father moves for a temporary order for supervised access at specified times. The Society and the Respondent mother agree to supervised access, but not to all the terms sought by the father.

[2] The boy, H., is four years old. The Respondent parents separated for the last time in 2016 and in 2017 agreed to an order under the Children’s Law Reform Act awarding joint custody with more or less equal parenting time. Shortly thereafter the Society began an investigation. On March 17, 2017 Martin J. placed H. with the Respondent mother. The father chose not to exercise access after December 2018 because he was “frustrated with the Society.” As a result, the child does not know him.

[3] The child was placed with his mother in the final order of Gregson J. dated March 26, 2019, with access to the father in the discretion of the Society.

[4] In May 2019 the father was charged with assaulting his new partner. In June 2019 he was charged with breaching his recognizance. In July 2019 he was convicted and put on probation for two years on those charges, with conditions requiring attention to anger management and partner assault. In the autumn of 2019, the father decided that he wanted to see his son again. The mother declined to cooperate, which was understandable in the circumstances. The father was on probation for domestic violence and he had only recently shown evidence of having stopped using cocaine. He tested negative from September 2019 to February 2019. But in March 2020 he was again charged with domestic violence and impaired driving in connection with the same victim.

[5] The Respondent father deposes:

I acknowledge that I suffered from substance abuse issues in the past, including cocaine; however, I have limited my use to episodically, maybe three to four times a year.

[6] That is hardly reassuring.

[7] The father, a man in his forties, is still living with his parents. He is not far along the road to stability.

[8] The mother now agrees to access supervised at Pathstone, with virtual access until Pathstone can accommodate him. The Society also agrees. It would like an order for specific access so that it can retire from the affair and leave the parties to their rights under the Children’s Law Reform Act. Since there are no longer child protection issues with mother, that seems to be a reasonable prospective outcome.

[9] The father has suggested an alternative agency that could result in access taking place sooner than Pathstone could accomplish. Brayden Supervision Services offers supervised access in the home and in the community. From the evidence that Ms Belansky has gathered, it appears that this service would be a good alternative to Pathstone or to supervision by relatives in many cases. I do not think that the present case is one of them, however. The father has repeatedly failed to demonstrate his understanding of fatherhood as a duty, as opposed to a benefit to which he is entitled. He is still involved in litigation involving domestic violence, he has not established himself as a functioning adult and he has only recently stopped using cocaine. I think that the institutional setting of Pathstone is necessary in the child’s best interest and that it is worth waiting for. There is no hurry. It is in the child’s best interest to have a father, but it is not in his best interest to have a father who comes and goes.

[10] I shall vary the order of Gregson J. dated March 26, 2019 by adding a term for supervised access at Pathstone when available, and virtual or telephone access in the interim. Access will not take place during the mother’s scheduled vacation this summer. Repeated missed visits by the father will terminate his access.

[11] No one is asking for costs.

[12] The proceeding is adjourned to July 20, 2020 at 2:00 pm for a trial scheduling conference. If that date poses a problem for the parties, they can arrange a new date with the trial coordinator on consent or bring a motion for adjournment.

J.A. Ramsay J. Date: 2020-07-02