Court File and Parties

BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-1140-00

DATE: 20201127

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: LUDMILA STEPUS, Applicant

AND:

VLADIMIR STEPUS, Respondent

BEFORE: THE HON. JUSTICE F. GRAHAM

COUNSEL: S. Cocieru, for the Applicant H. Notkin, for the Respondent

HEARD: September 24, November 26 and 27, 2020

ENDORSEMENT

[1] On September 24, 2020, the court made a temporary order for virtual supervised access through Kinark to commence forthwith, and for in-person access supervised by Brayden to commence as soon as possible. The court adjourned the motion and the issue of costs. Further submissions as to the motion were heard yesterday.

[2] Regrettably, Ms. Stepus has not complied with the court’s order, while Mr. Stepus has.

[3] With respect to Kinark, the visit of October 15, 2020 failed and was truncated in large due to inappropriate negative attitudes demonstrated by all three children toward their father. The youngest child, C., called him a snake. The middle child, B., said that because he was a snake, he was bad. The eldest child, A., repeatedly stated that his father was only acting nice because the visit was supervised.

[4] When Kinark staff informed Ms. Stepus of A.’s statements, she replied that in view of a long family history, there was very little she could do about it. The court disagrees.

[5] There is a great deal a parent can do about inappropriate negative statements made by an 11-year old child, a 6-year old child, and/or a 3-year old child. The parent must redirect the child. The parent must direct the child not to say such a thing again. The parent must direct the child to have a positive attitude going forward. The parent must apply appropriate discipline for inappropriate behaviour by a child.

[6] At the October 19 visit, C. stayed under a table for some time. A. repeatedly made faces and parroted his father’s words back to him. When Mr. Stepus asked to see C., A. told his father that C. might not want to see him. A. stated that the children did not have to stay seated in their chairs (within view of the camera), that the Kinark staff were stupid, and that he’d rather listen to God. A. moved C. outside the camera range several times. When Mr. Stepus said that he wanted to hug and kiss his daughter, A. replied that his father wanted to do that to kill her. A. said that his father had hurt them many times in the past. A. encouraged C. to say why she was drawing a snake. She replied, “Because he’s bad”. She then brought a plastic sword to the table. A. stated that the sword was for stabbing his father. When Mr. Stepus said he loved the children, A. named a list of other persons who he said were the ones that loved them. B. stated that he did not have to sit on a chair, his father never sat the table with them, his father celebrates Hallowe’en, and his father is a girl. Although his insults were childish, he is only six years old. A. said that C. did not have to look at her father if she did not want to, and then moved toward the camera, likely to try to turn it off. Kinark staff ended the visit at that point.

[7] The children’s behaviour during the visit is very concerning. It suggests manipulation of the children by an adult with a motive to harm the children’s relationship with their father.

[8] The next day, Kinark staff suggested that going forward the children should have short five-minute supervised private virtual visits with their father in their bedrooms. The obvious reason for private visits was the negative statements during the visits and A.’s obvious effort to negatively influence his younger siblings.

[9] Ms. Stepus’ immediate response to Kinark was that she did not think the children would be comfortable with visits alone with their father, particularly because, she said, they already felt upset that they could not fully express their feelings about him during the visits. Ms. Stepus did not appear to realize that it was her duty as a parent to direct the children not to be negative during the visits.

[10] It is true that Kinark, appropriately, attempted to redirect the children from making negative comments to their father.

[11] Ms. Stepus did not provide her final response to Kinark’s suggestion until a week later. She then advised Kinark that she would not permit individual visits for B. or C.

[12] No reasonable basis has been given for Ms. Stepus’ refusal to agree to individual visits for these two children upon Kinark’s terms. The children would have been in the comfort, privacy, and safety of their own bedrooms and the short five-minute virtual visits would be continuously supervised by Kinark staff.

[13] Ms. Stepus uses as a rationale for refusing individual visits for C. and B. that during the October 19 visit, Kinark staff heard C. coughing under the table. Ms. Stepus takes the position that that means the visits would not be safe if the children are alone. But the obvious solution to that sort of risk is that Kinark will telephone Ms. Stepus if a child is not visible or is unsafe during the virtual visit, and Ms. Stepus can then briefly enter the child’s room to ensure the child is safe and to redirect the child to stay in front of the camera. It is nonsensical to suggest that children of these ages would not be safe in their own bedrooms while being watched by virtual supervisors who could quickly communicate any safety concern to their mother.

[14] Ms. Stepus said that in the case of A., private visits would be fine because he wanted to tell his father his thoughts and feelings about his father, and, she added, that was beyond her control. It is concerning that Ms. Stepus claimed to have so little control over her 11-year old child. A. has regularly expressed negative thoughts and feelings about his father during supervised access visits. Ms. Stepus did not try to redirect him during FaceTime visits, which is why FaceTime visits had to be terminated. Kinark tried to redirect A. but had to terminate their visits because his mother did not exercise her responsibility as a parent to change his negative behaviour.

[15] Ms. Stepus suggests that A.’s negative comments and behaviour stem from abuse perpetrated by Mr. Stepus. Although that allegation has not yet been tested in court, and, therefore, must be borne in mind, the motion evidence indicates that it is more likely that Ms. Stepus, intentionally or not, manipulated her 11-year old child to unfairly criticize his father.

[16] On November 3, A. told Kinark that he did not want to speak with his father. Given that it is not Kinark’s role to force children to have contact with a parent and given that there is no evidence that Ms. Stepus did anything to direct A. to visit with his father and/or to act appropriately during such visits, access through Kinark was terminated.

[17] Ms. Stepus should have facilitated individual virtual visits for B. and C. She should have directed both children to participate in a positive manner. She should have done the same with respect to A. By failing to do so, she failed to comply with the court’s order requiring such access to occur.

[18] With respect to Brayden, Ms. Stepus ignored Brayden’s position that visits could take place in Mr. Stepus’ home. Brayden gave her that information on September 25. She proceeded to suggest community visits to Brayden and Mr. Stepus as if a home visit was not a possibility. It was not until October 8 that her counsel informed Mr. Stepus’ counsel that Ms. Stepus would not agree to visits in the former matrimonial home, where Mr. Stepus currently resides, because of trauma allegedly experienced by the children at that location the previous Christmas during court-ordered access.

[19] The court does not accept that the children experienced meaningful trauma at that time, other than trauma that may have been caused by Ms. Stepus, her mother, and Mr. Catania’s inappropriate behaviour and/or statements. Rather than being calm, reasonable, positive, and co-operative, they created unnecessary conflict in the presence of the children.

[20] Mr. Stepus demonstrated maturity when, on October 14, 2020, he gave in to Ms. Stepus’ unreasonable position that he could not have visits with his children in his residence, despite Brayden’s approval of that location.

[21] The visits were scheduled at a McDonald’s restaurant suggested by Ms. Stepus.

[22] On October 26, all three children repeatedly told the Brayden supervisor that they did not want to see their father. Ms. Stepus said that they did not want to leave her car, but she managed to get them to the door of the restaurant. After about fifteen minutes of the children refusing to enter the restaurant, the Brayden supervisor stated that it was not Brayden’s role to force the children to enter the restaurant. Indeed, it was not. It was, however, Ms. Stepus’ role as a parent to do that. She was the adult in charge.

[23] If the children refused to go into a dental office for treatment, would she simply follow their wishes? If they refused to go into a doctor’s office for treatment, would she let them decide? Going into the restaurant to have a supervised visit with their father was important to their emotional well-being, but she failed to exercise her proper authority as a parent. She failed to direct her children to enter the restaurant and see their father and by doing so, she failed to comply with the court’s order, and she failed her children.

[24] The same thing happened on October 29. As a result of Ms. Stepus’ continuing failure to act as a parent, Brayden terminated their service.

[25] Ms. Stepus’ ultimate explanation for her failure to comply with the court’s order is likely in the final paragraph of her affidavit dated November 19, 2020. She states that it is shockingly wrong for children to be encouraged to maintain a relationship with their abusive father.

[26] From the court’s perspective, however, the allegations of abusive behaviour in this case are just that – allegations. They have not been proven. The allegations are relevant to, but not determinative of, the best interests of the children. The court must also consider all other relevant evidence and weigh and balance all the evidence when assessing the best interests of the children.

[27] The final words of Ms. Stepus’ concluding paragraph are significant. She states that children ought not be left, “at the hands of their abuser with no one to protect them” [emphasis added]. On September 24, however, the court ordered supervised access. Professional access supervisors from Kinark or Brayden were required to be present during the visits. Supervised access was the order with which Ms. Stepus did not comply.

[28] The court has determined that it is in the best interests of the children to leave the current order in place with the firm direction to Ms. Stepus that she must now fully comply with the court’s order.

[29] Ms. Stepus and Mr. Stepus shall contact Kinark and Brayden forthwith to recommence supervised access as soon as possible. Ms. Stepus shall inform both agencies that she will now require her children to participate in a positive manner and she will discipline them, without delay, if they fail to do so, and she shall inform Kinark and Brayden, without delay, how she disciplined each child who did not follow her direction.

[30] Given A.’s negative influence on the other children during the visits, going forward his visits shall be separate from his sibling’s visits, unless and until joint visits are recommended by Kinark and/or Brayden or a court determines otherwise.

[31] It is not in the best interests of B. or C. for a supervised visit with their father to be delayed any further as a result of unnecessary delay caused by their mother.

[32] Accordingly, the court orders that Mr. Stepus, supervised by an adult to be named by the court today, shall have access with B. tomorrow, Saturday, November 28, for one hour commencing at 1 p.m.

[33] The court orders that Mr. Stepus, supervised as stated above, shall have access with C. on Sunday, November 29, 2020, for a period of one hour, commencing at 1 p.m.

[34] There is no restriction on location of these two periods of access, subject to compliance with Covid protocols.

[35] A. shall not be present at the exchanges.

[36] The exchanges shall take place at a location to be determined by the court today.

[37] Ms. Stepus is ordered not to interfere, or to permit any interference by anyone, including any of her children, in any way, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Stepus’ supervised access visits with B. on November 28 and with C. on November 29, 2020, or any visits thereafter with any of the children.

[38] Temporary orders to go accordingly.

[39] The court has considered whether enforcement of this order by the South Simcoe Police Service or any other police service in Ontario where the children may be located is required. The court has decided that it is not in the best interests of the children to make such an order today so that their mother may have an opportunity to comply with this order to demonstrate that the involvement of police officers is not necessary going forward.

[40] The court advises Ms. Stepus that non-compliance with the court’s order made today may result in the court ordering the police to enforce access in the future and could lead to the placement of the children in the care and control of Mr. Stepus, without supervision, with or without contact with their mother, if the court finds that to do so would be in the best interests of the children.

[41] It is not in the best interests of the children to permit Ms. Stepus to frustrate lawful orders of the court.

[42] The court will now hear submissions as the identity of the supervisor on Saturday and on Sunday and the exchange location.

[43] Due to Ms. Stepus’ likely manipulation of A., whether intentional or not, the court finds that it would not be in his best interests at this time to have supervised access other than through Kinark and Brayden at this point. As the court has endeavoured to make clear, it is Ms. Stepus’ responsibility as a parent to require, not merely to encourage, A. to positively engage in supervised access as ordered by the court going forward.

[44] Once the remaining details are determined, the motion will be adjourned to a date and time next week to review compliance and progress, and to vary the order if required in the best interests of the children.

[45] Counsel may make submissions as to costs for September 24 and yesterday.

ADDENDUM

[46] For clarity, each child shall have in-person access through Brayden at least once per week. B. and C. shall have access through Brayden together unless Brayden recommends otherwise. A. shall have access through Brayden separate from his siblings unless Brayden recommends otherwise after reviewing this endorsement. The parties shall each provide Brayden with a copy of this endorsement forthwith. The parties shall follow the recommendations of Brayden with respect to duration and locations of access.

[47] Each child shall have virtual access through Kinark at least twice per week. A. shall have virtual access separate from his siblings unless Kinark recommends otherwise after reviewing this endorsement. The parties shall each provide Kinark with a copy of this endorsement forthwith. The parties shall follow the recommendations of Kinark regarding the duration and location of virtual access and which child or children are to present.

[48] The access supervisor on November 28 and 29, 2020 shall be V. Stepus.

[49] The access exchanges on those two dates shall take place in the McDonald’s parking lot at Green Lane and Yonge Street.

[50] The only adults present at those exchanges shall be Ms. L. Stepus, her sister Anna or her father, and V. Stepus. The adults shall not cause or be a party to any adult conflict during the exchange. Ms. L. Stepus’ sister or father shall not participate in the exchange unless their assistance is requested by Ms. L. Stepus to get the child into Ms. V. Stepus’ vehicle. Ms. L. Stepus shall ensure that the child gets into V. Stepus’ vehicle and is properly secured. V. Stepus shall then ensure that the child is properly secured inside her vehicle.

[51] The one-hour time period for each visit commences when V. Stepus exits the McDonald’s parking lot with the child in her vehicle. The visit concludes when V. Stepus re-enters the parking lot with the child in her vehicle.

[52] For oral reasons given, Ms. Stepus shall pay costs of $21,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes to Mr. Stepus with respect to the motion heard on September 24 and November 26, 2020, including preparation, and including the involvement of counsel between those dates with respect to Kinark and Brayden. The costs shall be paid to Mr. Stepus from Ms. Stepus’ share of equalization of net family property.

[53] The return date for the motion is December 3, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.

GRAHAM J.

Date: November 27, 2020

NOTE

The original endorsement has been changed by adding the children’s order of birth and replacing their names with unconnected letters.