COURT FILE NO.: 21-209
DATE: August 20, 2021
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Wyatt and Silliphant
BETWEEN: James Daniel Wyatt, Applicant and Natalie Silliphant, Respondent
BEFORE: Honourable Mr Justice Martin James
COUNSEL: Natasha Pappin for the Applicant
Self-Represented Respondent
DATE HEARD: August 17, 2021
ENDORSEMENT
James J
[1] This endorsement relates to an urgent motion request by the applicant.
[2] The motion is for an order for week-about parenting time for the parties’ son Ethan, age 9 and related relief. The hearing took place on August 17, 2021. Affidavit evidence and submissions were provided by both the applicant and the respondent.
[3] For the reasons that follow, the motion should be granted.
[4] The parties were in a relationship from 2010 until 2018. In addition to Ethan, the respondent has a child from a previous relationship, Ariana also known as Asra, who is 13 years old.
[5] The applicant says that the respondent was suffering from mental health and addiction issues that led to their separation. Family and Children’s Services (“FCS”) were involved with the family. The children have resided with the applicant since separation. The respondent’s progress with her difficulties resulted in the parties agreeing to a shared parenting regime about 8 months ago.
[6] Asra has had contact with the respondent but their relationship has more challenges. Parenting arrangements for Asra are not currently before the court.
[7] At the end of May, 2021 there was an incident when the respondent attended at the applicant’s home that resulted in a criminal charge against the applicant for allegedly spitting on the respondent. Ethan went to the respondent’s home the next day but the respondent has not permitted Ethan to return to the applicant’s care since that time.
[8] The applicant has only spoken with the respondent twice since that time.
[9] There is a no contact order in place against the applicant due to the pending criminal charges. The respondent claims that the applicant failed to arrange for third party assistance with exchanges so Ethan has stayed at her home since the incident. The respondent’s explanation as to why contact between the applicant and Ethan was been cut off is not credible. Parents have an obligation to encourage and facilitate contact with the other parent.
[10] The applicant says that it is in Ethan’s best interests to return to a week about parenting time arrangement. I agree.
[11] There was a status quo in place for shared parenting prior to the respondent’s unilateral decision to suspend Ethan’s time with the applicant. Generally speaking, a status quo in parenting arrangements should not be disrupted unless there is good reason for doing so because children tend to do better with consistency and stability and contact with both parents. There is no evidence that Ethan was not doing well in the applicant’s care and there is independent, third party corroboration that Ethan would prefer a shared parenting regime.
[12] Drawing children into adult disputes and issues is not in their best interests and there is some evidence that the respondent has discussed adult issues and problems with, or in the presence of, the children.
[13] The respondent alleges that the applicant has engaged in parental alienation behaviour (“PAB”) but this did not appear to be concern for Ms. Dennison, a worker with FCS, as she makes no mention of this issue in her letter of July 6, 2021. Child protection professionals are alert to situations where the views and preferences expressed by children that are not truly independent.
[14] The applicant’s position is that Asra is free to contact her mother and travel between households as she wishes and Asra apparently said the same to Ms. Dennison. In relation to Ethan, the applicant’s request to return to shared parenting is not consistent with PAB tendencies because typically this phenomenon reveals itself in one parent’s concerted effort to deprive the other parent of any contact with their children. That is not the case with the applicant.
[15] I also agree that exchanges should take place at the Visitation and Exchange Centre. Clearly there are times when exchanges have not gone well. Conflict during exchanges is stressful for the children. Using this service necessitates that exchanges be less frequent and, in any event, too many transitions can be hard on the children. There should be a fixed routine for the exchanges so the children know what to expect. Week about parenting is the most common shared parenting arrangement for children who are Ethan’s age.
[16] The following temporary order shall issue:
- Ethan is to be delivered into the care of the applicant by the respondent forthwith (the “initial exchange”). The initial exchange shall be the responsibility of the respondent to organize because of the no contact order against the applicant. It may be that FCS can provide some assistance if necessary.
- The respondent will be primarily accountable if the initial exchange is not arranged and implemented promptly because it is her responsibility to do so.
- Subsequent exchanges shall take place via the services of the Visitation and Exchange Centre. The respondent shall complete and deliver the necessary intake documentation within 5 days.
- Ethan shall remain in the applicant’s care until the arrangements for the exchanges to take place at the Visitation and Exchange Centre are in place. The first exchange shall take place at 5 p.m. on the Friday following the Centre’s confirmation that it is ready to provide service. The exchange date and time can be adjusted by the mutual written agreement of the parties or by the Exchange Centre if necessary to suit its schedule.
- The parties will follow a week about shared parenting time regime.
- The applicant shall commence proceedings by way of an Application within 20 days.
- FCS shall provide disclosure of their file to the parties, subject to the usual conditions and limitations.
- If the legal costs of the applicant regarding this motion are not agreed to, the applicant may deliver a costs outline (limited to 3 pages) and a draft bill of costs within 15 days, and the respondent shall have 15 days to respond (limited to 3 pages).
Electronically signed by James, J.
DATE: August 23, 2021