Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: FC-22-00000371-0000
Date: 2025/06/16

Between:
Edwin Adam Lawrence Newton (Applicant)
and
Melanie Lynn Grillo (Respondent)

Applicant Counsel: Mehwish Rasheed
Respondent Counsel: Ben Fortino

Heard: May 12-16, May 20-23, May 26-27, and May 29-30, 2025.

Introduction

[1] The Applicant (“Adam”) and the Respondent (“Melanie”) began a dating relationship in 2017. Melanie became pregnant. Their child Zaria was born on June 1, 2018.

[2] Melanie broke off the relationship with Adam a few months before Zaria’s birth.

[3] Zaria has lived primarily with Melanie since her birth.

[4] Melanie lives in Caledonia. Adam lives in Port Dover. He resided in Barrie when Zaria was born. The parents live approximately 45 minutes apart.

[5] The parents signed a parenting agreement in May 2021, which essentially provided Adam with joint decision-making and parenting time on alternate weekends, as well as mid-week visits.

[6] The parenting schedule is not being followed.

[7] On August 22, 2022, Melanie recorded Zaria making statements that Melanie believes suggest that Adam has sexually abused Zaria.

[8] The allegations have been investigated by the police and by Child and Family Services of Grand Erie (“CFSGE”). Ultimately, no charges were laid against Adam, and the CFSGE found no verification of sexual abuse.

[9] Adam has not been able to resume meaningful parenting time with Zaria since August 22, 2022.

[10] On the eve of the trial, the parents retained a reintegration therapist. That process has not yet progressed beyond the intake stage.

[11] Adam asks that Melanie be found to be alienating Zaria from him. He seeks a reversal of primary care so that he can re-establish his parenting role. His position is that the reintegration therapy is parallel to the parenting order from the court, and not relevant to the finding of alienation that he seeks.

[12] Melanie seeks to resume the parenting schedule outlined in the May 2021 parenting agreement. She wants Adam’s interaction with Zaria to be governed, or at least steered, by the reintegration therapist.

[13] Adam has doubts that Melanie will follow the reintegration therapist’s procedures and guidance in good faith.

Issues

[14] The main issue is what parenting regime is in Zaria’s best interests? The following questions must be answered to determine this issue:

a. Is parental alienation established by the evidence?
b. If so, what remedy is required to meet Zaria’s best interests?

[15] A secondary issue is what child support is to be paid following the court’s determination of the parenting regime.

Relevant Facts

[16] Zaria was born prematurely. She remained in the NICU of the hospital for several days. Zaria and Melanie were discharged on June 14, 2025.

[17] Adam was not informed of the birth until three days after the fact. When he attempted to visit his child, he was made to feel unwelcome. He was denied a bracelet, which would allow him unfettered access to the NICU. He believes that Melanie actively resisted his acquisition of the bracelet. He was always monitored when seeing his daughter by either Melanie or her mother, Lynn Grillo.

[18] The bracelet issue was eventually resolved. The evidence of Sarah Simpson, the hospital social worker, however, was that Adam told her at that time that his “biggest fear was that Melanie will not allow him to be an active and equal parent.”

[19] It is clear from the evidence of Adam, Melanie, and Lynn Grillo that arranging Adam’s parenting time with Zaria was not easy in the early days.

[20] Adam commenced court proceedings in September of 2018. Between February 2019 and February 2020, there were at least seven court appearances addressing Adam’s parenting time.

[21] For a period of time, when Zaria was only months old, Adam’s time with Zaria was spent in Caledonia at Zehr’s grocery store. Adam was allowed to roam the store with the child for an hour. Melanie’s mother, Lynn, is an employee of this Zehr’s store.

[22] Melanie complained that at several exchanges, Adam held Zaria in a position that allowed Zaria to see Melanie as Adam walked away from her. Melanie listed this as one of Adam’s behaviours that was purposefully hurtful and antagonistic, alleging that it was harmful to Zaria to be pulled away from Melanie in this manner. She felt Adam was “taunting” Melanie. She described this as “obviously causing Zaria further trauma.”

[23] Adam and Melanie were able to execute a comprehensive parenting agreement in May of 2021. It provided for regular weekend overnight parenting as well as a sharing of holiday periods.

[24] Lynn Grillo provided evidence that she and Melanie began keeping a log of Zaria’s physical condition before and after her visits with Adam as early as 2019. These notes include photos of alleged injuries sustained while in Adam’s care.

[25] Melanie’s affidavit in chief alleges that on May 3, 2020, Zaria was returned home from Adam’s care “with significant unexplained injuries, including multiple bruises across her forehead, ligature marks around her neck, cuts on her fingers, knuckles, nose and chin.”

[26] She also alleged that sometime in the summer of 2021, “Zaria had returned home from the Applicant's care with significant, multiple and unexplained injuries.”

[27] None of Zaria’s treating physicians indicated any concern regarding these injuries.

[28] Photos of these injuries, introduced by Lynn Grillo, presumably the worst of the logged injuries, did not show anything out of the ordinary for an active toddler.

[29] With the assistance of mediation, the parties signed a Parenting Agreement on May 25, 2021. The mediator was consulted after the Parenting Agreement was signed to address ongoing issues. In November 2021, the mediator declined further services, according to Adam, on the basis that his skills had been exhausted and he had reached his limit. Melanie believes that Adam walked away from that process, preferring to litigate.

[30] This Application was filed in April of 2022.

[31] As of September of 2021, Melanie alleges that “Zaria continued to have difficulties adjusting to her return home from the Applicant's parenting visits as she was frequently returned in a weakened state. It would appear that Zaria had not slept or eaten properly and was wobbly and disoriented.” Also, “Zaria was biting around her fingers until they bled. She was giving herself hickies on her arms and complaining of 'front bum' pain.”

[32] The claims of Zaria’s frequently returning “wobbly” or “disoriented” were repeated throughout the evidence of Melanie and Lynn Grillo.

[33] On July 24, 2022, Melanie alleged, “Zaria came home from a weekend with the Applicant with injuries to her perianal area. She could not use the washroom because she could not sit. There was a green mucus-like substance coming from her behind. She also had additional injuries to her eye.”

[34] On August 7, 2022, Melanie alleged that “Zaria came home again from a weekend with the Applicant with injuries to her perianal area. She could not use the washroom because she could not sit, and she had green mucus-like substance coming from her behind.”

[35] Melanie sent photos of these alleged injuries to Zaria’s physician, Dr. Dhalla.

[36] Dr. Dhalla was called as a witness by Adam. Zaria was his patient from birth until February 2023, when Melanie transferred her to another physician.

[37] Dr. Dhalla confirmed that Melanie had alleged that Zaria had attachment issues as early as April of 2019. Melanie felt that Adam’s increase in time with Zaria from one visit per week to four visits per week was too long. He recalled Melanie asking for counselling services for Zaria before she was a year old. He referred her to another physician and noted in the referral that “parenting anxiety” was a possible diagnosis. He clarified that this was out of concern that the parent’s anxiety amplifies the child’s behaviour.

[38] Dr. Dhalla was asked about the rashes and soreness that had been present on Zaria during his treatment of Zaria. He was categorical that at no time did anything in Zaria’s history suggest abuse. Her rashes presented as “not common but not unusual.”

[39] When later asked by the CFSGE workers investigating the allegation of sexual abuse, and specifically about whether Zaria presented as having had external insertions into her anus, his opinion was that he “couldn’t rule it out but it was unlikely based upon my observations.”

August 22, 2022

[40] On August 22, 2022, Melanie and Adam appeared at a case conference in this matter.

[41] That day, Lynn Grillo was caring for Zaria. She says that Zaria, while on the toilet, spontaneously talked to her about a game that she and her dad played where her bum is her mouth, and her mouth is her bum.

[42] Lynn Grillo said she didn’t know what to do about this. She did not tell Melanie about this until later that evening, after Zaria had fallen asleep. She did not disclose this in any of the subsequent investigations or interviews about that day. She didn’t mention it to anyone other than Melanie until this trial.

[43] Later that evening, after Melanie had returned home, Melanie made an audio recording of Zaria while they were together on the couch watching television.

[44] Melanie’s affidavit in chief describes it this way:

131. On or about August 22, 2022, while cuddling on the couch after dinner, Zaria spontaneously shared with me details of an incident that took place in the Applicant's bedroom where the Applicant had been inserting gummies in Zaria's anus after she told him no.

132. I did not prompt Zaria or ask her about the incident. I was fortunate enough to have my phone in reach and started audio recording as quickly as possible to capture most of this impromptu disclosure. My mother was also present, at the other end of the couch.

133. Zaria described in detail what the Applicant did to her. Zaria clearly described what happened to her and that she said no to the Applicant, but that he continued to touch her.

[45] After contacting counsel, Melanie then asked Adam over the next two days if he had ever given a suppository to Zaria. When he confirmed he had not, Melanie said she “felt it was my duty to report her disclosure to third parties to receive proper professional advice moving forward.” She called the Hamilton Police Services on August 25, 2022.

[46] The OPP and CFSGE opened investigations.

[47] The OPP interviewed Zaria on August 30, 2022. When asked what the favourite part of her summer was, she replied, “Camping with dad.”

[48] Adam was denied parenting time until September 12, 2022, when he was allowed supervised time with Zaria at the CFSGE facility in Townsend.

[49] Melanie says that Zaria “indicated to me over and over that she did not want to go.”

[50] It took the social workers over 30 minutes to get Zaria to go with Adam.

[51] Adam had two supervised visits at Townsend in September of 2022. Melanie alleged that, during the supervised visits in Townsend, Zaria had tried to open-mouth kiss the worker, Ms. Boyd. She also stated that Adam had previously been seen open-mouth kissing Zaria like an adult during an exchange. She said this was seen by Melanie, Lynn Grillo, and her brother.

[52] Ms. Boyd denied Melanie’s version. She confirmed that Zaria was affectionate and liked to give kisses to Adam as well as to her when she was supervising. She denied that the kisses were open-mouthed or inappropriate.

[53] In October of 2022, the CFSGE verified the concerns of sexual harm to Zaria. Adam objected and filed a complaint. The matter was referred to the ICRP, the internal complaints review panel for the CFSGE.

[54] The CFSGE Executive Director convened the review panel. The panel consisted of four members, including one senior team member, two staff members, and one board member.

[55] On February 7, 2023, the CFSGE wrote to Adam regarding the ICRP’s findings and recommendations. The letter clarifies that verification is found on the balance of probabilities. The protection workers must decide whether the concerns are more likely to be true than not true. The worker must consider whether the evidence gathered and reviewed is both credible and pervasive.

[56] The panel unanimously recommended changing the finding from 'verified' to 'inconclusive'.

[57] The panel recommended that the manager consider removing all barriers imposed by the CFSGE regarding visits between Adam and Zaria. They recommended a plan to transition to in-home, unsupervised parenting time.

[58] On February 16, 2023, the ICRP wrote to Adam summarizing their findings, which read in part:

“The Panel reviewed all internal documentation regarding your complaint as well as the information utilized to support the verification outcome. The Panel considered the timing and content of the recording, the validity of the recording, the child's description of the alleged abuse during the initial interviews with the Society and police, and her ongoing defecation/toileting issues. The Panel noted the custody conflict between the parents and the potential for coaching after the alleged incident.”

[59] The ICRP unanimously found that the risk of sexual abuse was not verified. They changed the outcome of the investigation of sexual abuse to inconclusive.

[60] The ICRP also recommended a review of the access plan.

[61] The OPP never pursued charges against Adam.

[62] Starting July 28, 2023, Esther Herschberger, a clinical trauma therapist at Thrive engaged with Zaria. The CFSGE had referred her on the basis that sexual abuse had been verified. That is, the referral was made before the verification was reversed.

[63] On August 25, 2023, after the court order had been changed to allow Adam in-house parenting time, Zaria made an additional disclosure to Ms. Herschberger. This disclosure included additional details regarding the disclosure of August 22, 2022. She gave an account of being tied up by a rope around her waist and shoulder.

[64] This new allegation prompted the involvement of both police and CFSGE.

[65] In her subsequent interview by the police, Zaria mentioned:

a. being locked up in a room with no food or water,
b. being tied up with a green and brown rope on her hands, belly and back,
c. that she followed “him” outside to the porch,
d. she was able to follow to the porch because she had used her teeth to get out of the rope,
e. she was able to get up and walk around while still tied up,
f. she was locked in the room until the next day,
g. “he” showed her the key and “he” unlocked the door with a key,
h. he used a spatula to push the gummy bears in her bum.

[66] Subsequent interviews with Adam and an examination of his residence established that there is no porch off his bedroom, no key lock on his bedroom door, and no rope on his premises.

[67] The CFSGE worker, Jane Moore, noted several concerns regarding Zaria’s subsequent interviews:

a. She said, “I have to tell you some bad things.”
b. She said, “That’s all I remember on that one.”
c. She said she didn’t have a dad.
d. She went through a mental checklist on her fingers during a police interview.
e. She asked whether her mother should be watching the video when being interviewed by the police.

[68] Police officer Wilfong stated that Zaria’s comments seemed rehearsed.

[69] Ms. Moore’s notes indicate that “despite efforts at deeper questioning, she was unable to carry her descriptions forward with additional details that included any sensory descriptors or experiences we would expect a child of her age and stage of development to provide.”

OCL Report

[70] On November 23, 2022, the court requested the involvement of the OCL. On May 7, 2023, the file was accepted and assigned to Clinical Panel Member, Lisa Leiher for a s. 112 report.

[71] The CFSGE and the OPP each confirmed that investigations remained ongoing as of fall 2023. As such, the s. 112 report could not be completed. Ms. Leiher filed a discontinued report dated December 11, 2023. This discontinued report contains everything that a completed s. 112 report would include, except that the clinician makes no recommendations.

[72] Ms. Leiher arranged for an observation of Adam and Zaria together at the Flying Squirrel trampoline park. After a lengthy transition from Melanie to Adam, Zaria was observed to have a positive visit that lasted a full hour. There was no indication of any fear on Zaria's part regarding Adam. They played well together for the full hour.

[73] Ms. Leiher, in cross-examination, raised concern that Melanie was not following the plan regarding the Flying Squirrel visit. She was supposed to leave the building, but she did not. She did not create a positive environment for Zaria to encourage the transition and the visit with Adam. She did not engage with Ms. Leiher.

[74] The discontinued report includes Ms. Leiher’s records of her private meetings with Zaria. In the meetings, Zaria confirmed that her mother had “reminded” her of some things to say, including a recitation of phrases alleged to disclose sexual abuse.

[75] At the end of the first meeting, Zaria loudly whispered to Melanie, “I told her all the bad things.”

[76] During the second meeting, Zaria told Ms. Leiher that her recent visit with Adam at the Flying Squirrel “wasn’t fun.” She said the best part of the visit was seeing Melanie, and that the next visit would be better if Melanie came and jumped with her.

[77] The discontinued report includes statements from childcare workers from First Class Children’s Centre, where Zaria attended during her early years. They report that Melanie spoke poorly of Adam, that she believed Adam was trying to take Zaria away from her, and that Melanie stated her preference was to be a “sole parent.”

[78] Ms. Leiher, during her investigation, was able to access a GoFundMe page created by Melanie entitled “Protecting Child Victim from her Abuser.” The page included the outdated CFSGE “verification” letter. The letter was later removed, but the site remained open and accessible to the public as of the trial's commencement.

[79] Ms. Leiher outlined Melanie’s repeated portrayal of Adam as dangerous, and she highlighted some of the extreme language used by Melanie. This included:

a. Stating that Adam had kidnapped Zaria,
b. Stating Zaria returned from Adam’s care with “severe injuries” and “ligature marks”, and
c. Referring to Adam’s behaviour during exchanges as “predatory.”

[80] Other points of note outlined in Ms. Leiher’s report:

a. Zaria attended two access visits following the interim parenting order of May 31, 2023, wearing a t-shirt with the logo: “MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.”
b. Zaria expressed anger towards her paternal grandmother during her interviews, but she was unable to articulate the reason. She responded, “We don’t like her.”
c. Many instances of Melanie advocating against Adam’s parenting time are outlined.
d. Melanie said that she did not feel it was safe for Zaria to attend the court-ordered supervised access.
e. During the exchange at the observation visit, Melanie did not voice any encouragement for the visit, she did not reassure Zaria, she did not suggest she would have fun.
f. Melanie stated that the nature of future access between Zaria and Adam is up to Zaria.
g. Ms. Leiher, CFSGE and the YWCA all observe Zaria having positive interactions with Adam in the absence of Melanie. She is comfortable with Adam. She has fun with Adam. The behaviour of Zaria in her mother’s presence is in stark contrast, as seen in the exchange videos.

[81] Several video recordings of failed parenting exchanges are in evidence. In general, Melanie attends in a car with Zaria in the back seat. Melanie gets out, opens the back door and then stands back. Zaria then hops into the front seat. Sometimes she hides her face.

[82] On one occasion, Melanie is heard to say to Zaria, “They say I have to get you out of the car.”

[83] There is no recording of Melanie encouraging Zaria to complete the exchange.

[84] On one occasion, when Adam, left without any alternative, attempts to reach into the car to touch Zaria, Melanie screams at him to not touch her daughter.

[85] At the end of Melanie’s evidence in chief, she was asked if there was anything else she wished to bring to the court’s attention. She replied that she believes Adam is acting in bad faith. She said, “This is his payback.” She did not clarify whether it was his conduct or the litigation that she felt was retributive in nature.

[86] Melanie lives with Jim Lowenberg. He is referred to as Melanie’s partner throughout the case. Their relationship does not include sexual intimacy. Mr. Lowenberg has his separate bedroom in their residence. Melanie and Zaria each have their bedrooms, but Zaria always sleeps with Melanie. When asked about the specific nature of their future, the responses were vague. Melanie and Mr. Lowenberg previously lived together in Hamilton when Melanie was 16. They reconnected after Zaria was born. Melanie was emphatic in insisting that Mr. Lowenberg is never left alone in a caregiving role with Zaria. He is not in a parenting role for Zaria.

Law

[87] The case law in this area is now well-developed. Despite the lack of expert evidence on the presence or absence of alienation, the court can make a finding of alienation based solely on an analysis of the facts.

[88] Nicholson J. in Malholtra v. Henhoeffer, 2018 ONSC 6472 set out the following:

[108] Experts have developed a list of factors to aid in identifying parental alienation. Cases have cited these factors. For example, when analyzing the issue of parental alienation in C.(W.), MacPherson J. qualified Dr. Fidler as an expert in alienation. Dr. Fidler set out indicators of alienation; these have been cited in numerous cases: L.(A.G.) v. D.(K.B.), para 92; G.(J.M.) v. G.(L.D.), 2016 ONSC 3042, para 134; Maharaj v. Maharaj, 2016 ONSC 7925, para 140.

[109] The following are indicators of alienation:

Child Behaviours:

• View of parents one-sided, all good or all bad; idealizes one parent and devalues the other
• Vicious vilification of target parent; campaign of hatred
• Trivial, false and irrational reasons to justify hatred
• Reactions and perceptions unjustified or disproportionate to parent's behaviours
• Talks openly to anyone about rejected parent's perceived shortcomings
• Extends hatred to extended family and pets (hatred by association)
• No guilt or ambivalence regarding malicious treatment, hatred, etc.
• A stronger, but not necessarily healthy, psychological bond with alienating parent than with rejected parent
• Anger at rejected parent for abandonment; blames him/her for divorce
• Speed is brittle, a litany; obsessed; has an artificial quality; affect does not match words; no conviction; unchildlike, uses adult language; has a rehearsed quality
• Stories are repetitive and lacking in detail and depth
• Mimics what siblings report rather than own experience
• Denial of hope for reconciliation; no acknowledgement of desire for reconciliation
• Expresses worry for preferred parent, desire to care for that parent; or, defensive denial that child is indeed worried about parent

Alienating Parent Behaviours:

• Allows and insists that child makes decisions about contact
• Rarely talks about the other parent; uninterested in child's time with other parent after contact; gives a cold shoulder, silent treatment, or is moody after child's return from visit.
• No photos of target parent; removes reminders of the other parent
• Refusal to hear positive comments about rejected parent; quick to discount good times as trivial and unimportant
• No encouragement of calls to other parent between visits; rationalizes that child does not ask
• Tells child fun things that were missed during visit with other parent
• Indulges child with material possessions and privileges
• Sets few limits or is rigid about routines, rules and expectations
• Refuses to speak directly to parent; refuses to be in same room or close proximity; does not let target parent come to door to pick up child
• No concern for missed visits with other parent
• Makes statements and then denies what was said
• Body language and non-verbal communication reveals lack of interest, disdain and disapproval
• Engages in inquisition of child after visits
• Rejected parent is discouraged or refused permission to attend school events and activities
• Telephone messages, gifts and mail from other parent to child are destroyed, ignored or passed on to the child with disdain
• Distorts any comments of child that might justify accusations
• Does not believe that child has any need for relationship with other parent
• When child calls and is quiet or non-communicative, parent wrongly assumes pressure from target parent, or that child is not comfortable with target parent; evidence of bad parenting; does not appreciate that child is uncomfortable talking to alienating parent about target parent
• Portrays other parent as dangerous, may inconsistently act fearful of other parent in front of child
• Exaggerates negative attributes of other parent, and omits anything positive
• Delusional false statements repeated to child; distorts history and other parent's participation in the child's life; claims other parent has totally changed since separation
• Projection of own thoughts, feelings and behaviours onto the other parent
• Does not correct child's rude, defiant and/or omnipotent behaviour directed towards the other parent, but would never permit child to do this with others
• Convinced of harm, when there is no evidence
• False or fabricated allegations of sexual, physical and/or emotional abuse
• Denigrates and exaggerates flaws of rejected parent to child
• Says other parent left "us", divorced "us" and doesn't love "us"
• Over-involves child in adult matters and litigation
• Child required to keep secrets and spy or report back on other parent
• Child required to be messenger
• Overt and covert threats to withdraw love and affection from child unless other parent is rejected
• Extreme lack of courtesy to rejected parent
• Relocation for minor reasons and with little concern for effects on child

[89] Also in Malhotra v. Henhoeffer, 2018 ONSC 6472, para 104, the court 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."

[90] In Bors v. Beleuta, 2019 ONSC 7029, affirmed in Bors v. Bors, 2021 ONCA 513, Justice van Melle adopted a statement by the court-appointed assessor, Dr. Michael Stambrook, about the abusiveness of parental alienation:

“It is an abusive practice. It is child abuse when it occurs. It's emotionally abusive. It cripples and stunts children's development because the reality they knew at one point is undermined by this process. It is dangerous for the development because in [an] ideal situation, children should feel free to love and interact with the adults who are important in their lives, unencumbered by twisted turns of relational loyalties that are, unfortunately misplaced in this situation.”

[91] In case of severe irrational alienation, the alienated child must be removed from the favoured parent for a time. S.G.B. v. S.J.L., 2010 ONSC 3717, para 65.

[92] In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child. Children's Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c. C.12, s.24(1).

Does the Evidence Establish Parental Alienation?

[93] From 2019 forward, Melanie and Lynn Grillo have been hypervigilant about Zaria’s physical state when returning from Adam’s care. She has been regularly examined and photographed, seemingly to build a dossier. None of the photographs suggests abuse or neglect. No doctor had concerns that Zaria was being abused.

[94] The August 22, 2022, recording is problematic for many reasons.

[95] The recording is audio only. Melanie is proficient with her phone's video capabilities.

[96] Melanie said she started the recording within seconds of Zaria's disclosures beginning. Lynn Grillo corroborated that. But the transcript of the recording shows that Zaria did not mention key information until either Lynn Grillo or Melanie introduced it.

[97] The word “stump” is not mentioned by Zaria until Lynn Grillo introduces it into the conversation. Lynn Grillo, in cross-examination, stated that Zaria had mentioned this before the recording started. That, however, was never mentioned to any investigator or worker before. It is not consistent with the recording starting within seconds of the start of the disclosures.

[98] Zaria does not make any clear statement about inappropriate actions. Melanie and Lynn Grillo fill the conversation with leading questions and suggestive comments.

[99] There are significant gaps and spaces between Zaria’s statements. It does not sound “organic” or “spontaneous” as Melanie suggests.

[100] Zaria’s comments that don’t fit the mother’s narrative are ignored. Zaria says that she threw the gummy bears right off and then “I stuck them right in his eyeball….so he can see me.” This is nonsensical, as is much of the recording. It raises doubts as to whether the child is reciting real or imaginary events.

[101] Zaria did not seem upset. She was calm throughout.

[102] The CFSGE workers verified the sexual abuse concerns based mainly on the audio recording. They acknowledged that no information was received from Dr. Dhalla before making the determination. They did not fully explore the father’s concerns regarding coaching or the toileting issues Zaria was experiencing.

[103] The ICRP examined the entire case. They unanimously overturned the verification finding. They recommended that unsupervised parenting time resume as soon as possible.

[104] The additional disclosure made to the therapist in August of 2023 weakens the allegation against Adam. Zaria’s reiteration of the abuse story to Ms. Herschberger, and then subsequently to the police, a year after the initial disclosure, is riddled with problems.

[105] The new information (ropes around her shoulder and neck, confinement without food or drink, access to keys and a nonexistent porch) is implausible to say the least.

[106] Combine this with the many observations that Zaria seemed to be following a script in her recent interviews, mentally surveying whether she had hit all her talking points, and it is not possible to put any reliance on Zaria’s disclosures of alleged abuse.

[107] Zaria’s interactions with Adam post August 22, 2022, are not consistent with an abused child. The few visits that Adam had were all reported to be positive. Zaria was noted as laughing, giggling, and playing with Adam. No fear was noted.

[108] During the September 19, 2022, visit, Zaria was holding on to Adam, not wanting to let go. Zaria leaned over to Adam with her arms out, wanting to be picked up and hugged.

[109] Melanie is not able to open herself up to the possibility that Adam is innocent. She still refers to him directly and indirectly as an abuser and a pedophile.

[110] Melanie tells Zaria and others in the presence of Zaria that she has been abused.

[111] Melanie has seen and read the reports of the positive interactions between Zaria and Adam, which occurred without Melanie present. She insists, regardless, that Zaria is afraid of Adam. She has never acknowledged the possibility that Zaria is feeding off her negativity and has no inherent fear of her father.

[112] Melanie insists she is doing all she can during the attempted parenting exchanges to get Zaria into Adam’s care. She is not. The videos are very clear. Her body language, her actual words, her tone, and her actions all communicate to Zaria that she doesn't have to go, her mom doesn’t want her to go, and there will be no consequences if she doesn’t go.

[113] No example exists of Melanie genuinely encouraging Zaria to complete the exchanges. Sometimes she says the right things about wanting it to happen, but her actions speak louder than her words. Instead, the evidence included Melanie flipping Adam the bird through a car windshield, a behaviour that Zaria soon mimicked.

[114] Her verbal outburst at Adam, screaming at him not to touch her daughter, as he tried to reach into the car where Zaria was playing keep-away, was over the top. It did not sound genuine. It sounded theatrical.

[115] Melanie’s claim that she has no control over Zaria’s jumping back and forth between the front and back seats of the car is not credible. She is a young child. Melanie has no problem controlling Zaria elsewhere. Melanie could have easily controlled that situation if she had wanted to.

[116] Zaria’s level of distress during the failed exchanges appears to be insincere. It seems like play-acting, the kind of emotion that young children easily turn on and off. This impression is supported by the fact that Zaria does warm up to her father immediately each time she is allowed to, without Melanie present. Unfortunately, that has been limited to about seven total hours since the events of August 22, 2022.

[117] Ms. Leiher noted that there were no documented or observed behaviours by Adam during his parenting time that would warrant Zaria’s rejection of him.

[118] Zaria has been exposed to Melanie’s negative view of Adam. She said, “We don’t like him,” when speaking about Adam. The “we” is referring to the maternal family constellation.

[119] On multiple parenting exchanges, Melanie dressed Zaria in a t-shirt with the logo “MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.” This overtly suggests to Zaria that Melanie is opposed to the visit, and so Zaria should be as well.

[120] Ms. Leiher noted that Zaria’s behaviour toward Adam in the presence of her mother is in stark contrast to her behaviour in her absence.

[121] The interim court order specifically allows for parenting time at Adam’s residence, with Melanie to physically remove Zaria from the car and to leave the scene. This has not happened once despite the clear wording of the order.

[122] Many of the factors listed in Malholtra v. Henhoeffer are present here.

[123] Melanie insists that Zaria should make decisions about contact with Adam.

[124] Melanie does not encourage Zaria’s parenting time with Adam.

[125] Melanie does not recognize the good times had by Zaria and Adam together.

[126] Melanie is physically tense and anxious when in the presence of both Adam and Zaria. Her body language and non-verbal communication reveal disdain and disapproval of Adam as a parent figure.

[127] Melanie shows no remorse regarding the many failed parenting exchanges.

[128] Melanie and her mother were extensively inquisitive of Zaria after her visits. They kept an injury log, including photographs of alleged injuries and measurements of the child’s anus.

[129] Easter gifts left by Adam for Zaria in front of Melanie’s residence were not acknowledged by Melanie. He is unsure if they were passed on.

[130] Melanie distorts comments made by Zaria that could be used to justify accusations. The entire “gummy bear” narrative is not credible as evidence of assault. The best-case scenario for Melanie is that she heard Zaria making some comments that were of interest. Then, because she was already hyper-vigilant about Adam’s treatment of Zaria, she “helped” Zaria expand on her comments until they fit Melanie’s existing belief.

[131] Melanie doubled down on the narrative, even when Zaria’s subsequent statements were increasingly suspect and dubious. Zaria appeared to have been coached and reminded on several occasions of how she was to recite the narrative.

[132] Melanie does not believe that Zaria needs a relationship with Adam. She has said the right thing at times, but her actions expose her feelings.

[133] Melanie openly portrays Adam as dangerous to Zaria and to others in the presence of Zaria. She has encouraged Zaria to tell professionals how Adam hurt her, even in the face of her reluctance to do so.

[134] Melanie does not control Zaria’s negative behaviour towards Adam. This is most obvious in the failed exchange videos and in the fact that the “MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD” shirt was encouraged.

[135] Melanie refuses to consider that Adam did not harm Zaria. She ignores all positive evidence that Zaria is happy in Adam’s care, ignores glaring problems with the abuse narrative, and shows disdain for anyone who does not share her belief in the abuse narrative.

[136] Melanie encourages Zaria to believe that Adam will hurt her again if given the chance.

[137] Melanie over involves Zaria in adult issues, even after being advised against it by professionals. She adamantly states that she will be the arbiter of what information her child needs to stay safe.

[138] Melanie is discourteous to Adam. This has been the case from the outset, as evidenced by conflict while in the NICU, exchanges at Zehr’s, criticisms of his early parenting skills, withholding meaningful communication, calling him a pedophile in public spaces and in front of Zaria, and flipping him the bird.

[139] Adam’s behaviour has not always been exemplary, but he is not an alienating parent. There is no evidence to suggest that he would be an alienating parent if given the chance.

[140] Zaria has an irrational disdain for Adam’s mother. They had a close relationship before August 2022. Zaria could not articulate why that changed. She said, “we” don’t like her.

[141] Melanie is an alienating parent. Zaria has been alienated from Adam and his family.

What Remedy is in Zaria’s Best Interest?

[142] The parties have agreed to commence reconciliation therapy.

[143] Adam is worried that Melanie’s agreement to this on the eve of this trial is a ploy to make herself appear amenable to Adam’s parenting goals and to dissuade the court from reversing custody.

[144] Given Melanie’s established willingness to ignore clear wording in parenting orders and her belief that Zaria should be the primary determinant of her readiness and willingness to engage with Adam, Adam’s fears are not unfounded.

[145] It is possible that Melanie would not engage in the reconciliation therapy in good faith.

[146] The reconciliation therapist, Mr. Tribe, was clear that his role was not dependent upon the parenting order made by the court. He would engage with the family regardless of the parenting regime in place.

[147] Zaria’s alienation is a form of abuse. Melanie shows no sign of understanding how her actions are abusive to Zaria. Melanie is determined and steadfast in her incorrect belief that Adam is a danger to Zaria.

[148] There is no expectation that this abusive situation will be corrected if Zaria stays in Melanie’s immediate care.

[149] Zaria must be placed in Adam’s care immediately.

[150] Adam has established that he will encourage Zaria’s relationship with Melanie. He has been consistent throughout Zaria’s life on that point. Nothing in evidence suggests otherwise.

[151] Given that Zaria is young and the interruption of her relationship with Adam has been relatively short, the expectation is that the alienation can be overcome and reversed quickly.

[152] Adam should have the ability and the responsibility to control the parenting schedule until it is normalized.

[153] Adam seeks final sole decision-making authority and the primary residence of Zaria. He suggests that, after reconciliation is complete, Melanie will have alternate weekend parenting time and a mid-week overnight.

[154] The parties live close enough to each other to facilitate a shared parenting arrangement. Assuming that the short-term parenting orders are successful as hoped, and that Zaria’s relationships with each parent are healthy, and that Melanie accepts and embraces Adam’s role, then shared parenting is the goal.

[155] Adam will be given the ability to expand Melanie’s parenting time as he deems appropriate as the decision-maker. The stated expectation is to work toward a shared-parenting schedule that is best for the parties and Zaria. If the reconciliation therapy is ongoing, Adam would be expected to consider the therapist's input. The court will remain available if Melanie and Adam are unable to agree on matters going forward.

[156] Zaria’s schooling should be under Adam’s control. There is no indication as to how long it will take to normalize the parenting regime. It is hoped that it will not take long, but hope is not a plan. Adam confirmed he has arranged an appropriate school for Zaria. Zaria has friends in this school. No difficulty is expected in transitioning Zaria from homeschooling to school in Adam’s catchment.

[157] Melanie has homeschooled Zaria to date. It should be noted that this decision is not related to Melanie’s homeschool preference. There is no evidence that Zaria’s academic or social development is deficient. Homeschooling is an excellent option for some families in some circumstances. The decision to give Adam control of Zaria’s schooling is directly related to Melanie’s alienation of Zaria from Adam. Nothing else.

[158] The transition of Zaria to Adam’s care is an important matter to address. This decision is expected to be released on Monday, June 16, 2025. Zaria will be transitioned to Adam’s care on Friday, June 20, at 4:00 p.m. Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, Adam will attend at Melanie’s residence to pick up Zaria. He will be entitled to put the police on notice and to have them ready if needed to enforce the transition. It would be highly problematic if Melanie acted in any way other than in accordance with the letter and spirit of this decision. There is no reason why she cannot facilitate a smooth transition for Zaria.

Child Support

[159] Melanie failed to provide proper financial disclosure in this matter. She did not disclose details of the termination of her permanent employment, her severance package, her recent contract position, or efforts to obtain fresh employment.

[160] She was vague about her expected income in the short term.

[161] Melanie is educated and employable. She previously earned approximately $90,000 annually.

[162] The parenting regime, in the long run, is to be shared. Zaria is currently living exclusively with Adam in the short term.

[163] It is not currently appropriate to make a child support order. It would not be efficient to fix child support based on Adam having primary care if the expectation is for a shared parenting regime to be implemented. This is particularly the case when Melanie is between employers, with no income.

[164] Best to let the parenting situation stabilize while Melanie’s employment also stabilizes. Then the parents should easily resolve support on a shared parenting basis, failing which, the matter can come back before me for determination.

Orders

[165] The Applicant Father, Edwin Adam Lauren Newton, (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant Father"), shall have final sole decision-making responsibility for Zaria Rose Grillo-Newton, born June 1, 2018, (hereinafter referred to as "Zaria").

[166] The child Zaria shall attend school in the Applicant Father’s catchment.

[167] The Applicant Father shall have possession and control of Zaria's passport, birth certificate, health card and any other government documents.

[168] The Applicant Father shall be authorized to renew Zaria's passport and government documentation without the Respondent Mother, Melanie Grillo's (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Mother), consent.

[169] The child Zaria has been alienated from the Applicant Father by the Respondent Mother.

[170] The child Zaria shall primarily reside with the Applicant Father.

[171] Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by the parties, the child, Zaria, shall be available for transition into the Applicant Father’s care on June 20, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. The exchange shall take place at the residence of the Respondent Mother. The Respondent Mother shall take all steps required to ensure that the child exits her residence and leaves with the Applicant Father. The Respondent Mother is not required to be in attendance during the exchange.

[172] Upon request and receipt of an original court order or certified copy of the order, pursuant to section 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the police force having jurisdiction in any area where it appears that the child Zaria Rose Grillo-Newton, born June 1, 2018, may be, shall locate, apprehend and deliver the child to Edwin Adam Lauren Newton.

[173] For the purpose of locating and apprehending the child, a member of a police force 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 at any time. This section of this order shall expire on July 31, 2025.

[174] The Respondent Mother shall have contact and parenting time with the child, Zaria, at the sole discretion of the Applicant Father, as to the location, nature, timing, and duration of the contact.

[175] The Applicant Father shall exercise his discretion to, as soon as is appropriate given the finding of alienation, expand the Respondent Mother’s contact and parenting time eventually to a shared parenting regime.

[176] No earlier than August 4, 2025, either party may seek direction from the Court to address the Applicant Father’s exercise of his discretion regarding parenting. R. F. MacLeod remains seized of the matter.

[177] No child support order is made given the Respondent Mother’s lack of full disclosure, lack of employment income and the expected evolution of the parenting regime. The matter is adjourned and shall be brought back before me for further submissions upon the request of either party, but no earlier than August 4, 2025, and no later than October 31, 2025.

[178] The parties shall make arrangements for the orderly transfer of Zaria’s personal property to the Applicant Father’s care.

[179] Cost submissions of no longer than three pages, plus offers to settle, plus bills of costs, may be filed by the Applicant Father on or before July 11, 2025, and by the Respondent Mother on or before July 25, 2025. If none are received by those dates, the issue of costs shall be deemed resolved.

R. F. MacLeod
Released: June 16, 2025