Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-23-00033957-0000 Date: 2025-08-25 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Valerie Marinovic, Applicant And: Daniel Marinovic, Respondent

Before: M. Kraft, J.

Counsel: Alexandra Aquila, for the Applicant Respondent, In person

Heard: August 19, 2025

Endorsement

Background and Overview

[1] The parties have three daughters, ages 16, 14, and nearly 10. In 2023, they retained Howard Hurwitz for a s.30 parenting assessment. His final report, dated February 1, 2024, recommends that Valerie Marinovic have sole decision-making responsibility, the children reside primarily with her, and Daniel Marinovic have parenting time for 8 hours per week with no overnights. The parties have followed this arrangement for the past two years.

[2] Daniel brings this motion for an order requiring Valerie and the children to attend for reunification therapy with Marcie Goldhar for 6 months, following which, Howard Hurwitz will update his s.30 parenting assessment. In addition, Daniel seeks the right of first refusal to pick up and drop off the children from their activities if Valerie is unable to do so, an order that the parties communicate on the Our Family Wizard application and that he and Valerie attend mediation to resolve their outstanding issues with Martha McCarthy as ordered by Mathen, J. on March 18, 2025.

[3] Valerie seeks an order dismissing Daniel's motion. She argues that reunification therapy is contrary to Howard Hurwitz's recommendations for the children and seeks an order implementing the recommendations of Howard Hurwitz as set out in his s.30 parenting assessment.

Issues to be Decided

[4] The issues for me to decide on this motion are as follows:

(a) Is it in the children's best interests to order reunification therapy for them with Daniel?

(b) Is it in the children's best interests to grant Daniel a right of first refusal to pick up and drop off the children at their activities if Valerie is unable to do so?

(c) Is it in the children's best interests for Howard Hurwitz to complete an updated s. 30 parenting assessment within 6 months from now?

(d) Is it in the children's best interests to make an order implementing the recommendations of Howard Hurwitz set out in the assessment report, dated February 1, 2024, on a temporary basis?

Background

[5] The parties were married on October 23, 2004. They separated on July 4, 2022.

[6] Their three children are: N., born February 21, 2009, T., born May 26, 2011, and I., born September 3, 2015.

[7] It is not disputed that the separation was difficult for Daniel, and he was distraught. Daniel has sworn that Valerie "tricked" him into leaving the matrimonial home under the guise of the separation being temporary. He submits that Valerie then strategically filed for divorce, made allegations of emotional and physical abuse, and claimed he had serious anger management issues. Daniel desperately wanted to reconcile. Throughout Daniel's materials filed for the motion and, during his submissions, it was clear that he felt deceived by the process around their separation and blames Valerie for the breakdown in his relationship with the children.

[8] Daniel describes struggling with a change in his career, financial stress, and marital difficulties at the time of separation. He acknowledges that he had an emotional breakdown in July 2022 and began therapy with Dr. Andrew Matthew, a clinical psychologist. He claims he is currently mentally stable; Howard Hurwitz's recommendations do not reflect his current mental state, and are outdated.

[9] Valerie's narrative is diametrically opposed to Daniel in terms of his parenting role during the marriage. She describes Daniel's behaviours prior to separation and to date, as being erratic and highly emotional. She has serious concerns about the children's exposure to the conflict between her and Daniel and to Daniel's volatile emotions. She also describes Daniel as having been verbally and emotionally abusive toward her. The Howard Hurwitz assessment report finds that the children witnessed Daniel's declining behaviour, and this created anxiety and fear for them. Valerie deposes that Daniel's emotional outbursts continued well after separation and continue to date.

[10] It is agreed that Daniel's relationship with the children is fractured, and he wants to restore his relationship with his daughters. Howard Hurwitz noted in his assessment report that this was Daniel's desired outcome at that time. It remains his desire today.

[11] Throughout Daniel's affidavit and his submissions, he made references to Valerie intentionally restricting his parenting time with the children and excluding him from participation in decisions impacting the children. He describes being "systematically excluded from parenting" by Valerie. I note that this perception is at odds with the evidence on record from Marcie Goldhar and Howard Hurwitz.

[12] Daniel's affidavit states that he has made significant clinical progress since the Hurwitz assessment and that the recommendations are not reflective of his current mental health, stability, or parenting capacity. Howard Hurwitz's recommendations set out clinical goals for Daniel which included:

(a) Daniel to better understand the negative impact of the parental conflict on the children;

(b) Daniel to disengage from Valerie such that he comes to terms with the reality of the separation and impending divorce;

(c) Daniel to not pressure her to a reconciliation;

(d) Daniel to develop the capacity to regulate his emotions in the midst of the parental conflict and his unresolved individual issues. The emotional regulation is particularly important during his interaction with the child;

(e) Daniel to not have emotional outbursts or crying in front of the children;

(f) Daniel to develop appropriate problem solving and conflict resolution skills in the midst of his individual parenting and co-parenting;

(g) Daniel to not make any negative comments to the children about Valerie or her family;

(h) Daniel to not request/pressure or guilt the children or Valerie to have increased parenting time or to make statements that make them feel guilty about not having such;

(i) Daniel to not disclose to the children how hard a time he is having with the separation; and

(j) Daniel to be child focused in his interactions with the children such that he focuses on their needs, issues, concerns, etc. instead of his own. This involves him listening to the children's voices.

[13] Daniel states in his affidavit that he has "rebuilt strong, loving and meaningful relationships with all three of my daughters, even despite her [Valerie] leveraging my temporary health struggles and them being kept away from me, and independent of the Applicant's support or cooperation." Valerie disagrees with this statement and asserts that the children have not rebuilt their relationship with Daniel.

[14] Despite Daniel's assertions that he has rebuilt his relationships with the children, the evidence on record demonstrates that Daniel has not met the clinical goals set by Howard Hurwitz in his report. For example:

(a) In May 2025, Valerie brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home because Daniel had threatened to move back into the matrimonial home with her and the children. This relief was granted by Mathen, J. on May 30, 2025. Despite the terms of the order, Daniel attended at the property on multiple occasions demanding entry which has caused the children and Valerie considerable distress.

(b) In her Endorsement, Mathen, J. made several findings against Daniel, including that he has "behaved erratically". Justice Mathen also made a finding at paragraph 39(d) that although some time has lapsed since Mr. Hurwitz's report "the observations track the current evidence".

(c) According to Valerie, since the Mathen J. order of May 30, 2025, Daniel has created considerable conflict between the parties and engaged in similar problematic behaviours that were noted by Howard Hurwitz in his assessment report.

[15] Daniel has suggested that Marcie Goldhar be the reunification therapist. Marcie Goldhar is a social worker and family therapist. She began working with the family in the Fall of 2022. She was providing "family counselling" and "reunification therapy" to the family as confirmed by Howard Hurwitz when describing her role. In January 2023, Marcie Goldhar communicated to counsel that she could no longer provide counselling because she did not think it was beneficial to the parties. She indicated that Daniel had a mental health breakdown and had difficulty regulating his emotions. Ms. Goldhar recommended a s.30 parenting assessment and told Mr. Hurwitz that Valerie is not an alienator, and she facilitates parenting time with Daniel and the children. There is no evidence on record that Marcie Goldhar is willing or able to act as a reunification therapist for the family as Daniel proposes.

[16] Nowhere in Daniel's affidavit does he acknowledge the impact of the separation and aftermath on the children. Despite Marcie Goldhar and Howard Hurwitz explaining to Daniel that his inability to regulate his emotions has had a significant impact on the children, and the children have expressed that they do not wish to spend more time with him, Daniel continues to blame Valerie for the fracture in his relationship with them. Howard Hurwitz noted in his report, "… Mr. Marinovic's perspective of his needs is what the children and Ms. Marinovic can do for him vs. what he needs to do to repair their strained relationship. He cannot understand that his focusing on his own personal needs vs. the children and Ms. Marinovic's needs is what's contributing to their relationship difficulties."

[17] On the one hand, Daniel submits that the Hurwitz report is outdated. On the other hand, Daniel states in his affidavit, "I am in agreement with Mr. Hurwitz's report that therapy is required and that it must start on this basis."

[18] In his report, Mr. Hurwitz recommended that the children engage in counselling with a family therapist "that can assist them in developing coping mechanisms to deal with family conflict…[and] [develop] ways to manage their anxiety…[as well as]…how to respond to their father when he makes statements that cause them duress." Mr. Hurwitz further recommended that the children see either Ms. Laurie Stein, Ms. Sherry Rapuch or Ms. Joanna Seidel for this purpose. Valerie deposes that she sought to reach out and engage one of these therapists; however, Daniel has refused.

[19] Howard Hurwitz's report also stated that the family therapist could involve either or both parents after a period of three months, once the children have had counselling. The focus of the family counselling would be to address relationship issues between each of the children and their father.

Issue One: Is it in the children's best interests to order reunification therapy for them with Daniel?

[20] The jurisdiction for the court to make parenting orders is found in s.16.1 of the Divorce Act.

[21] The court is required only to consider the best interests of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order.

[22] The best interest analysis is only to be centered on the rights of a child, be completed from a child-centred perspective.

[23] The Courts have jurisdiction to make a therapeutic order pursuant to s.28(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act as well as pursuant to ss. s.16(1) and (6) of the Divorce Act; Leelaratna v. Leelaratna, 2018 ONCA 5983, at paras 45-46.

[24] In Leelaratna, additional factors were considered relevant to a judge's discretion to make a therapeutic order as set out in paragraph 69 of that decision:

(a) Is the cause for the family dysfunction (whether alienation, alignment or reasonable estrangement) clear based on expert evidence or otherwise? If not, does it matter in light of the type of therapy proposed?

(b) Is there compelling evidence that the counselling or therapy would be beneficial to the child?

(c) At what stage is the therapeutic order sought (motion based on potentially incomplete evidence vs. trial based on full evidentiary record)?

(d) Are the parents likely to meaningfully engage in counselling despite their initial resistance to the making of the order? Will a strong judicial recommendation compel participation and cooperation by the recalcitrant parent?

(e) Is the child likely to voluntarily engage in counselling therapy?

[25] Additionally, the Courts generally refuse to make therapeutic orders when the child is both (a) opposed to the therapy and (b) when the child is sufficiently mature to make an informed decision in respect of said opposition; See C. B. v. E. G., 2023 ONSC 1571. The 'best interests' standard must be interpreted in a way that reflects and addresses an adolescent's evolving capacities for autonomous decision-making and children's wishes should carry greater weight as their maturity increases; at para. 22. In other words, the older a child is and the greater their opposition is to therapeutic orders, the less inclined the courts should be to make such orders.

[26] The parties' children, N. and T., are 16 and 14 years old. Their wishes should be considered when making an Order for reunification therapy, as requested by Daniel. Daniel has presented no evidence that either N. or T. are agreeable to engaging in this type of therapy with him, nor has he presented evidence as to why reunification therapy is in the best interest of the children. The only evidence on record is that N. and T. do not wish to spend more time with Daniel. Daniel's materials state that reunification therapy is necessary as a "reset" for the family. He does not address the impact of potentially forcing a therapeutic process on the children.

[27] In order to assess whether it is in the children's best interests to order them to attend a reunification therapy process, taking a look at Howard Hurwitz's assessment report and findings is critical since his recommendations were made only considering the children's best interests.

[28] Pursuant to s.30(9) of the Children's Law Reform Act, courts may rely on the findings contained in a s.30 assessment report. Although the findings concluded in a s.30 parenting assessment are not binding on the court, if the facts underlying the clinical findings of the assessor are not contested, they can be relied on by courts.

[29] In his assessment report dated February 1, 2024, Mr. Hurwitz made several serious findings against Daniel, upon which I rely, including that:

(a) "[Mr. Marinovic] fails to understand how his mental health has impacted on the children and his role in creating conflict. It also impacts his parenting and strained relationship with the children…He fails to identify his abusive behaviours and does not understand the impact of domestic violence on [Valerie] and the sense that he would attempt to control her ability to make decisions for the children…his plan is based on what he wants vs. what is in the best interests…"

(b) "He [Mr. Marinovic] has frequent emotional outbursts by showing up at the house, banging on the door to let him in and other relentless actions to achieve a reconciliation (emails/text messages to [Valerie]…"

(c) "His behaviour has served to cause fear, anxiety and worry for these children and [Ms. Marinovic]. It is my view that all three children want a relationship with him but they are fearful of doing so because of his behaviour. As a result, [Mr. Marinovic] is unable to respond to or meet the needs of the children at this time due to the current status of his mental health. As a result, he is unable to take on the significant parenting role that he wants to have. In addition, I am concerned that he expects children to meet his needs and hear about his struggles. This is not the role of a healthy parent/child relationship."

[30] In his affidavit, Daniel alleges that Valerie has "persistently excluded him from parenting decision and contact with the children" and blames her for his poor relationship with the children. This was refuted in Mr. Hurwitz's report where he found that "there is no evidence that [Ms. Marinovic] is alienating Mr. Marinovic or gatekeeping his relationship with the girls." Mr. Hurwitz further noted: "the girls desire to have limited contact with him is exclusively due to Mr. Marinovic's own behaviour vs. his perception that [Ms. Marinovic] is interfering in their relationship…"

[31] As a result of his findings, Mr. Hurwitz recommended that Valerie have decision making authority, and that the children primarily reside with her. It was further recommended that Daniel have parenting time on Wednesdays from 3:30 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. (though the parties agreed the time to be 4:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. as they had followed prior to the recommendations) and Sunday from 12:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. (though, again, the parties agreed to 4:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m.). This schedule has been followed for more than two years now. Mr. Hurwitz noted that overnight visits with Daniel would "trigger a crisis for the children."

[32] Howard Hurwitz made a number of findings set out in his s.30 parenting assessment report in terms of the girls' desire not to have more parenting time with Daniel. He found that:

(a) "the girls' desire to have limited contact with [Daniel] is exclusively due to Mr. Marinovic's own behaviours vs. his perception that [Valerie] is interfering in their relationship."

(b) "Of all three children, [N.] is the most vocal about not wanting to spend time with her father. She is able to articulate reasons for this and is able to support her views about wanting restricted contact. N. is not being coached by anyone to have these views nor is she wanting to say things to please anyone else, such as her mother."

(c) "T. has been experiencing anxiety, which was corroborated by both parents, extended family members and their paediatrician. There is a strong correlation between the parental conflict and T.'s anxiety."

(d) "T. has demonstrating anxiety in spending time with Mr. Marinovic. It is my view that when she sees her father's emotional outbursts, she becomes scared and her anxiety increases. This is likely the reason why she doesn't want to spend time with him. T. needs counselling to manage her anxiety as well as helping her develop insight into her father's behaviour."

[33] Howard Hurwitz did not recommend that the children engage in reunification therapy with Daniel. Rather, he recommended that the children begin family therapy, and he named three individuals he recommended to do so. Valerie has attempted to engage one of the three named therapists to start therapy with the children but Daniel refuses to agree.

[34] Daniel has also provided no evidence that Ms. Goldhar will re-engage with the family (per Mr. Hurwitz' report at page 3, Ms. Goldhar withdrew as therapist as she "felt that the counselling was not productive.") Furthermore, as noted in Mr. Hurwitz's report at page 60: "In January, she [Ms. Goldhar] told the lawyers that she couldn't provide counselling any longer as it was not beneficial to the parties. She indicated that Mr. Marinovic had a mental health breakdown and he has difficulty with emotional regulation." According to Mr. Hurwitz in his report, Ms. Goldhar further advised "he [Mr. Marinovic] can't regulate his behaviour nor the problematic comments he makes to the children. Mr. Marinovic is sexist in his interaction with Ms. Goldhar, too, and treats Ms. Goldhar very poorly."

[35] Despite Daniel's assertions in his Affidavit that he has "made significant clinical progress," Valerie deposes that Daniel's behaviour has not changed since appearing before Justice Mathen on May 29, 2025. If anything, it has gotten worse. In particular, she swears that:

(a) Daniel has admitted to Valerie in several text messages sent after May 30, 2025, that he is "not ok", that he "needs help", that he is "nonfunctional" and "self destructing."

(b) On June 9, 2025, Daniel called Valerie, demanding to speak with her and threatening his life. Daniel then arrived at the matrimonial home, claiming he "needed help", which Valerie encouraged him to get. Instead, Daniel parked in the driveway and fell asleep. Valerie noted that Daniel's face was bruised, indicating to her that he had been hitting himself (something he has historically done).

(c) On June 10, 2025, Daniel sent Valerie a series of alarming and threatening text messages, including making inappropriate comments about her lawyer, advising "…get that Slavec and his cancerous fingers away from our children."

(d) On June 22, 2025, Daniel came to the door of the matrimonial home, demanding to speak with Valerie and continuously ringing the doorbell. He then began hitting himself and was on his knees, crying out "my house, my house!" Valerie opened the door asking Daniel to leave the property, at which point he pushed past her and entered the matrimonial home. She was able to push him outside and lock the door. Unfortunately, all three children were home and witnessed this behaviour. Daniel then proceeded to enter the backyard of the property, banging on the windows, and demanding to speak with Valerie. Given Daniel refused to leave the property, Valerie took the children to the park. Daniel proceeded to follow them there. While at the park, Daniel asked the children if they "really want to lose the house" and if they want "mommy and daddy to divorce". Daniel continued to yell at the children, telling them how hard things were for him.

(e) Daniel has claimed that his family has hired a "private investigator", who has followed Valerie and taken photographs of her. Daniel has sent these photographs he had taken to Valerie, her parents, and members of her extended family. Daniel sent a text to Valerie's parents on July 23, 2025, of photographs of her spending time with another man, accusing her of having an affair, and indicating that "there are more photos and they're not good." Daniel has subsequently threatened to release further photos of Valerie (including those of an intimate nature) in the event that Valerie does not provide him with a settlement proposal.

(f) On June 24, 2025, Daniel called Valerie's phone a total of 210 times demanding to speak with her.

[36] When the Court asked Daniel to confirm whether he pushed himself into the matrimonial home after the exclusive possession order was made, Daniel admitted to doing so. Apparently, in the past two months, Daniel has disengaged and is not having contact with Valerie.

[37] While Daniel claims that his "relationship with the children has since been restored" and that he enjoys "a very positive, though extremely limited, relationship with our children", there is no evidence which substantiates same. By contrast, Valerie's affidavit states that "the children's relationship with Daniel is more tenuous and strained than ever due to his ongoing behaviour and the children's exposure to conflict."

[38] At page 125 of his report and recommendations, Mr. Hurwitz cites "clinical goals" for Daniel to achieve, including the "capacity to regulate his emotions", "not have emotional outbursts in front of the children", and "develop appropriate problem solving and conflict resolution skills", among other goals.

[39] Based on the conflicted written record before me, which Daniel does not dispute, I am not persuaded that Daniel has achieved the clinical objectives outlined by Mr. Hurwitz.

[40] In applying the facts of this case to the additional factors, the court is to consider in making a therapeutic order as Daniel seeks, set out in Leelaratna, I find as follows:

(a) The evidence on record is clear that the fracture in the children's relationship with Daniel is not caused by alienation on Valerie's part, but rather is based on the children's reactions to Daniel's behaviour prior to and after separation. For this reason, the family therapy suggested by Howard Hurwitz is needed to ensure the children develop the skills to understand Daniel's behaviour and manage their feelings, before they feel forced to engage in reunification therapy.

(b) There is no compelling evidence before the Court that reunification counselling is the mode of therapy that will be beneficial to the children. Rather, the family therapy model proposed by Howard Hurwitz was his thoughtful recommendation, which includes an aspect of reunification therapy once the children have engaged in their own family therapy for three months.

(c) Based on the record before me, even if the Court were inclined to make an order for reunification therapy, which it is not, it is highly unlikely that N. would participate and it's unclear as to whether T. would participate. For these reasons, the family therapy model recommended by Howard Hurwitz in his assessment report makes the most sense.

[41] I find that it is not in the children's best interest to engage in reunification therapy with Daniel at this time. Rather, the children should follow the recommendations of Howard Hurwitz and begin family counselling with one of the three practitioners recommended by him for family therapy immediately. After the children have been engaged in family therapy for 3 months, then, as Mr. Hurwitz has recommended, the family therapist shall invite Valerie and/or Daniel with the focus being on the children's relationship with Daniel. In this way, the results of the reunification therapy Daniel seeks may well be accomplished. However, first, the family therapy is to be for the three children alone.

Issue Two: Is it in the children's best interests to grant Daniel a right of first refusal to pick up and drop off the children at their activities if Valerie is unable to do so?

[42] Daniel is also seeking an Order that he be granted the "right of first refusal" to pick up and drop off the children from their various activities. Mr. Hurwitz made specific recommendations in his report in relation to the residential schedule (page 121) and "picks ups and drop offs" (at page 123). The right of first refusal was also contemplated and dealt with in Mr. Hurwitz's report. In particular, Mr. Hurwitz recommend that should Valerie be unable to care for the children for more than either (8) hours, that her parents, sister, or another adult known to the children may provide them care.

[43] I am not persuaded at this time that it is in the children's best interests for Daniel to be granted a first right of refusal to pick up and drop off the children at activities if Valerie is not able to do so. It may well evolve in this arrangement, but the children need to have consistency with Daniel before this kind of arrangement is imposed on them.

Issue Three: Is it in the children's best interests for Mr. Hurwitz to complete an updated s.30 assessment within 6 months?

[44] Daniel seeks an order that the parties engage Mr. Hurwitz for an updated Section 30 assessment once the children are engaged in family therapy for 6 months.

[45] Mr. Hurwitz's recommended that "there should be an updated assessment 12 months from the date that these recommendations have been accepted by both parents to assess clinical changes made in this family by Mr. Marinovic as well as the children's comfort levels with overnights."

[46] I find that it is in the children's best interests for Mr. Hurwitz to complete an updated assessment within 12 months from the release of this Endorsement, so the family therapy for the children can start; the parties can engage the Parenting Coach as the assessment report contemplates, and the family therapy can involve the parents.

Issue Four: Is it in the children's best interests to make an order implementing the recommendations of Howard Hurwitz set out in the assessment report, dated February 1, 2024, on a temporary basis?

[47] Valerie seeks an order that the parenting plan recommendation be incorporated into a temporary court order.

[48] It is agreed that the parties are de facto following the parenting schedule as set out in the Howard Hurwitz assessment recommendations.

[49] I am persuaded that it is in the children's best interests for the assessment recommendations to be incorporated into a temporary order so if there is noncompliance by one party, the compliant party can take steps to enforce the order pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

[50] The parties' consent to using Our Family Wizard as their mode of communication. Since I have ordered that the assessment recommendations be incorporated into a court order, the requirement to use Our Family Wizard as the communication mode will form part of that order.

[51] There is already a consent order requiring the parties to attend mediation. Accordingly, a further order is not necessary.

Order

[52] This court makes the following order:

(a) The respondent's motion that the children and parties commence reunification therapy with Marcie Goldhar is hereby dismissed.

(b) The parenting plan recommendations as set out in the s.30 parenting assessment report completed by Howard Hurwitz, dated February 1, 2024, attached to the applicant's notice of motion dated July 31, 2025, shall become a temporary order, pending trial or agreement of the parties, including but not limited to the following:

(i) The children shall immediately commence counselling with a family therapist that can assist them in developing coping mechanisms to deal with the family conflict. In addition, the children would benefit from developing ways to manage their anxiety. Also, it would be beneficial for them to know how to respond to their father when he makes statements to them that cause them duress.

(ii) The family therapist shall involve either or both parents after a period of three months once the children have had counselling. The focus of the family counselling would be to address relationship issues between each of the children and their father. N. to be involved in this intervention.

(iii) The family therapist shall be either Ms. Laurie Stein, Ms. Sherry Rapuch or Ms. Joanna Seidel, or the parents can ask their paediatrician for additional persons.

(iv) If the applicant is unavailable to provide care for the children for a period of more than eight (8) hours during which the children are normally in her care, she shall have her parents, sister or another adult known to the children, provide care for the children during that period.

(v) The parents shall commence using Our Family Wizard as the primary mode of communication around parenting issues. Also, the schedule function on this App to be used by both parents to chart recreational, religious, social, or educational events.

(c) The applicant is entitled to costs of this motion. If the parties cannot agree on costs, the applicant shall serve and file written costs submissions of no more than 3 pages, not including a Bill of Costs or Offers to Settle within 10 days of the release of this Endorsement. The respondent shall serve and file responding costs submissions in writing of no more than 3 pages, not including a Bill or Costs or Offers to Settle within 7 days of being served with the applicant's costs submissions.

M. Kraft, J.

Date: August 25, 2025