Self-represented with Duty Counsel at the Motion

In a family law proceeding concerning parenting time, the court considered whether the respondent had purged a prior finding of contempt related to failure to facilitate access between the child and the applicant father.

Evidence showed that although the child was brought to the access location, arrangements were made for adult siblings to immediately retrieve him, preventing any meaningful access.

The court found the respondent had not purged her contempt and had conspired to frustrate the access order.

The court emphasized the Divorce Act principle promoting maximum contact between children and both parents and expressed concern about ongoing obstruction of access.

The matter was adjourned to permit the respondent to show cause why child support should not be suspended as a sanction and to provide financial disclosure.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt alleging that the respondent failed to comply with a court order requiring her to transport the parties’ child to an access visit with the father.

The respondent argued that the child refused to attend and that she encouraged him but could not physically force him.

The court held that a custodial parent must require a child to attend court‑ordered access despite the child’s stated wishes, and that merely asking or encouraging the child is insufficient.

The evidence demonstrated that the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to comply with the order, including failing to personally transport the child or arrange alternative transportation when offered.

The respondent was found in contempt of court under Rule 31 of the Family Law Rules.