Teevens v Siskos, 2016 ABQB 464

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Teevens v Siskos, 2016 ABQB 464 Date: 20160819 Docket: FL01 10794 Registry: Calgary Between: Cynthia Teevens Applicant - and - George Siskos A.K.A. George Siscos Respondent _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice B.R. Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The issue is whether Mr. Siskos should have access to the parties’ two daughters aged 12 and 10. [ 2 ] The circumstances are complicated. The matter came before me in “Self-Represented” Family Chambers on August 17.

Both parties appeared without counsel. After hearing both speak to the matter I determined that it would not be possible for me to make a decision on the basis of their representations alone. I advised them that I would review the filed materials and render my decision in writing. [ 3 ] I have now reviewed the entire court file. [ 4 ] The parties are not married. They commenced to live together as partners in 2002 and separated in 2006. They had two children. Ms. Teevens had a daughter by a previous relationship who was a young girl (aged 6 to 13) at the time the parties were together.

She is now an adult. [ 5 ] The materials indicate that in 2008 there were proceedings between the parents in Ontario. In connection with those

proceedings the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa investigated reports of violence in the family home in August 2008. The report concluded that Mr. Siskos’ criminally involved lifestyle put the children at risk, as did his continued abuse of illicit drugs, and inability to control his anger. The report concluded: In

summary, the Society has grave concerns with any contact that Mr. Siskos might have with these children. It is the position of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa that, both Ms. Teevens and the children stand to be at great risk if Mr. Siskos is allowed access to them. [ 6 ] The Alberta Queen’s Bench file was opened in August 2010 when Ms. Teevens applied for a restraining order against Mr. Siskos. Mr. Siskos had been charged with criminal harassment. Ms. Teevens made the application for a restraining order on the advice of the Crown Prosecutor, after she received a “very threatening telephone message” from Mr.

Siskos. [ 7 ] The restraining order was granted ex parte . Mr. Siskos was served. He did not appear at the confirmation hearing. The order was confirmed and in force until September 2011. [ 8 ] The materials indicate that the parties attempted to reconcile and were together for a lengthy period beginning in late 2011. The attempt failed and they separated again in September 2013. [ 9 ] In October 2013, Ms. Teevens applied for an Emergency Protection Order. Her evidence was that Mr. Siskos was using crack cocaine, abusing alcohol, exhibiting a violent temper, and putting the children in danger.

The EPO was granted in the Provincial Court and confirmed in this Court. Though served, Mr. Siskos did not appear at the confirmation hearing. The EPO was ordered to be in force until November 5, 2014. [ 10 ] The EPO did not initially list the children as parties protected by the Order. In February 2014, Ms. Teevens applied to have it amended to include the children. The evidence before the court included the affidavit of her eldest daughter, in which she deposed that she had received an obscene telephone call from Mr. Siskos. She gave detail of the content of the call and how she concluded it came from Mr.

Siskos. [ 11 ] On February 19, 2014, Bensler J. ordered that the children be added to the EPO. Mr. Siskos was present in court for the application. He denied that he had made the obscene phone call to which the eldest daughter deposed. He sought an adjournment so he could retain counsel. Though she granted the order adding the children to the EPO, Bensler J. adjourned the matter for one month to give Mr. Siskos time to retain counsel file and affidavit to support the position he had represented. Neither Mr. Siskos nor counsel representing him appeared on March 19. The February 19 Order was confirmed. Mr.

Siskos was granted leave in his absence to apply on 14 days notice to vary the order. He never did. [ 12 ] On November 5, 2014, the date the EPO was to expire. Ms. Teevens applied for it to be renewed. She filed no new evidence. She appeared without counsel. Mr. Siskos did not appear. Apparently relying on the previously filed materials, the court extended the EPO to November 4, 2015. [ 13 ] Mr. Siskos retained counsel in late October 2015. He filed an application for access to the children. His application was set for February 4, 2016. Mr. Siskos did not himself appear at that application. His counsel appeared.

She indicated that Mr. Siskos lived in Ottawa and wanted an order giving him access to his children through Skype. She advised the Court, that Mr. Siskos had been sober for a year and was willing to submit to alcohol and drug testing. The Court ordered that Mr. Siskos would have access to his children by Skype once a week for two months and then twice a week until August 17, 2016. He was to provide “hair follicle testing” to Ms. Teevens by April 30, 2016. The application was otherwise adjourned to August 17, 2016. [ 14 ] On February 11, 2016, Ms.

Teevens applied for the further continuation of the EPO which expired on November 4, 2015. The Court declined to grant her that order because there was no recent incident of family violence within the meaning of the legislation. [ 15 ] The parties have both filed materials with regard to the Skype access that has occurred. Neither party is of the view that the Skype access has been successful. The communications between Mr. Siskos and his daughters have involved significant hostility on the part of the daughters, according to Mr. Siskos, and on the part of Mr.

Siskos, according to the daughters, who have written letters to the court in this regard. Mr. Siskos states that his daughters have not responded to his Skype call on many occasions. The daughters and Ms. Teevens say that Mr. Siskos has not called at the ordered time on many occasions. It is apparent that the Skype access has not promoted the restoration of a healthy relationship between Mr. Siskos and his daughters. Indeed, it appears to have made matters worse. [ 16 ] Mr. Siskos has never provided the hair follicle drug testing that was ordered to be provided by April 30.

He provided a report of the testing of his urine on April 28 which was negative for drugs. Ms. Teevens observes that this means only that he had not consumed drugs or alcohol in the days preceding the test. A hair follicle test would provide an indication of whether he was using drugs over a longer period — and that is why it was ordered to be provided. [ 17 ] Ms. Teevens also notes that the representation made by Mr. Siskos counsel at the February 4, 2016 application that he had been sober for a year cannot have been accurate. She has filed a Ontario Court document which shows that Mr.

Siskos was charged with driving when his blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit on December 2, 2015 and that he plead guilty to that charge, was convicted, fined $1000 and prohibited from driving for 12 months on February 18, 2016. [ 18 ] It is a basic principle of family law, that a child should have a much contact with each of the child’s parents as is consistent with the child’s best interests. The Family Law Act , s. 15, identifies the factors which the court must consider in determining the best interest of children.

The safety and security of the children and the presence in the history of family violence are listed as matters to consider. So are the nature, strength and stability of the relationship of the person making the application and the children in question. [ 19 ] In this case there is significant unanswered evidence that Mr. Siskos has engaged in family violence. The fears Ms. Teevens has had concerning his having contact with herself and the children are certainly justified by the evidence she has presented. Mr. Siskos has not disputed some of that evidence at all.

Such minimal answers as he has provided do not serve to ease the concerns. He has not

provided acceptable evidence that he is no longer abusing illicit drugs or alcohol. Indeed there is strong evidence to the contrary. [ 20 ] If Mr. Siskos’ relationship with his children is ever to be restored, at a minimum, it will be only after he provides irrefutable evidence that he no longer engages in substance abuse, has acquired the ability to supress his violent and abusive propensities, and, I expect, is in a position to retain expert counsellors who can assist the children to overcome their fear of him and their reluctance to have contact with him.

I expect that any future court application on his part will fail unless he can provide convincing evidence and plans in relations to these matters. [ 21 ] I am satisfied having reviewed the materials that it is not in the best interests of the children that their father, Mr. Siskos, have access to them at present. I, therefore, dismiss his application. Heard on the 17 th day of August, 2016. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 19 th day of August, 2016. B.R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Ms. Cynthia Teevens Self Represented Litigant Mr. George Siskos Self Represented Litigant