Lauzon v. James, 2011 ONCJ 488

Brampton Registry No. 1776/10 DATE: 2011·VIII·31 CITATION: Lauzon v. James , 2011 ONCJ 488 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: JACQUES EUGENE LAUZON, Applicant, — AND — SUSAN ELIZABETH JAMES, Respondent. Before Justice Patrick W.

Dunn Heard on 25 August 2011 Reasons for Judgment released on 31 August 2011 ACCESS TO CHILD — Form of order — Equal time-sharing — Effect on young child — Custodial mother of girl (now 5½ years old) lived in Mississauga and father in Toronto — Father wanted child with him for 50% of time and proposed regime whereby child would stay with each parent in 2 or 3-day blocks within 2-week cycle — Mother was not opposed to father’s access but wanted to confine it to Tuesdays and Thursdays (after school) and to alternate weekends — At motion for interim access, motion judge agreed with mother — Fully shared access regimes are rare for pre-teen children who tend to benefit from having stable primary residence where homework and school issues can be monitored by one parent (in consultation with other parent) — For 5½-year-old child in this case, father’s plan would be too confusing and destabilizing, particularly in light of distances between parents’ homes — Father’s concern about maintaining daily contact with daughter could be met by daily telephone access.

Judith G. Hamilton ......................................................................... counsel for the applicant father Dion R. McClean ........................................................................ counsel for the respondent mother [ 1 ] JUSTICE P.W. DUNN:— On consent, an oral motion was placed before me, regarding the applicant’s request for access. [ 2 ] The child in question is Isla Marie James Lauzon, born on 19 January 2006 (now 5 years, 7 months of age). Isla is in senior kindergarten, and attends five days a week from 8:45 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.

The father lives in Toronto, and the mother, in Mississauga. [ 3 ] Mr. McClean stated that, at present, the applicant’s access is: • Mondays 3:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. • Wednesdays 3:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. • Fridays 11:15 a.m. to Saturdays at 6:00 p.m. Both parties wish the child to have access to the applicant but they disagree on how much that access should be. [ 4 ] The applicant urges that his access should be fully shared — namely, for Isla to be 50 per cent of the time with the applicant, and 50 per cent of the time with the respondent.

It was the respondent’s view that the applicant’s access should be generous, but something less than 50 per cent of the time. [ 5 ] The parties were suspicious of each other’s intentions; in the past, there were frequent hard feelings demonstrated and numerous allegations were raised of a hurtful nature.

[ 6 ] The applicant believed that the child is entitled to spend the same amount of time with each party and that, at Isla’s young age, it would benefit her to live in each party’s residence one-half of the time. [ 7 ] The respondent opined that to implement the applicant’s plan for access would be confusing for the child and could undermine her security. [ 8 ] The applicant’s access proposal would require a two-week schedule. He would have access in Week One from 9:00 a.m. Monday to 9:00 a.m. Wednesday. The respondent would then have access from 9:00 a.m. Wednesday to 9:00 a.m. Friday.

Then the applicant would resume access until 9:00 a.m. the next Monday. [ 9 ] Then, from 9:00 a.m. on Monday in Week Two, the respondent would have access until 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, whereupon the applicant would have access to 9:00 a.m. Friday. Finally, to finish out Week Two, the respondent would have access. The

schedule would repeat itself in the following weeks. [ 10 ] The respondent’s suggestion for access would include almost full-day access on Tuesdays and Thursdays (after school is over) and on alternate weekends. [ 11 ] I carefully considered the two proposals. I appreciate that the applicant understandably wants as much contact with his daughter as possible, because he desires to be part of her life. However, I am going to accept the respondent’s proposal for the applicant’s access, for the following reasons: 1. The applicant’s access regime would be confusing for a child of this age.

It is likely that she just would not know how long she is staying in a particular location, before she would be on the move again. 2. The frequency of the access exchanges would destabilize the child, especially given the distance between the residences of the parties. 3. The applicant is concerned about several days going by when he would not have access. This is true, but the situation can be helped by a parent spending good quality time with a child when the access does occur. Daily telephone access would also be supportive of the bond between a parent and child. 4.

It is unusual, in the court’s experience, to have a fully shared access arrangement. Many, perhaps most, children benefit from living primarily in one location, where the homework (when there is any) and school issues can be monitored by one parent, in consultation with the other parent. 5. Shared parenting is a little more usual where a child is older, say a teenager. Such an older child’s views then can be taken into account, especially with the help of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

Also the parents then can monitor the child’s school performance to confirm whether the child does as well living in each residence. 6. In making the decision I have, I am not at all considering past conduct of the parties, nor any party’s motivation for having acted in a certain fashion. I am strictly trying to consider what would be best for Isla. 7. Where a child has a primary residence and where a child otherwise visits does not derogate from both parties’ ability to guide and educate their child, and to make overall important decisions for that child’s future.

I would certainly hope that these parties’ past disagreements would not prevent them from joint custody in decision making. 8. Although holidays were not discussed today, I suggest that all school holidays should be shared. That is one important way to allow each parent special time with a child. [ 12 ] Temporary orders shall issue: 1. The applicant shall have in-person unsupervised access: (

i) on Tuesdays from 11:15 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (ii) on Thursdays from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (iii) on alternate weekends from Fridays at 11:15 a.m. to Sundays at 6:00 p.m. (iv) if the alternate weekend access has a holiday or a school professional development day, that day will be included in the access weekend. (

v) such other access as the parties may agree upon. 2. The applicant shall have telephone access to the child each day when the child resides with the respondent. Reasonable times to be settled by the parties. 3. The respondent shall have telephone access to the child each day when the child resides with the applicant. Reasonable times to be settled by the parties. [ 13 ] On the issue of the respondent’s request for child support, further discussion is needed.

There has been financial disclosure by the applicant, so I trust both counsel will resolve this issue by the return date. [ 14 ] Regarding the respondent’s request for spousal support: This is a difficult area of the law, on the issues of entitlement, quantum and length of time for payment. This issue is often not settled voluntarily without a trial. [ 15 ] The matter is adjourned to 10:00 a.m., 14 December 2011, courtroom 210. Allow 45 minutes for case conference on child support and settlement conference/trial management conference for spousal support.