Messam v. Fraser, 2012 ONCJ 12

Brampton Registry No. 267/11 DATE: 2012·I·09 CITATION: Messam v. Fraser , 2012 ONCJ 12 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: TAMIKA SHALENE MESSAM Applicant — AND — COURTNEY FRASER Respondent Before Justice Juliet C. Baldock Heard on 22 December 2011 Reasons for Judgment released on 9 January 2012 Tamika Messam .................................................................................................. on her own behalf Courtney Fraser ................................................................................................... on his own behalf [ 1 ] JUSTICE J.C.

BALDOCK:— The parties are the parents of one child, Xavier Malcolm Messam, born on January 2, 2011. [ 2 ] The parties have not resided together and the child has always been in the care of the applicant mother, who seeks an order of final custody, the ability to obtain travel documents for the child and to travel with the child without the respondent’s consent. [ 3 ] The respondent seeks joint custody. He wants to play an active role in raising his son.

He does not oppose the mother’s having primary residence. [ 4 ] On June 6, 2011, an order was made on the basis of minutes of settlement granting the mother final custody. It also provided for temporary access by the father, every Saturday and Sunday from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. [ 5 ] Temporary child support was also ordered in the amount of $188.00 per month based on an imputed income of $22,000.00 a year (minimum wage). [ 6 ] The father has not in fact exercised the access agreed to. He has a very busy

schedule attending York University, working part time and coaching basketball. [ 7 ] He has proposed that he have Xavier in his care while coaching basketball on Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. [ 8 ] I find this suggestion to be without any merit whatsoever. Access is intended to foster a close and meaningful relationship between parent and child. While it may be an attractive notion for the respondent to have his son with him, I fail to see any benefit to the child in such an arrangement.

The father would be distracted by his coaching obligations and unable to provide proper care and attention to a twelve-month-old toddler.

The proposal is not only unrealistic and unworkable; it fails to recognise the level of supervision that a child of Xavier’s age requires. [ 9 ] The respondent works at the Humber River Hospital Thursdays to Saturdays on one of two shifts, being either 3:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. or 11:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. [ 10 ] Although I accept that the respondent loves his son and would like more involvement with the child, his current lifestyle and other obligations simply do not allow for him to take a more active role.

I am somewhat troubled by the fact that the respondent’s proposal does not recognize the need for close supervision of the child or that predictability and consistency are of major importance in forging a relationship with Xavier. [ 11 ] His wish to be more involved in Xavier’s life is not realistic. I find no grounds to change the final custody order made June 6, 2011. [ 12 ] As to access, I find the mother’s proposal to be entirely reasonable having regard to the respondent’s

schedule and commitments. [ 13 ] The respondent acknowledges having withdrawn his consent for the mother to travel with the child. This resulted in her

being unable to attend and participate as a bridesmaid at a wedding in the United States. He argues that the trip interfered with his access, but I am satisfied that the applicant mother would have been open to a make up visit had that been requested. [ 14 ] There is currently a peace bond in effect that prohibits one Alesha Robinson from having contact with the child. This continues to November 2012 and must be complied with. Therefore, although Ms.

Robinson is not a party to these proceedings, any order for access must include that prohibition. [ 15 ] There is no evidence before me to suggest that the respondent’s income is other than that imputed in the June 6, 2011 order and accordingly the support provisions will be made final. [ 16 ] For these reasons, I make the following final order: 1. The applicant mother shall have sole custody of the child Xavier Malcolm Messam, born January 2, 2011. 2.

The respondent father has the right to obtain information directly from the child’s doctors, other health care providers and teachers regarding the child’s health, education and welfare. 3. The respondent father shall have access to the child as follows: (

a) each Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. subject to the respondent’s work schedule; (

b) one other period each week for up to five hours to be agreed between the parties; (

c) such other or additional times as the parties may agree. 4. The parties shall be flexible in scheduling the respondent’s time with the child having regard to: (

a) the age and needs of the child; (

b) any anniversaries, holidays or special events. 5. The parties shall both ensure that Alesha Robinson has no contact with the child. 6. Any access cancelled by the respondent father will not be made up. 7. Access cancelled due to the child being ill will not be made up, but otherwise any visits cancelled by the applicant mother, including those missed due to vacations, will be made up as soon as possible. 8. The applicant mother has the right to: (

a) obtain travel documents for the child; and (

b) travel with the child, including trips outside Canada for vacation purposes, not to exceed 21 days, without the consent of the respondent father. 9. The temporary order for child support made June 6, 2011 is now made final. Released: 9 January 2012 ___________________________ Justice Juliet C. Baldock