G.L. v. C.G., 2011 ONCJ 672

Dryden Registry No. FO-04-136-02 DATE: 2011·VI·24 CITATION: G.L. v. C.G. , 2011 ONCJ 672 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: G.L. Applicant — AND — C.G. Respondent Before Justice A. Thomas McKay Heard on 16 May 2011 Reasons for Judgment released on 24 June 2011 Beth Allison White ............................................................................................ for the applicant(

s) Shirley Gauthier ............................................................................................. for the respondent(s) [ 1 ] JUSTICE A.T. McKAY:— This matter involves a decision regarding the amount of parenting time that each parent will have with respect to the child C.. C. is currently seven years old. His parents began a relationship in 2002. They separated in the summer of 2004, when C. was approximately one year old. On January 14, 2005, a court order was made on consent giving the parties joint custody of C., with primary residence with Ms. G.

At that time, both parents were living in Dryden. In October of 2004, Mr. L. met his current partner. In 2007 they moved to Alberta to pursue other employment opportunities. They subsequently married. [ 2 ] In December of 2009, Mr. L. became aware that C. was displaying some very serious behavioural problems at school. He travelled to Dryden to meet with representatives of the school and service providers. As a result of those meetings and his concerns, he filed a motion to change the existing court order to provide that C. would primarily reside with Mr. And Mrs. L. in Alberta.

That motion was heard November 18 and 19, 2010, and January 6, 2011. On March 3, 2011 a decision was released that maintained the status quo , joint custody to the parents, with the primary residence of C. being with Ms. G. That decision is reported as G.L. v. C.C. , 2011 ONCJ 102 , [2011] O.J. No. 1018, 2011 Cars​well​Ont 1486 (Ont. C.J.) . [ 3 ] The decision on the variation motion noted that Ms. G. had been living a very unstable lifestyle during the first half of 2010. However, her life had significantly stabilized.

All of C.’s extended family was in Dryden, and he had significant relationships with both extended families. There had been supports put into place by the school in Dryden, and what evidence there was indicated that C. had some difficulty adjusting to change. Therefore, in spite of the fact that Mr. and Mrs.

L. appeared to be capable concerned parents with much to offer C., the court’s concerns about the trauma involved in a move to Alberta raised a significant concern and the status quo was maintained. [ 4 ] When the decision was released on March 3, 2011, counsel requested a period of time to review the decision with their clients prior to addressing the issue of access, which had been problematic for years. The court adjourned the matter to allow counsel to do so. When the parties returned to court on March 21, 2011, counsel for Mr.

L. indicated that he and his wife moved back to Dryden on March 19, 2011, and now wanted equal parenting time with respect to C.. The matter was adjourned to May 16, 2011, to hear evidence regarding Mr. L.’s living arrangements, and anything else relevant to the issue. EVIDENCE OF MR. L. [ 5 ] Mr. L. testified that after receiving the court’s decision regarding the motion to vary, he and his wife thought that they needed to be in Dryden with C.. They moved back to Dryden and temporarily lived with Mr. L.’s parents.

They had access to C. every second weekend, picking him up Friday’s after school and dropping him off at the school Monday mornings. Ms. G. works every second weekend. [ 6 ] Mr. L. indicated that C.’s teacher indicated to him that C. had both good days and bad days. Mr. L. was certain that he saw improvement, but indicated that more improvement is needed in C.’s behaviour. He attempts to speak with school personnel each week. Mr. L. also had arranged an appointment to meet with the counselling service which was engaged with C..

[ 7 ] Mr. L. started a job as a technician at a security firm in Dryden on March 22, 2011. At the point the evidence was heard, Mrs. L. was not employed outside the home. Mr. L.’s job involves working 40 hours a week, Monday through Friday, essentially 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He indicated that there is some on call work involved one weekend per month. Shortly prior to testifying, Mr. and Mrs. L. moved into their own two bedroom apartment. He indicated that the apartment is fully furnished, including C.’s room.

He testified that they have transportation and C. would be driven to school whenever he was with them. [ 8 ] Mr. L. noted that C. is currently prescribed Ritalin. His observation is that the drug appears to make C. very “flat” emotionally. He testified that most of his information about how C. is doing comes from C.’s school, not C.’s mother. Mr. L. proposes a parenting

schedule involving C. spending one week at each household, and indicated that would be a stable

schedule for C., which should begin once the school year ends. [ 9 ] In cross-examination, Mr. L. agreed that he allowed C. to watch several movies geared to an older audience. The movies included “Commando”, “Predator”, and “300”. In addition, he agreed that on one occasion he had C. stand in a corner for approximately one hour as punishment for inappropriate behaviour. EVIDENCE OF MS. G. [ 10 ] Ms. G. updated C.’s situation. Shortly after the last court date, C. began taking Ritalin. He takes one dose each morning Monday to Friday. His teachers have reported that he is very quiet at school.

She has spoken to the doctor about alternatives. C. is seeing a paediatrician in Thunder Bay in July, and the current medication would be maintained until that visit. She indicated that she had not told Mr. L. any of this, because he did not ask. [ 11 ] Her evidence is that C. still has episodes at school, but that they have been reduced. According to Ms. G., the school reports to her that every Monday after an access visit is problematic in terms of C.’s behaviour. Ms. G. has indicated that C. is fine in her home and that he has friends over all of the time.

She also maintained that C. has told her that his father is mean and holds grudges. In Ms. G.’s opinion, changing residences weekly would be devastating for C.. She is also of the view that two weeks consecutive access in the summer would be too much for C.. With respect to Christmas access, she felt that it was a bad idea to share Christmas day as C. moving from one household to the other in the middle of the day would not be good. [ 12 ] In cross-examination, she confirmed that essentially she has no communication with Mr. L.

On one occasion she wrote a note to him about the medication before the first access visit and passed it though C.. There was an assessment of C. completed January 28, 2011. It was provided to her, but she never provided Mr. L. with a copy. She was cross-examined on the issue of C.’s behaviour each Monday after an access visit. She agreed that the most serious recent incident at school actually took place on a Thursday, and involved C. throwing scissors at a teacher. Ms. G. testified that she disciplines C. immediately after inappropriate behaviour.

When questioned about what discipline was used for C. throwing the scissors at a teacher, she could not recall, but maintained that if she was home after the incident, she would have disciplined C.. Under cross-examination, she also agreed that C. does not always tell the truth. EVIDENCE OF C.’S TEACHER [ 13 ] The court also heard from Ms. Boyko, who is C.’s teacher. She indicated that outside of a few major incidents, C.’s behaviour has been good with more good days than bad days. When there was a major incident, she told C. that his parents would be called. Her evidence was that C. begged her to just call Ms.

G., and not call Mr. L. She also reported that C. had indicated to her that his dad is mean to him. [ 14 ] In cross-examination, she has agreed that she has regular communication with Mr. L. Mr. L. appears to her to be quite honest, and explains his rationale for discipline. C. reports to her that his father is stricter than his mother regarding bed time. In her view, both parents want what is best for C.. ISSUES [ 15 ] In determining the amount of time C. will spend with each parent, the issue for the court is to determine what is in C.’s best interests. C. has a right to involvement with both parents.

As indicated, the current situation is that C. is picked up from school every second Friday, and remains with Mr. and Mrs. L. until he is dropped off at school on the following Monday. Their proposal is that this simply be extended to encompass an entire week at their residence, alternating to Ms. G.’s residence the following week. [ 16 ] C. is a child who is almost eight years of age and for some time has been displaying troubling behaviour. He is now receiving medication. There have been significant resources allocated by his school in order to address those issues.

It is logical to infer that some of the issues relate to the losses and instability which C. has dealt with in his young life. The issue is now how best to move forward. [ 17 ] The lack of ability of C.’s parents to effectively communicate concerns the court. They need to move past their differences and recognize that it is essential for C.’s best interests that they effectively communicate about his issues and his care arrangements. What evidence there exists on that point seems to suggest that C. does not adapt well to change.

The evidence suggests that his father’s household is more structured than his mother’s household. C.’s purported indications that his father is “mean” may simply be a reaction to this increased structure. In the court’s view, it is essential for C. that both parents strengthen their parenting skills, particularly in the areas of setting appropriate boundaries and reacting appropriately when the boundaries are exceeded. Both would benefit from parenting courses.

C.’s behaviour will no doubt continue to present challenges, and new strategies and skills need to be acquired by the adults in his life in order to assist C. in overcoming his difficulties.

[ 18 ] Shared parenting is not always an ideal situation. However, the court must determine best interests of any child by looking at each particular situation. Both parents have something to offer this child. The shared custody arrangement proposed by Mr. L. will be a change for C., but is a manageable change given that it simply extends the current regime of every second weekend to one week one week off. C. has had approximately three months to adjust to that routine. He will continue to have the support of extended family and familiarity with the Dryden region and the school which he has been attending.

Accordingly the court finds that it is in C.’s best interests that there be a shared custody arrangement in which the parents have C. residing with them on alternate weeks. Arrangements should be structured so that C.’s week with Mr. L. is the week that Ms. G. is working on the weekend. Unless the parties agree otherwise, C. will continue to alternate one week with each parent during the school holiday periods. C. will spend Father’s Day at his father’s residence, and Mother’s Day at his mothers’ residence. With respect to Christmas, C. will spend the period of time commencing with the end of the school

schedule until noon on Christmas day with one parent. The remainder of the school holiday will be spent with the other parent. For the year 2011, C. will spend the first half of the Christmas vacation with his mother. [ 19 ] Both parties will ensure that C. watches only age appropriate programming on the television. The parties will consult on major issues and attempt to reach a consensus. If they cannot reach a consensus, Mr. L. shall make decisions regarding C.’s education. Ms. G. shall make decisions regarding C.’s medical needs.

The court urges both parents to put C.’s interests first, recognize that this is an adjustment for C., and work cooperatively to support him in the transition between the households. CHILD SUPPORT [ 20 ] With the shared parenting arrangement, there will be an offset of child support. The parties have agreed on the appropriate amount. Commencing July 1, 2011, Mr. L. shall pay child support to Ms. G. in accordance with the calculations set out in the endorsement in the court file. Released: 24 June 2011 Signed: “Justice A. Thomas McKay”