AH v DM, 2023 ABCJ 217

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: AH v DM, 2023 ABCJ 217 Date: 20231018 Docket: FF901003425 Registry: Calgary Between: AH Applicant - and - DM Respondent Decision of the Honourable Justice D. Mah [ 1 ] In order to protect the identity of the child and any significant parties in the child’s life, the Court has used pseudonyms in relation to all of the individuals involved in the case at bar. [ 2 ] The Applicant Mother, Alayna Huberdeau, and the Respondent Father, David Morehouse, are parents to their 11-year-old daughter, Penelope.

In July 2018, the Mother filed a Claim seeking to vary the existing Final Parenting Order which granted the Father regular and scheduled parenting time. The said Order was made less than one year earlier. Mr Morehouse’s Response took the position that there had been no change in the circumstances and needs of the child and therefore, the Order should remain.

Both parties were self- represented at the time that they filed their respective legal documents. [ 3 ] By the time the trial commenced, the Mother and Father had both retained counsel and it became quite clear that the nature of the relief sought by each had changed. The Mother was seeking termination of the Father’s Guardianship, while the Father wanted to change the child’s primary residence such that the child would reside with him. Counsel for the child had also been appointed and was present for the hearing.

All parties agreed that the legal documents should be amended to reflect the parties’ current positions and that by doing so, no party would suffer any prejudice. THE MOTHER’S CASE Alayna Huberdeau

[ 4 ] Ms Huberdeau is currently 34 years old and was in the late stages of pregnancy when she testified. She is the proud Mother of Penelope and Penelope’s half sibling, five-year-old Darren. The family resides with Ms Huberdeau’s current fiancé, Nathan Johnson, the Father of two other children who spend time at the house on alternating weekends. [ 5 ] Ms Huberdeau’s relationship with Mr Morehouse began in the latter part of 2010 and lasted until 2014 – 2015, when Penelope was two years old.

The Mother said that the parties separated several times prior to their final break up in 2014 or 2015. [ 6 ] While their initial relationship was “good”, Ms Huberdeau testified that things deteriorated around the time she became pregnant with Penelope (which would have been in early summer 2011). She alleged that Mr Morehouse was verbally and physically abusive. Some of these instances occurred in Penelope’s presence. Ms Huberdeau stated that the Father often yelled and swore at her, calling her a “whore” or a “cunt” whenever he was angry or displeased.

The Mother estimated that this occurred three to four times per week. She also spoke of instances when he was violent with her – which often took place when he had too much alcohol to drink. [ 7 ] The first such occasion occurred when the family was living in the Paternal Grandmother’s house (around 2012 – 2013). The Mother recalled that she was watching TV and Penelope was sleeping when a dispute arose. Ms Huberdeau could not remember the nature of the disagreement but said that the Father kneed her in the face.

The Mother attempted to phone her own mother for assistance, but Mr Morehouse took her phone and broke it in half. He did not allow her to leave the premises. Ms Huberdeau did not report the incident to the authorities nor did she seek medical attention despite being “pretty sore”. [ 8 ] The second occasion took place in August 2013, when the couple attended a wedding in Canmore. Ms Huberdeau said that Mr Morehouse was drinking large amounts of alcohol and called her the “c-word”. As a result, she decided to leave the reception and return to their hotel room.

The Father followed her and started becoming aggressive. He pulled her off the bed by her ankle. She attempted to leave the room, but Mr Morehouse blocked her ability to do so; slammed her against the wall and punched her several times. Both she and the Father tried to run for the door at the same time. The Mother jumped on the Father’s back after which he bit her. On cross-examination, she specifically denied trying to choke the Father, but admitted that she had her arms around him.

The Mother said that she was injured and scared – noting that the Father was larger than she was and that he was blocking the doorway. Ms Huberdeau said she finally managed to escape and the RCMP were called to the scene. The Father was arrested for, inter alia , assault and obstruction of justice. The Mother said that it took six officers to subdue Mr Morehouse. Ms Huberdeau did not go to the hospital despite her bleeding, not did she make any type of Court application. Nevertheless, a “no-contact” provision between the parties was put in place for eight to nine months after the incident.

Ms Huberdeau believed that Mr Morehouse’s charges were ultimately resolved through a Peace Bond. Shortly after its expiration, the parties reconciled. [ 9 ] The third occasion occurred on September 27, 2014, as the Mother was preparing to attend a work appointment. At the time, she was a hairdresser and was on her way to see a client. Penelope was already in the vehicle and Ms Huberdeau was transporting her equipment from the house to the car when the Father told the Mother that she was not permitted to leave. Ms Huberdeau said that the Father took money from her and ripped it up.

She attempted to escape through the back door, but he chased her there – preventing her from leaving. She then ran to the front entrance, but he pushed her against the door and the wall before she could exit the house. Eventually, she got outside and contacted the RCMP. By the time the police responded, Mr Morehouse had destroyed all of her work equipment and supplies. Ms Huberdeau did not know if the Father was charged as a result of this incident but recalled that he was required to stay away from their home for a period of 30 days in order for her to move out.

This last incident marked the end of their relationship. [ 10 ] The Mother said that the Father rarely contributed to their daughter’s care during their time together. Aside from a brief period in the Fall of 2014 when Mr Morehouse obtained an ex parte Parenting Order, the child has always resided with her. [ 11 ] Shortly after the parties’ final break up, the Father began to date a woman by the name of Annette Roy. During this period, the Father had parenting time on alternating weekends as well as one evening every other week.

Ms Huberdeau was comfortable with this arrangement as Mr Morehouse’s new partner, Ms Roy, appeared to have a doting relationship with Penelope. Nonetheless, the Mother stated that it was difficult to co-parent with the Father. He continued to use abusive language towards her and the two would argue about the most basic things, such as her requests for the Father to purchase items for Penelope which could be kept at his house.

The Mother also alleged that Mr Morehouse would do things without her consent or in direct contravention of her instructions, such as taking the child for flu shots or cutting her hair. [ 12 ] Ms Huberdeau offered numerous examples of the parties’ differing values. She said that the Father was intolerant. He did not respect anyone who was not Caucasian and would expressly prohibit Penelope from playing with anyone of colour when they went to the park. He often made fun of people who were gay, which is especially troubling to the Mother, as Penelope has expressed her attraction to members of both sexes.

She said the Father was the owner of numerous firearms – which he rarely stored in a safe manner and which he would often leave on the pool table, beside his bed or in the closets. Perhaps most troubling to the Mother was the Father’s alcohol consumption. During their time together, the Father regularly drank to excess. Ms Huberdeau recalled seeing Mr Morehouse’s bank statements and noted that he sometimes frequented the local liquor store up to three times per day. The Mother believed that the Father has faced charges of impaired driving on at least two occasions.

To that end, both Ms Huberdeau and Penelope were aware of a blow box in the father’s vehicle which the Mother believed was installed as a result of the Father’s conviction(

s) for impaired driving. She suspected that Mr Morehouse’s girlfriend blew into the box in order for him to operate the vehicle. Ms Huberdeau recounted one instance when she smelled alcohol on the Father’s breath during pick up of their daughter and confronted him. She said that he “spun off” and nearly lost control of the vehicle he was driving. The Mother said that she has asked Mr Morehouse repeatedly for a copy of his driver’s license to no avail. [ 13 ] Eventually, the Mother stopped adhering to the parenting

schedule set by the Court. It was not clear whether Mr Morehouse was diligent in following the

schedule at the time Ms Huberdeau ceased following the Court Order. Ms Huberdeau gave varying dates as to when the Father last exercised parenting time wit Penelope, but finally clarified that it was in July 2018. [ 14 ] The parties arranged a reunification counselling session between Penelope and her Father in July 2019. The session was held at Luna Counselling but was unsuccessful as the counsellor could not help them without a Court Order. Ms Huberdeau said that

immediately after the failed appointment, the Father asked if he could take the child to British Columbia (B.C.). The Mother denied the request and said the Father reacted by calling her several disparaging names while Penelope was present. [ 15 ] On August 28, 2019, Ms Huberdeau texted the Father to advise that she would be attending his house. She wanted to obtain his signature for the child’s passport application and to drop off a copy of her tax return as required by the Court’s Child Support Order. She said that Mr Morehouse appeared to be very intoxicated and did not seem to recognize her.

The Father slammed the door advising that he did not “want to get served”. Ms Huberdeau understood that sometime on that same evening, the Father assaulted his then-(new) girlfriend, Allison Sawyer, by punching her in the stomach several times and breaking her toe. Ms Sawyer contacted the police to report the assault, which ostensibly resulted in the police seizing a number of the Father’s firearms. Ms Sawyer and Mr Morehouse broke up that day. [ 16 ] Approximately one week later, Ms Sawyer contacted the Mother to advise her that Ms Sawyer had witnessed the Father placing several guns in a bag.

Mr Morehouse purportedly told Ms Sawyer to leave as he did not want her to see what he was about to do. Mr Morehouse said that he intended to shoot Ms Huberdeau and to take Penelope. It should be noted that the Mother’s counsel indicated that this portion of Ms Huberdeau’s testimony was not tendered for the truth of its contents, but rather as a basis for the Mother’s fear of the Father. Both Ms Sawyer and the Mother reported the incident to the police. Ms Huberdeau said that she was terrified and successfully applied for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) as a result.

As part of her EPO application, the Mother relied on a screenshot of an Order form from the WISH website which had been sent to her by Ms Sawyer. The form indicated a purchase or attempted purchase of a gun silencer and bullet proof vest. Ms Huberdeau understood that it was completed by Mr Morehouse. [ 17 ] The Mother ultimately applied to suspend the Father’s parenting time after being advised by the child and Ms Sawyer that Mr Morehouse would frequently pass out as a result of his alcohol consumption. During those times, the Father’s girlfriend became responsible for Penelope’s care.

Equally concerning for Ms Huberdeau was the father’s purported bullying and violence towards the women in his life. She claimed that several of Mr Morehouse’s ex-partners have told her things which she found “scary”. [ 18 ] Since Mr Morehouse’s parenting time has ceased, the Mother stated that he has not reached out to inquire about the child’s well-being; to give Penelope Christmas or birthday presents; nor to obtain her report card. Ms Huberdeau did say that the Father spoke to Penelope on the child’s birthday in April 2019.

Penelope told her Mother that the Father sounded “funny” or “drunk” which caused Ms Huberdeau to listen in on the call. The Mother said that Mr Morehouse sounded inebriated and seemed to have trouble understanding what their daughter was saying. [ 19 ] In January 2020, the Parents had a Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) scheduled at the courthouse. Prior to her arrival for the proceedings, Ms Huberdeau had been advised by the Paternal Grandmother that the Father would not be attending as he was in the hospital. Ms Huberdeau was aware that, at this time, the Father had a warrant for his arrest.

The threats with respect to Mr Morehouse’s alleged intention to use his firearms remained a concern for her and her family. [ 20 ] Upon her attendance at the courthouse, the Mother said that she was approached by “security” and shown a photo of the Father taken earlier that day at the courthouse. The sheriffs escorted her to a room on the 12 th floor and remained with the Mother and her supports due to fears over her safety. The Mother sought and obtained an EPO against Mr Morehouse on that same day.

She could not, however, explain why she had waited four months after the alleged threats first arose to take such a step. After her court appearance, the police advised the Mother to not return home. This resulted in the Mother and her family taking refuge elsewhere for two weeks until such time as the Father turned himself in to the authorities. Again, there was no explanation as to why the police did not take similar measures in August 2019, when Ms Sawyer first alerted the authorities of Mr Morehouse’s alleged intentions. [ 21 ] The Mother described her daughter as a young lady who is kind and “full of life”.

She proudly recounted how Penelope had shaved her head in order to raise money for cancer. The child is close to her brother and stepsiblings and is especially excited about the pending arrival of the new baby. Penelope has a good relationship with her stepfather and on occasion, calls him “Dad”. Ms Huberdeau stated that Penelope does not want to see her biological Father. When the Mother speaks to the daughter about doing so, Penelope becomes upset and indicates that she is fearful of him.

The child does not want to engage in any counselling with her Father and feels that there is no father-daughter relationship to salvage. Ms Huberdeau said that if Penelope felt differently, she would try to support her child. Nevertheless, she is concerned as to what would happen if the Father was given parenting time and the child refused to see him, as the Mother does not want to force her to do so. Ms Huberdeau is also scared that the Father will mistreat or neglect Penelope when she is in his care.

The Applicant Mother feels that it would be in the best interests of the child if Mr Morehouse’s Guardianship and all parenting time were terminated. Annette Roy [ 22 ] Ms Roy began her on-off relationship with Mr Morehouse in 2014 and ended the same in 2018. The parties resided together in Didsbury during which time the Father had regularly scheduled parenting time with Penelope. [ 23 ] Ms Roy stated that her first year together with Mr Morehouse “wasn’t bad”, but then the situation deteriorated. He became verbally aggressive, called her names and often told her that she was worthless.

The Father’s utterances were frequently made in the child’s presence. At times, he expressed his wish that Ms Roy kill herself. Mr Morehouse prohibited Ms Roy from leaving their house on occasion and would take away her car keys. [ 24 ] Ms Roy alleged that Mr Morehouse was physically violent towards her in the last three years of their relationship. While she denied that he ever kicked or punched her, he did yell at, push and slap her which caused her to feel frightened. Sometimes, these incidents took place when the child was present.

On one such occasion, the Father threw Ms Roy into the snow and then locked the door preventing her from coming back into the house. On another occasion, Mr Morehouse started to violently pound on Ms Roy’s car window when she would not allow him to drive due to his intoxicated state. Penelope was buckled into her car seat at the time and witnessed everything.

[ 25 ] Ms Roy said that Mr Morehouse was violent towards their pets and cited one occasion when the Father hit one of their dogs with a wire and then duct-taped his mouth shut. [ 26 ] Ms Roy also described the Father damaging her property including smashing two of her cellphones. After their breakup, Mr Morehouse retained some of the girlfriend’s belongings, but burnt them all – including items of a personal and sentimental nature. The Father sent a picture to Ms Roy of her things being destroyed. [ 27 ] Ms Roy confirmed some of the allegations made by the Mother including his intolerance towards others.

She heard him frequently using the “N-word” – which the Court interprets as a pejorative term used in relation to individuals who have darker skin – as well as other racial slurs. She said that Mr Morehouse does not “approve of or like” gay people. And he often called women derogatory names such as the “c-word”. [ 28 ] The Father’s ex-girlfriend estimated that the Father owned six guns.

Four of them were typically stored in Mr Morehouse’s gun safe located in the basement, but Mr Morehouse also kept a handgun in his nightstand and a rifle in the hallway closet. [ 29 ] Ms Roy described Mr Morehouse as drinking on an almost daily basis and said that he would do so to the point of intoxication. She spoke of one particular incident in 2016 when the Father had been drinking while attending a hockey game. Mr Morehouse was stopped by the police resulting in his truck being impounded, his license suspended and a blow box being installed in his truck.

Notwithstanding his suspension, the Father continued to operate his motor vehicle – resulting in his vehicle being impounded a second time. [ 30 ] When drunk, the Father was irrational, aggressive and violent. The Father’s consumption of alcohol occurred even when the child was in his care. Often, he would tell Penelope that her Mother was a slut and that he wished Ms Huberdeau would be run over by a bus. Frequently, he would drink so much alcohol, he would lose consciousness.

Ms Roy said that the Father habitually drove while intoxicated even if the child was in the vehicle. [ 31 ] Ms Roy described her own relationship with the child as “very close”. She claimed primary responsibility for Penelope’s care when the Father exercised his parenting time – often being the one to feed and bathe the child. However, Ms Roy also testified that when she had to work late, she would return home to find supper prepared and Penelope in bed for the evening. [ 32 ] After their breakup in 2018, Ms Roy was saddened that she might not be able to spend any further time with the child.

As a result, she contacted the Mother who facilitated visits between Penelope and Ms Roy. Eventually, Ms Roy and Ms Huberdeau became close friends with Ms Roy driving the Mother on the day the latter attempted to get the child’s passport application signed by the Father. She was also present when the Mother attended Luna Counselling.

The ex-girlfriend did not hear any of the parents’ conversation but stated that she saw the Mother and Penelope running towards her after the session and that both appeared to be scared and panicked. [ 33 ] Ms Roy claimed that she does not hold any animosity towards the Father despite acknowledging that their breakup was not “peaceful”. Randy Huberdeau [ 34 ] Mr Huberdeau is the proud Maternal Grandfather of Penelope. [ 35 ] He testified that he never felt comfortable around Mr Morehouse.

He spoke of the Father’s aggressive nature and said that he has been subjected to the Father’s verbal aggression and has also seen it being used against others. Shortly after his daughter began her relationship with Mr Morehouse, the couple visited Mr Huberdeau’s house. The grandfather noted that Mr Morehouse referred to his own parents by their first names, which he found odd. The Father described his own Mother as “kind of a bitch” and then muttered under his breath, “and like most women, useless”.

The grandfather discussed one instance when he saw Mr Morehouse kick one of the latter’s dogs from the top of the patio steps down to grass level. He did not say what precipitated this act by the Father. He also disclosed an incident at the Calgary courthouse when he attempted to record Mr Morehouse operating a vehicle. At the time, Mr Huberdeau suspected that the Father’s license was suspended.

When Mr Morehouse saw the Grandfather, he attempted to take Mr Huberdeau’s phone by punching him. [ 36 ] The Grandfather has never witnessed his daughter being physically mistreated by the Father but had concerns about the same. He had noticed bruise marks on the Mother’s neck and inside her arm during the time his daughter and Mr Morehouse were together. Mr Huberdeau subsequently found out that the marks were caused by Mr Morehouse. The grandfather also spoke of the wedding incident in Canmore and the bite marks on Ms Huberdeau, which he characterized as “hard [and] deep”.

He recalled his disappointment thinking that his daughter was “stronger than that” and spoke of a past schism in their own relationship due to his disapproval of Mr Morehouse. [ 37 ] Mr Huberdeau did not offer any observations of the Father’s parenting skills. However, on one occasion he and his wife took the child on an outing to the zoo.

Penelope refused to eat the cheese and crackers which her grandparents had packed as she wanted to save the snack for later because the Father allegedly had no food at his house. [ 38 ] When Mr Huberdeau went to the house where his daughter and Mr Morehouse resided, the grandfather saw that the gun safe was open; a gun was on the pool table and ammunition laying around. Mr Morehouse told the Grandfather that he always had a loaded handgun in his nightstand. Mr Huberdeau also noted copious amounts of beer cases situated throughout the house.

He said that he often smelled alcohol on Mr Morehouse. [ 39 ] Mr Huberdeau spoke of the day when his daughter went to Court for a JDR session with the Father. He recalled the sheriffs showing them a still shot of the Father at the courthouse. Mr Huberdeau was aware that there was a warrant for Mr Morehouse’s arrest and that his whereabouts were unknown. The grandfather stated that the sheriffs placed his family and the Mother’s counsel in a room at the courthouse for their safety. The group remained there until 7:00 pm.

Both the sheriffs and members of the Calgary Police Service (CPS) recommended the Mother apply for an EPO which Court records show was granted on the same day. The Grandfather was

advised by a police officer that everyone needed to be “hypervigilant” in safeguarding the Mother’s whereabouts. Thereafter, Ms Huberdeau and her child stayed at a hotel – the location of which was only known by her own father for safety reasons. [ 40 ] The Grandfather’s evidence was strongly child-focussed as he repeatedly expressed his concerns about Penelope’s well-being. Mr Huberdeau said that he was worried about the fate of his eldest granddaughter if Mr Morehouse came back into the child’s life.

He believes that Penelope should grow up without any fear and implored the Court to consider the case from the child’s point of view and to do what was in her best interests - regardless of the parents’ positions. THE FATHER’S CASE David Morehouse [ 41 ] Mr Morehouse is currently 35 years old and resides in Didsbury with his current girlfriend. While he had previously sought full-time care of Penelope, he now just wants to be a part of his child’s life.

Mr Morehouse admitted that he does not know his daughter, as it has been a long time since he last saw her. [ 42 ] The Father agreed with the Mother that the two had begun dating in 2011 and started living together around the time Ms Huberdeau became pregnant with Penelope.

After the child’s birth, he spent as much time with his daughter as he could, but acknowledged that he had two different jobs – one which involved double shifts, while the other required him to work out of town several days each week. [ 43 ] The Father said that many of the allegations made against him were either incomplete versions of what actually occurred or were outright fabricated. He did, however, admit that he and the Mother fought a great deal during the course of their relationship.

He also admitted calling Ms Huberdeau derogatory names but denied doing so in front of the child and alleged that things “were said on both sides”. [ 44 ] He denied ever being physically violent towards the Mother and addressed each of the instances alleged by her. First, Mr Morehouse said that there had never been any incident wherein he kneed Ms Huberdeau in the face and broke her phone. [ 45 ] Second, he told the Court that both he and Ms Huberdeau had been drinking during the Canmore wedding and were “being idiots”.

After the festivities, the father said he was merely trying to fall asleep and “next thing you know, the cops are there”. Despite his claim that he had a limited memory of what occurred on the evening in question, Mr Morehouse then said that the Mother jumped on his back and had him in a chokehold. He bit her in order to get away and then went back to sleep. On cross-examination, he stated that he could not remember punching the Mother in the face or causing her to bleed, preventing her from leaving the room, nor resisting arrest by the police.

Mr Morehouse asserted that the Mother was the aggressor in the incident, despite criminal charges only being laid against him. He resolved the charges by entering into a Peace Bond. [ 46 ] Third, Mr Morehouse addressed the alleged incident of September 2014 when the Mother was preparing to go to a work appointment. He denied that he had thrown the Mother against the wall and could not remember damaging any items or work equipment which belonged to Ms Huberdeau.

He again alleged that the Mother was the aggressor as she had him against the wall and her arm against his neck. [ 47 ] Mr Morehouse dismissed any suggestion that he had ever been physically aggressive with any of his partners and alleged that they were the ones who were violent with him. He specifically disagreed that he had ever used corporal punishment on his child. He asserted that he never told his former girlfriend, Ms Roy, to kill herself; never mistreated their dog and did not remember the day wherein he allegedly smashed the window of Ms Roy’s vehicle.

The Father did acknowledge having some type of fight with Annette Roy in March 2017, and being arrested as a result, but then said that he was not charged with anything. He also accepted that he set some of Ms Roy’s property on fire, but only after advising his ex-girlfriend of his intentions to do so. [ 48 ] On cross-examination, he admitted getting into an altercation with another former partner, Allison Sawyer, and “accidently” punching her in the stomach.

Insofar as the exchange between the Father and the Paternal Grandfather at the courthouse, he said that he noticed the Huberdeau family as well as Ms Roy trying to open the door to his vehicle. He swatted at the Grandfather as the latter was attempting to record him, but ultimately left to avoid any further confrontation. Mr Morehouse specifically denied pushing or punching the Grandfather. [ 49 ] With respect to his alleged intolerance towards different groups, Mr Morehouse denied being a racist, but admitted using the “n-word” to refer to his black friends who were supposedly “fine” with it.

Somewhat similarly, he said that his friends often tease each other about being gay when out in a social setting, however, any such comments are made jokingly. He denied saying anything derogatory about homosexuals in Penelope’s presence and claimed he would have no issue with his daughter being attracted to both sexes.

And finally, Mr Morehouse agreed that he sometimes referred to women as “sluts, cunts” and “bitches” but again, claimed that he did so in a “light-hearted” way. [ 50 ] The Father acknowledged being the owner of several firearms but said that guns were never left around the house as alleged by the Mother and her witnesses. He asserted that he has always safely stored his firearms as well as any ammunition. Paradoxically, he then spoke of a pellet gun that he had by his door due to the prevalence of magpies and gophers.

He felt that the gun would not pose any danger as no child would have the strength to load it and due to the ammunition being stored elsewhere. [ 51 ] The Father testified that he was a casual drinker when he was with Ms Huberdeau and continued to be after their breakup. He then admitted that he did drink to excess at one point after the end of their relationship. It was not clear when this period occurred, although Mr Morehouse said that he was drinking too much until a motor vehicle accident in November 2019.

He agreed that he was once estranged from his own mother due to his drinking, but again, there was no evidence as to when this occurred. He did not say what

effect, if any, his consumption had on his mood or behaviour. During his relationship with Ms Roy, he admitted that he would sometimes pass out after consuming too much alcohol. Most instances, however, simply involved him falling asleep after a long day at work and having “a couple of beers”. Regardless, the Father said he never drank to excess in the presence of Penelope. The Father did not deny that he had a “DUI” (driving under the influence) charge, which resulted in his license suspension as well as the impoundment of his vehicle on two different occasions.

He further admitted that he drove notwithstanding his suspension, including instances when Penelope was in the vehicle, but only whilst on the Paternal Grandmother’s farm and not on public roads. The Father asserted that he has never been drunk when speaking with Penelope, including the occasion of her 2019 birthday, which was referenced by Ms Huberdeau. [ 52 ] The Father found co-parenting with Ms Huberdeau to be stressful as there was little communication between the parties. His parenting time with Penelope ceased in the summer of 2017 or 2018.

He did not see his daughter again until he met her and Ms Huberdeau at Luna Counselling. After being advised that the counsellor could not assist the family, he asked the Mother if he could take Penelope on vacation and when denied the same, simply left the building. He disagreed with the Mother’s accounting of his belligerence after she wouldn’t allow the child to accompany him to B.C. [ 53 ] After the unsuccessful attempt at counselling, Mr Morehouse said that he reached out to the Mother about possible parenting time, but received no reply.

He did not comment further on when he did so, the number of times he attempted to contact Ms Huberdeau, nor what he may have said to the Mother. [ 54 ] Mr Morehouse spoke about the incident when the Mother attended his house seeking his signature on Penelope’s passport application. He did not remember whether or not he was intoxicated, but eventually agreed that it was a possibility. He said he took umbrage at Ms Huberdeau appearing unannounced, notwithstanding his admission that she texted him to let him know that she was coming over.

He later said that he didn’t want to sign the application as he does not like it when people make demands on him. The Father did not address the Mother’s allegation that he assaulted his then-girlfriend, Allison Sayer, that same night. In response to the alleged threats heard by Ms Sawyer that he would shoot Ms Huberdeau and kidnap their daughter, he denied ever making such statements.

Nevertheless, he accepted that he was charged with uttering threats as a result of the incident and that he resolved the charges through a Peace Bond. [ 55 ] The Father spoke of a motor vehicle accident which occurred in November 2019 wherein he broke his back. As a result, he required several surgeries and hospital stays. He said that, as such, he was not able to attend the January 3, 2020 JDR. He thought the efforts of a hospital social worker and his mother resulted in the JDR being postponed. Instead, he was eventually served with an EPO after an officer phoned him to ascertain his whereabouts.

At the time, the Father said he was still in the hospital, but was using an alias on the advice of his Mother and due to his fear that the Maternal Grandfather might “come after” him. Mr Morehouse denied that he was registered under an assumed name in order to avoid being arrested for his warrants. [ 56 ] The EPO authorized the confiscation of the Father’s guns and firearm paraphernalia. The Father eventually conceded that he once had a bulletproof vest, as well as a silencer, but denied ordering these items from the WISH website.

The Father claimed that the vest was received as a gift and the silencer was included in a gun purchase, however, it was “fake”. He was confronted with a WISH Order form which set out the vest and silencer as desired items for purchase and he confirmed that it was his address on the form, but refused to believe that the order was from his account. Mr Morehouse states that he no longer has any guns in his possession. [ 57 ] Mr Morehouse spoke about the Practice Note 7 (PN 7) Report which had been ordered by the Court and authored by Glenda Lux, a registered psychologist.

He questioned the validity of his child’s comments within the report. These comments indicated that she did not want to have contact with her Father nor go to any type of reunification counselling. The Father expressed his firm belief that Penelope has been alienated from him. He said that through the years, his daughter has been coached and manipulated, although he had no proof of the same. The Father said that he has not behaved in a manner which would lead to his daughter’s feelings.

He was confused as to why Penelope would initially agree to reunification counselling and then change her mind. [ 58 ] When counsel for the child indicated that she never sent an email indicating Penelope’s desire for counselling as asserted by the Father, he reiterated that such an email existed, but could not produce the same. Instead, the correspondence entered into evidence showed the opposite – that Penelope did not want to go to counselling and does not feel comfortable with her Father. Natalie Morehouse [ 59 ] Mrs Morehouse is the Paternal Grandmother of the child.

She said that her relationship with her son is now “good”, but towards the end of 2017 or 2018, the two were estranged. The Grandmother said that she does not have a relationship with Penelope and, historically, has spent little time with her. She said that she has attempted to send messages to the child but does not receive any responses back. She does not remember the last time she has spoken with Penelope. [ 60 ] Mrs Morehouse relayed her observations about her son’s past relationships.

She has never witnessed any physical violence between Ms Huberdeau and Mr Morehouse, although there were times the two “jokingly” argued with each other. Similarly, she never saw any violence take place between her son and Ms Roy. She could not comment on Ms Sawyer, as the Paternal Grandmother had never met the Father’s now ex-girlfriend. Nonetheless, Mrs Morehouse appeared to be aware that allegations had been made about her son being physically abusive towards his romantic partners.

She stated that she did not know if any violence had taken place but said that “things get blown out of proportion” and “you have to consider who is making these allegations”. When confronted with the Father’s past criminal charges, she did not know that Mr Morehouse had faced a charge of assault and explained that his other charges ended with a Peace Bond. [ 61 ] The Paternal Grandmother believes that he has friends from all sorts of minority or ethnic groups and said that he would only make disparaging comments “if he was telling a joke”.

She expressed doubts that her son is homophobic, although she has heard him making “funny” homophobic comments. She denied ever hearing her son refer to all women in a derogatory manner but acknowledged that he sometimes refers to specific women as “bitches” to which she would likely agree. [ 62 ] Mrs Morehouse told the Court that the Father’s life is in a better place as he is no longer drinking and has been for the last

three to four years. She indicated that she misses her grandchild and would like to have Penelope back in the family. Mrs Morehouse was not aware of Penelope’s reluctance to see her father, but echoed her son’s sentiments that the child has been coached. THE EXPERTS Glenda Lux [ 63 ] Glenda Lux is a registered psychologist who was qualified as an expert in authoring Practice Note 7 Reports (PN 7) as well as domestic violence in a family law context. [ 64 ] She was retained as a result of a Consent Order regarding the potential of reunification therapy between Mr Morehouse and his daughter.

The following questions were posed to her: 1. Are there identifiable safety factors in relation to the Father that would require remediation prior to considering a reunification process? 2. Are there indicators that the child has experienced unresolved trauma? If so, how might that impact a resist-refuse contact problem? Would this require remediation? What would need to be considered and potentially incorporated into a future reunification process? 3.

To the degree possible, outline what other factors might either be present or need to be evaluated/considered with respect to potential reunification therapy. [ 65 ] As part of Ms Lux’s evaluation process, she engaged in clinical interviews with both the Father and the child. In addition, she administered several psychological testing tools to assess the Father. At the time the Father spoke to the psychologist, he believed that he should be entrusted with full-time parenting of the child with limited, if any, parenting time to be accorded to the Mother.

The Court is mindful that Mr Morehouse has since changed his position and is now merely seeking regularly scheduled parenting time with his daughter. [ 66 ] In relaying his history to Ms Lux, the Father refused to accept any responsibility for the demise of his relationships. He spoke of his past arrests, but in each instance, expressed his view that the allegations were malicious and fabricated.

He held the same view regarding incidents where domestic violence was alleged by his partners. [ 67 ] Mr Morehouse admitted that he drank a lot after he “lost Penelope” and said that at his worst point, he was consuming approximately ten beers per day. The Father stated that his alcohol consumption never affected his mood nor any of his relationships, aside from the one he had with Ms Huberdeau due to the two drinking together. He reports that he now seldomly drinks.

His testing scores (in the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory) confirm that in the past year, there is a low probability of Mr Morehouse suffering from a substance use disorder. [ 68 ] In interviewing Penelope, the child relayed to Ms Lux that she is fearful of seeing her Father. While she enjoyed certain aspects of time with him, she said that there were also difficulties including his drinking, which she described in some detail; his failure or refusal to spend any meaningful time with her; and the lack of food in his house. Most notable of her concerns was the child’s fear.

Penelope spoke of, inter alia : • being yelled at and spanked with a wooden spoon or belt by her Father; • fighting between the Father and his girlfriend, including seeing the latter being locked outside, having her phone “smashed” out of her hand and being grabbed or pulled by her Father; • an incident wherein her Father violently pounded on the window of his girlfriend’s car while Penelope was sitting inside; • seeing guns in her Father’s home; and • experiencing her Father drive too quickly in his car. [ 69 ] In answer to the questions posed by the Court for her consideration, Ms Lux opined that the Father’s history of alcohol abuse should be addressed prior to a reunification process taking place.

Parents with substance abuse disorders often have caregiving deficits. Mr Morehouse’s significant level of denial about his drinking, how it affected his behaviour and the effects of his behaviour on others – including his own child – are problematic. Ms Lux pointed out that people who suffer from alcohol abuse have a substantial relapse rate and that the Father has taken no steps to address relapse prevention. [ 70 ] Ms Lux also spoke about the Father’s purported violent behaviour.

She said the reports from Penelope are consistent with domestic violence having occurred at the hands of Mr Morehouse, but he has denied and minimized the same. The Father’s claim that Penelope did not witness or experience any violence contradicted what the child said. Ms Lux spoke of the fear that victims experience when domestic violence has occurred due, in part, to the uncertainty of when such violence will occur. She said that such fear is considered an Adverse Childhood Experience.

As past violence is an indicator of future violence, the psychologist feels that Mr Morehouse’s behaviour in the respect must also be remediated prior to any reunification taking place. [ 71 ] Ms Lux found that Penelope has experienced trauma from her previous contact with her Father. The psychologist spoke of the child’s anxiety; avoidance of being alone; panic attacks; and feeling on guard. She indicated that Penelope was visibly upset and cried as she recounted memories of her Father. Ms Lux did not believe that the child’s viewpoint was influenced by others.

While she recognized that Ms Huberdeau may have spoke to her daughter about her experience, she said that this would be natural and appropriate. Furthermore, the child did disclose positive memories of her Father, which Ms Lux felt added to Penelope’s credibility. Penelope was

clear and consistent and did not wish to see her Father nor to engage in a reunification process. Given the status quo , the psychologist believes that attempts at the same would cause the child significant stress and would destabilize Penelope. If reunification is contemplated nonetheless, Ms Lux believes that the same should occur in stages with Mr Morehouse being responsible to address some of the issues identified in her report. [ 72 ] Ms Lux was aware that the Father had retained another psychologist, Dr Terrence Singh, to review her own work.

She was provided with his Review and was concerned that notwithstanding Dr Singh’s qualifications, he did not have any specialty in domestic violence. Ms Lux felt that without this expertise, the significance of domestic violence within a family law context would likely be missing. Ms Lux cited a study from the Reisman Institute in B.C. wherein the Institute recognized that there are issues with undertraining in the area of domestic violence. The Reisman Institute is an organization which integrates various types of research in order to share information amongst those who are involved in different areas of study.

Ms Lux also cited a Code developed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), which provides guidance on different issues seen in youth and family courts. The Council is an organization based in the U.S. and as such, Ms Lux did not know whether or not any Canadian courts have adopted the NCJFCJ standards. [ 73 ] Ms Lux shared her belief that in instances where there is domestic violence in a relationship, the needs of individuals within that family are different from a mere high-conflict situation.

She felt that the enhancement of an individual’s parenting skills or the provision of reunification therapy are neither adequate nor appropriate to deal with parenting time issues. First and foremost, the safety of the children should be the key priority for the Courts, as well as any therapists who are treating the family’s members. Ms Lux indicated that Dr Singh’s comments on reunification therapy and, ultimately, his review of her own report is undermined by several factors. [ 74 ] First, the underlying notion of reunification therapy automatically favoured contact between the parties involved.

In cases where there is domestic violence and a child is involved, safety of the child should be the prevalent concern and not reunification. Ms Lux suggested that Dr Singh did not properly consider the same. Instead, he starts from the assumption that reunification therapy should be utilized and can take place simultaneously with other remedial steps which the Father could take.

Ms Lux strongly disagrees with this viewpoint and feels that safeguards such as Mr Morehouse’s completion of a substance relapse program should be in place before any therapy begins for Penelope and her father. [ 75 ] Second, many professionals are traditionally undertrained in the area of domestic violence and the significance it plays in families. As a result, many conflate high conflict situations between partners as being similar to situations involving domestic violence.

The problem with this approach is that parties who have high conflict with one another both contribute to domestic disharmony, whereas domestic violence involves one individual perpetrating the violence and the other being victimized. It would be a fallacy to conclude that in a relationship involving domestic violence, both parties somehow contribute to the problem.

Ms Lux believes that Dr Singh has equated high conflict situations with domestic violence and as such, is incorrect in his critique of her work. [ 76 ] Third, forcing a child who has witnessed or experienced violence within the home to engage in reunification therapy prioritizes the aggressor and his right to have a relationship with the child over the child’s own feelings and concerns. It is, in Ms Lux’s view, professional gaslighting.

As such, Ms Lux is critical of Dr Singh’s assertions that the delay of reunification counselling would be detrimental to resolving Penelope’s reluctance in seeing her Father. [ 77 ] In closing, Ms Lux reiterated the importance of the need for the Father to address his alcohol use due to the link between alcohol abuse and domestic violence. While the former does not cause the latter, alcohol is known to be a disinhibitor, which would increase the likelihood of the loss of impulse control.

She also spoke of the need for the Father to formally address his domestically violent behaviour as a safeguard against future similar conduct. His failure or refusal to acknowledge the same – let alone its significance – is highly problematic. Finally, Ms Lux ostensibly recognized that it would be misleading to describe Penelope as a traumatized child and clarified that Penelope had experience traumatic effects with traumatic responses. Dr Terrence Singh [ 78 ] Dr Singh is a registered psychologist who completed his Master’s Degree and Ph.D. in clinical psychology.

As a Ph.D. student, he worked at the Detroit Receiving Hospital where one of his roles was to counsel family members who were victims of domestic violence. In 2018, he obtained a certificate of Child and Family Forensics, which involved course work over a two-month period wherein there was a focus on child maltreatment and intimate partner violence. Dr Singh was qualified as an expert in psychology. [ 79 ] Dr Singh noted the following concerns with respect to Ms Lux’s report: 1.

The consent forms which Ms Lux had the Father complete prior to her assessment contained, at times, contradictory and irrelevant information. Furthermore, much of the information provided by Ms Lux was in context of therapy as opposed to a PN 7. For example, one of the forms indicated that there would be limited confidentiality in his disclosures, while another indicated that all of Mr Morehouse’s disclosures would be confidential.

As such, Dr Singh feels that the Father was not sufficiently informed to properly provide his consent and that the same could be seen in his comment to Ms Lux of, “I understand you are supposed to be biased”. 2. While Ms Lux indicated that she implemented the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) in assessing the Father, she neither referred to the test nor its scores in her Report. Perhaps just as significantly, the results were not included in Mr Morehouse’s file which was given by Ms Lux to Dr Singh in order for him to review. 3.

Ms Lux did not follow best practices when she met with the Mother prior to meeting with the Father. This could result in her being biased. Dr Singh cited Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ (AFCC) protocol wherein any allegation which an evaluator is likely to consider should be brought to the attention of the party against whom it is made. By doing so, the accused party would be given an opportunity to respond. Dr Singh opined that the PN 7 author deprived Mr Morehouse of such an opportunity. 4.

Most concerning to Dr Singh was his view that Ms Lux’s recommendations did not provide an adequate level of rationale or specificity. Ms Lux’s opinion that the Father needs to engage in alcohol abstinence in order to participate in reunification therapy is not

supported by psychological literature. And her failure to articulate why the Father must engage in abstinence and relapse prevention counselling prior to engaging in such therapy undermines the validity of Ms Lux’s recommendation that he do so. 5. There is equal concern that Ms Lux’s suggested interventions do not entail clear goals, timelines and markers for successful outcomes. In order for the Father to know what should be worked on; what improvements need to be seen; and who assesses the type and level of improvement, Ms Lux should have provided more information to Mr Morehouse. 6.

Ms Lux conflated the Father’s abusive treatment of the Mother with abusive treatment of the child. Furthermore, now that the parents are no longer together, such abuse will no longer have an opportunity to manifest itself. And while past physical punishment of a child is problematic, assisting a parent in correcting such behaviour is a common aspect of reunification prior to contact occurring. 7. It was misleading for Ms Lux to assert that Penelope is a traumatized child, as she does not exhibit any clinically significant mental health struggles as would be required before such a diagnosis is made.

THE LAW & ANALYSIS [ 80 ] S 18 of the Family Law Act , c F-45 ( FLA ) mandates that in all decisions made by the Court, the best interests of the child prevail. The Court must take steps to ensure that the child’s physical, psychological and emotional safety is offered the greatest possible protection. In doing so, there should be consideration of the child’s needs and circumstances. [ 81 ] In the case at bar, Ms Huberdeau has expressed strong concerns about the Father’s conduct.

During her testimony, she articulated her worries about Penelope’s safety if the Father were to have parenting time and, indeed, remain the child’s Guardian. The Mother testified about the abusive treatment to which she was subjected during the time that she lived with the Father, as well as safety concerns which arose after their relationship ended.

She spoke of three specific instances wherein she was physically assaulted by Mr Morehouse, two of which involved the police. [ 82 ] Ms Huberdeau claimed that during the relatively brief period in which the family all resided together, the Father’s contribution to the parenting of Penelope was limited in nature. After the couple’s breakup, the Mother found it difficult to co-parent with her former partner, but her fears over the child’s care were alleviated due to the role played by the Father’s then-girlfriend, Annette Roy.

Nonetheless, she began to receive information from Mr Morehouse’s subsequent partners of his failure to actively care for Penelope, as well as the partners’ alleged mistreatment at the hands of the Father. These allegations bore a striking resemblance to the Mother’s own experiences with Mr Morehouse which caused her to remain fearful of the Father.

Furthermore, some of the observations made by the Father’s partners with respect to his intolerance towards minority groups, his ownership of various firearms and the unsafe storage of these guns as well as his alcohol consumption, were highly similar in nature to Ms Huberdeau’s observations. Notably, Ms Huberdeau remains fearful of the Father and how his presence in her life and that of her child would not be in Penelope’s best interests.

She spoke of her attempts to deal with reunification between the Father and child by attending Luna Counselling, but neither the counselling session nor time itself, have done anything to ameliorate her concerns. Since their separation nearly a decade ago, Ms Huberdeau has been the complainant in criminal charges against the Father, obtained an EPO against Mr Morehouse and has taken steps to ensure that the Father remain unaware of where she is living or where the child attends school. [ 83 ] Similar safety concerns were relayed by the child, herself, in disclosures made to Ms Lux.

Penelope has alleged that her Father spanked her with a wooden spoon and a belt. She said that she tried to prevent the same by “doing her best to do the things her father asked [of] her”. Penelope also spoke of feeling scared with respect to her father and has consistently maintained that she does not want to see him. She disclosed instances when the police responded to her father’s home and when she has seen in mistreat his girlfriend. Penelope also believed that her father drank too much and gave descriptions of him falling, smelling bad and sounding odd.

While the child had some pleasant memories of Mr Morehouse, she also reported him often not wanting to do very much with her – as he preferred watching TV, as well as the lack of food in his house when she stayed there. [ 84 ] Mr Morehouse did not strenuously contest allegations about his verbal abuse of his romantic partners but opined that his girlfriends bore equal responsibility for name calling or escalating argumentative situations. He denied ever being physically aggressive with Ms Huberdeau, Penelope, Ms Roy or Ms Sawyer and instead, asserted that they had all been violent with him.

He attributed difficulties in co-parenting with the Mother firmly on the Mother – at one point saying to Ms Lux that Ms Huberdeau “was a dick”. He admitted the use of derogatory terms towards minorities, members of the LGBTQ community and women, but explained that he only ever did so jokingly. He denied holding any intolerant views. While he admitted the past ownership of various guns, Mr Morehouse said that he has always stored his firearms safely. The Father acknowledged a period of excessive drinking but did not feel that his consumption affected his behaviour towards others.

Despite his sentiments that the child had been alienated, the Father admitted he had no evidence in that regard. [ 85 ] Mr Morehouse concluded his testimony in chief by saying he has a room in his current house earmarked for Penelope and relaying his hopes to have some type of relationship with his only child. He did not disclose what, if any, steps he has taken to reach out to his daughter. [ 86 ] In assessing the differing versions of past events between the two parents, I accept the allegations made by Ms Huberdeau where the same differ from the Father for several reasons. 1.

The Mother was consistent and detailed in recalling past occurrences, whereas the Father simply offered bare denials without more. In making this finding, I am mindful that Ms Huberdeau would sometimes offer differing dates of specific events. However, many of these dates occurred roughly a decade ago. Ms Huberdeau’s differences in testimony did not, in the Court’s viewpoint, affect the veracity of what she said occurred between the parties. 2.

Much of what the Mother said was corroborated by other parties – her father; past girlfriends, and most significantly, by the Father’s own admission that he faced several criminal charges arising out of the different incidents.

3. The Father’s own testimony was inherently problematic. Often, he would deny an allegation, but then claim that he had no memory of such events occurring. Upon further questioning, he would then assert that the other party was responsible for any problems. Either a person has a memory of what occurred or does not. When one vacillates between these two diametrically opposed claims, the reliability of their testimony is detrimentally affected. I also note that in one instance, he specifically denied putting a shoe in his pet dog’s mouth and then duct taping it shut.

During Ms Roy’s evidence, she simply alleged that Mr Morehouse had taped the dog’s mouth shut and did not mention any shoe. The fact that the Father referenced this specific detail leads the Court to suspect that something untoward did occur. 4. While the Court has specifically considered the Father’s allegation that Penelope has been alienated or somehow influenced by the Mother in the child’s viewpoints, there is a dearth of evidence in this regard. Some of the child’s assertions occurred when the Mother was not present, so it is difficult to see how the Mother could manipulate such a memory.

Further, while it was apparent that some of the Mother’s witnesses had a relationship with Ms Huberdeau, there was no suggestion that any of them had conspired with Ms Huberdeau with respect to their testimony. [ 87 ] I also note that throughout the Father’s testimony, he spoke of matters wherein he either alleged another’s wrongdoing (i.e., it was Ms Roy who stated that she wanted the Mother to be run over by a bus and not him) or certain facts which either absolved him of wrongdoing or called into question the veracity of the same (i.e., he did not own a pool table at the time he was seeing Ms Huberdeau and therefore could not have had guns on the said table as alleged by the Maternal Grandfather).

I have disregarded these assertions in instances where the same were not properly put to the Mother’s witnesses, as the Father’s testimony runs afoul of the Rule in Browne v Dunn . [ 88 ] As such, I accept the Mother’s argument that the child’s physical, psychological and emotional safety would be compromised if the Father were to be given parenting time based on the situation as it stood in January 2020. Since then, however, it is quite possible that things have changed. The Court must consider the best interests of the child as it stands today. [ 89 ] Penelope has not seen her Father for several years.

The child continues to express her strong reluctance in seeing her Father or engaging in any type of counselling geared towards that end. Ms Lux opined that certain safeguards must be in place prior to reunification counselling occurring – including the Father’s participation in substance abuse relapse prevention and amelioration of the Father’s domestically violent tendencies. [ 90 ] Dr Singh has expressed concerns over the PN 7 author’s report. To be clear, Dr Singh was not retained to provide an alternate PN 7, and he has never met with any of the litigants involved in this case.

The doctor did not receive any of the legal documents contained in the Court file. Dr Singh reviewed only Ms Lux’s Report and raw data. His role is not to offer an opinion on the questions posed by the Court, but rather, to review her methodology and to opine whether or not her methodology affected her conclusions.

He cannot offer an opinion as to whether Mr Morehouse and Penelope should see one another and if so, what that should look like. [ 91 ] Dr Singh’s concern that the Father may not have fully understood the purpose for which the Report was ordered must be seen in light of Mr Morehouse’s consent to the PN 7. The Father was represented by counsel and agreed to participate. He was in the midst of litigation at the time.

It would not make sense that he was unaware that Ms Lux’s Report could be used in Court. [ 92 ] During the course of Dr Singh’s testimony, he mentioned several times that Ms Lux drafted her own referral questions to be answered in her report. Ostensibly, this could have had an effect on the issues to be addressed and ultimately, may have led to certain recommendations or findings made by the PN 7 author. As Dr Singh did not have the benefit of legal documents on the file, one can see how he may have thought that Ms Lux played a role in setting out the parameters of her own report.

However, the questions answered by Ms Lux were posed by the Court itself, in a Consent PN 7 Intervention Order. [ 93 ] The absence of Mr Morehouse’s MMPI test scores – in Ms Lux’s Report as well as in her file – are troubling to the Court, however, the significance of the same is impossible to ascertain. Ms Lux was never asked what the scores were nor whether they factored into her findings in any manner and if not, why not. Similarly, Dr Singh did not comment what effect the absence of the test or the failure to consider the same would have on a psychological finding or recommendation.

As such, the Court is not in a position to consider what importance, if any, this failure or refusal has on the case at bar. [ 94 ] Dr Singh mentioned the dangers of bias which Ms Lux may have had with respect to the Mother’s concerns over the Father’s violent tendencies or his alcohol consumption. He noted that Ms Lux spoke with Ms Huberdeau prior to speaking with Mr Morehouse. As such, Ms Lux deprived the Father of an opportunity to address the allegations made against him.

As indicated previously, most, if not all, of Ms Huberdeau’s testimony was corroborated through the testimony of others or by way of criminal charges laid against Mr Morehouse. Again, I appreciate that Dr Singh may not have been aware of the same. However, I do not find that Ms Lux’s attempts to ascertain the Father’s viewpoints with respect to concerns made about his parenting were biased. Most tellingly, Mr Morehouse himself, indicated that he resolved several of his criminal charges by entering into a Peace Bond.

In order to do so, Mr Morehouse would have had to acknowledge that the complainant, in each case, either had reason to fear him, which supports the Mother’s position that he has engaged in aggressive behaviour in the past; or that the Peace Bond was necessary to avoid a future breach of the peace.

The latter acknowledgment also supports the Mother’s position in light of the domestic settings in which the charges arose. [ 95 ] For the same reasons, I do not find that Ms Lux has conflated the concerns of Penelope with those of her Mother. [ 96 ] Finally, Dr Singh emphasized that, in his view, Ms Lux has failed to provide clinical reasons why reunification therapy should be delayed or conditional upon the Father first addressing certain concerns. However, his opinion appears to be premised on the notion that, absent a good reason for declining the same, reunification therapy should be the fallback position.

In other words, Dr Singh seems to suggest that reunification counselling should be mandated unless there is a reason why it should not take place. And while there may be a possibility that many of his professional colleagues agree with Dr Singh from a psychological point of view, there is no such legal precedent for utilizing this approach. The Court has been tasked with examining what is in this child’s best interests, which requires consideration of Penelope’s needs and circumstances. Reunification therapy, by its very nature, is utilized to reunite two parties who are otherwise estranged.

It would be an error for me to assume that such therapy would be in Penelope’s best interest unless proven

otherwise. [ 97 ] After examining all the facts of the case at bar, as well as the factors set out in s 18, I find that it is in the child’s best interests to grant Ms Huberdeau’s application in its entirety. She has been the child’s primary caregiver for Penelope’s entire life and has provided her daughter with a stable and loving home. Mr Morehouse, on the other hand, was physically abusive towards the Mother and has – despite the presence of his daughter – been verbally abusive as well.

Any argument that his behaviour towards Ms Huberdeau should no longer be a concern due to the parties no longer being in a relationship with one another is entirely undermined by the Father’s conduct towards his subsequent romantic partners and his continued and intense animosity towards the Mother. Ms Huberdeau’s evidence that she and her supports were placed in a room by peace officers during a relatively recent court proceeding, and Mr Morehouse’s comments to Ms Lux wherein he called the Mother a “dick”, demonstrate that neither the Father’s conduct nor his attitudes have changed.

Not only is this problematic in relation to the child’s safety and general well-being, it also speaks to the Father’s inability and/or unwillingness to cooperate on issues affecting the child. [ 98 ] During the time period in which the Father and Penelope have not seen each other, Mr Morehouse has taken no steps to address his violent tendencies within domestic settings nor his intolerant views. Indeed, there is scant evidence to show that he recognizes any issue with his behaviour.

From a commonsense perspective, an individual would have no incentive to address a problem of which he is unaware or which he refuses to admit exists. While I find that there is no evidence to support the notion that the Father currently drinks to excess or that he still has firearms in his possession, I am not satisfied that these two factors, in and of themselves, is enough for the Court to ameliorate its concerns about the child’s safety and well-being.

The Father’s drinking problem may have played a negative role in his ability to appropriately parent the child and may have detrimentally affected his impulse control. However, one’s sobriety is not synonymous with good parenting. There was little evidence of Mr Morehouse’s parenting skills and conversely much evidence that he rarely demonstrated an ability to independently care for and meet Penelope’s needs.

Further, I accept Ms Lux’s testimony that taking away alcohol abuse as a factor does not automatically result in the prevention of domestic violence. [ 99 ] The child has consistently expressed her strong reluctance to have any relationship with her Father. I accept Dr Singh’s observation that, based on Ms Lux’s observations, Penelope does not appear to meet the psychological requirements for a diagnosis of trauma.

However, Ms Lux’s observations of Penelope’s extreme discomfort in her recounting of past incidents involving her Father and at the notion of seeing her Father, are corroborated by Ms Huberdeau’s own testimony. DECISION [ 100 ] It is clear, and I so find, that Penelope does not want to see Mr Morehouse and that there is no evidence of any alienation. Mr Morehouse concedes that he does not know his daughter given their years of estrangement. Regrettably, the Court finds that it is in the best interests of this child to formalize the status quo .

It is in the best interests of the child to terminate the Father’s Guardianship of her and as such, any parenting time with her as well. Heard on the 13 th , 14 th , 15 th and 16 th days of February, 2023, and the 4 th , 5 th and 6 th days of July 2023. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 18 th day of October 2023. D. Mah A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: A. Wilson for the Applicant I. Jenkins for the Respondent

L. Thiessen for the child