Paradis v Gray, 2022 NSSC 322

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Paradis v Gray , 2022 NSSC 322 Date: 20221102 Docket: SFHPSA-126813 Registry: Halifax Between: Megan Paradis Applicant v Nathaniel Gray Respondent And Between: Docket: SFHPSA-126863 Registry: Halifax Michelle Gray Applicant v Megan Paradis and Nathaniel Gray Respondents Judge: The Honourable Justice Theresa M.

Forgeron Heard: Oral Decision: October 31, 2022, in Halifax, Nova Scotia November 2, 2022 Written Release: November 3, 2022 Counsel: Kim Johnson, counsel for Megan Paradis Michelle Gray, self-represented Nathaniel Gray, self-represented The original text of this decision has been corrected according to the erratum dated November 9, 2022. By the Court: Introduction [ 1 ] This decision focuses on four-year old Clea Gray. Clea is the daughter of Megan Paradis and Nathaniel Gray and the grandchild of Michelle Gray. [ 2 ] Since birth, Ms. Paradis was Clea’s primary care provider.

Clea also enjoyed an excellent relationship with her grandmother. Clea frequently spent weekends and extended periods in the care of Ms. Gray. Further, Ms. Paradis and Ms. Gray also enjoyed a cordial

and respectful relationship. [3] Unfortunately, Clea’s life changed in August 2022. The precipitating factor was Ms. Paradis’ decision to move to her father’shome in the Valley. Ms. Paradis’ father, KC, is named in the child abuse register for committing sexual offences against two children – a13 year old girl and a 15 year old girl. [4] Ms. Gray, together with other family members, were deeply concerned for Clea’s safety. They were afraid that Clea would besexually abused given her vulnerability. In the circumstances, Ms. Gray decided that she could not return Clea to Ms. Paradis’ care.

Ms.Gray also contacted child protection authorities to voice her concerns about Clea’s safety. [5] As a result, on August 7, 2022, when Ms. Paradis and her partner, Ron Delaney arrived to retrieve Clea after an extended stay,Ms. Gray would not return Clea to Ms. Paradis’ care. Ms. Paradis became upset and a window was broken. The police were called. Aprotection order issued. [6] On August 8, 2022, both Ms. Paradis and Ms. Gray applied for custody of Clea.

There was no pre-existing order becausepreviously there had never been a need. [7] On August 11, 2022, child protection authorities advised that after conducting their investigation, the Minister of CommunityServices concluded that Clea would be safe in Ms. Paradis’ care given the safety plan. This was confirmed by letter dated August 24,2022. [8] The matter was scheduled for trial on October 31, 2022. The hearing was converted into an interim one given Ms. Gray’s adjournment request and given the urgency of the matter. On the 31st, I heard evidence from Ms. Rand from the Department ofCommunity Services, Ms.

Paradis, Nicole Byers, Ms. Gray and Mr. Gray. On November 2, 2022, my oral decision was rendered. Issue [9] The issue that I must determine is whether it is in the best interests of Clea to be placed in the interim care of Ms. Paradis orMs. Gray. Analysis Statement of Legal Principles [10] When deciding this issue, I must apply the law as stated in the Parenting and Support Act and as reviewed in court decisions.This law states that when I am making my decision, I must only focus on Clea’s best interests – not on the best interests of either parentor grandparent.

The PSA provides a list of extensive factors that encompass the best interests analysis, however, because I will only bemaking a temporary order, I must focus on what parenting plan is the most supportive and least disruptive to the child. Interim hearingsare meant to provide a temporary solution that will operate for a short period - between now and the final hearing. [11] Thus, the focus of an interim hearing is the preservation of the status quo, unless the status quo is no longer in the child’s bestinterests.

The status quo is the parenting arrangement that the parties followed without reference to the unilateral conduct of one parentand provided the status quo is not contrary to the child’s best interests. [12] In support of this

summary of the law, I rely on the following cases: Belisle v Henneberry, 2019 NSSC 277; AM v AY, 2012NSSC 25; Horton v Marsh, 2008 NSSC 224; Kimpton v. Kimpton, [2002] OJ No 5367 (Ont SCJ); Foley v Foley, (NS SC), [1993] NSJ No 347 (NSSC); Pye v Pye, [1992] NSJ No 133 (NSTD); and Stubson v Stubson, [1991] NSJ No 210 (NSTD). [13] In this case, the status quo represents the living arrangement that existed before Ms. Gary’s unilateral conduct. The status quowas a parenting arrangement where Clea lived primarily with Ms.

Paradis and had extended visits with her paternal grandmother.Therefore, I must ask whether this status quo remains in Clea’s best interests. [14] Before giving my decision, I will review the positions of each of the parties. Position of the Parties [15] For her part, Ms. Gray says that the status quo is not in Clea’s best interests because there is a substantial risk that she will besexually assaulted by her maternal grandfather. Ms. Gray is concerned that Ms. Paradis does not understand the nature of the risk andthat she minimizes the danger. Ms.

Gray is concerned that the DCS did not conduct a thorough investigation and that the safety plandoes not protect Clea. She correctly notes that Clea is a vulnerable four year old with little ability to self-protect. Mr. Gray supports hismother. [16] In contrast, Ms. Paradis disagrees. She states that she and her father have repaired their relationship. She states that he has takenfull accountability for his actions and there have been no other incidences. She states that her father has a solid relationship with hispartner, Amanda Spindler. She notes that she and Ms.

Spindler have taken the STOP program offered by the DCS. She states that sheagreed to the safety plan. She also notes that she has separate living quarters in the attic of her father’s home, including a separateentrance. Finally, she notes that the DCS approved her plan. Decision [17] I have considered the law, the evidence and the arguments of the parties. I will address two points in my decision. First, I willdetermine if Ms. Paradis appreciates the extent of the risk. Second, I will determine if a safety plan can successfully mitigate the risk. [18] Does Ms. Paradis fully appreciate the risk to Clea?

I am concerned that Ms. Paradis does not appreciate the extent of the risk

for the following reasons: • Ms. Paradis does not know the true facts surrounding her father’s criminal activities. Ms. Paradis thought that her father was convicted of one sexual offence. This is not true. In 2002, KC was convicted of sexual interference of a 15-year-old female child. Five years later in 2007, he was convicted of sexual interference of an even younger girl, this time a 13-year-old female child. • Ms. Paradis appears to accept the fact that her father has changed, noting that he has always taken full accountability for his actions.

Unfortunately, I have no evidence that KC has made the necessary changes. I have no evidence of courses or therapy completed. I did not even hear from KC He did not testify, although Ms. Paradis said that she would be calling him as a witness during the pretrial conference. • Ms. Paradis minimized her father’s actions. She said that when he was in his thirties, her father had an “inappropriate relationship” with a teenager. Such a statement causes me to pause. KC did not have a relationship, rather KC groomed and manipulated at least two female children for sexual purposes.

Thirteen and fifteen-year-old children cannot consent. Ever. [ 19 ] Would a safety plan mitigate the substantial risk of sexual abuse? In these circumstances, I find that a properly worded safety plan can mitigate the risk of sexual abuse. The safety plan that must be followed is as follows: • Ms. Paradis must retake the STOP program, or a comparable program approved by the DCS, so that she is better informed of the risk. • Ms. Paradis’ partner, Mr. Delaney, must take the STOP program, or a comparable program approved by the DCS. • Ms. Paradis, KC, Mr. Delaney, and Ms.

Spindler. must sign the safety plan to confirm their knowledge of and commitment to follow the safety plan. • Clea is not to be babysat by anyone under 19 years of age or by anyone who is not fully aware of KC’s criminal history. Clea’s babysitters must sign the safety plan to confirm their knowledge of and commitment to follow the safety plan. • KC is never to be alone with Clea. Two adults, over the age of 19 years and fully aware of KC’s criminal history, must be present at all times when Clea is in KC’s presence.

One of these adults must have successfully completed the STOP program, or a comparable program approved by the DCS. • KC is not allowed in the attic apartment where Clea lives at any time. Clea is not allowed in KC’s home at any time. Any contact between KC and Clea must occur in a public space. • KC is not to be in the same vehicle as Clea. • KC is not to have any physical contact at any time with Clea. He is not to touch, hug, or kiss her.

He is not to tickle or rough house her. • KC is not to dress, bathe, toilet train, or participate in any other activity which will allow KC to see Clea undressed or partially undressed. • KC must not be under a blanket or other cover which could hide his physical contact with Clea. • KC will not be present when Clea is napping, sleeping, toileting, bathing, or preparing for bed or naps. • Clea must be fully dressed when KC is present. • Neither Ms. Paradis nor anyone in her home will take photographs of Clea unclothed, such as bathtub pictures. • No pornography will be kept or shared in Clea’s home. • Ms.

Paradis must read age-appropriate books to Clea which discuss good touch bad touch; not keeping secrets; and how to identify grooming and sexual abuse. • Ms. Paradis must help Clea to identify trusted adults with whom she can confide if she experienced a bad touch or any other concerning behaviour. Such an adult must be aware of KC’s criminal history and have signed the safety plan. [ 20 ] Because I find that a safety plan can mitigate the risk of sexual abuse, I will return Clea to the interim primary care of Ms. Paradis. Ms. Paradis will have interim decision-making authority.

After the interim order issues, Clea will be returned to Ms. Paradis on Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 5:00 pm at the library identified by the parties. [ 21 ] Ms. Gray will have contact with Clea every second weekend, from Friday until Sunday unless there is no preschool on the Friday or Monday in which case, Ms. Gray’s contact will be extended to the Friday or the Monday. This

schedule will be suspended for Christmas. Instead, Ms. Paradis will have Clea in her care from December 23 rd until December 25 th at 4:00 pm. Ms. Gray will have Clea in her care on December 25 th at 4:00 pm until December 28 th at 4:00 pm. [ 22 ] The parties have agreed to participate in a settlement conference to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues on a final basis. If they are not successful, the matter will return to a conference before me, at which time I will assign trial dates. Conclusion [ 23 ] It is in the best interests of Clea to be returned to the interim primary care of Ms. Paradis because such represents the status quo

before the unilateral conduct of Ms. Gray and because the risk to Clea can be mitigated by the safety plan outlined in this decision. [ 24 ] Counsel for Ms. Paradis is to draft and circulate the order. Forgeron, J Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Paradis v Gray , 2022 NSSC 322 Date: 20221102 Docket: SFHPSA-126813 Registry: Halifax Between: Megan Paradis Applicant v Nathaniel Gray Respondent And Between: Docket: SFHPSA-126863 Registry: Halifax Michelle Gray Applicant v Megan Paradis and Nathaniel Gray Respondents ERRATUM Judge: The Honourable Justice Theresa M.

Forgeron Heard: Oral Decision: October 31, 2022, in Halifax, Nova Scotia November 2, 2022 Erratum Date November 9, 2022 Erratum Details Initialized the name of Ms. Paradis’ father in paragraphs 3, 16, 18, 19.