smadax,
The only phrase I can think to describe that situation is Parental Alienation. It is horrible that those practices are occurring.
To me; A parent or custodian who deliberately alienates a child from their other parent and have a disregard for court order contact is not worthy of custody of said child.
In
Tremblay v. Tremblay, [1.], Trussler J. of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the refusal of the child's access rights by custodial parent raises serious questions about same person's fitness as a parent. In paragraph 9 of the judgment:
9. I start with the premise that a parent has the right to see his or her children and is only to be deprived of that right if he or she has abused or neglected the children. Likewise, and more important, a child has a right to the love, care and guidance of a parent. To be denied that right by the other parent without sufficient justification, such as abuse or neglect, is, in itself, a form of child abuse.
In your sisters situation, the custodians haven't completely blocked telephone contact. However, it appears they are making it more difficult and expensive for her to contact her child and have a meaningful relationship with same. "Pay as you go" Plans are somewhat expensive. I believe if your sister had the same "pay as you go plan;" it may be a free incoming call to another "pay as you go" member. This is worthwhile to investigate. I believe Rogers "Pay as you go" plans accommodate such.
http://www.shoprogers.com/store/wire...41Q6VPQFBEDSL3
All that aside, I believe it is the child's right to have their real telephone number and address of where they are located at all times made available to the other parent. When information is not released without just cause, somewhat suggests what the custodians motives really are. Secrecy festers overtime.
Additionally, your sister should also be pursuing information pertaining to the health, welfare and education of said child. If this information is impeded or blocked demonstrates and questions the custodians ability to parent the child effectively.
Your sister is at a significant disadvantage with considerable geographically between the parties. If you sister did move to the direct vicinity to where the child was located, to me this would construe to be a material change of circumstance and therefore be able to vary interim or final order of the child's access or custody. If such were to occur, I believe the court would order traditional alternate weekend access for the child as a minimum.
Because Case Conference are more to do with procedural issues and associated briefs are not sworn evidence; No significant orders will be made at the conference on access to the child unless it was on consent.
Case conferences give the parties the opportunity to get together and perhaps come to a reasonable settlement of the issues. The Judge may give a recommendation or view of how the court would rule at a pending motion.
If the case conference is unsuccessful, Your sister will have to move with a subsequent interim motion in an effort to obtain relief of the issue.
lv
__________________________________________________ ______________
[1.]
Tremblay v. Tremblay, 54 Alta. L.R. (2d) 283, 10 R.F.L. (3d) 166, [1987] 6 W.W.R. 742, 82 A.R. 24