View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 08-01-2015, 01:57 PM
BF BF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 21
BF is on a distinguished road
Default

Last one, OntarioDaddy. With hope it is helpful:

E. Did family violence occur in this case?

[199] I find the Claimantís litigation conduct, related both to the selling of the commercial property and to parenting arrangements, considered in their totality, is a form of emotional abuse and harassment that constitute a form of family violence.

[200] The Respondentís conduct and needless litigation has forced the Claimant to incur litigation expenses, damaging his financial well-being and health. This hindered his capacity to preserve parenting time with the children. Litigation has used up much of his emotional and financial resources.

[201] The stress resulting from the Respondentís conduct and the needless litigation it generated has precipitated in the Claimant a sometimes very painful medical condition that has needed surgical procedures. Contact with the Respondent and litigation aggravates the condition. I note that he was in much pain on his March 2012 and December 2012 access visits, but the children were not made aware of this; and as well in the December 2012 holiday visit, he persisted despite the pain, providing the children with an excellent holiday experience. However, he had to shorten it somewhat, which the Respondent criticized, due to his condition at that time.

[202] The Respondentís refusal to pursue recommended professional counselling for anger management, or take part in courses such as ďParenting after SeparationĒ, and the history thus far, give little reason to expect a change in the Respondentís future behaviour. While anger problems appear not to have directly impacted the childrenís relationship with the Respondent, it remains a concern.

[203] The Respondent complains indignantly about the stress of litigation, for which she blames the Claimant. But I have no evidence of ill-health or stress-related condition from which she suffers.

[204] The best interests of children suffer when abusive oppositional behaviour and litigation fomented by one parentís conduct harms the health and financial well-being of the other parent. This in turn harms the childrenís economic safety and security.

[205] Further, the Respondentís reckless and oppositional behaviour connected with the commercial property has damaged the childrenís safety, and economic security. It effectively deprived them of receiving any benefit from sale of the property, endangered the Claimantís capacity to support the children and consumed money the Claimant could have used for a greater number of parent time visits. The Respondent knew her delaying and oppositional conduct harmed the Claimantís capacity to pay the cost of access visits.

[206] If a parentís abusive conduct harms the well-being of the other parent to the extent they may have to go on stress leave, this negatively impacts the childís economic security.

[207] The Respondent knew the children loved their father very much and felt hurt when the Claimant had to move to Vancouver. They did not fully understand the reasons he had to move away. The Respondent knew the father had to move to Vancouver to earn enough to pay support and pay debts. The children missed their father and needed as much personal contact with him as practicable after he moved. The Respondentís conduct made this increasingly difficult.

[208] The Respondent knew or ought to have known the impact her conduct was having on the Claimantís financial situation; the Claimant made it clear to her. From this, I infer the Respondent is prepared to let her anger at the Claimant influence her to act in a way that indirectly harms the best interests of the children. I find the Claimant will not conduct himself in that way; the litigation history proves otherwise.

[209] In summary, I find that the Respondent has directed violence at the Claimant that has indirectly harmed the childrenís psychological and emotional well-being and economic security. Without a change of principal residence for B.B., I anticipate the Claimant could expect to face the same continuing pattern, usually subtle, sometimes overt, of oppositional behaviour and interference. Without intense counselling, I doubt the Respondent will be able to change her behaviour. She has no respect for professional opinion and apparently little regard for court orders.

[210] I find that a change of principal residence for B.B. to Vancouver will likely reduce conflict and tension that has surrounded parenting arrangements previously. I find the Claimant will facilitate access; the Respondent will inhibit it. I find the Claimant will not conduct himself as has the Respondent regarding access visits. This is in the best interests of B.B.

[211] I will now turn to the list of s. 37 factors. I must be satisfied that whatever order I decide to make protects, to the greatest extent possible, the childís physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being.
Reply With Quote