Hi All,
Hopefully many of the parents coming to this site have seen the consistency I bring forward relevant jurisprudence in the matter of denying another parent access and the impact it could have on the custody and access to the children in question.
As I have stated previously that the mere allegation of parental miss conduct is not justification to remove a child from the other parent. The following jurisprudence posted to CanLII although an extreme example of the concerns I consistently raise and how a court may view this conduct. This case law provide outlines a true result of what can happen when allegations are taken too far and the impact it can have on a child and the how the court will resolve the issue.
Vucenovic v. Rieschi, 2012 ONCJ 658 (CanLII)
Date: 2012-10-22
Docket: 1465/02
URL: CanLII - 2012 ONCJ 658 (CanLII)
Citation: Vucenovic v. Rieschi, 2012 ONCJ 658 (CanLII)
I turn the attention of readers to “3. Analysis” which begins at para. 45 and ends at para. 61. You can clearly see how the justice presiding over the matter aligned the arguments presented by the parents in this matter to Rule 24.(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act of Ontario – “the best interests test”.
After having heard the evidence presented by numerous “clinical experts” (OCL and numerous third parties of various “fame”) the justice concludes based on the analysis the following:
Resulting in the final order in section “5. ORDER (issued and entered September 6, 2012)” stating:
As I have stated on a number of occasions, the “extreme” nature in which a parent brings their animosity and hatred to the court room can have an impact on the children involved and the court will order to protect the children from such unnecessary, vengeful, hateful and unsubstantiated and baseless allegations against a parent.
This jurisprudence will hopefully be a strong reminder to parents that as stated in other “controversial” jurisprudence posted to this site that generated some concerning comments, which also includes the same quote from Tremblay v. Tremblay 1987 CanLII 147 (AB QB), that access denial can and will be seen as “child abuse”:
Disclaimer For this Posting (yet a highly conflicted negative advocate projects blame again improperly):
All names appearing in this case law are exposed by the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) in accordance with their Terms of Use (CanLII - Terms of Use) and is published in accordance with Paragraph 4 of their “Terms of Use” which explicitly states:
Any association to any user of this forum is coincidental. This is publicly accessible court documentation made avalible by CanLII is posted in accordance with the concepts of “Free Access to Law” (CanLII - Montreal Declaration on Free Access to Law)
I am grateful to the people who continue to contribute and make the case law posted there a free and public resource.
Good Luck!
Tayken
Hopefully many of the parents coming to this site have seen the consistency I bring forward relevant jurisprudence in the matter of denying another parent access and the impact it could have on the custody and access to the children in question.
As I have stated previously that the mere allegation of parental miss conduct is not justification to remove a child from the other parent. The following jurisprudence posted to CanLII although an extreme example of the concerns I consistently raise and how a court may view this conduct. This case law provide outlines a true result of what can happen when allegations are taken too far and the impact it can have on a child and the how the court will resolve the issue.
Vucenovic v. Rieschi, 2012 ONCJ 658 (CanLII)
Date: 2012-10-22
Docket: 1465/02
URL: CanLII - 2012 ONCJ 658 (CanLII)
Citation: Vucenovic v. Rieschi, 2012 ONCJ 658 (CanLII)
3. At trial, both parties were seeking sole custody. And while each party had a plan for some access to the other; it was clear that the choice before the court was much starker: Whichever parent Emilee resided with, she could not, for very different reasons, have access to the other.
4. The trial was completed on September 5, 2012, the second day of the new school year. The parents now reside in different jurisdictions which meant the custody order would determine which school Emilee would attend. Given the urgent need for finality and stability for Emilee’s custody and schooling, I gave my decision orally to the parties and Emilee in court on September 6, 2012, placing Emilee in the sole custody of her father with no access to her mother; requiring that Emilee be enrolled in counselling; and providing for police enforcement, with written reasons to follow. I had asked that Emilee be brought to court for the decision due to the history in this case of the difficulty or even impossibility of access exchanges.
5. These are my reasons for that decision.
4. The trial was completed on September 5, 2012, the second day of the new school year. The parents now reside in different jurisdictions which meant the custody order would determine which school Emilee would attend. Given the urgent need for finality and stability for Emilee’s custody and schooling, I gave my decision orally to the parties and Emilee in court on September 6, 2012, placing Emilee in the sole custody of her father with no access to her mother; requiring that Emilee be enrolled in counselling; and providing for police enforcement, with written reasons to follow. I had asked that Emilee be brought to court for the decision due to the history in this case of the difficulty or even impossibility of access exchanges.
5. These are my reasons for that decision.
After having heard the evidence presented by numerous “clinical experts” (OCL and numerous third parties of various “fame”) the justice concludes based on the analysis the following:
62. It is clear that after considering all of the factors, it would be in the child’s best interests to be placed in the custody of her father. With respect to access, it most unfortunately is clear that it would not be in her best interests to have access with her mother as it would undermine the stability of her placement with her father and inevitably lead to a complete rupture in her relationship with her father as it has several times in the past, including most recently in the summer of 2012.
63. While Ms. Rieschi claims to support Emilee’s relationship with her father, it is clear that she does not really want Mr. Vucenovic to have access to Emilee because otherwise, she would not keep focusing on allegations that he always “lays his hands on her [Emilee].” She cannot on the one hand profess a wish for Emilee to have regular access with her father while on the other complain at length about Mr. Vucenovic’s deficiencies as a person and parent, including having him charged on the eve of this trial on spurious allegations of harassment, and expect to be believed.
64. Furthermore, it would not even be enough to have supervised visits with counselling as that was already tried and proved an insufficient safeguard. Ms. Rieschi would first have to demonstrate through individual treatment that she has changed.
65. I asked that Emilee be at court to hear the decision out of concern that the decision could not be implemented if she were in Ms. Rieschi’s residence. There has been a sad pattern in this case of access exchanges involving great upset at first for Emilee or even sometimes proving impossible, as with the recent attempt at an exchange at a police station July 2012. That pattern was borne out again on September 6, 2012. While Emilee was at first hysterical at the thought of going with her father, she eventually went with him willingly.
66. Emilee cannot be further subjected to the back and forth changes of custody, to the hysterical access exchanges, to this battle any further. She deserves stability, permanence and emotional security and she is most likely to achieve that in the care of her father with no access to her mother.
63. While Ms. Rieschi claims to support Emilee’s relationship with her father, it is clear that she does not really want Mr. Vucenovic to have access to Emilee because otherwise, she would not keep focusing on allegations that he always “lays his hands on her [Emilee].” She cannot on the one hand profess a wish for Emilee to have regular access with her father while on the other complain at length about Mr. Vucenovic’s deficiencies as a person and parent, including having him charged on the eve of this trial on spurious allegations of harassment, and expect to be believed.
64. Furthermore, it would not even be enough to have supervised visits with counselling as that was already tried and proved an insufficient safeguard. Ms. Rieschi would first have to demonstrate through individual treatment that she has changed.
65. I asked that Emilee be at court to hear the decision out of concern that the decision could not be implemented if she were in Ms. Rieschi’s residence. There has been a sad pattern in this case of access exchanges involving great upset at first for Emilee or even sometimes proving impossible, as with the recent attempt at an exchange at a police station July 2012. That pattern was borne out again on September 6, 2012. While Emilee was at first hysterical at the thought of going with her father, she eventually went with him willingly.
66. Emilee cannot be further subjected to the back and forth changes of custody, to the hysterical access exchanges, to this battle any further. She deserves stability, permanence and emotional security and she is most likely to achieve that in the care of her father with no access to her mother.
1. The Applicant, Anthony Phillip Vucenovic, shall have sole custody of the child, Emilee Martina Rieschi, born […], 2002.
2. There shall be no access to the Respondent, Jessica Lilian Rieschi, pending further order of this court.
3. The Applicant shall enrol the child in counselling forthwith which shall not be terminated, pending further order of this court.
4. Peel Regional Police, Sheriff’s Officers and/or such other law enforcement agencies as may have jurisdiction are hereby directed and authorized to enforce this order.
5. Pursuant to section 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, police forces in the Province of Ontario, including but not limited to the Peel Regional Police, are directed and authorized:
2. There shall be no access to the Respondent, Jessica Lilian Rieschi, pending further order of this court.
3. The Applicant shall enrol the child in counselling forthwith which shall not be terminated, pending further order of this court.
4. Peel Regional Police, Sheriff’s Officers and/or such other law enforcement agencies as may have jurisdiction are hereby directed and authorized to enforce this order.
5. Pursuant to section 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, police forces in the Province of Ontario, including but not limited to the Peel Regional Police, are directed and authorized:
a) To do all things that may reasonably be done to locate and apprehend the child, namely, Emilee Martina Rieschi, a girl, born […], 2002 and deliver her into the care of the Applicant, Anthony Phillip Vucenovic; and
b) To enter and search any place, at any time of day or night, where he or she has reasonable or probable grounds to believe the child may be, with such assistance and such force as are reasonable in the circumstances,
c) But this order to apprehend the child expires six months from the date of this order, unless extended or terminated earlier by further court order.
b) To enter and search any place, at any time of day or night, where he or she has reasonable or probable grounds to believe the child may be, with such assistance and such force as are reasonable in the circumstances,
c) But this order to apprehend the child expires six months from the date of this order, unless extended or terminated earlier by further court order.
This jurisprudence will hopefully be a strong reminder to parents that as stated in other “controversial” jurisprudence posted to this site that generated some concerning comments, which also includes the same quote from Tremblay v. Tremblay 1987 CanLII 147 (AB QB), that access denial can and will be seen as “child abuse”:
60. Often cited in such cases are Justice Trussler’s comments in Tremblay v. Tremblay 1987 CanLII 147 (AB QB), (1987) 10 R.F.L. (3d) 166 (Alta Q.B.), paragraphs 9, 15 and 16:
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.
All names appearing in this case law are exposed by the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) in accordance with their Terms of Use (CanLII - Terms of Use) and is published in accordance with Paragraph 4 of their “Terms of Use” which explicitly states:
Originally posted by CanLII Terms of Use
I am grateful to the people who continue to contribute and make the case law posted there a free and public resource.
Good Luck!
Tayken
Comment