Catizzone v Cowell, 2016 ONSC 5297 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/gt24v
1) Grandparents used for babysitting, then mom tries to claim S7
2) Spurious complaints of bad parenting
3) Moms don't have to take parenting courses, should fathers be required?
Parenting skills are acquired through experience
4) Requesting supervised access needs evidence
The case is not a total win. There is still that nonsense of a child having to get gradually used to a father, when somehow children can handle entire days at a daycare facility without much warmup at all. There is some of the usual fuck you to fathers scattered throughout. But amidst all the muck, some nuggets of gold.
http://canlii.ca/t/gt24v
1) Grandparents used for babysitting, then mom tries to claim S7
[24] Ms. Catizzone and her daughter live with her parents rent free. If the parents wanted to charge for room and board, then Ms. Catizzone would be indemnified for her child’s ostensible portion of those expenses from basic child support. The Catizzones have manufactured a charge to claim as a s. 7 expense so as to make an additional claim against Mr. Cowell that is not caught by basic child support. I have no doubt that if they could not claim a piece from Mr. Cowell, they would not be charging their daughter anything for babysitting. Nor am I satisfied that they actually did so. I have no idea what happened with the funds that Ms. Catizzone gave to her parents purportedly on account of this charge.
[37] Ms. Catizzone criticizes Mr. Cowell for having initially wanted to wake the child from her naps for access visits because his time in Toronto was limited to a few hours. She criticizes him for handling the stroller roughly one time and waking the child. Ms. Catizzone took the child to Ottawa to see her family this past July and she gave Mr. Cowell access (supervised) at a park. At one point he was looking toward another child and his child started to wander away.
[38] Ms. Catizzone did not favour the court with any evidence of whether she has ever woken the child from a sleep or ever had the child wander on her watch. I venture to speculate that while in the care of Ms. Catizzone and her parents, the child has fallen down, bumped her head, scraped her knee, and possibly even become ill.
[38] Ms. Catizzone did not favour the court with any evidence of whether she has ever woken the child from a sleep or ever had the child wander on her watch. I venture to speculate that while in the care of Ms. Catizzone and her parents, the child has fallen down, bumped her head, scraped her knee, and possibly even become ill.
[39] Ms. Catizzone is critical of Mr. Cowell for not taking any parenting courses yet. She has not taken any either. Mr. Meiklejohn quickly backed away from a possible suggestion that mothers are more fit parents who do not need parenting courses.
Parenting skills are acquired through experience
Instead, he quite fairly pointed out that Ms. Catizzone has had time to learn on the job while Mr. Cowell has not. And that is the important point. Whether by design of one or the other or not, Mr. Cowell may not have had sufficient time with his daughter to demonstrate that he knows what to do to bathe her, to treat a cut or scrape, to console her when she suffers an inevitable fall or when she cries inconsolably at bedtime. The barriers erected by Ms. Catizzone and by Mr. Cowell’s distance may have slowed his ability to grow into the role of father. They have certainly impaired the ability of their daughter to develop a meaningful relationship with her father and his family.
[43] There is little left to be said. Ms. Catizzone’s subjective wants are of little consequence in assessing the best interests of the child. Supervised access has lasted for more than long enough and is now interfering with the child’s entitlement to develop and maintain a meaningful relationship with her father. Mr. Cowell has demonstrated patience and resolve in meeting Ms. Catizzone’s conditions and then bringing this proceeding to try to enhance his relationship with his daughter. There is no evidence justifying further supervision of Mr. Cowell’s access. Ms. Catizzone has not proven any of her three concerns exist in any event. There is no evidence that Mr. Cowell’s anger prevents him from properly parenting their child. There is no evidence that Mr. Cowell is not truthful in his dealings and communications with respect to the child. He will now be given the chance to be a constant presence in her life.
The case is not a total win. There is still that nonsense of a child having to get gradually used to a father, when somehow children can handle entire days at a daycare facility without much warmup at all. There is some of the usual fuck you to fathers scattered throughout. But amidst all the muck, some nuggets of gold.
Comment