Hong v. Rooney, 2012 ONSC 120 (CanLII)
Date: 2012-01-05
Docket: FC-10-034352-00
URL: CanLII - 2012 ONSC 120 (CanLII)
Citation: Hong v. Rooney, 2012 ONSC 120 (CanLII)
Interesting quotes:
[10] Effective immediately, I am granting the father sole custody of Cecilia Han Mae Rooney, and making specified orders for the mother’s access.
Unsubstantiated Allegations
[26] The third issue with the mother’s evidence was the extent and severity of unsubstantiated allegations against the father. I find this to be most significant, and have considered her allegations within three categories: the very serious allegations of child sexual abuse and spousal violence, the less serious allegations of abuse that were easily discredited within her own testimony, and a number of nonsensical allegations.
[27] None of the more serious allegations: child sexual abuse[4] and spousal violence were placed before the court in the mother’s direct evidence, but for a claim that the father had punched a hole in some drywall. In her cross examination she later agreed that the drywall was in the basement to which the father had removed himself after a heated argument in the fall of 2008.
[28] The father cross examined the mother on the allegations in a calm and respectful manner. When he pressed for particulars on any of the allegations the mother would avoid the question by digressing into other topics. She could provide no particulars of the alleged abuses,[5] at trial nor has she done so at any time during the past two year period of litigation. She did not tell anyone, or record any information related to the allegations prior to drafting her application.
[29] The allegations of abuse have clearly devastated the father and his family. He worries not only about the lingering effect of such allegations on himself, but on their daughter. From time to time he has been fearful of even hugging his daughter.
[32] The third category of allegations was those that were clearly nonsensical in the context of the evidence and the stage of development of the child. For example, the first half of one of the more moderate passages within the Application reads:
(Portion of paragraph 7, page 6 of Application dated November 23, 2009)
Cecilia was only 20 months old the last time that the father saw her prior to this Application.
[34] How is the court to understand the extent of the mother’s allegations and the total dearth of supporting evidence? The Application containing the allegations was drafted almost a year after separation and was served on the father during a period in which his counsel was pressing for information on the child’s whereabouts and for access. Only in the context of creating a perfect storm to deflect the father’s involvement with the child do the written allegations make any sense.
[118] Cecilia was wrongfully removed from her home in circumstances which approach that of an abduction. Her mother changed her familiar name, replaced the people with whom she had lived and changed her community. She was hidden. The effect of her unilateral removal ought not be minimized. From January 10, 2009 to April 10 2010 the father did not see his infant daughter. More importantly, for over a year, Cecilia was taken away from two significant caregivers in her life: her father and her grandmother.
[119] A period of wrongful removal can never become a period in which a child enjoys a stable home environment. By its very nature, it is a transitory period of hiding. The length of hiding is irrelevant except in so far as it affects the child’s ability to transition into normalized circumstances. There may be circumstances in which a child would be harmed by being returned.
Good Luck!
Tayken
Date: 2012-01-05
Docket: FC-10-034352-00
URL: CanLII - 2012 ONSC 120 (CanLII)
Citation: Hong v. Rooney, 2012 ONSC 120 (CanLII)
Interesting quotes:
[10] Effective immediately, I am granting the father sole custody of Cecilia Han Mae Rooney, and making specified orders for the mother’s access.
Unsubstantiated Allegations
[26] The third issue with the mother’s evidence was the extent and severity of unsubstantiated allegations against the father. I find this to be most significant, and have considered her allegations within three categories: the very serious allegations of child sexual abuse and spousal violence, the less serious allegations of abuse that were easily discredited within her own testimony, and a number of nonsensical allegations.
[27] None of the more serious allegations: child sexual abuse[4] and spousal violence were placed before the court in the mother’s direct evidence, but for a claim that the father had punched a hole in some drywall. In her cross examination she later agreed that the drywall was in the basement to which the father had removed himself after a heated argument in the fall of 2008.
[28] The father cross examined the mother on the allegations in a calm and respectful manner. When he pressed for particulars on any of the allegations the mother would avoid the question by digressing into other topics. She could provide no particulars of the alleged abuses,[5] at trial nor has she done so at any time during the past two year period of litigation. She did not tell anyone, or record any information related to the allegations prior to drafting her application.
[29] The allegations of abuse have clearly devastated the father and his family. He worries not only about the lingering effect of such allegations on himself, but on their daughter. From time to time he has been fearful of even hugging his daughter.
[32] The third category of allegations was those that were clearly nonsensical in the context of the evidence and the stage of development of the child. For example, the first half of one of the more moderate passages within the Application reads:
The respondent has been and continues to be cruel to my daughter and me. He would tell me that Cecilia is not his child. He told me that he did not want to see my child. He said that he does not care about Cecilia. He continues to say things like that to my daughter and to me. I am concerned on the psychological impact that his negative comments to Cecilia might have. Whenever I left Cecilia in his care, he would not feed Cecilia until I return regardless of how long that might be. He does not know how to care for Cecilia and would tell me that he could not be bothered. He would spank Cecilia for nothing. Cecilia likes to draw. Whenever he sees Cecilia drawing he would spank her.
(Portion of paragraph 7, page 6 of Application dated November 23, 2009)
Cecilia was only 20 months old the last time that the father saw her prior to this Application.
[34] How is the court to understand the extent of the mother’s allegations and the total dearth of supporting evidence? The Application containing the allegations was drafted almost a year after separation and was served on the father during a period in which his counsel was pressing for information on the child’s whereabouts and for access. Only in the context of creating a perfect storm to deflect the father’s involvement with the child do the written allegations make any sense.
[118] Cecilia was wrongfully removed from her home in circumstances which approach that of an abduction. Her mother changed her familiar name, replaced the people with whom she had lived and changed her community. She was hidden. The effect of her unilateral removal ought not be minimized. From January 10, 2009 to April 10 2010 the father did not see his infant daughter. More importantly, for over a year, Cecilia was taken away from two significant caregivers in her life: her father and her grandmother.
[119] A period of wrongful removal can never become a period in which a child enjoys a stable home environment. By its very nature, it is a transitory period of hiding. The length of hiding is irrelevant except in so far as it affects the child’s ability to transition into normalized circumstances. There may be circumstances in which a child would be harmed by being returned.
Good Luck!
Tayken
Comment