Ontario Court of Appeal: Contempt upheld for parent denying access

[arabian]

In light of some recent discussion on the forum I thought this case would be of interest to many. Child in question is 12 yrs old. Mother left decision of attending access up to child. Mother filed an appeal on court's finding her in contempt but wasn't successful.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/do...15onca568.html

"[W]hat does the mother do when this child doesn’t want to go to school or doesn’t want to go to the dentist? What are her mechanisms? Right? … Does this child have an allowance? Does she have a hockey tournament that maybe she’s not allowed to go to if she doesn’t go to see dad before? Are there things she could do to force her to go short of the police attending at her house and physically removing her?

[31] Despite this, it is clear from her affidavit that the appellant took no further steps. She did not go beyond mere encouragement to attempt any stronger forms of persuasion.
[32] In our view, there was ample evidence in the record to support the motion judge’s conclusion that the appellant essentially left the decision concerning compliance with the access order up to S."

Certainly this is something to consider when a parent denies access to the other parent.

[LovingFather32]

This is fast becoming a tool used by parents in HC situations.

Judge said some pretty good stuff ..

Ontario courts have held consistently that a parent “has some positive obligation to ensure a child who allegedly resists contact with the access parent complies with the access order”: Quaresma v. Bathurst, (2008), O.J. NO. 4734 (Ont. S.C.J.) at para.8. See also Campo v. Campo, 2015 ONSC 1349 (CanLII); Stuyt v. Stuyt, 2009 CanLII 43948 (ON SC), 2009 CanLII 43948 (Ont. S.C.); Stuyt v. Stuyt, 2009 CanLII 43948 (Ont. S.C.); and Hatcher v. Hatcher, [2009] O.J. No. 1343 (Ont. Sup.Ct.).
[29] No doubt, it may be difficult to comply with an access order, especially as children get older. Parents are not required to do the impossible in order to avoid a contempt finding. They are, however, required to do all that they reasonably can. In this case, the motion judge inferred deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order from the appellant’s failure to do do all that she reasonably could: she failed to "take concrete measures to apply normal parental authority to have the child comply with the access order".

In my own case ... one excerpt in the communication book reads .. "D4 will see keep seeing you as long as she wants".

Not that D4 would ever not want to ... but I'm guessing that not much encouragement would be given is it were the case.

[rockscan]

Interesting especially since my partner had to have his lawyer intervene three times to enforce access. Now that his youngest is 15 the ex is pulling the "I cant force her" argument neglecting the fact that she schedules events on his access time and then says she has to see her dad but then pulls the "i cant force her argument".