• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
Court File No.
297-03
Date:
February 27, 2007
 
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICEFAMILY COURTApplicant:
 C.S.
Respondent:
M.S.Names of counsel not published, inaccordance with the order of the court madeon October 11, 2006 (see Appendix A)
HEARD:
October 10-13, 16-19, 23-27 and30-31 and November 1-3, 2006
Perkins J.REASONS FOR DECISIONThe case
[1]
 
This case is even sadder than the usual family tragedy we see in the Family Court. Aftermore than four years of warfare between the parents, during which the children were dragged byboth parents into the middle of their relationship issues, three of the parties’ four children haveleft the mother’s home for the father’s home and no longer speak to their mother. Their recentcommunications with her – infrequent, and almost exclusively by email – have been marked byan angry and scornful tone toward her. Fearing the father and the other three children will work to cause the loss of her relationship with the fourth child, the mother has not allowed that child tosee the father or the other three children. The couple’s considerable assets, which wouldordinarily be the children’s inheritance, have been spent on legal fees. Both parents areemotional wrecks and are psychologically unfit to work. The father has been on long termdisability for two years. The mother has been in counselling and unable to work for at least aslong. The damage to the children is enormous too, though they at least are doing well in school.[2]
 
I conducted an 18 day trial in which there were over 100 exhibits, mostly emails andletters between the parents and between parent and child, occupying thousands of pages in 15three ring binders. Every negative event in the parties’ 20 year relationship was meticulouslyexamined and documented. I was implicitly asked to assign the blame for each event along the
   2   0   0   7   C  a  n   L   I   I   6   2   4   0   (   O   N   S .   C .   )
 
C.S. v. M.S.
Page 2
February 27, 2007
way that led to the breakdown of the marriage and to vindicate the position of one or the other of the parties on every incident. It was as if I had the job of determining, as of the separation morethan four years ago, who was to blame for the separation and who was fit to have custody of thechildren. However, the custody issue was not before me, not even for the youngest child. Themother long ago gave up on custody of the three oldest children, knowing that they were beyondthe reach of any legal remedy. They have not even seen her for two years (except when two of them testified at the trial). At trial, the father too conceded custody of the youngest child to themother. The only remaining issue about the children was access by the father and the threeoldest children to the youngest child, a 10 year old, who has not seen the father or the otherchildren for a year.[3]
 
The mother characterized this case as an extreme example of parental alienationsyndrome, in which the three oldest children have been recruited by the father, one by one, to join him in an aggressive campaign of demonization of the mother, to the point that the threechildren have adopted his view of the mother as a person unworthy of affection, respect or evencivility. The father said that the mother is mentally ill, emotionally unstable and prone toirrational outbursts; or in the alternative, a liar who has vilified him without justification; orboth. As a result, the father said, the children have independently and with cause decided toreject her.[4]
 
At the separation some four years ago, when the father left the home, the oldest childwent with him, almost from the start refusing to have anything to do with the mother. Later thesecond and then the third child moved out of the mother’s home and eventually stopped seeingher. The father said all three children were driven away by the mother, who falsely accused himin the children’s presence of various kinds of misconduct, blamed him for the separation andtried to enlist the children in her battle with him. The mother admitted she told the children toomuch in the early days of the separation, but said that she had to, in order to defend against thethings the father was telling the children about her. She said the father was a relentless, angry,violent and vindictive man who recruited the three oldest children in his campaign to punish herand poisoned them against her, and that if given the chance, he would do the same to theyoungest child and use the older children to help him do it.[5]
 
The case has been fraught with tension. The police have been involved with this familyon numerous occasions. Criminal charges were laid against the father arising from three separateevents, but he was not convicted on any of them. For a time, there was a child protection case aswell, but it was ultimately withdrawn, without a finding in need of protection. While it wasgoing, one of the children was placed in the care of a children’s aid society but ran away and hidfor months. The father was accused of helping to conceal the child’s location. He was found incontempt of court. Right after that, the child returned to the care of the CAS.[6]
 
The father has involved Canada Court Watch Project in his cause. Court Watch is alobby group whose stated aims include bringing “an end to the needless injustices beingperpetrated against many innocent children and families by institutions such as our family courtsystem and branches of the Children’s Aid Society.” Much information about the family andvarious professionals associated with it was posted on the Court Watch website and others.Because of the potential harm to the children and others associated with publicity in this case, I
   2   0   0   7   C  a  n   L   I   I   6   2   4   0   (   O   N   S .   C .   )
 
C.S. v. M.S.
Page 3
February 27, 2007
made an order banning publication of identifying information on October 11, 2006, which isattached to this decision as Appendix A. That is why this decision is written with initials onlyfor the parties’ names and gives no information that would identify them, the children or theprofessionals who have worked with them. The reasons for decision and the orders of the courtmust remain public, but I have gone to great lengths to eliminate identifying information fromthese reasons – locations are not mentioned and not even the children’s first names, initials orsexes are disclosed. The family is from a small enough community that I felt this was necessaryto protect the children. This case has become so contentious and there have been so manyInternet postings, complaint letters and even threats that I have gone so far as to keep allwitnesses’ and lawyers’ names out of the public record, in order to protect them as well.[7]
 
On November 17, 2006, I released a short endorsement giving only the result of the case,with my reasons to come (and here they are). Shortly after that date, Court Watch on its websiteinvited the general public to get in touch with Court Watch to rate my judging ability, and posteda story calling me the Grinch judge who stole a child’s Christmas and including anonymouscomments that I should be tarred and feathered and run out of town. Some member of the publicmade sure I knew about this by sending it to me in an email. This case has been very unpleasantfor everyone involved in it in any way.
Issues
[8]
 
The principal issue was access. Should there be access between the father and theyoungest child? Should there be sibling access? If so, on what terms?[9]
 
The second issue was support. Child support would of course be calculated according tothe
Child Support Guidelines
table. The father’s income was not in issue. The father submittedthat the mother should be working and contributing to the support of the children living with himand to her own support, if not immediately then soon, and if not full time then at least part time.The mother said she could not work for the foreseeable future. The mother also claimed, and thefather resisted, periodic spousal support. By the end of the trial, child and spousal supportproceeded largely on consent, with only the mother’s income and minor issues of detail for me toresolve.[10]
 
There was also a significant issue about the mother’s request for a restraining order.Should there be one at all? If so, could or should it be made against the three oldest children?
Result
[11]
 
My short endorsement embodying the elements of my decision on all issues, datedNovember 17, 2006, is attached to this decision as Appendix B.[12]
 
I concluded that there should be no access by the father or the other children to the fourthchild living in the mother’s care. My reasons are set out below.
   2   0   0   7   C  a  n   L   I   I   6   2   4   0   (   O   N   S .   C .   )
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...