Superior Court Penalties I
Supervised access to children is not properly described as a penalty, however such dimensions can hardly be ignored by anyone facing restrictions on seeing their own children. Especially if custody and access are issues to be resolved by the court. It is undeniably harder for someone ordered to supervised access to wind up receiving joint or sole custody as a final outcome, than it would be for a party who already has more favorable access. As a consequence it may be desireable for a litigant to try to inflict restrictions on an ex spouse to try to gain advantage in court.
There are basically 2 types of supervised access. Access that must be monitored by a designated person, or more limited access that must occur at a Supervised Access Center. Supervised Access Centers may also be required for third party child exchanges for couples under restraining orders, or who those have otherwise been having personal conflicts. Third party exchanges have not been included in this study unless further supervision during the visit itself is involved.
This study suggests 4 basic outcomes with regards to supervision. That is ; those parties who had full access and have been reduced to supervised, those who have been supervised and move to independent arrangements, long term supervision with no changes, or termination of access all together after supervision. It is generally meant as an interim measure to appraise non custodial relationships and ensure children are receiving proper treatment. Transitional supervision might also be ordered for a parent who has had little recent contact to allow children to adjust gradually. Termination of access is only recommended in the most extreme cases.
The causes of supervised access are usually allegations the child may be at risk. They can span from minor neglect to accusations of violence and sexual abuse. Unfortunately some parents or children may view access at supervised centers as punishments and refuse to comply thereby severing relationships. The supervision required may be intense, occurring in a small room with a supervisor taking notes on conversations and interaction which is passed back to the court or custodial parent. These reports may be used as evidence at trial or motions for variations.
The database contained 52 cases where supervised access was ordered. In one case supervised access was first ordered for the man and then later for the woman bringing the overall total cases to 53. Similar to the treatment of restraining orders, gaining sole or joint custody of children is viewed as the criteria for relief from supervision for the purposes of this study. A summary of these cases and outcomes can be found in Appendix H
For family cases where supervision of access was an issue the outcomes were as follows
|
Party |
Number of cases |
Joint or ..sole custody |
Unsupervised . access
|
Supervised ...access |
Access terminated |
|
Male |
45 |
2 |
14 |
24 |
5 |
|
Female |
8 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
Summarized in percentage terms
|
Party |
Number of cases |
Joint or ..sole custody |
Unsupervised . access |
Supervised …access
|
Access terminated |
|
Male |
100 |
4.4 |
31.1 |
53.3 |
11.1 |
|
Female |
100 |
25.0 |
37.5 |
25.0 |
12.5 |
% Men Supervised on Access = 45 / 53 x 100 = 84.9 %
% Women Supervised on Access = 8 / 53 x 100 = 15.1 %
Conclusions
It should be noted that 2 out of 8 women received sole or joint custody which can be seen as equivalent to getting full relief from infliction of this penalty. 2 out of 45 men also received joint or full custody, so after relief is considered the statistics are as follows
% Men Supervised on Access = 43 / 49 x 100 = 87.8 %
% Women Supervised on Access = 6 / 49 x 100 = 12.2 %
It must be concluded that 84.9 % of the parties on whom supervised access was imposed were men and when inconsequential cases are removed the figure rises slightly to 87.8%. In only 7.5 % of total cases where supervision was imposed did a party recover to sole or joint custody indicating this is a most significant measure when imposed in a custody battle.
Appendix H — Ontario Supervised Access Cases Studied
|
|
|
Sex..of party |
Outcome |
|
1 |
Crewe v. Crewe, 2006 CanLII 3656 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
4 months interim supervised access continued, 2 ½ hours every second Sunday |
|
2 |
Wozniak v. Brunton, 2006 CanLII 273 (ON S.C.)
|
w |
Womans access terminated, first unsupervised and she abducted son, then supervised, then terminated, drug problem, criminal record |
|
3 |
Matysiak v. Phillips, 2004 CanLII 45449 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Mans access terminated, first unsupervised, then supervised, then terminated, drug problem, criminal record |
|
4 |
Mindzak v. Turner, 2006 CanLII 9705 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
2 ½ years supervised access changed to unsupervised 4 hours a week, completed parenting classes, mother objects, support increased |
|
5 |
L.J.J.C. v. V.S.C., 2006 CanLII 3470 (ON S.C.)
|
w |
Doesn’t appear at trial, was already on supervised access, supervised access contiued. |
|
6 |
V.S.J. v. L.J.G., 2004 CanLII 17126 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Mans supervised access is continued, mother asks it be terminated, criminal record, ron stewart, child support increased |
|
7 |
M. Al. O. v. Me. A. O., 2005 CanLII 2740 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Plead guilty to assaulting kids, minimal supervised access with unspecified increased, imputed income |
|
8 |
Dobre v. Dobre, 2004 CanLII 17889 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
False domestic violence charges, supervised access, woman also accuses grandparents of threats |
|
9 |
McLane v. Kilby, 2006 CanLII 2619 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Supervised access to father, mother asks to change childs name postponed |
|
10 |
Wright v. Ingham, 2006 CanLII 591 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Found guilty of assault, supervised access changed to unsupervised in minutes of settlement |
|
11 |
Papp v. Hunter, 2004 CanLII 34336 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Arrested and police order says supervised access, father acquitted and mothers motion to vary back to supervised access dismissed |
|
12 |
Goyal v. Singh, 2002 CanLII 2748 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Father given supervised access, wife makes allegations and denies access, court orders investigation by Office of the Childrens Lawyer |
|
13 |
Roach v. Kelly, 2003 CanLII 1991 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Supervised access, criminal harassment and assault charges, jailed, access terminated by court order |
|
14 |
J.E.H. v. W.V.D., 2004 CanLII 16460 (ON S.C.)
|
w |
Charged with assault, jail, gets supervised access, both have been charged and convicted before, then unsupervised, then sole custody |
|
15 |
M.M.F.1 v. G.R., 2004 CanLII 52811 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Charged with assault, plead guilty, harassment charges, wife denies access, supervised access at wifes discretion ordered, wife requests access terminated |
|
16 |
Shamli v. Shamli, 2004 CanLII 12363 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Abducts child, no charges, supervised access at wifes discretion, must give up passport to get access |
|
17 |
Lawrie v. Turcotte, 2006 CanLII 12971 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Criminal charges, no contact with child school ordered, supervised access at wifes discretion |
|
18 |
J.K. v. J.A.K., 2004 CanLII 16080 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Sexual assault allegations, no charges, supervised access ordered, an assessment ordered to see if access can be unsupervised |
|
19 |
McKenzie v. McKenzie, 2002 CanLII 2803 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Though primary caregiver in past made by wife to undergo supervised access, custody and access settled prior to trial |
|
20
|
R.J.R.H. v. A.A.H., 2004 CanLII 34792 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Fathers unsupervised access reduced to supervised |
|
21 |
Aguilera v. Reid, 2006 CanLII 6196 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Assault charges, supervised access ordered, drugs, criminal record, final order for supervised access |
|
22 |
Pearson v. McAteer, 2005 CanLII 32002 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Unsupervised access disallowed by wife, arrears of support, access terminated , charging order |
|
23 |
Korevaar v. Allard, 2003 CanLII 2151 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Supervised access, both spouses have other children, domestic violence history, impaired driving, urine testing and AA meetings ordered, inspection for alcohol by supervisor, must turn over car keys to supervisor install device on car ignition, supervision during visits relaxed, 2.4 K per month total support ordered |
|
24 |
Eloranta v. Eloranta, 2002 CanLII 2710 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Unsupervised access for 7 years then supervised access for guns and alcohol, breach of order, wife requests supervised but unsupervised restored, contempt sentence suspended but must sign undertaking not to breach |
|
25 |
R.J.J. v. K.R.J., 2004 CanLII 34359 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Domestic violence, impaired driving, drugs, jail, supervised access ordered, children want unsupervised, set to trial |
|
26 |
A.F. v. I.V., 2006 CanLII 727 (ON S.C.)
|
w, m |
Wife makes multiple false allegations resulting in 4 years of supervised access, man given custody and wife supervised access, contempt, 5 K fine |
|
27 |
Zeoli v. Field, 2003 CanLII 2361 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
False allegations and criminal charges lead to supervised access, custody reversed to father |
|
28 |
Mahood v. Mahood, 2005 CanLII 19841 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man given reasonable supervised access, complains of access denials, support increased |
|
29 |
Sekhon v. Jawanda, 2002 CanLII 2645 (ON S.C.)
|
w |
Granted supervised access changed to unsupervised changed to interim custody, man and family found to be interferring with relationship |
|
30 |
Milunovic v. Milunovic, 2004 CanLII 19101 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans supervised access changed to unsupervised, increas in support |
|
31 |
L.A.G. v. M.E.F.G., 2004 CanLII 53222 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Protesting against divorce system, 16 criminal charges, walks out on trial, arrears 35 K, income imputed at 40 K, supervised access would be allowed, he has declined |
|
32 |
Jones v. Scheltgen, 2003 CanLII 2389 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Criminal convictions and charges, drugs and jail, supervised access, access suspended and cut, many conditions |
|
33 |
Reid v. Mulder, 2005 CanLII 38108 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Domestic assault, pushing, entered into peace bond, supervised access, then unsupervised access, wife allowed to move with child to Fijii |
|
34 |
C.G. v. M.V.G., 2006 CanLII 12715 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Supervised access at wifes discretion, changed to unsupervised access |
|
35 |
Shoval v. Shoval, 2005 CanLII 20817 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Wife allowed to move to Isreal with child makes allegations of sexual abuse, access suspended, supervised access in Isreal offered by mother, court allows order |
|
36 |
Harris v. Harris, 2006 CanLII 9141 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Judge imposes supervised access when man says he’s too upset for trial, removed after trial despite wifes request |
|
37 |
Berry v. Ollerenshaw, 2003 CanLII 2405 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Allegations of drug use and sexual abuse by non biological father, supervised access, leave to appeal granted |
|
38 |
Sleiman v. Sleiman, 2003 CanLII 1982 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man given supervised access with conditions for unsupervised, conditions never met, no more contact, pleadings struck, uncontested trial, custody to wife no access order made, lump sum and imputation |
|
39 |
M.I. v. J.R., 2004 CanLII 52812 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Domestic assault, Childrens Aid orders no access, court then orders supervised access, wife given custody and allowed to move to Japan |
|
40 |
B.K. v. A.P., 2005 CanLII 27602 (ON S.C.)
|
w |
With holds child in violation of custody order, contempt, 30 days in jail and 2.5 K suspended, , no access 1 month, supervised access 1 month, then unsupervised if no breaches |
|
41 |
D.E.W. v. E.C., 2005 CanLII 16603 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Mother has custody for 11 years. Children taken by Childrens Aid, father given custody, initially supervised access then unsupervised, child support offset against fathers arrears |
|
42 |
J.M.M. v. G.S.M., 2006 CanLII 6457 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Domestic assault, supervised access, hasn’t seen children, pleadings struck, imputed income, 45 K retroactive support, 35 K cost penalty |
|
43 |
L.A.H. v. T.L.B., 2006 CanLII 2618 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Domestic assault, drugs, denied access, request for supervised access denied, mother remarried and child has new father, must pay support |
|
44 |
J.L.C. v. S.B.L., 2006 CanLII 13759 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Unsupervised then a dozen motions on access before trial, supervised, more motions, access denied, must seek leave for more motions, mental illness, 46 K cost penalty wife makes allegations to Childrens Aid |
|
45 |
Maratib v. Zafar, 2005 CanLII 19844 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Domestic assault, no access to children for 1 ½ years prior to trial, transitional supervised access ordered |
|
46 |
P.F. v. E.J.J.F., 2003 CanLII 2115 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Domestic assault, threats, jail, denied access, supervised access ordered to be unsupervised if successful, retroactive support |
|
47 |
Salvador v. Salvador, 2004 CanLII 5861 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Only seen daughters 2 times in 2 years for 5 minute supervised access, extensive court and assessment delays, access motion adjourned |
|
48 |
Dafoe v. Dafoe, 2005 CanLII 19821 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Wife gets ex parte order for custody and supervised access, children move in with father, joint custody ordered |
|
49 |
Sh. É. C. v. G. P., 2003 CanLII 2028 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Domestic violence, wife given interim custody and man supervised access, supervised access for 2 ½ years, to be expanded if child wishes, support arrears, security against family home |
|
50 |
Testa v. Basi, 2005 CanLII 25186 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Domestic violence, threatening charges, initially supervised access, custody to mother, one weekend per month, wife in Ottawa man in New York |
|
51 |
Fredriksen v. Lehane, 2003 CanLII 2122 (ON S.C.)
|
w |
Wife has custody, arrested for drunk driving, temporary supervised access, custody given to father |
|
52 |
Ruscinski v. Ruscinski, 2006 CanLII 9982 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Domestic assault, supervised access, joint custody at trial, lump sum, imputed income, 2.4 K per month total support, non harassment order, 4 K damages for assault |