Ontario Family Law Blog : Barrie Lawyer & Attorney Brian Galbraith : Simcoe County, Canada Divorce, Separation, and Collaborative Law

Have you ever believed that Hollywood stars live charmed lives? They seem so powerful, beautiful, rich, and confident. Yet, real pain and disappointment can creep into their lives - just like it does in our lives. They have choices to make, just like you and me.

Academy Award winner Sandra Bullock must have felt thrilled when she won an Oscar for her performance in the blockbuster "The Blindside". Yet, within a couple of weeks of her big win, her husband admitted to acts of infidelity.

Wow! Can you imagine the impact; she went from being on top of the world to the depths of despair all within a few days. But that's life. Whether you are a Hollywood or just regular guy or gal.

The question for Sandra Bullock is whether she will be able to maintain a relationship with her husband's children. According to a story in Jeffrey Cottrill's blog at the Divorce Magazine website, Sandra relished her relationship with Jesse James' three children. She was especially close to his six year old daughter Sunny.

Micheal in Niren and Associates Blog explains what would happen if Bullock and James were living in Ontario and Sandra Bullock sought an order for custody of Sunny in Court here:

If Bullock and James were Ontario residents and Bullock requested custody of Sunny,  the courts would look at whether Bullock provided financially for the child, the nature of their relationship and whether Bullock had maintained in both private and public life that she was Sunny’s parent and acted in such a manner. After determining whether Bullock was indeed a parent to Sunny, the courts would have to look at other factors to determine how custody between Bullock and James would play out. His behavior may not make him an unfit parent by default, but it may be considered if it hurt Sunny in any way or affected his ability to act as a parent.

Both Bullock and James would then have to make their case as to their relationship with the child, their willingness to raise and take care of the child and how they plan to do so, the stability of their homes and other factors. Blood relations are also considered, as is the choice of the child herself.

Frankly, the outcome is difficult to predict. Biological parents are generally preferred over step- parents but if the Court believed it was in Sunny's best interests that Bullock have custody, it is possible she would win. Surprisingly, Sunny's biological mother is rumoured to be willing to support Bullock if she starts a court battle.

Court is a battle. As a former litigator, I remember I was either "chucking or ducking". Chucking mud at the other side or trying to duck from the lobs coming my way. Everyone hated Court. The animosity between the parents usually escalated and in the end often the parents could not even imagine parenting cooperatively . It was a mess. The biggest loser was the children. Kids suffer when their parents are fighting whether face-to-face or through lawyers in Court.

Mr. Justice Harvey Brownstone, is in his stunningly brilliant book entitled "Tug of War: A Judge's Verdict on Separation, Custody Battles, and The Bitter Realities of Family Court", strongly attacks the court system declaring it should be the place of last resort to resolve custody and access issues... and this is from a judge who has been presiding over family law cases for over 14 years. 

Justice Brownstone asks in his book "how can two parents who love their child allow a total stranger to make crucial decisions about their child's living arrangements, health, education, extracurricular activities, vacation time, and degree of contact with each parent?"

If Bullock and James take their case to Court with traditional lawyers, it will be a huge mess. It will take months or even years to resolve. Can you imagine the turmoil, pain and grief for their little girl? She will be in the spotlight for months as the matter creeps through the court system. Her biological mother, a former Penthouse model, is presently in jail for tax evasion. What a start to life for little Sunny. Fighting. Pain. Anger. Jail. Court. Ugh.

If Sandra Bullock came to me, I would recommend the Collaborative Team Process.

Mr. Justice Brownstone describes the Collaborative process in his book as follows:

In the Collaborative family law process, the parents and their lawyers work together as members of a settlement team, rather than working against each other as opposing parties....The parents learn to focus on their common interests, understand each others perspective and concerns, exchange information, treat each other with respect, and explore the widest possible range of choices.

I would represent Ms Bullock's interests and Jesse James would retain his own Collaboratively trained lawyer. We would find a Divorce Coach for them who would help both parties work through the huge emotional issues related to the end of their marriage.

I would want Bullock to work through her emotional issues with the Divorce Coach so they won't create an impediment to the resolution of the parenting issues. Many times anger about an affair fuels a fight about the children in court. I would not want that for my client.

Bullock and James would then jointly retain a Parenting Coach who is a social worker with special training in the needs of children going through a divorce. The Parenting Coach would probably meet with Sunny to get to know her needs and meet with Bullock and James together and separately. The Divorce Coach would then discuss resolution of the parenting issues with the parties, sharing the recent research into the best interests of children in these situations. The negotiations would be difficult, no doubt, but they would be future-oriented, respectful, private and all about finding the best solution for Sunny's future. As in most Collaborative cases, I would expect we would achieve a negotiated settlement.

If there is some aspect of the parenting arrangements that Bullock and James cannot reach agreement on, we would jointly retain someone to act as an arbitrator who would resolve the issue. The arbitrator's decision would be final and binding - just like a court order. No need to go to Court for difficult issues.

The Collaborative Team Practice process has many bumps in the road to settlement but eventually, like in most cases, Bullock and James would work out an agreement that they craft. It wouldn't be decided by a stranger (a judge) but rather by the clients with the help of their team of professionals. It would be a resolution that meets both party's core concerns. The cost would be less than if they went to court and the resolution would likely be achieved faster.

What do you think Sunny would prefer happen: a huge bloody, drawn out, public court battle or a private, respectful Collaborative settlement?

I think Sunny would be proud of her parents if they were able to negotiate an agreement for her sake so if you are speaking to Sandra Bullock... give her my number. I am here to help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WHAT IS PARENTAL ALIENATION AND WHY IS IT SO BAD?

There is an old African proverb that states “when two elephants fight it is the grass under their feet that suffers”. Similarly, when parents fight over custody and access of their children after a separation it is the children that suffer. In many cases the parents are not even aware of the effect that their custody battle is having on their children and they do not intend to hurt their children. Nevertheless, research shows that children who have lived through a high conflict divorce have a greater tendency to develop mental health issues, addiction issues, are less likely to obtain a post secondary education and have a whole host of other social problems that develop later on in their lives as a result of their negative experience.

In some of the more extreme high conflict custody cases, a dynamic develops whereby one of the parents sets out to sever the children’s ties to the other parent. The American psychiatrist who first coined the phrase “parental alienation” described it as, “a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent.”

Some of the symptoms of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) which will be added as a diagnosis under the DSM in 2010, are as follows:

The alienated child:

·         Sees one parent as all good and other parent as all bad;

·         Appears to really hate “bad parent” and hates their family and even their pets

·         Feels no guilt about hating parent or treating him/her badly

·         When they talk about alienated parent appear to be putting on a show – affect does not match their words

·         Worries about non alienated parent and is protective of them

·         Blames alienated parent for the divorce

The alienating parent:

·         Allows child to make decisions regarding access

·         Does not encourage access or contact with alienated parent and gives child silent treatment after access visits

·         Tries to delete memory of other parent by taking away pictures of other parent and not speaking about them.

·         Will not let alienated parent come to door or speak with them alone- treats alienated parent as if he/she is dangerous

·         Does not tell alienated parent about special events or school activities involving child

·         Withholds gifts, mail and voice messages from other parent and will not tell child about it.

·         Rewrites family history sometimes to involve stories of sexual and physical abuse by other parent

·         Involves child in litigation by reading court documents to him/her and or using child as messenger

·         Puts child in position where he/she is forced to choose between their parents

As with most things in life, there is a wide spectrum of severity and the blame usually does not fall on one person’s shoulders only. The “alienated parent” often contributes to the problem by making the child feel guilty, rejecting the child, acting aggressively towards the child or to the other parent or by simply giving up hope and abandoning the child. Also, some children are estranged from a parent prior to the separation and it only gets worse after wards. The alienating parents often act the way they do because they feel that they have been abandoned by the other parent and are very hurt by the separation. They themselves may have been abandoned or abused as children.

Richard Gardner and some of his followers are of the view that the only cure to this problem is to take the child out of the custody of the alienating parent, subject the child to intense counseling to de-brainwash the child and then place the child in the alienated parent’s custody. 

Not surprisingly, there are many family court judges who do not accept that this is the only solution to the problem. Instead, they try to affect a change in the dynamic by making access orders enforceable by the police, making a parent who is withholding access pay a fine or even ordering that the alienating parent go to jail if they breach the access order again.

In the US there are some residential programs available for families with this problem. In Canada, there are therapists who specialize in assisting families with this problem, but there are no residential programs that I am aware of.

In my view the essential thing is to prevent the alienation from happening in the first place. This can be done by identifying the early symptoms and ensuring that there is an access plan in place very shortly after the separation that is strongly enforced by the court. It is also essential that all parties involved get counseling to identify the issues that are at the root of the problem and bring them to the surface and that professionals involved in helping parents who are separating and divorcing are trained to recognize the early symptoms.

There have been recent amendments made to the Children’s Law Reform Act to reinforce the idea that maximum contact with both parents is generally in the best interests of children and that parents have an obligation not only to allow access, but to facilitate that access.

If you are fearful that this dynamic may be occurring in your family, please don’t wait for things to get better. Parental alienation is like cancer- if left untreated it will grow and kill your relationship with your child. Children in families where there is this dynamic are “victims” of abuse and end up exhibiting the same symptoms as children who are physically and sexually abused by their family members. You have a responsibility to protect your children from this abuse, as do all the professionals who are involved in your case.

The new provisions of legislation in Ontario are as follows:

34 (2) If the court is satisfied that the responding party wrongfully denied the moving party access to the child, the court may, by order,

(a) require the responding party to give the moving party compensatory access to the child for the period agreed to by the parties, or for the period the court considers appropriate if the parties do not agree;

(b) require supervision as described in section 34;

(c) require the responding party to reimburse the moving party for any reasonable expenses actually incurred as a result of the wrongful denial of access;

(d) appoint a mediator in accordance with section 31 as if the motion were an application for access. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 83.

Period of compensatory access

(3)  A period of compensatory access shall not be longer than the period of access that was wrongfully denied. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 83.

What constitutes wrongful denial of access

(4)  A denial of access is wrongful unless it is justified by a legitimate reason such as one of the following:

1. The responding party believed on reasonable grounds that the child might suffer physical or emotional harm if the right of access were exercised.

2. The responding party believed on reasonable grounds that he or she might suffer physical harm if the right of access were exercised.

3. The responding party believed on reasonable grounds that the moving party was impaired by alcohol or a drug at the time of access.

4. The moving party failed to present himself or herself to exercise the right of access within one hour of the time specified in the order or the time otherwise agreed on by the parties.

5. The responding party believed on reasonable grounds that the child was suffering from an illness of such a nature that it was not appropriate in the circumstances that the right of access be exercised.

6. The moving party did not satisfy written conditions concerning access that were agreed to by the parties or that form part of the order for access.

7. On numerous occasions during the preceding year, the moving party had, without reasonable notice and excuse, failed to exercise the right of access.

8. The moving party had informed the responding party that he or she would not seek to exercise the right of access on the occasion in question. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 83.

Motion re failure to exercise of right of access, etc.

(5)  A person in whose favour an order has been made for custody of a child and who claims that a person in whose favour an order has been made for access to the child has, without reasonable notice and excuse, failed to exercise the right of access or to return the child as the order requires, may make a motion for relief under subsection (6) to the court that made the access order. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 83.

Order for relief

(6)  If the court is satisfied that the responding party, without reasonable notice and excuse, failed to exercise the right of access or to return the child as the order requires, the court may, by order,

(a) require supervision as described in section 34;

(b) require the responding party to reimburse the moving party for any reasonable expenses actually incurred as a result of the failure to exercise the right of access or to return the child as the order requires;

(c) appoint a mediator in accordance with section 31 as if the motion were an application for access. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 83.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Have you been unaware of an upcoming school event (like the Christmas concert) or an extracurricular event because your spouse forgot to tell you? Isn't it frustrating? And disappointing? It's also embarrassing when you drop the ball and forget to pass on important information.

Scheduling events, holidays and other activities for children can be difficult for any family, but the challenge is even greater for divorced parents. Often parents who have separated or divorced have difficulty communicating with each other at the best of times. Living in separate homes can make it even worse.  But you know that already if you're divorced. So what's the answer?

You need a system.

For many years, I have encouraged clients whose separation is fresh and raw to use a communication book. One of the parents purchases a blank book which is used to discuss any proposed changes to the access schedule, illnesses of the children, milestones, accomplishments, discipline problems and upcoming events in the children's lives. I encourage the parents to decorate the book with photos of the children on the outside of the book (to remind the parents to stay focused on their children's best interests) and to plan on giving the book to their children when they are adults (to encourage the parents to treat each other respectfully and politely in the book since their children will read it one day).

A high tech modern version of the communication book is Our Family Wizard. This is an on-line  calendar and communication tool available through the Internet. It is amazing. You can communicate upcoming changes to the schedule, health concerns, financial issues and any other issues related to your children through your own private website set up for this purpose. Older children can even be given access to the site as can any other third parties agreed to by you and your spouse (mediator, parenting coach, lawyers, grand parents). The cost is $99.00 per parent per year. They even have "scholarships" to reduce or eliminate the costs for deserving families. Third party access is free. Check out Our Family Wizard.

A free option is Google Calendar. It does not have all the bells and whistles of "Our Family Wizard" because it isn't designed for separated families, but it is free. A calendar is set up over the Internet with access restricted to you and your spouse or third parties agreeable to the parents. It's private and available wherever you can access the Internet. You can post upcoming events on the calendar such as the next hockey tournament or dance recital so everyone knows about it in advance.

Ideally, its best if you can communicate openly with one another via meetings, telephone calls or emails but often this is impossible especially immediately after the separation. The emotions are too hot for direct communication. So, try some other system.

Of course, a system works only if you work the system. Even if your spouse doesn't keep you informed or is unreliable, just take the high road, and do it anyway. Some of us are planners and some of us aren't planners. Such is life. Do it anyway.  

Whether you use the old fashioned communication book, Our Family Wizard, Google Calendar, emails, meetings or phone calls, find a way to communicate respectfully and in a timely manner. If you don't make an effort, your children will suffer. Your children deserve parents who will put aside their own personal feelings toward each other and find a way to communicate with each other, for the children's sake... and you don't want to miss another Christmas concert!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We are experiencing a pandemic of H1N1 influenza worldwide. As a result, governments around the world are asking everyone to become vaccinated. Kysa Crusco of New Hampshire has recently done an excellent blog about this issue from an American perspective.

Parents everywhere are wondering  "should I vaccinate my child?"  My own opinion is that the benefits to yourself and society far outweigh the risks. I believe you should bare the long lines and get it done.

I recommend you read more about the issue. The Simcoe County Health Unit has an excellent website with information about clinics in the Barrie area and other information about the issue. I especially like the fact sheet. The Government of Canada also has a great website with information about H1N1 too.

I believe that all of us should become vaccinated, not only to protect ourselves from illness but to minimize the spread of the virus to other people, some of whom might die from it. I feel it is my obligation to the Canadian society to be immunized even though the likelihood of a serious bout of flu is minimal. In fact, I believe so strongly about this issue, I have given my staff up to five hours off work with pay so that they can get their H1N1 vaccination shot, should they choose to do so.

That's my opinion but vaccination is voluntary. You have to decide for yourself and your children whether to get vaccinated.

If you are separated or divorced, you should consult with your ex spouse before making this type of decision. That is, if your ex has any involvement in the children's lives and you can discuss issues without a battle.

I always remind my clients ACBD: "Always Consult Before Deciding".

If you share joint custody with your ex, you have an obligation to make all major decisions affecting your children together. This includes major medical decisions.

Whether to vaccinate your child is a "major decision" requiring you to discuss it  and decide with your co-parent, if you share joint custody. 

I suggest you call or email your ex and offer these links so your ex can become informed too. Avoid it becoming a power struggle. Stick to the facts and the best interests of your children.

Even if you don't share joint custody, it is a good idea to consult with your ex before proceeding so that your ex spouse feels involved. Your children benefit from having two involved parents and participation in decision-making helps make a parent feel involved.

If you believe that consulting with your ex will lead to a battle and you have sole custody, you can make the decision alone. It is important to minimize conflict, for your children's sake, so avoid the conversation.

Now... go wash your hands and try to stay healthy!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Nancy Newton is the Executive Director of Rainbows. It is described on their website as "an international not-for-profit organization that fosters emotional healing among children grieving a loss from a life-altering crisis. These losses, among others, include separation, divorce, death, incarceration and foster care."

I believe Rainbows really helps kids deal with the emotional journey of their parents going through a separation or divorce. It does not replace a therapist as it is a system of peer support for the children. It's kids talking to other kids about their feelings.

Rainbows has their national head office in Barrie, Ontario.

Here is my interview with Nancy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Susan Piggs recently had an excellent article in the Toronto Star entitled "Divorced Dads Can't Catch a Break" . She outlines the many grievances of fathers who feel mistreated by the Ontario Court system. It's sad to read the stories of so many aggrieved fathers.

Many of these fathers believe that judges are intentionally against men and will do everything in their power to keep men paying support and keep men away from their children. I don't blame the judges: I blame the adversarial system. And I certainly feel sorry for the fathers who have suffered.

When it comes to children, judges are mandated to ensure that the best interests of the children are paramount. Judges struggle with their decisions. They truly want to do what is best for the children and generally start with the principle that it is in the best interests of the children to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents. If they are faced with overwhelming evidence that limited access or supervised access is the best approach for the children, what would you want them to do? I would prefer they err on the side of protecting children rather than risking harm to them. No doubt, the judges get it wrong sometimes leaving fathers without access unjustifiably.

The adversarial process assumes that both parents will put forward their best case and the judge will somehow miraculously determine "the truth" and will dispense "justice" accordingly. Often parents don't intentionally lie but rather see the world from a different perspective than the other parent. The judges have to discern the truth. It isn't an easy job. Sometimes they get it wrong.

The whole adversarial process pits one parent against another. It creates an atmosphere of "winner take all" which exacerbates the conflict. Increasing the animosity between the parents often leads children to suffer. Ironically, judges are supposed to be looking after the best interests of the children yet the adversarial system itself can make things worse.

I believe that most cases can be resolved without going to court. In my experience having mediated hundreds of family law cases and helped many families resolve their situations using the Collaborative Process, I believe parents are usually able to resolve their parenting issues on their own with just a little help and advice from well meaning collaboratively-trained professionals and mediators.

In the Collaborative Team Process, parents  work with a neutral Parenting Coach who will help them craft a parenting plan that is best for their children having regard to the children's needs, the research on the developmental needs of children and the ability of each parent to meet those needs. The parents are empowered to problem-solve in the Collaborative Process instead of being encouraged to fight as is the case in the court system.

I have met many men who blame judges for their plight. Maybe some of them have legitimate grievances but having appeared before many judges over the years, I believe most are well-meaning men and women who are just doing the best job possible given the restrictions of the adversarial process.  Frankly, I don't believe it's the judges' fault... it's just that the adversarial system is not the best way of resolving parenting issues.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Supervised access means that  access to the children can only occur in the presence of someone else. The purpose is to ensure that the children will be safe.

There are supervised access centers run by the government that will provide supervised access at their facilities in some cities including Barrie. Often the supervisor is a family member or friend instead of the government so as to avoid the costs and to be able to have the supervision on site.

Supervised access is unusual. The Court has to feel that the children are at risk of harm if access is not supervised. For example, if the access parent has been abusive of children in the past or has attempted to alienate the children from the other spouse, supervised access may be ordered.

Sometimes there simply needs to be supervised exchanges of the children to ensure the parents are not hostile toward each other in the presence of the children. Instead of going to a supervised access center, some parents will agree to exchange the children at a public location such as the local Tim Horton's, so as to minimize the likelihood of a nasty exchange. 

In a recent case called Smith v. Morrison [2009} O.J. No 3529, the court ordered supervised access to the mother because she had a drug addiction and suffered from depression. A lot of people suffer from depression but apparently this mother was not actively seeking treatment for it. There were other facts too working against her. In the end, the court felt that the children were at risk of being harmed if left in the mother's care without supervision. Normally supervised access is imposed on a temporary basis but, as in this case, it can be made a permanent order.

Supervised access is always an option to be considered in high conflict situations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link