Supervision
When Court Does Not Order Supervision as a Long-Term Parenting Time Arrangement
There is consensus in the case law that an order for supervised access is an exceptional order. Usually the court would not order supervision as a long-term access arrangement because it creates an artificial environment. The case of M.(B.P.) v. M.(B.L.D.E.), 1992 CanLII 8642, underscores this proposition. Abella J.A. stated at para. 80:
- “The purpose of supervised access, far from being a permanent feature of a child’s life, is to provide “a temporary and time-limited measure designed to resolve a parental impasse over access. It should not be used … as a long-term remedy”: Norris Weisman, “On Access after Parental Separation” (1992), 36 R.F.L. (3d) 35 at 74.”
The court may order supervision, along with periodic drug testing in cases where the child is at risk of harm if the court leaves the child unsupervised with the “access” parent (A.H. v R.C., 2015 ONSC 5890 (CanLII) at para 20(26) citing A.(M.) v. D.(J.), 2003 CanLII 52807 (Ont.C.J.)).
Supervision Removed Pending Ongoing Assessment
In P.B. v. C.O.A (P.B. v. C.O.A. 2017 ONSC 5357.), on a motion to vary an existing interim “custody/access” order, the court ordered a gradual progression to unsupervised parenting time. Here, the mother had spent time in jail for abducting the parties’ child. However, her two years of supervised access, along with supervision and drug testing after her release, had gone well and she had complied with all expectations. Other relevant factors included that the mother had maintained civility with the father. She was viewed as a reduced risk to reoffend. The court found a material change in circumstances warranting a change to access.
The father wanted access to be at least semi-supervised until the Children’s Lawyer had completed its investigation. However, the court could not see what could be gained by waiting for the completion of the investigation. The OCL’s recommendations would be most useful if access took place under normal conditions. The court ordered that access should gradually progress to partially supervised visits, then unsupervised visits in a shopping center. The court stated that after it, unsupervised daytime visits in the mother’s home should be next.
Book Appointment with PLS, And We Will Help You
DRUG TESTING
Drug Testing: The purpose of ongoing drug testing is to ensure the parent does not engage in unlawful consumption of illegal substances. It is also ensures that the parent is not impaired while in a caregiving role to the children during the visit. A Court can achieve a similar result by adding both periodic drug testing and supervision together.
In Sadowski v. Sadowski, the father brought a motion to vary an order for supervised access (Sadowski v. Sadowski, 2011 ONCJ 403, [2011] O.J. No. 3861, 2011 CarswellOnt 8790).
The terms of the 2008 order included the provision that the father was to complete a treatment program for substance abuse and follow any recommendations made by the clinicians. Three years later, he sought an order for graduated unsupervised access leading to alternating weekend overnight access with his two sons. The court adjourned a case conference on the matter with the consent of the parties. The terms of the adjournment included the requirement that the father provide regular urine screens or preferably a hair follicle test regarding his marijuana use.
The father provided the requested evidence at the next case conference confirming negative results for drugs and alcohol. The court concluded that the father had demonstrated that supervised access was no longer necessary and made an interim variation order for graduated unsupervised access pending an order in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.