Generally, it is unwise to place an immature 13-year-old in charge of her life. Here, however, Catharine and Sam have engineered an alienation that is so complete as to leave the court with no feasible option.
[128] I make these findings: (1) The alienation was not present before Larry and Catherine separated; (2) This is not a case where T has weighed the good and bad attributes of her father and found him, on balance, to be parentally deficient: she sees Larry as all bad – there is no ambivalence to her feelings; she is not disguising her true feelings; (3) Larry, although well-intentioned, is an inept father, who has not taken steps to identify, and fix, his shortcomings as a parent; nevertheless, the utter rejection of him by T is disproportionate, unfair and unwarranted; (4) As Ms. Katz observed, T has aligned herself with Catherine whose hate for Larry is palpable; the battle lines are clearly drawn and T knows the side that she wants to be on; (5) I am unable to think of anything that Larry can do to quickly repair the damage in his relationship with T; and, if I could, I have doubts that he has the skill-sets to pull it off; (6) I did not hear evidence of a single instance of T, since separation, expressing love or affection for Larry; (7) Although children are often required by their parents to do things that they do not want to do, obligating T to visit her father or to engage in counselling is considerably more complicated than insisting that she do her homework or go to the dentist; (8) The history of the parties is such that there is no reason to think they would meaningfully take part in, or benefit from, therapy or counselling; (9) While it is Catherine’s duty to encourage and support a relationship between T and Larry, that duty has been breached too severely to be remedied by the court; (10) It is not realistic to expect that the parties have the incentive and finances to engage in the extensive therapy and counselling that are needed; (11) Depriving Catherine of custody (sometimes an appropriate way of dealing with an alienating parent) would not benefit T at this point.
[129] It is my view, sadly, that the alienation here is so severe that it is in the best interests of T not to order or enforce access by Larry. If access happens, fine.
[130] Without professional help, Larry is incapable of addressing the breakdown in his relationship with T. Although, as I have said, well-intentioned, he is an ineffective parent and, without counselling and other assistance, he will remain ineffective. While Catherine, aided and abetted by Sam, initiated the alienation of father and daughter, Larry has not improved the situation. But, I emphasize the fundamental fact that Catherine’s conduct is the sine qua non of the alienation.
[131] Absent counselling, matters will worsen, not improve. No practical purpose would be served if the court were to decree a schedule of counselling for the parties and the children. The hate and psychological damage that now prevail would require years of comprehensive counselling to undo. The legal system does not have the resources to monitor a schedule of counselling (nor should it do so). The function of Family Court is not to change people, but to dispose of their disputes at a given point in time. I preside over a court, not a church.
[132] Larry might consider some common-sense steps, such as cards, letters or gifts, to show that he is receptive to a relationship with T should she have a change of heart. However, he would be wise to have those steps independently vetted by a responsible person (preferably, a professional in the child-psychology or family-counselling field).
[133] It is agreed by all that T is immature for her age and she has been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. Catherine conceded, in deft cross-examination by Mr. Leduc, that the conflict in this case is harming T’s health.[34] Enforced access would exacerbate the situation.
[134] Finally, on this issue, I observe that T calls Sam “dad,” whereas B refers to him as “Sam.” Neither Sam nor Catherine attempted to dissuade T, calling the matter “her choice.” Yes, the alienation indeed is complete.
[135] The separation agreement shall be varied so as to be silent regarding access by Larry to T.
snipped from the motion - Minor's first names changed to innitials.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc6568/2010onsc6568.html
Basically, what I got from this, is the judge gave the minor daughter, a teen, what she wanted. He basically allowed her to choose and sever her relationship with Larry and further pursue the father/daughter relationship with Sam, the new husband/hells angel. T calls Sam dad and wants no part of her natural father.
To me, this portion of the Judge's Motion/Order reads as if he has effectively emancipated T from her father, per her wishes. Mom wanted T to be alienated from Larry and she accomplished that, Judge Quinn simply made it legal by allowing this severance. Why then should the mother and Sam continue to pursue Larry for money when they have both made it very clear that T should view Sam and Sam alone as her father? Sounds like supporting T would be one of the requirements of a father and Sam, Mom, and T all claim they want Sam to be father. Well there you go. let him have at it. He can now enjoy all the joys AND responsiblities of being T's new father.