A Sudbury-area man facing child porn charges has lost his court fight to gain limited access to his children.
The man, who can't be identified to protect the privacy of his children, was charged two years ago with possession and distribution of child pornography. Court transcripts of the case say the distribution charge has been dropped, but the possession charge is pending.
The couple separated a few years before he was charged, and up until that point, he had regular access to his children. He has not seen them since the child porn charges, with a judge ordering in December 2017 that the mother have sole custody.
The man applied for limited access in late 2018, explaining he had not done so earlier because the criminal charges caused him to “(shut) down emotionally and mentally.”
He was seeking supervised visits with his children through the province's Supervised Access Centre, which allows parents in such circumstances to see their children in the company of trained staff and volunteers.
But there's a long waiting list to access the service, the court transcript says, and the man was asking the court to allow visits through his court outreach worker.
“If he is forced to wait for supervised access '(the) children and I may miss our opportunity to have access,' which suggests that he is anticipating a period of incarceration as a result of the criminal charges,” the transcript says.
As part of his release on bail, the man is not allowed to be in the company or communicated with anyone under age 16, unless their parents or guardians are present.
His lawyer argued that, until the criminal charges were laid, the man was an involved parent with regular access. The child porn charges didn't involve his children, his lawyer argued, and they would not be at risk since the visits would be well supervised.
But the judge had several concerns. First, the man didn't make any arguments why it would be in the best interest of the children to see him, nor offered any proposals about how they would be reintroduced to him. He didn't present any evidence that the outreach worker is trained to supervise access. And the children themselves weren't asked how they felt about seeing him again.
The mother argued that she has significant concerns about the impact on the children if he was granted access while the charges are going through the court system. The information he presented himself about his mental health – severe depression, anxiety and PTSD – raises further red flags.
In her decision, the judge wrote the only consideration in the case was the best interests of the children. While the man says he has made progress with his mental health issues, “he states he continues to suffer from severe depression, PTSD and anxiety, and that he is unable to work due to these issues.”
The man also has a past criminal conviction, the type that would “raise concern” about the safety of the children if he had access.
“I acknowledge that the (father's) charges do not relate to incidents involving his children, but the nature of these charges is very concerning,” the judge wrote.
“I find, based on all of the evidence before me, that interim access at this time, even if it is supervised, is not in the children’s best interests.”
But she did order the case to be referred to the Office of the Children's Lawyer, which acts as an advocate and protector of the interests of young people in court proceedings.
