What is the impact of the Respondent’s personalised correspondence on the relationship between the mother and her two children?

I am of the view that the children cannot be placed in a position, on an ongoing basis, in which their mother is represented as the "awful creature" she has been made out to be in the volumes of correspondence written by the Respondent. I turn to the words of Daley, J. in Neill v. Best (1995) 18 R.F.L. (4th), page 440 at 449: The welfare of the child rule is paramount. Access is not a reward for parenting or for not having custody. It is an active, productive, positive relationship that requires security, knowledgeable care, communication and understanding. (...) It requires the access parent having a clear understanding of what is involved. Access law should not encourage risk taking and experimentation with the emotional and physical growth of an infant child. It should look for benefits to the child, not neutral or potentially negative relationships.