What are the consequences of a parent's text messages to their 8-year-old daughter for failing to comply with a restraining order?

In my opinion, a fair reading of the text messages sent by the respondent herself, establish a failure on the part of the respondent to do what she reasonably could to be in compliance with the order. A parent has an obligation to promote compliance with the telephone contact term. While recognizing that as a child gets older it may be more difficult to compel compliance, that is or ought not to be the case when a child is 8 years old. As indicated in Jackson v. Jackson at paragraph 63, “the parent must require that access occur and actively facilitate it”. The parent is required to “take concrete measures to apply normal parental authority to have the child comply”. Here, there is no evidence of any steps taken by the respondent to facilitate the telephone access ordered. Indeed, her text messages accomplish exactly the opposite.

In Bowman v. Bowman, [2009] O.J. No. 2993 it was held that while courts are reluctant to exercise contempt powers, it is important “that such powers be exercised in appropriate cases to ensure that parties in family law proceedings understand that court orders cannot be ignored or disobeyed, and the compliance with a court order is neither an option nor a bargaining chip”.

Also apt is the observation of Blair J. (as he then was) in Surgeoner v. Surgeoner, [1992] O.J. No. 299, that “the need for the sanction of contempt proceedings is of significant importance in the field of family law. There is an undertow of bitterness and sense of betrayal which often threatens to drown the process and the parties themselves in a sea of anger and “self-righteousness”. In this environment it is all too easy for a spouse to believe that he or she “knows what is right”, even after a matter has been determined by the court, and to decide to ignore, disobey or defy that determination. Those who chose to take this tact must know that it will not be tolerated.”