Frizzell v. Ballard

Frizzell v. Ballard Court Supreme Court Date 2025-09-17 Citation 2025 NSSC 334 Docket Tru No. SFTPSA - 135418 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Sheppard, Terrance G. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Frizzell v. Ballard, 2025 NSSC 334 Date: 20250917 Docket: Tru No. SFTPSA - 135418 Registry: Truro Between: Linda Anne Frizzell Applicant v. Jessica Catherine Ballard and Michael Edward Ballard Respondents Library Heading Judge: The Honourable Justice Terrance G. Sheppard Heard: September 17, 2025, in Truro, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: Written Decision: September 17, 2025 October 23, 2025 Subject: Contact time for a grandparent that is opposed by both parents. Summary: The maternal grandmother applied for contact time with her one-year-old grandson. The application was opposed by both parents. Issues: Is it in the child’s best interests to have contact time with his maternal grandmother? Results: Given the long-standing and unresolved issues between the mother and maternal grandmother, it was not in the child’s best interest to have contact with his maternal grandmother. THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET. SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Frizzell v. Ballard, 2025 NSSC 334 Date: 20250917 Docket: Tru No. SFTPSA - 135418 Registry: Truro Between: Linda Anne Frizzell Applicant v. Jessica Catherine Ballard and Michael Edward Ballard Respondents Judge: The Honourable Justice Terrance G. Sheppard Heard: September 17, 2025, in Truro, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: September 17, 2025 Written Release: October 23, 2025 Counsel: Linda Frizzell on her own behalf Sheila McDougall for the Respondent, Catherine Ballard Isoken Owie for the Respondent, Michael Ballard By the Court: OVERVIEW [1] Catherine and Michael Ballard are the parents of Noah, born February 20, 2024. Linda Frizzell is Catherine Ballard’s mother and Noah’s maternal grandmother. [2] Catherine Ballard and Linda Frizzell are estranged. The reasons for the estrangement are long standing and date back to various child protection matters that Linda Frizzell and her husband, Vernon Frizzell, were involved in as far back as 1999. Catherine Ballard was in foster care for a period of eighteen months when she was a child. [3] Because of the estrangement, Linda Frizzell has had no contact with the child since his birth. She applies under s.18 of the Parenting and Support Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.160 for contact time. For the reasons below, I have determined that it is not in the child’s best interest to have contact with his maternal grandmother. ISSUE [4] The sole issue before the court is whether it is in the child’s best interest to have contact time with his maternal grandmother. THE LAW [5] S.18 of the Parenting and Support Act governs this application. As s.18(5) states, in all matters involving a child, the paramount consideration is the best interest of the child. [6] I have reviewed all the factors set out in s.18(6) and the two added factors set out in s.18(6A) as it relates specifically to contact time by a grandparent. [7] Our Court of Appeal set out the two different approaches to grandparent contact time in Simmons v. Simmons, 2016 NSCA 86 at paragraph 27, the “Parental Autonomy” approach and the “Pro Contact” approach. Although they contradict one another, there is good sense in both approaches. For the “Parental Autonomy Approach,” in general, parental decisions are entitled to a level of deference, and especially in a case like this where both the biological parents agree that it is not in the child’s best interest to have contact with his maternal grandmother. [8] On the other hand, for the “Pro Contact” approach, generally, contact between a child and the grandparent is beneficial. Ms. Frizzell sets out several benefits of grandparents for children in her Affidavit sworn May 23, 2025: - Grandparents are a source of comfort and support and can be great confidants for grandchildren; - Grandparents provide a connection point within the family; - Grandparents can give more individual attention, especially during times when parents are busy; - Grandparents can spoil their grandchildren, and every child needs a little spoiling now and then; - A strong grandparent-grandchild relationship can enhance a child’s wellbeing, offer valuable learning opportunities, and foster a sense of family connection. [9] I agree with all these as general statements. [10] However, both approaches must be seen through the lens of the best interest of the child. Each case turns on its unique facts. In some cases, parents may make decisions that are not in their child’s best interest. Further, contact with some grandparents may negatively affect the child. [see L.C. v. K.T., 2018 NSCA 92]. [11] I find that Judge Daley’s summary of the law at paragraph 93 of M.O. v. S.O., [2015] N.S.J. No 345 very helpful, especially the list of factors set out in paragraph 93(7). ANALYSIS The nature, strength, and stability of the relationship between the child and the grandparent. [12] The child has no relationship whatsoever with Linda Frizzell. At the time of the trial, the child was nineteen months old and had never met his maternal grandmother. The history of the relationship between the child and the grandparent including the involvement of the grandparent in day-to-day care of the child or the involvement in significant religious, spiritual, sports, cultural or social events or activities. [13] Again, the child has no relationship with Linda Frizzell. Linda Frizzell was not involved in the child’s religious, spiritual, sports, cultural & social events, or activities. The child here is quite young, and those activities would be quite limited; nevertheless, there has been no involvement. The needs of the child, whether special, physical, emotional, social, educational, safety and stability and the impact of granting or denying access on those needs. [14] Here, the child is a typically developing, healthy, happy toddler with no special needs. Catherine Ballard is a stay-at-home parent and meets the child’s day-to-day needs with the support of his father, Michael Ballard. The child has many family supports through Michael Ballard and through the couple’s friends. The reasons for the conflict between the parents and the grandparents and the denial or restriction of access and whether the position of the parents in denying or restricting access has a rational basis. [15] Linda and Vernon Frizzell first became involved with child protection in 1999. The concerns at that time were possible neglect, missed appointments, financial issues, unfit living conditions, and lack of social or family support. Linda and Vernon Frizzell have three children, Joan Keller, who is thirteen years older than Catherine Ballard, and Alex Frizzell, who is one year older than Catherine Ballard. Alex is neurodivergent and cannot live independently. When Catherine Ballard and Alex Frizzell were taken into care in 2009, Alex Frizzell spent two years in a facility in Utah and has lived with his sister, Joan Keller, ever since. [16] Child protection became involved with the family again in 2007. The records show that the main concern at that time was physical abuse of Catherine Ballard. Catherine Ballard confirmed the physical abuse but said that it was historic. Further concerns were that the home was unfit due to cat fecal matter and the home being so cluttered there was no escape route should emergency services be called. [17] In 2009, child protection began a court application and that is when Catherine Ballard and Alex Frizzell were taken into care. The notes simply indicate that the concern was physical abuse but does not specify which child or parent. The notes indicated that after an investigation these concerns were substantiated, as well as those of unfit living conditions. This was affecting the socialization of the children in school as they were attending school with clothing that was dirty and their hygiene was not kept. [18] Catherine Ballard is adamant that she was physically abused. She states in her affidavit that Linda Frizzell yelled, threatened, and slapped her both before and after being taken into care. [19] Linda Frizzell adamantly denies this allegation. When asked about the child protection records in 2009 indicating that physical abuse had been substantiated, she said this was not physical abuse of Catherine Ballard by her, but rather physical abuse by her husband, Vernon Frizzell, on Alex Frizzell. Linda Frizzell is supported in this by her daughter, Joan Keller. Joan Keller states that Catherine Ballard was not physically abused by Linda Frizzell. Further, she would have no hesitation in having Linda Frizzell care for her child if she had one. [20] When it was pointed out to Joan Keller that she may not have witnessed the physical abuse of Catherine Ballard by Linda Frizzell given that she is thirteen years older and left the home when Catherine Ballard was only three years old, Joan Keller responded that Catherine Ballard had never even mentioned to her that she was being physically abused. When it was pointed out to Joan Keller that not all children report the physical abuse, Joan Keller said that that was not her sister’s personality and if she were being physically abused, she would surely have spoken about it. [21] I am unable to definitively resolve the factual dispute about whether Catherine Ballard was physically abused by Linda Frizzell as a child. On the one hand, I have the child protection records indicating that in 2007 Catherine Ballard was physically abused; however, the records do not indicate whether this was substantiated. The records in 2009 indicate that there was substantiated physical abuse, but Linda Frizzell says that this was physical abuse of Alex Frizzell by his father, Vernon Frizzell. I have Joan Keller who is adamant that Linda Frizzell never abused Catherine Ballard; however, she was absent from the home when the physical abuse is alleged to have occurred. [22] However, even if I accept Linda Frizzell’s evidence that the physical abuse allegations are false, or at the very least grossly exaggerated, then that still leaves me with the reality that this is a highly dysfunctional mother/daughter relationship. Linda Frizzell suggests that the only reason Catherine Ballard is denying contact time with her son is because she was in foster care for eighteen months. Even accepting that, that, in itself, would be reason enough to have an estranged relationship with one’s parent. However, here, the eighteen months in foster care really understates the issues. It was chronic, long-standing, serious child protection concerns from the time Catherine Ballard was an infant. Unfit living conditions were a concern in Linda Frizzell’s home in 1999, 2007, and 2009. The child protection records indicate the negative impact this had on Catherine Ballard’s socialization in school; however, it surely would have had other profound impacts on her as well. There was also physical abuse going on in the home, regardless of whether it was Catherine Ballard directly or her brother who has special needs. All this more than adequately explains why Catherine Ballard is estranged from Linda Frizzell. In fact, given the family history, it would be challenging for Catherine Ballard to have a positive parenting relationship with Linda Frizzell. The likely impact on the child, both positive or negative, if access is granted versus if the access is denied or restricted. [23] Given that there has been no contact between the child and Linda Frizzell, the possible benefits are theoretical only. That being said, I accept the general proposition of the “Pro Contact” approach that grandparents can be a very positive influence on their grandchildren. In fact, I endorse the general proposition that the more adults that love and support a child, generally the better off they will be. [24] However, in these circumstances, the negatives outweigh the possible positives. Catherine Ballard says that it was a very unhappy childhood, and she continues to suffer from a myriad of mental health concerns including self-esteem/self-worth issues, anxiety, and depression. She has undergone a lot of therapy and is currently under the care of a psychiatrist she sees on a regular basis. Her concern is that Linda Frizzell is a trigger and will destabilize her mental health which will have a direct, negative effect on the child. [25] Linda Frizzell has her own mental health issues. She says she has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, which in and of itself would not be concerning. She also says she has Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, although I can only give so much weight to that given that there was no formal diagnosis other than a therapist saying this was something that needed to be addressed. [26] However, Ms. Frizzell says that she has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder by a psychologist. Typically, Borderline Personality Disorder can cause mood swings and difficulty in relationships. I have little evidence on how it has affected Ms. Frizzell. To treat Borderline Personality Disorder, it takes a lot of talk therapy. Again, I have very little evidence from Ms. Frizzell about how she is treating this serious mental health condition. [27] As I have stated often before, parents and grandparents do no lose contact with their children because they have mental health conditions, rather it is how they are treating those mental health conditions that is determinative. However, it is a concern that I have such little information from Ms. Frizzell on how she is treating her mental health diagnoses. [28] Ms. Frizzell’s cross-examination of Catherine and Michael Ballard showed how antagonistic the relationship is. Linda Frizzell misinterpreted a lot of the evidence by the other two parties. For example, Linda Frizzell recalled that Catherine Ballard stated in her affidavit that Linda Frizzell was very negative about her having a baby. However, that was not Catherine Ballard’s evidence. At paragraph 19 of her affidavit dated August 20, 2025, she says that Linda Frizzell was negative about Catherine Ballard’s spouse and his family, not about having a baby. [29] In replying to Catherine Ballard’s evidence that Linda Frizzell spoke negatively about Michael Ballard and his family, Linda Frizzell says that she never spoke negatively “beyond suggesting he might not be ready for a relationship as he had been breaking up with her to see another girl.” Linda Frizzell did not understand how such a comment would be seen as being very negative about Michael Ballard. [30] Another example is that Linda Frizzell said that Michael Ballard swore that he observed the physical abuse; however, Michael Ballard never said this. At paragraph 7 of his affidavit sworn August 20, 2025, he says that his wife, Catherine Ballard, has alleged that she was subject to physical and verbal abuse by Linda Frizzell in the past and based on his observations they have a strained and discordant relationship. [31] Catherine Ballard left the home when she was in grade eleven after an argument with Linda Frizzell. Linda Frizzell denies that she kicked Catherine Ballard out of the home, although that is not quite what Catherine Ballard said. However, Linda Frizzell admits that she said to Catherine Ballard words to the effect, “if you don’t like it, there’s the door.” Again, Linda Frizzell does understand how such a comment could be interpreted by a teenager as being kicked out of the home. [32] Linda Frizzell’s recollection and assessment of information gives me some concern about how she may deal with Catherine Ballard in arranging contact time with the child. Linda Frizzell envisions these arrangements as being very simple: set specific dates and times for contact with the child and then she merely picks the child up and drops him off. However, that is naïve. There would have to be significant contact between Linda Frizzell and the Ballards, especially for such a young child. There would have to be communication about how the child did during the contact time, what he likes to eat, when he naps, what are his interests and favourite activities, etc. I am satisfied that this will have a significant, negative impact on Catherine Ballard’s mental health that may not lessen over time. Catherine Ballard is still dealing with the trauma caused to her by Linda Frizzell a decade after she moved out of her home. The probability that positive access will be sustainable including whether the parties can effectively isolate the child from conflict among the parents, grandparents, and other persons in the child’s life, the willingness of the parents to facilitate such access and the necessity of making an order for such access. [33] The contact time would not be sustainable in this situation. The estrangement is far too entrenched. The trigger of having the child have contact with her mother would only exasperate Catherine Ballard’s mental health issues, which would only make the situation worse for the child. [34] As an indication of just how entrenched the estrangement is, Linda Frizzell did not even reach out to Catherine Ballard prior to making her application. This was not the proper approach to try to heal the wound in this family so that she can have a relationship with her grandson. Further, minimizing her daughter’s trauma, and her responsibility for that trauma, does not help heal the rift. The importance of the grandparents maintaining a connection with the child’s family, cultural, ethnic, or linguistic history. [35] There is no unique cultural, ethnic, or linguistic history in this matter. The type, location, duration, and content of proposed access with the grandparent. [36] Linda Frizzell is requesting to see the child 3-4 times per month for an hour or more. While this is not an unreasonable request, any contact between the child and Linda Frizzell will inevitably place the child in the middle of the conflict between her and Catherine Ballard. [37] It is unlikely that the estrangement will be healed anytime soon. Linda Frizzell minimizes the damage that was done to Catherine Ballard as a child and downplays her role. In her August 21, 2025, submissions she suggests that Catherine Ballard is not focussed on her child’s best interest but rather focussed on punishing her. That comment shows a lack of insight into how problematic Catherine Ballard’s childhood was. [38] Although Linda Frizzell acknowledged that Catherine Ballard and her brother were taken into care, she initially denied that it was due to physical abuse. However, when specifically questioned about this, she admitted that her husband physically abused their son. She goes on to sum up the child protection concerns as the house being in a bad state as she had just given up trying to do anything beyond feeding the children and doing laundry. She blames this on the father for his lack of assistance. Again, the lack of insight by Linda Frizzell into the child protection concerns, even nearly fifteen years later, is concerning. While she acknowledges that both children were traumatized, she says this was because of the foster homes they were placed in. She does not acknowledge that anything she did traumatized her children. The probable impact, if any, of the proposed access on the child within the home of the child. [39] As detailed above, this would have a potentially serious and negative impact on the child’s primary caregiver which could only then have a negative impact on the child. Further, placing the child in the middle of a long-standing and unresolved conflict between his primary caregiver and maternal grandmother is not in his best interest. The child’s views and preferences. [40] The child is too young to express any views and preferences. CONCLUSION [41] For all the foregoing reasons, Linda Frizzell’s application is dismissed. [42] Linda Frizzell had said, somewhat off the cuff, she may bring the matter back to court at some point in the future. She lacked an understanding of the requirement to show a change in circumstances to vary this decision. Therefore, if Linda Frizzell looks to vary this decision, she must first seek leave of the Court and show that there has been a change in circumstances that would warrant a variation. Sheppard, J.