">
The ideal scenario for children of separation is to have two loving parents actively involved in their lives. However, in some cases, the relationship between separated or divorced parents becomes so toxic, marked by abuse or ongoing conflict, that a traditional co-parenting arrangement becomes detrimental to the child’s well-being. In Ontario, the child’s best interests are paramount in all family law matters, including decisions about parenting time. The court will prioritize arrangements that promote the child’s physical and emotional well-being. If a parent’s behaviour risks the child’s safety or creates a highly stressful environment, the court might consider limiting or modifying parenting time.
Parties Describe Relationship Prior to the Birth of Their Child as “Toxic”
In the recent case from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the applicant mother (the “mother”) and the respondent father (the “father”) were in a relationship from 2009 until late 2011 before their child was born, however, the parties never cohabitated. Their child (the “child”) was born on May 17, 2012.
The parties presented evidence regarding their relationship, and both described it as “toxic” during the trial. The mother alleged that the relationship was “rife with physical, mental and emotional abuse,” while the father denied abuse but stated that the relationship was “diabolic.” The mother claimed that the father was inconsistent in spending time with the child, while the father argued that the mother obstructed the development of his relationship with the child.
Mother Ceases Father’s Time With Child
In 2018, the local child protection agency was involved, and the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement addressing parenting time. In August 2019, the mother commenced an application for child support and “custody” (now referred to as decision-making responsibility). The Court granted an uncontested order awarding her sole decision-making responsibility for the child, with the father having limited access to the child, which was contingent on him providing evidence of “secure, adequate accommodation for the child.” The Order also temporarily imputed the father’s income to $134,000 and required him to pay monthly child support in the amount of $1,178. The final Order addressing parenting was never appealed by the father.
On March 14, 2020, the father delivered an Answer and Claim and sought an order for joint decision-making responsibility of the child. However, issues arose regarding compliance with the final Order as his parenting time was restricted to weekends, and he failed to provide evidence of suitable accommodations. Despite further orders, he also failed to comply with various requirements, including engaging in therapy and arranging a home inspection. After the child expressed fear and anxiety to the mother about attending the father’s church, where she was subject to a prayer meeting, the mother discontinued the father’s time with the child.
Father Demonstrates “Casual Regard for Complying With Court Orders”
The matter came before the Court in this instance as the mother sought an Order that the father have no parenting time with the child, which was supported by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. The case was recognized as a high-conflict case, and the Court emphasized the importance of each party’s credibility. While assessing credibility is a holistic undertaking, various factors may be considered, including:
- internal and external consistency of witness testimony with the testimony of other witnesses and the documentary evidence;
- Motive;
- Self-interest;
- clarity and logic of narrative;
- witness presentation; and
- witness demeanour.
In this case, the Court concluded that, in cases where there is a conflict, the mother’s evidence is to be preferred over the father’s. The Court explained that the mother was “unshaken in cross-examination when pressed about her effort to support the child’s relationship with her father,” and the father demonstrated a “casual regard for complying with court orders” even when they “intended to assist in his gaining more parenting time.” The Court also noted that the father “frequently answered that he couldn’t recall the relevant circumstances” when confronted with inconsistencies and made “bald allegations that evidence had been planted.”
Court Ceases Father’s Parenting Time Until He Engages With Counselling
The testimony of a clinical from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer also aligned with the mother’s evidence, particularly in relation to the child’s fear of the father’s behaviour. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the mother has sole decision-making responsibility for the child and the father must participate in counselling and show a behavioural change before parenting time with the child will be reinstated. His contact with the child was also limited to sending age and occasion-appropriate cards and gifts through family members. The father was also ordered to pay child support from January 1, 2018, onwards in accordance with the income imputed to him by the Court.
Contact Johnson Miller Family Lawyers in Windsor for Superior Representation in Parenting and Support Disputes
Child support matters, and parenting disputes can be highly contentious matters, particularly when the parties are involved in a high-conflict separation or divorce. At Johnson Miller Family Lawyers, our experienced family lawyers regularly works with clients to help them navigate the complexities of changing family dynamics. To speak with an experienced member of our family law team about parenting time, child support, or divorce, call us at 519.973.1500 or contact us online.
