">
When deciding decision-making, courts need to find a regime that supports the best interests of the parties’ children. Canadian legislation also endorses a child-centred approach to parenting. Successful parenting after separation requires prioritizing a child’s well-being. Parents must be open-minded and consider different options regarding a child’s education, healthcare, and general welfare to arrive at productive and stable outcomes for children.
This blog explores a recent Ontario decision, Clarke v. Denyes, highlighting the crucial need for parents to remain open-minded and consider diverse perspectives on their children’s education, healthcare, and overall welfare. The case underscores how a parent’s inability to prioritize a child’s needs can significantly impact legal decisions regarding parenting responsibilities.
Both Parents Sought Sole Decision-Making Responsibility
Clarke v. Denyes was a high-conflict matter, and the parties had attended numerous conferences and mediations and litigated several motions. The pair had been unable to resolve numerous family law issues. However, this case focused on parenting time and decision-making. The two had significant disagreements about their children, especially as one child had special needs, and the parties could not agree on his treatment, education, or diagnosis. Both parents sought sole decision-making responsibility for the major decisions impacting the children.
The applicant, James, sought sole decision-making, alleging that the respondent, Melissa, had a history of violating court orders concerning the children’s educational and medical decisions and refused to follow professional recommendations that did not align with her own views. In response, Melissa alleged that the children had primarily lived with her their entire lives. It also became clear that she viewed decisions made by health and educational professionals as misguided if they did not align with her own decisions.
Courts Take a Child-Centered Approach
Under section 20(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA), a child’s parents are equally entitled to decision-making responsibility for the children. Additionally, section 24 of the CLRA is clear that when making a parenting order, courts should only take into account the best interests of the children. In Mougoui v. Sekkat, the court acknowledged that it is necessary to take a child-centred approach when determining parenting orders. Notably, in S.V.G. v V.G, the judge concluded that when considering parenting issues involving children with special needs, “the extent of the parties’ involvement in addressing those needs and their willingness to consider reasonable recommendations from knowledgeable and experienced professionals involved with the child in addressing those needs are important considerations.”
In Clarke v. Denyes, the judge accepted that Melissa had obstructed “necessary decisions in the children’s best interests” and had difficulty explaining her reasons at trial. Section 30 of CLRA enables courts to appoint a third-party assessor to report on the needs of the child and the ability of the parties to meet those needs, which helps in deciding decision-making responsibility and parenting issues. In this case, a section 30 assessment had earlier recommended that decision-making be divided between the parents, with James making decisions on education and Melissa making decisions concerning health and other aspects of the children’s well-being. However, Justice Mathen did not accept that divided decision-making was in the children’s best interests. Although Melissa was clearly devoted to her children, the judge concluded that she was “unable or unwilling to accept information that does not accord with her preconceived notions of what is best for them.” Additionally, the judge was concerned that implementing divided decision-making would result in the parties frequently returning to court.
Overall, Melissa’s lack of insight did not promote the children’s best interests. The evidence demonstrated that she was unable or unwilling to cooperate with James. For instance, the judge cited Melissa’s treatment of the children’s medication as an example of her effort to control his parenting. She believed she was the only parent capable of managing the prescription, which showed a lack of regard for James as a parent and responsible adult. Additionally, disputes over the child’s school placement and therapy showed how she struggled to maintain perspective when the parties disagreed or when confronted with a different view from her own. This was a concern, and the judge could not overlook the risk to the children’s well-being resulting from her lack of insight. The section 30 assessor himself testified that if he had been aware of all of the information that came to light during the trial, he might not have made the decision he made recommending split decision-making. This helped Justice Mathen conclude that, while his report was helpful, a different decision-making arrangement was in the children’s best interests.
Judge Finds Parent’s Attitude is Contrary to Child’s Best Interests
The court also considered Melissa’s attitude to the dispute and previous court orders. Based on the history, the judge concluded that Melissa had a “troubling attitude towards this litigation and court orders.” The tone and frequency of her communications with other professionals that she disagreed with was a recurring problem. She also tended to file written motions when they were not appropriate. The judge recounted that after a trial date was set for October 2024, she still proceeded to file motions on September 20, September 26, and October 10. Then, once the trial had concluded and the decision was under reserve, she proceeded to bring a further urgent motion. For the judge, this “assembly line” of motions was a problem. Justice Mathen pointed out that under the Family Law Rules, written motions under Rule 14B are intended for issues that are “simple, procedural or uncomplicated.” However, given the list of motions that Melissa brought, it was evident that she did not observe that limitation.
The judge felt that Melissa’s attitude was troubling, but importantly, it was also contrary to the children’s best interests. Her approach kept “the parties locked in a storm of conflict.” It also risked alienating caregivers and used resources that could have been used for the children. Justice Mathen accepted that there was no guarantee that a sole decision-making order would encourage Melissa to “develop insight into her actions and find more productive ways to interact” with the other parent. However, she worried that granting Melissa any decision-making authority would signal that her approach to the parties’ conflict was acceptable when it was not. Looking at all of the evidence, it was in the children’s best interests for James to have sole decision-making authority. While he was to consult with Melissa before making major decisions, the final decision was his.
Prioritize a Child’s Wellbeing
Decision-making responsibility is decided in the best interests of the child. For parents, this can mean accepting information that challenges preconceived ideas of what is best for a child, discussing options, and making changes to prioritize a child’s well-being instead of pursuing personal conflicts.
Experienced Windsor Family Lawyers Handling Decision-Making Responsibility Matters
Navigating the complexities of family conflict and making decisions that prioritize your children’s well-being, as highlighted in cases like Clarke v. Denyes, can be emotionally and legally challenging. If you’re facing similar difficulties or require guidance in navigating parenting matters after separation, remember that experienced support is available. The team at Johnson Miller Family Lawyers understands that every family’s situation is unique and is committed to providing thoughtful advice tailored to your specific circumstances. We’re here to help you understand your rights, explore your options, and find the best path forward for your family. To discuss your unique circumstances further or arrange a confidential consultation, please complete our online questionnaire or contact our firm directly at 519.973.1500.
