Thread: Sole vs joint
View Single Post
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2017, 12:42 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
LovingFather32 LovingFather32 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point

Unfortunately this has become a standard tactic for some parents to achieve custody in court. "I need sole.. he/she can't communicate". Judges are catching on to this strategy fast and are putting an end to it.

I've read so many cases where one parent actually refuses to communicate properly to agitate the other parent, then documents that parents reaction, claiming they can't communicate. Parallel parenting has become extremely popular.

For example, in cases such as this:
[67] In the present case, an order giving Ms. Hoffman sole custody of the children would create a real risk that Mr. Hoffman’s involvement with them would be minimized. Courts have recognized that in such situations, parallel parenting may be the appropriate regime, in spite of the conflict between the parents. As the Court of Appeal for Ontario pointed out in Ursic v. Ursic[16] (2006), a parent cannot be the instigator of high conflict and then argue in favour of sole custody, based on the conflict.
Also, has been given a go?

Not to mention, your opinion of bad communication and that of the judges may differ considerably.

In para 72 of the reference above, the judge states:
While this requires some measure of communication and cooperation, the court does not apply a standard of perfection. As Quinn, J. remarked in Brook v. Brook, “The cooperation needed is workable, not blissful; adequate, not perfect.”[19]
Also, remember this:

A mere statement by one party that there is an inability to communicate will not preclude an order for joint custody.
Also, in terms of parallel parenting:

Justice Templeton had held that parallel parenting did not require a cooperative working relationship or even good communication. The objective of parallel parenting was to give the parents equal status, each with distinct rights and responsibilities in relation to specific topics.
In para. 81 it references caselaw stating stuff like:

Many trial courts have recognized that joint custody under a parallel parenting regime may be suitable where both parents love the child and should play an active role in the child’s life, yet have difficulty communicating or reaching consensus on the child’s upbringing.
So you see it's not as easy as you think to run in to a court room saying the OP can't communicate and that you need sole. It get's a heck of a lot more complex than that.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-12-2017 at 12:44 PM.
Reply With Quote