Justice Pazaratz from the Hamilton Family Court made a ruling (attached)
Some quotes are:
[10]None of us know how long this crisis is going to last. In many respects we are going
to have to put our lives “on hold” until COVID -19 is resolved. But children’s lives –
and vitally important family relationships – cannot be placed “on hold” indef initely
without risking serious emotional harm and upset. A blanket policy that children
should never leave their primary residence – even to visit their other parent – is
inconsistent with a comprehensive analysis of the best interests of the child. In
troubling and disorienting times, children need the love, guidance and emotional
support of both parents, now more than ever.
[11] In most situations there should be a presumption that existing parenting
arrangements and schedules should continue, subject to whatever modif ications maybe necessary to ensure that all COVID-19 precautions are adhered to – including
strict social distancing.
[12] In some cases, custodial or access parents may have to forego their times with a
child, if the parent is subject to some specif ic personal restriction (for example, under
self -isolation for a 14 day period as a result of recent travel; personal illness; or
exposure to illness).
[13] In some cases, a parent’s personal risk f actors (through employment or associations,
for example) may require controls with respect to their direct contact with a child.
[14] And sadly, in some cases a parent’s lifestyle or behaviour in the f ace of COVID -19 (for example, failing to comply with social distancing; or failing to take reasonable health-precautions) may raise sufficient concerns about parental judgment that direct parent-child contact will have to be reconsidered. There will be zero tolerance for any parent who recklessly exposes a child (or members of the child’s household) to any COVID-19 risk.
...
[21] We will deal with COVID-19 parenting issues on a case-by-case basis:
a. The parent initiating an urgent motion on this topic will be required to provide
specif ic evidence or examples of behavior or plans by the other parent which are
inconsistent with COVID-19 protocols.
b. The parent responding to such an urgent motion will be required to provide
specif ic and absolute reassurance that COVID-19 safety measures will be
meticulously adhered to – including social distancing; use of disinfectants;
compliance with public safety directives; etc
c. Both parents will be required to provide very specific and realistic time-sharing
proposals which fully address all COVID-19 considerations, in a child-focused
manner.
d. Judges will likely take judicial notice of the fact that social distancing is now
becoming both commonplace and accepted, given the number of public facilities
which have now been closed. This is a very good time for both custodial and
access parents to spend time with their child at home.
Some quotes are:
[10]None of us know how long this crisis is going to last. In many respects we are going
to have to put our lives “on hold” until COVID -19 is resolved. But children’s lives –
and vitally important family relationships – cannot be placed “on hold” indef initely
without risking serious emotional harm and upset. A blanket policy that children
should never leave their primary residence – even to visit their other parent – is
inconsistent with a comprehensive analysis of the best interests of the child. In
troubling and disorienting times, children need the love, guidance and emotional
support of both parents, now more than ever.
[11] In most situations there should be a presumption that existing parenting
arrangements and schedules should continue, subject to whatever modif ications maybe necessary to ensure that all COVID-19 precautions are adhered to – including
strict social distancing.
[12] In some cases, custodial or access parents may have to forego their times with a
child, if the parent is subject to some specif ic personal restriction (for example, under
self -isolation for a 14 day period as a result of recent travel; personal illness; or
exposure to illness).
[13] In some cases, a parent’s personal risk f actors (through employment or associations,
for example) may require controls with respect to their direct contact with a child.
[14] And sadly, in some cases a parent’s lifestyle or behaviour in the f ace of COVID -19 (for example, failing to comply with social distancing; or failing to take reasonable health-precautions) may raise sufficient concerns about parental judgment that direct parent-child contact will have to be reconsidered. There will be zero tolerance for any parent who recklessly exposes a child (or members of the child’s household) to any COVID-19 risk.
...
[21] We will deal with COVID-19 parenting issues on a case-by-case basis:
a. The parent initiating an urgent motion on this topic will be required to provide
specif ic evidence or examples of behavior or plans by the other parent which are
inconsistent with COVID-19 protocols.
b. The parent responding to such an urgent motion will be required to provide
specif ic and absolute reassurance that COVID-19 safety measures will be
meticulously adhered to – including social distancing; use of disinfectants;
compliance with public safety directives; etc
c. Both parents will be required to provide very specific and realistic time-sharing
proposals which fully address all COVID-19 considerations, in a child-focused
manner.
d. Judges will likely take judicial notice of the fact that social distancing is now
becoming both commonplace and accepted, given the number of public facilities
which have now been closed. This is a very good time for both custodial and
access parents to spend time with their child at home.
Comment