Hi everyone..
Here is one more case for thous who pursue Parallel Parenting.
V.K. v. T. S., 2011 ONSC 4305 (CanLII)
it's big endorsement (82 pages) so everyone who is really interested welcome to read.
here I would point out most important from my point of view part.
D. Parallel Parenting
In paragraph [77] through [96] THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE D. CHAPPEL (have pleasure meet her in person) provide very good analysis of the availability of parallel parenting in high conflict cases (full and divided as she refers to it)
and here is the most important part of that analysis (from my point of view)
you welcome
Here is one more case for thous who pursue Parallel Parenting.
V.K. v. T. S., 2011 ONSC 4305 (CanLII)
it's big endorsement (82 pages) so everyone who is really interested welcome to read.
here I would point out most important from my point of view part.
[3] This trial spanned twenty days. The majority of the trial time was devoted to the issues of custody of and access to R.S., who is now four and a half years of age. Each party requested an Order for sole custody and primary residence of R.S. For the reasons that follow, I have determined that it is in R.S.’s best interests to spend an equal amount of time with each party, and for the parties to both have a role in decision-making respecting the child. I have concluded that a parallel parenting order is the custodial arrangement that would most effectively safeguard and promote R.S.’s best interests.
In paragraph [77] through [96] THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE D. CHAPPEL (have pleasure meet her in person) provide very good analysis of the availability of parallel parenting in high conflict cases (full and divided as she refers to it)
[81] A careful review of the Ontario Court of Appeal cases dealing with parallel parenting, along with the Supreme Court of Canada case-law dealing with the “best interests” test in custody cases, leads me to conclude that there is no jurisprudence at this time that precludes trial courts from making orders for what I have described above as “divided parallel parenting” in high conflict cases that would not meet the criteria for a joint custody order.
[96] A review of the case-law respecting parallel parenting suggests that the following factors are particularly relevant in determining whether a parallel parenting regime, rather than sole custody, is appropriate:
a) The strength of the parties’ ties to the child, and the general level of involvement of each parent in the child’s parenting and life.(46) In almost all cases where parallel parenting has been ordered, both parents have consistently played a significant role in the child’s life on all levels.
b) The relative parenting abilities of each parent, and their capacity to make decisions that are in the child’s best interests. Where one parent is clearly more competent, responsible and attentive than the other, this may support a sole custody arrangement.(47) On the other hand, where there is extensive conflict between the parties, but both are equally competent and loving parents and are able at times to focus jointly on the best interests of the child, a parallel parenting regime may be ordered.(48)
c) Evidence of alienation by one parent. If the alienating parent is otherwise loving, attentive, involved, competent and very important to the child, a parallel parenting arrangement may be considered appropriate as a means of safeguarding the other party’s role in the child’s life.(49) On the other hand, if the level of alienation is so significant that a parallel parenting order will not be effective in achieving a balance of parental involvement and will be contrary to the child’s best interests, a sole custody order may be more appropriate.
d) Where both parties have engaged in alienating behaviour, but the evidence indicates that one of them is more likely to foster an ongoing relationship between the child and the other parent, this finding may tip the scale in favour of a sole custody order.(50)
e) The extent to which each parent is able to place the needs of the child above their own needs and interests. If one of the parties is unable to focus on the child’s needs above their own, this may result in a sole custody order, even if that parent is very involved with the child and otherwise able to meet the child’s day to day needs.(51)
f) The existence of any form of abuse, including emotional abuse or undermining behaviour, which could impede the objective of achieving a balance of roles and influence through parallel parenting.
**************************************************
46 Hildinger v. Carroll, Supra. ; Moyer v. Douglas, 2006 CarswellOnt 8268 (Ont. S.C.J.); Caulfield v. Wong, 2007 ABQB 732; Ursic v. Ursic, Supra.
47 Ryan v. Scott, 2011 CarswellOnt 5924 (Ont. S.C.J.).
48 Moyer v. Douglas, [2006] O.J. No. 5124 (Ont. S.C.J.); Hajkova v. Romany, 2011 CarswellOnt 3237 (Ont. S.C.J.); Scervino v. Scervino, 2011 CarswellOnt 7845 (Ont. S.C.J.).
49 Sgroi v. Socci, 2007 CarswellOnt 8526 (Ont. S.C.J.); Gorman v. Gorman, [2008] N.B.J. No. 516 (N.B.Q.B.); L.(A.) v. M. (C.), 2010 CarswellNB 58 (N.B.Q.B.); Hensel v. Hensel, 2007 CarswellOnt 7010 (Ont. S.C.J.).
50 Attia v. Garanna, 2010 CarswellOnt 1168 (Ont. S.C.J.).
51 Perron v. Perron, 2010 CarswellOnt 6948 (Onr. S.C.J.).
a) The strength of the parties’ ties to the child, and the general level of involvement of each parent in the child’s parenting and life.(46) In almost all cases where parallel parenting has been ordered, both parents have consistently played a significant role in the child’s life on all levels.
b) The relative parenting abilities of each parent, and their capacity to make decisions that are in the child’s best interests. Where one parent is clearly more competent, responsible and attentive than the other, this may support a sole custody arrangement.(47) On the other hand, where there is extensive conflict between the parties, but both are equally competent and loving parents and are able at times to focus jointly on the best interests of the child, a parallel parenting regime may be ordered.(48)
c) Evidence of alienation by one parent. If the alienating parent is otherwise loving, attentive, involved, competent and very important to the child, a parallel parenting arrangement may be considered appropriate as a means of safeguarding the other party’s role in the child’s life.(49) On the other hand, if the level of alienation is so significant that a parallel parenting order will not be effective in achieving a balance of parental involvement and will be contrary to the child’s best interests, a sole custody order may be more appropriate.
d) Where both parties have engaged in alienating behaviour, but the evidence indicates that one of them is more likely to foster an ongoing relationship between the child and the other parent, this finding may tip the scale in favour of a sole custody order.(50)
e) The extent to which each parent is able to place the needs of the child above their own needs and interests. If one of the parties is unable to focus on the child’s needs above their own, this may result in a sole custody order, even if that parent is very involved with the child and otherwise able to meet the child’s day to day needs.(51)
f) The existence of any form of abuse, including emotional abuse or undermining behaviour, which could impede the objective of achieving a balance of roles and influence through parallel parenting.
**************************************************
46 Hildinger v. Carroll, Supra. ; Moyer v. Douglas, 2006 CarswellOnt 8268 (Ont. S.C.J.); Caulfield v. Wong, 2007 ABQB 732; Ursic v. Ursic, Supra.
47 Ryan v. Scott, 2011 CarswellOnt 5924 (Ont. S.C.J.).
48 Moyer v. Douglas, [2006] O.J. No. 5124 (Ont. S.C.J.); Hajkova v. Romany, 2011 CarswellOnt 3237 (Ont. S.C.J.); Scervino v. Scervino, 2011 CarswellOnt 7845 (Ont. S.C.J.).
49 Sgroi v. Socci, 2007 CarswellOnt 8526 (Ont. S.C.J.); Gorman v. Gorman, [2008] N.B.J. No. 516 (N.B.Q.B.); L.(A.) v. M. (C.), 2010 CarswellNB 58 (N.B.Q.B.); Hensel v. Hensel, 2007 CarswellOnt 7010 (Ont. S.C.J.).
50 Attia v. Garanna, 2010 CarswellOnt 1168 (Ont. S.C.J.).
51 Perron v. Perron, 2010 CarswellOnt 6948 (Onr. S.C.J.).
Comment