View Single Post
Old 10-21-2011, 03:25 PM
WorkingDAD WorkingDAD is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,660
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road

Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Yes. There is a huge difference. Parallel Parenting is about two people who can't co-parent. So a *detailed* plan is put forth. Section 30 evals and OCL both don't understand the true definition of "Parallel Parenting". It is one case where the judicial system is better than an assessment for sure.

The more decisions like this one the less potential any parent has in alienating children.

When parents can't get along, or do not understand their responsibilities a Parallel Parenting order (or agreement) is necessary. This posted dec. is an excellent example of logic applied to remove emotions from parenting.

Good Luck!
I also would like to notice thous two paragraphs
[91] Confusion respecting the Court of Appeal’s views on parallel parenting arose shortly after the Ursic v. Ursic decision as a result of the court’s judgment in Roy v. Roy.[43] In that case, the mother appealed an order which the trial judge described as a “shared parenting” arrangement. The order did not provide any terms regarding major decision-making, but simply stipulated that the father would be primarily responsible for dental care, and the parties would each be responsible for the children’s routine medical care and appointments when the children were in their care. The arrangement was more in the nature of a “full parallel parenting” regime, rather than a divided parallel parenting arrangement. The Court of Appeal held that this shared parenting arrangement could not stand, given the longstanding history of extensive conflict between the parties. The court made a general comment that both joint custody and parallel parenting orders require as an essential foundation co-operation and effective communication between the parties.

[92] It is significant that the Ontario Court of Appeal in Roy v. Roy did not analyze the various types of parallel parenting arrangements that have developed in practice and at the trial level. Given that the order under appeal was essentially a full parallel parenting regime, the decision left open the question as to whether the court intended its comments to apply as well in divided parallel parenting situations. The distinction between the two types of arrangements is important, as the divided parallel parenting model provides for more complete disengagement between the parties than the full parallel parenting model. Under a full parallel parenting arrangement, day to day decisions respecting health, education and religion can be made by the parent who has the child at the relevant time, but problems can arise when major decisions must be made, such as where the child should attend school, and whether the child should undergo major medical treatment. In those types of situations, collaboration between the parties is required, as the issues will not typically clearly arise during one or the other party’s time with the child.
this Roy v. Roy case used quite often as case against Parallel Parenting. Here is very good explanation why it should not... (at least in my case)