Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Parallel parenting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Parallel parenting

    I apologize for not being able to find the searches on this topic, as I'm doing something incorrect on my smart phone search on this.

    I am seeking joint custody and 50/50 access in court and the Justice involved has stated repeatedly that due to the high conflict nature of our relationship with the childs mother that joint custody will not happen.

    The mother has interim sole cuatody since our first court appearance nearly four years ago, and the child is just a bit over four years old.

    I am leaning towards parallel parenting and would appreciate any feedback or links that anyone would find helpful please.

    Once again, thanks in advance!

  • #2
    Parallel Parenting
    [7] In Ursic v. Ursic 2006 CanLII 18349 (ON CA), [2006] W.D.F.L 3290 (C.A.), the Ontario Court of
    Appeal affirmed a trial judge’s order for parallel parenting and so guided in a new era for the concept of parallel parenting. Laskin J.A. states at para 26:
    26 Also, importantly, the trial judge did not merely order joint custody. He included with it a parallel parenting order. 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 a consensus on the child's upbringing. See M. (T.J.) v. M. (P.G.) (2002), 2002 CanLII 49550 (ON SC), 25 R.F.L. (5th) 78 (Ont. S.C.J.) and Mol v. Mol, [1997] O.J. No. 4060 (Ont. Gen. Div.). The trial judge viewed parallel parenting to be suitable in this case, and I am not persuaded that he erred in ordering it.

    [8] In Andrade v. Kennelly [2006] W.D.F.L. 2887 (S.C.J.), Harvison Young J.


    ordered joint custody with parallel parenting. This decision was upheld on appeal at 2007 ONCA 898 (CanLII) (C.A.). Harvison Young, J. examined case law which held that parallel parenting may be the solution where a parent had a history of making decisions not in the best interests of the child. In such circumstances, a sole custody order was not a solution because sole custody should only be ordered where the court is satisfied that the custodial parent is able to make decisions on his/her own in the best interests of the child. In the case before her, and despite the high levels of acrimony, Harvison Young J. ordered joint custody with parallel parenting. The children were placed in the primary care of the father, although he had not exercised that role before. The father had proven himself to be a better and more stable parent than the earlier assessment had indicated, and the father would support the relationship between the children and the mother.

    [9] In Moyer v. Douglas [2007] W.D.F.L. 1924 (S.C.J.), parallel parenting was ordered. Communication problems were not seen as an obstacle because cooperation was not a prerequisite to each parent making decisions, nor the parents carrying out his/ her parental responsibilities. Further, parallel parenting was not made with the hope that parenting skills would improve, but with a recognition that both parties had adequate parenting skills.
    [10] In Howard v. Howard 2006 SKQB 352 (Q.B.), a parallel parenting award was granted despite the parental conflict and with divided authorities for decision-making. The father was vested with final decision-making on matters concerning education and extracurricular activities in the event of disagreement, while the mother would have final decision making on issues relating to health, religion and child care.
    [11] In Nova Scotia, parallel parenting was approved in Hardy v. Ross 2003 NSFC 20 (F.C.) and refused in MacPherson v. Hemlow 2005 NSSF 14 (CanLII) (S.C.).

    [12] The adoption of a parallel parenting regime is not a solution for the vast majority of the cases before the courts. It is reserved for those few cases where neither sole custody, nor cooperative parenting meets the best interests of the child. This is one such case. The adoption of a parallel parenting regime is in the best interests of Kyra in the circumstances.

    http://canlii.ca/t/fnr57
    Great link for lots of analysis on Parallel Parenting.
    522. In K. (V.) v S. (T.) (supra), Chappel J. summarized emerging themes: in the jurisprudence, at paragraph 96:
    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. Hildinger v. Carroll, 2004 CanLII 13456 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 291 (Ont. C.A.); Moyer v. Douglas (supra); Caulfield v. Wong 2007 ABQB 732; Ursic v. Ursic (supra). 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. Ryan v. Scott (supra) 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. Moyer v. Douglas (supra) Hajkova v. Romany 2011 Carswell 3237 (SCJ); Scervino v. Scervino (supra).

    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. Sgroi v. Socci 2007 CarswellOnt 8526 (SCJ); 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 Carswell 7010 (SCJ). 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. Attia v. Garanna 2010 CarswellOnt 1168 (SCJ).

    250 In Rogerson v. Tessaro (2006) 2006 CanLII 15126 (ON CA), 147 A.C.W.S. (3d) 821, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision awarding custody of the parties' children to the father. The facts in Rogerson bear a remarkable similarity to those in this case. There, the mother, while insisting that she supported the children's relationship with their father, had actively thwarted it, and ultimately made a unilateral decision to move. At trial, Lafreniere J. changed custody to the father on the basis of the maximum contact principle. It was true there, as in this case, that the children were more closely bonded with their mother than their father. Lafreniere J. held that this was hardly surprising in light of the mother's diligent efforts to exclude the father from their lives. She held, on the facts that the father would support the children's relationship with the mother while the mother would not support the children's relationship with the father. Accordingly, she found that by awarding custody to the father, the children would enjoy maximum contact with both parents, which was in their best interests. The trial judge found that the mother was unable to consider the best interests of the children as far as their relationship with their father were concerned.

    Comment


    • #3
      250 In Rogerson v. Tessaro (2006) 2006 CanLII 15126 (ON CA), 147 A.C.W.S. (3d) 821, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision awarding custody of the parties' children to the father. The facts in Rogerson bear a remarkable similarity to those in this case. There, the mother, while insisting that she supported the children's relationship with their father, had actively thwarted it, and ultimately made a unilateral decision to move. At trial, Lafreniere J. changed custody to the father on the basis of the maximum contact principle. It was true there, as in this case, that the children were more closely bonded with their mother than their father. Lafreniere J. held that this was hardly surprising in light of the mother's diligent efforts to exclude the father from their lives. She held, on the facts that the father would support the children's relationship with the mother while the mother would not support the children's relationship with the father. Accordingly, she found that by awarding custody to the father, the children would enjoy maximum contact with both parents, which was in their best interests. The trial judge found that the mother was unable to consider the best interests of the children as far as their relationship with their father were concerned.

      https://www.canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/41205
      Court of Appeal in Prediger v Santoro was delivered on January 14, 2016.
      The Appellant’s argument appears to have centred primarily on maintaining the notion of the
      previous form of parallel parenting In parallel parenting high conflict parents disengage by having
      minimal contact with each other, guided by highly structured parenting plans, orders, or agreements,
      which result in discrete decisions and independent day-to-day routines. 25 The intention is to
      immediately reduce the children’s exposure to conflict (which can be achieved through shared
      parenting arrangements), 26 and ultimately to gradually restore trust and cooperation after some
      distance away from the conflict. The Court however declined to reinstate joint decision-making,
      without further comment on parallel parenting arrangements.

      Despite the academic evidence in support of parallel parenting, such arrangements appear to
      be relatively uncommon results of litigation, particularly given that our Court of Appeal has previously
      stated that “as a general proposition, joint custody and shared parenting arrangements ought not to
      be ordered where the parents are in substantial conflict with each other, and certainly not before trial
      especially when there is also significant disagreement on the evidence.”27 However, the decision in
      Prediger was rendered after a trial. This means that parents who embellish conflict to impede shared
      parenting on an interim basis may later face a determination at trial that sole decision-making is
      appropriate, not necessarily in their favour.
      http://canlii.ca/t/fn2r2
      Lots of good reading in this on parallel parenting. Specifically “Divided Parallel parenting” vs. “Full parallel parenting” in high-conflict cases.

      In K. (V.) v. S. (T.), 2011 ONSC 4305, Chappel J. reviewed the case law regarding parallel parenting. 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: Hildinger v. Carroll, 2004 CarswellOnt 444 Ont. C.A.; Moyer v. Douglas, 2006 CarswellOnt 8268(Ont. S.C.J.); Caufield v. Wong, 2007 ABQB 732(Alta. Q.B.); Ursic v. Ursic, 2004 CarswellOnt 8728 (Ont. S.C.J.). 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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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: Ryan v. Scott, 2011 CarswellOnt 5924(Ont. S.C.J.). 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: Moyer v. Douglas, [2006] O.J. No. 5124(Ont. S.C.J.); Hajkova v. Romany, 2011 ONSC 2850 (CanLII), 2011 CarswellOnt 3237(Ont. S.C.J.); Scervino v. Scervino, 2011 CarswellOnt 7845(Ont. S.C.J.).
        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: 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.). 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: Attia v. Garanna, 2010 CarswellOnt 1168(Ont. S.C.J.).
        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: Perron v. Perron, 2010 CarswellOnt 6948(Ont. S.C.J.).
        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.
        [33]The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rigillo v. Rigillo, 2019 ONCA 548 indicated that decision-making authority assists in ensuring that a parent's relationship with his or her child is not marginalized. In that case, the court determined that given the parties’ history and ongoing conflict, some form of divided parallel decision-making would be appropriate. The court also stated that 14 days was a reasonable period of time to attempt consultation before one party could make a final decision in a parallel parenting scheme

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you very, very much!

          That is so appreciated for these posts.

          Comment

          Our Divorce Forums
          Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
          Working...
          X