Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

WorkingDAD · #1 10-20-2011, 10:03 AM

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.

Quote:

[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.

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)

Quote:

[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.

and here is the most important part of that analysis (from my point of view)

Quote:

[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.).

you welcome

WorkingDAD · #2 10-21-2011, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceberg

When I saw this topic I thought you won shared custody man.

I do not think I could get shared custody as mom spend a lot of effort to show that "there is no cooperation possible"

Joint Custody with Parallel Parenting ans Sole Custody as alternative...

I think if I get that one (despite OCL, Status Quo and Primary Caregiver against me) I should title it something like "One more case for the sake of kids and fathers..."

Tayken · #3 10-21-2011, 10:22 AM

WorkingDAD,

Thank-you for sharing this decision. It is one that has not appeared on my radar for some reason. I have to say it is quite a well thought out decision by the Justice and probably we become a staple in the "parallel parenting" decisions to come.

The analysis sections done by the Justice are very well thought out.

Thanks!
Tayken

Tayken · #4 10-21-2011, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WorkingDAD

I do not think I could get shared custody as mom spend a lot of effort to show that "there is no cooperation possible"

"Full joint custody in the model/mode of parallel parenting" still works in the situation where "no cooperation is possible".

There is a significant logical problem to the argument presented by any parent making this claim that cooperation is not possible.

1. Demonstrating this takes a significant amount of cogent evidence. Just stating it based on "emotional reasoning" and "emotional facts" doesn't generally fly with most judges.

2. The parent raising the argument (as identified in many decisions) may in fact be the uncooperative party. A cooperative parent DOES NOT state that cooperation is not possible. They try to cooperate, present options, and despite everything works towards their children's "best interests". They don't use it as an argument for custody.

Good Luck!
Tayken

WorkingDAD · #5 10-21-2011, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tayken

WorkingDAD,

Thank-you for sharing this decision. It is one that has not appeared on my radar for some reason. I have to say it is quite a well thought out decision by the Justice and probably we become a staple in the "parallel parenting" decisions to come.

The analysis sections done by the Justice are very well thought out.

Thanks!
Tayken

you welcome...

it's just released (SEP 09, 2011). I actually got it from other party book of authorities (who claim sole custody at trial) and I asked Joint with Parallel with 50/50 time sharing ...

It appear to me that other party lawyer tried to recover really hard and almost tried to advocate Parallel Parenting too.

go figure ...

WorkingDAD · #6 10-21-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tayken

"Full joint custody in the model/mode of parallel parenting" still works in the situation where "no cooperation is possible".

There is a significant logical problem to the argument presented by any parent making this claim that cooperation is not possible.

1. Demonstrating this takes a significant amount of cogent evidence. Just stating it based on "emotional reasoning" and "emotional facts" doesn't generally fly with most judges.

2. The parent raising the argument (as identified in many decisions) may in fact be the uncooperative party. A cooperative parent DOES NOT state that cooperation is not possible. They try to cooperate, present options, and despite everything works towards their children's "best interests". They don't use it as an argument for custody.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Exactly but shared is different ... that actually were I got OCL confused

Tayken · #7 10-21-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WorkingDAD

Exactly but shared is different ... that actually were I got OCL confused

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!
Tayken

WorkingDAD · #8 10-21-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tayken

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!
Tayken

I also would like to notice thous two paragraphs

Quote:

[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)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Faulty to assume Shared Parenting: here's why	SilverLining	Divorce & Family Law	44	06-29-2014 01:41 PM
Interesting Article on Joint Custody	Grace	Political Issues	23	03-20-2012 10:35 AM
Parallel Parenting and Domestic Violence	E-Gal	Domestic Violence	8	09-19-2011 03:16 PM
Parallel Parenting and Ontario Family Court	Pharah	Parenting Issues	2	04-30-2010 07:10 PM
Parallel Parenting	serrona	Parenting Issues	11	12-13-2006 01:18 PM

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

User CP

New posts

Advertising

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name
Password