In a recent case called C.P. v. D.M., the court began its ruling this way:
[1] Over the past three years this family has imploded. The parties’ only child has suffered, and continues to suffer, immeasurably.
[2] The Respondent (“father”) exerts power and control proactively (including repeated breaches of the temporary order and perpetuating unfounded allegations). The father engages in behaviours that are commonly attributable to being an alienating parent.
[3] The Applicant’s (“mother”) use of power and control is reactive, often in response to the father and/or in relation to her own challenges with anxiety, depression and self-worth. At times the mother has used her power and control to take positions that are not in the child’s best interests.
That child, now aged 11, had a front-row seat to years of significant conflict between the parents. As a result, he was now closely – and in the court’s view, unhealthily – aligned with the father, who persisted in undermining the mother and thwarting court-ordered reunification therapy. Their disputes had gotten to the point where the police and the Children’s Aid Society had to intervene on more than one occasion.
The mother now came to the court for an order granting her sole major decision-making authority and primary care over the child. She also asked that the father’s parenting time be suspended for 120 days, and that his parenting time thereafter would be on a supervised basis only.
The court granted her request with some adjustments, explaining the need for a “reset” in the family dynamic that had become so unworkable:
[11] I find that the status quo (being shared parenting and joint decision-making) is causing emotional harm to the child. The family requires a reset and a final opportunity to return to reunification therapy, after removing the existing power and control dynamics.
[12] The order described below is designed to enable the child to have a healthy relationship with each parent and to address the family’s financial circumstances.
After an initial 28 days of being suspended, the father’s access to the child would be restored once he resumed participating in reunification therapy. During that time, he would not be allowed to contact or communication with the child in any manner – and the court made it very clear that this ban encompassed face-to-face conversation, telephone, email, Facebook messages, social media, texts, or any indirect contact through other family members or friends.
Both parents were also required to engage in individual counselling, and certain other smaller conditions applied. Only once they were all satisfied, would the father get alternate weekend parenting time, going forward.
The court called this “cooling off” period a chance for the mother and child especially to reboot their relationship with the help of therapeutic intervention. As the court explained:
[220] Something needs to change. Some things need to change. Now.
…
[297] Families must reorganize to reflect a new reality following separation. When parties are unable to do so, the court directs the required changes. Resist/refuse cases [also known as “parental alienation” cases] pose significant challenges to the court’s ability to fulfill this role, and to meet the legal requirement to make decisions that align with the child’s best interests.
…
[301] Childhood is a precious time. It slips away. Having lost at least three years of a healthy and peaceful childhood, P. deserves a loving relationship with both parents. As stated by Justice Daurio on February 2, 2024, “P. will only have one childhood, and both parents should shift their focus on how to work together with appropriate boundaries to ensure that it is a happy one.” I agree.
For the full text the decision, see:
C.P. v. D.M., 2024 ONSC 6626 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k8f68>
