In a case we reported on in late 2024, the court was asked to deal with a high-conflict matter between parents who could not agree on decision-making and parenting time with their 11-year-old child. In the past three years, the family had “imploded” and that it was the child who “continues to suffer, immeasurably”, the court said.
Among the challenges in coming to a workable resolution, was that the father persisted in exerting power and control over the mother and child, to the point where he was actively trying to alienate the two from each other. As a result of these tactics, the child was now closely aligned with the father and was disparaging of the mother.
One of the father’s strategies, as the court observed, was to deliberately countervail the mother’s strict rules for the child around the use of electronic devices in general, and social media in particular. The court described it this way:
The father has also instigated significant conflict between the mother and child by giving her electronic devices (including a cellphone) to provide unfettered access to social media, to him and to her friends. He did not respect the mother’s limits on these devices, or her reason for doing so. He failed to prevent the child from taking the phone to the mother’s home.
Not only did the father ignore the mother limits, but he actively encouraged the child to ignore them. He also used his own video access with her to stir up discord:
The mother’s concerns are as follows. After separation … the mother observed that long phone and video calls with the father exacerbated the child’s negative behaviours. She was/is worried that the father uses the devices to spy (including the use of location devices on the phone, an Air Tag and headphones). The father believes (and has advised the child) that it is her right to have full access to the devices and unlimited contact with him.
The phone and other electronics are the source of many of the child’s contradictory reports that the mother is intentionally, or accidentally, causing physical harm. Problems relating to the parents’ differential rules continue.
In making its overall ruling in the case, the court sided entirely with the mother on this point; it found the father’s subversiveness around giving the child access to electronic devices was helping destroy any possibility that the parents could work together in the future.
More importantly, by challenging mother’s approach, rules and responses, the father had undermined the child’s relationship with her. This led to the child mimicking the father’s concerns about the mother’s competence and level of care, and displaying the features of a child who had become alienated from her mother.
As part of its overall order in the case, the court issued several directives aimed specifically at the child’s and father’s use of electronic devices and social media. For example, it directed him to remove the child’s unfettered access to the internet and devices, and to stop her from emailing and texting the mother with inappropriate and threatening messages.
It also suspended the father’s access to the child for 28 days, during which time he would not be allowed to contact or communication with the child in any manner. This included face-to-face conversation, telephone, email, Facebook messages, social media, texts, or any indirect contact through other family members or friends. In the court’s view, this little “reset” period would give the parents the best chance to move forward in a manner that was in the child’s best interests.
For the full text the decision, see:
C.P. v. D.M., 2024 ONSC 6626 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k8f68>
