On an interim custody motion and cross‑motion involving four young children, the court considered competing requests for parallel parenting and sole custody.
The mother sought temporary sole custody with limited access for the father based largely on allegations of domestic violence and an Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending that arrangement.
The father sought a parallel‑parenting structure and equal time.
Applying s. 16 of the Divorce Act and best‑interests principles, the court found significant credibility concerns regarding several abuse allegations and determined the status quo created after separation resulted largely from unilateral conduct by the mother.
The court declined to grant sole or joint custody and instead ordered a temporary divided parallel‑parenting regime allocating decision‑making authority between the parents and gradually expanding the father’s parenting time toward a structured rotating schedule.
