Kelly Schweitzer

This was a trial to change a final order concerning decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and spousal support.

The applicant mother alleged the respondent father's substance misuse and violent behavior created an unsafe environment, leading to the children's alienation.

Investigations by the OCL, police, and DCFS found no basis for the safety allegations.

The court found both parents contributed to the children's alienation from the father due to high hostility and inappropriate involvement of the children in the dispute.

The court ordered a phased approach to the father's parenting time, starting with supervised visits and progressing to unsupervised, with mandatory counselling for both parents and children, and random urine screens for the father.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility with consultation.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing and retroactive child support, and secure life insurance.

The mother's request for section 7 expenses was dismissed due to lack of prior consent, and spousal support was terminated.

In this high-conflict custody and access case, the applicant mother sought sole custody of two children, alleging abuse and neglect by the respondent father and his common-law partner.

The respondent father and his partner sought sole custody, claiming the children were victims of abuse while in the mother's care.

After an extensive trial involving multiple witnesses and expert evidence, the court found that the respondent father and his partner had engaged in parental alienation of the children against their mother.

The court determined that while the mother had used inappropriate physical discipline on one historical occasion, the allegations of ongoing abuse and neglect were not substantiated.

The court found that the respondent father and his partner had deliberately created a narrative of abuse, exposed the children to litigation details, relocated the family to distance the children from their mother, and systematically undermined the mother-child relationship.

The court reversed custody to the mother and ordered supervised access for the father and his partner.

On an interim motion within a motion to change a final parenting order, the moving party sought interim sole custody, reduced access for the other parent, and increased child support.

The court declined to alter the existing joint custody order on an interim basis, emphasizing that a final order was already in place and the evidentiary record was contradictory and incomplete.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending sole custody to the moving party was not given determinative weight because it had not been tested through cross‑examination.

The court maintained the existing custody and access arrangements pending trial but increased child support modestly due to changes in parenting time and circumstances.