Dr. Melanie Telegdi

This family law trial addressed a mother's request to relocate with her child, custody arrangements, and child and spousal support.

The court denied the mother's request to move the child's residence more than 100 km from the father, finding it not in the child's best interests due to significant health challenges and the impact on the child's relationship with the father and extended family.

The mother was granted sole custody, with a detailed parenting schedule for the father.

The court ordered the father to pay child support arrears and ongoing support, but dismissed the mother's claim for spousal support, concluding that the parties' relationship, despite having a child, lacked the economic interdependency required for cohabitation under the Family Law Act.

The court also expressed concerns about the Children's Aid Society's investigation process and the tactical use of its involvement by both parents.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a prior custody order after the parties’ daughter refused parenting time and allegations of parental alienation arose.

Evidence from expert psychiatric testimony and other witnesses supported findings that the respondent mother had engaged in a long-standing campaign of alienating behaviour that had already destroyed the father’s relationship with the parties’ older child and posed a serious risk of emotional harm to the younger child.

The court found the mother lacked insight into her conduct and had failed to meaningfully pursue therapy despite prior court orders.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act and s. 16 of the Divorce Act, the court concluded that continued contact with the mother without treatment would expose the child to further emotional harm.

The father was granted sole custody and the mother was denied access until completion of therapeutic treatment addressing her alienating behaviour.