Parental alienation

This is an appeal from a trial decision concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility.

The appellant father sought to change the shared parenting arrangement, alleging parental alienation, and requested a 90-day "protective separation" for the children to reside solely with him.

The trial judge dismissed this request, finding the existing arrangement to be in the children's best interests, and awarded costs to the mother.

The father appealed the trial decision and the costs award, also seeking to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upheld the trial judge's findings, declined to admit fresh evidence, and refused leave to appeal the costs award, emphasizing the narrow scope of appellate review in parenting disputes and the principle that post-trial events are typically addressed through variation procedures rather than appeal.

This is Part 2 of a trial decision addressing financial issues in a family law matter, following a previous decision on parenting.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, occupation rent, child support, and spousal support.

The mother was awarded an equalization payment and occupation rent.

The court found the mother's mental health decline, caused by the father's parental alienation, was a significant basis for compensatory spousal support, though the quantum for 2023 onwards was deferred pending further submissions.

Child support obligations and s. 7 expenses were also determined, with adjustments made for reasonableness and necessity.

A divorce was granted.

This case involves a high-conflict family law dispute over a 13-year-old child.

The respondent mother unilaterally withheld the child from the applicant father, violating a final parenting order for an alternating week-about schedule, and subsequently filed a motion to change seeking sole decision-making.

The father brought a motion for contempt and enforcement of the existing order.

The court found that the mother knowingly refused to comply with the order and attempted to create a new status quo.

While the elements of contempt were met, the court opted for other avenues to ensure compliance.

The mother failed to prove a material and compelling change in circumstances to justify a temporary variation of the final order.

The court ordered a gradual reintroduction of the alternating week-about schedule, emphasizing that the mother's unilateral actions had negatively impacted the child's mental health and relationship with the father.

This decision addresses the costs of a decade-long family law proceeding.

The Respondent, M.M., sought full recovery of costs, alleging the Applicant, K.K., acted in bad faith.

The court found K.K. engaged in egregious bad faith conduct, including concealing financial information, presenting fabricated evidence, manipulating third parties, and repeatedly breaching court orders to inflict emotional, psychological, and financial harm on M.M. and alienate the children.

Consequently, the court awarded M.M. full recovery of trial-related costs and certain pre-trial costs, totaling $211,441, and stayed the enforcement of previous costs orders against M.M. due to K.K.'s oppressive conduct.

The Applicants (grandparents) brought a motion to enforce an interim contact order for their two grandchildren, alleging the Respondent mother had failed to comply with the previous order.

The court denied the Respondent's adjournment request, deeming it a delay tactic contrary to the children's best interests.

The court found the Respondent was actively preventing contact and influencing the children against their grandparents.

The motion for enforcement was granted, with the court ordering a new, detailed contact schedule, involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and a police enforcement clause as a last resort.

Costs were awarded to the Applicants.

The mother (B.J.) brought a motion seeking an order for family reunification/reintegration therapy involving herself, the father (D.M.), and their child (S.M.).

The father and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the child's strong and consistent views against contact with the mother.

The court found that the child's views were significantly influenced by the father, who displayed a lack of willingness to support the child's relationship with the mother and a disregard for judicial process.

Despite the child's stated reluctance, the court determined that reunification therapy was in the child's best interests, given the profound negative influence exerted by the father and the potential long-term negative effects on the child's emotional and psychological well-being.

The motion was granted, ordering all parties to attend and participate in the therapy, with costs to be shared equally.

This family law trial addressed parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for two children of the marriage and one child from a previous relationship.

The court found both parents contributed to high conflict and poor communication, negatively impacting the children.

The mother was granted sole decision-making, with the father having sole decision-making for Liam's haircuts.

Primary residence for the children remained with the mother, but the father's parenting time with Liam was increased, and a graduated schedule for Keira was ordered to facilitate relationship repair.

The court also found the mother stood in the place of a parent to the father's child from a previous relationship, Kacean, and calculated child support arrears, resulting in a net amount owed by the mother to the father.

The court declined to order a police enforcement clause but mandated co-parenting counseling.

The respondent father brought a motion to compel his 15-year-old child to attend reunification therapy and sought a determination on the quantum of life insurance to secure child support.

The applicant mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) opposed the reunification therapy, citing the child's strong and consistent refusal and the potential for harm.

The court found both parents contributed to the family dysfunction, acknowledging the mother's inappropriate involvement of the child in parental conflict and the father's history of family violence.

The court dismissed the motion for reunification therapy, prioritizing the child's autonomy and well-being.

Regarding life insurance, the court ordered the father to maintain a policy of $165,950.00, securing child support and a portion of future post-secondary education costs, with annual reductions.

The Applicant Mother sought primary residency of her son, Franky, and orders related to the Respondent Father's alleged breaches of prior orders and Franky's counselling.

The court dismissed the Mother's motion, maintaining Franky's primary residence with the Father.

The court found that Franky's stated views and preferences, his success in the Father's care, and the potential harm of forced counselling on an adolescent outweighed the Mother's claims of parental alienation and the findings of a non-court-appointed counselling centre.

The court declined to make findings of breach due to insufficient and untested evidence.

The applicant mother brought two motions: to suspend the father's parenting time pending a psychiatric assessment and to find him in contempt of court.

The motions arose from an incident where the mother intervened to prevent the father from exercising his court-ordered parenting time at the child's school graduation event, leading to a verbal altercation.

The court found that the mother had breached a prior court order by denying the father parenting time and that her allegations of the father's unfitness, based on his political views and the incident, were unsubstantiated.

The court dismissed both of the mother's motions, maintained the existing parenting schedule, clarified summer parenting time, and ordered the mother to pay costs to the self-represented father.

The decision emphasized the importance of parental cooperation and the child's best interests over parental conflict.

This trial concerned parenting time and child support for the parties' 13-year-old twin daughters.

The applicant mother sought supervised parenting time for the father and retroactive child support.

The respondent father opposed supervised access and claimed inability to pay child support.

The court found significant family violence perpetrated by the father, his poor judgment, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court ordered supervised parenting time at a professional agency, imputed income to the father due to intentional underemployment, and ordered retroactive child support, fixing arrears at $18,000.

The trial concerned parenting arrangements for the parties' 12-year-old daughter and the mother's claim for spousal support.

The mother sought primary residence, sole decision-making, and discretionary parenting time for the father, along with orders dispensing with the father's consent for documentation and travel.

The father sought joint decision-making, specified parenting time, and reunification therapy, and dismissal of the spousal support claim.

The court found significant family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother and child, and that the child's views against contact were independent and justified.

The court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making, ordered the father's parenting time to be at the mother's discretion (considering the child's views), dispensed with the father's consent for documentation and travel, and ordered the father to pay spousal support.

The father's claims for joint decision-making and reunification therapy were dismissed.

This trial addressed a motion to change a parenting order, retroactive child support, and unpaid s. 7 expenses.

The primary issue concerned the extent to which a 13-year-old child could decide her parenting time with her non-resident father, who was unwilling to adjust the existing order despite the child's increasing resistance.

The court found the father largely responsible for the estrangement due to his rigidity and failure to acknowledge the child's emotional needs and preferences.

The court ordered that the child's parenting time with the father would be at her discretion.

Additionally, the court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to provide annual income disclosure, leading to underpayment of child support (excluding RRSP income as per a previous order).

Retroactive child support arrears and s. 7 expense arrears were ordered against the father.

The trial addressed decision-making authority and parenting time for two children of the relationship, and child support for one child from the Mother's previous relationship.

The court granted the Mother sole decision-making authority and primary care of the children, finding that the Father's actions, including involving children in adult conflict and demonstrating a lack of insight into his detrimental behaviour, rendered shared parenting unworkable and contrary to the children's best interests.

The Father was ordered to pay child support for both the children of the relationship and the Mother's non-biological child.

A restraining order against the Father was continued due to concerns for the Mother's psychological safety.

The respondent, Brian Milne, brought a motion for contempt against the applicant, Mo Yi (Jessie) Milne, alleging breach of a parenting order.

He also sought remedies including fines, enrollment in the Family Bridges Program, and police assistance.

Jessie brought a cross-motion to dismiss the contempt motion and request an Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) referral.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the order was not clear enough to establish contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, but found a breach on a balance of probabilities.

The court denied the request for the Family Bridges Program and police enforcement, deeming them inappropriate at this stage.

The OCL referral was also dismissed.

The court ordered a structured, increasing parenting schedule for Brian and the children, along with reunification therapy for Brian and the children, and individual therapy for the children, with costs split 55% by Jessie and 45% by Brian.

The father brought a motion to temporarily change a parenting order and seek child support, while the mother brought a cross-motion for contempt.

The court found a material change in circumstances for the older child (A.-S., 15.5 years old), who had been living exclusively with the father and had a strained relationship with the mother.

The court ordered A.-S.'s primary residence to be with the father, with parenting time subject to A.-S.'s wishes.

The court dismissed the father's request to change the primary residence of the younger child (L.W., 9 years old), finding no compelling circumstances to alter the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The mother's contempt motion against the father was dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the court's preference for exploring alternatives to contempt.

The court ordered the mother to pay retroactive child support from August 1, 2020, and ongoing support based on the "economies of scale approach" for hybrid support cases, but denied the father's claim for special expenses for soccer due to lack of prior consent and insufficient evidence.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order transferring primary care of the parties' two children to the respondent father, which included an initial period of no contact for the mother and a staged increase in parenting time.

The trial judge's decision, made after a 39-day trial, found the mother had intentionally undermined parenting schedules and made false allegations of sexual abuse to terminate the children's relationship with the father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's exercise of discretion and factual findings, emphasizing the deference owed to trial judges in parenting orders, especially when the decision has already been implemented.

The court found no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or her consideration of the Divorce Act regarding family violence, as the mother's allegations were not established.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order granting the respondent father sole custody/decision-making responsibility for their child and temporarily suspending the mother's contact, following a finding of parental alienation.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapplied the best interests test, failed to consider less drastic options, did not adequately weigh the child's views, and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in these submissions, affirming the trial judge's findings of parental alienation and the drastic change in custody as being in the child's best interests, supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay appeal costs.

The appellant father appealed a parenting order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and exclusive residence for the children due to alleged parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The trial judge had previously found alienation but declined to reverse custody due to intervening circumstances (father's new child, pandemic, children's immediate mental health).

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence from a psychologist but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's holistic assessment of the children's best interests, which prioritized their immediate mental health and stability over a disruptive custody reversal, especially given the new family dynamics and pandemic stressors.

The court ordered a brief review hearing in one year to ensure compliance with therapy orders.

This decision reviews previous custody and access orders following a finding of parental alienation by the respondent mother.

Despite the mother's continued uncooperative and alienating behavior, which has exacerbated the children's severe anxiety and resistance to contact with the applicant father, the court declined to transfer sole custody to the father.

The court maintained shared custody with primary residence with the mother, citing the children's fragile mental health, the ongoing pandemic, and the recent birth of a new child to the applicant and his partner.

The court ordered comprehensive, long-term therapeutic interventions for the children, the mother, and the father, with a designated case manager to oversee the process, emphasizing the paramountcy of the children's best interests.