ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026 02 05

COURT FILE No.: Guelph D23/86

BETWEEN:

A.N.

Applicant

— AND —

C.M.

Respondent

Before Justice Cleghorn

Heard on January 5, 6, & 30, 2026

Reasons for Judgment released on February 5, 2026

A.N....................................................................................................................... on her own behalf

C.M....................................................................................................................... on his own behalf

Cleghorn, J.:

[ 1 ] The parents have one child, E.M., born […], 2013. The parents separated on February 28, 2018. At the time of trial, the child’s time was shared between the parents’ homes pursuant to a court-ordered schedule.

Background

[ 2 ] The family lived in Ottawa until 2017, when they relocated to Guelph.

[ 3 ] E.M. was born with a heart defect requiring three surgeries. She remains under the care of a cardiologist. At school, she has an Individualized Education Plan. In 2023, the school developed a safety plan that contemplated evacuating the classroom if E.M. became dysregulated or failed to follow directions.

[ 4 ] Dr. P. is E.M.’s pediatrician. E.M. has been diagnosed with ADHD and ODD. Treatment has included medication (Amitriptyline, which she was no longer taking at the time of trial) and behavioural interventions.

[ 5 ] The mother, A.N., has a younger daughter who resides with her during the workweek.

The parties’ positions and the issues

[ 6 ] The mother commenced this application and seeks orders for decision-making and a defined parenting schedule. Her application materials are sparse and do not clearly set out whether she seeks joint or sole decision-making.

[ 7 ] In her evidence, the mother stated that she would accept joint decision-making, with final authority vested in her if the parties could not agree. However, on the second day of trial (January 6, 2026), when the parties were canvassed about a temporary joint decision-making order pending completion of the trial, the mother would not consent. In the section 112 report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the mother is recorded as seeking sole decision-making with shared parenting.

[ 8 ] Both parents describe communication as very poor. They do not speak. They communicate minimally, largely by email .

[ 9 ] The principal issues are:

1. What decision-making arrangement is in E.M.’s best interests?

2. What parenting schedule is in E.M.’s best interests?

3. What terms are required to reduce conflict, ensure information-sharing, and protect E.M.’s stability?

Procedural history and temporary orders

[ 10 ] Several temporary orders were made during the proceeding. They include :

1. Order dated May 16, 2023, made ex parte , requiring the father to return the child to the mother’s care by May 16, 2023, and for the mother to have parenting time until May 24, 2023. A shared parenting schedule was ordered to begin on May 28, 2023.

2. Order dated May 30, 2023, requiring the father to return the child to the mother’s care by May 31, 2023, and for the mother to have parenting time until June 15, 2023.

3. Order dated June 2, 2023, for police enforcement to find, locate and apprehend the child to return the child to the mother’s care. The father’s parenting time was suspended. The father was found to be in contempt and ordered to pay $2,000.00.

4. Order dated June 15, 2023, granting the mother sole decision-making authority.

5. Order dated December 18, 2023, reducing the fine for contempt to $500.00.

6. Order dated December 11, 2024, which allows the father to attend third-party appointments, both parents to have access to information, and parenting covenants.

[ 11 ] An endorsement dated December 11, 2024, confirmed the parenting schedule in effect at the time of trial:

1. The child resides with the mother from Monday after school to Thursday after school.

2. The child resides with the father from Thursday after school to Monday morning.

[ 12 ] The evidence is clear that the events of spring 2023, when the father withheld the child and did not return her despite court orders, profoundly changed the parents’ relationship. Whatever cooperation existed prior to the litigation has largely broken down, and the dispute has worsened over time.

The spring 2023 withholding incident and the father’s stated rationale

[ 13 ] The father, C.M., agreed that he withheld E.M. in 2023 because he believed he was entitled to do so. He states that he believed he had been the primary caregiver and could make unilateral decisions, including regarding parenting time.

[ 14 ] A key piece of evidence at trial was a November 20, 2017, case note from a child protection worker at Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County:

He wanted to know if he had the right [for her] to not have access. He said he does want E.M. to see A.N. but in a “healthy” way and that can’t happen right now. He does not have a custody order. I explained that since he is the primary caregiver of E.M. he is able to make decisions around access/etc. and that if A.N. wanted something different, she would need to seek legal support.

[ 15 ] The father testified that this interaction ingrained in him the belief that he had de facto sole decision-making and primary residence. When the mother later obtained an ex parte order for the return of the child, the father believed the mother had misled the court because, in his mind, he had lawful authority to keep the child.

[ 16 ] I accept that the father genuinely held that belief. However, the belief was mistaken and did not justify self-help. The episode is nonetheless relevant, not to excuse his conduct, but to understand the dynamics that led to the litigation and to assess the likelihood of compliance going forward under different regimes.

The mother’s evidence about the parenting arrangement and shared residence

[ 17 ] The mother testified that, since separation, the schedule has always been “shared,” arranged around her work, with her parenting time generally two to three days per week.

[ 18 ] To support her position that the child’s residence was shared, the mother tendered a letter dated January 13, 2020, signed by both parents and provided to the Canada Revenue Agency in connection with a dispute about government benefits. The father acknowledged his signature but testified that the mother altered the letter by deleting and adding a paragraph. He also testified that he requested the original document and that the mother failed to produce it.

[ 19 ] The mother also produced a letter from the child’s school. Because it was hearsay, it was filed to establish that it was sent and received, not for the truth of its contents.

[ 20 ] The mother testified that prior to the court proceeding, she considered the father a friend and believed they could work together to meet E.M.’s needs. She now describes the communication as difficult and states that the father is confrontational and accusatory.

The father’s evidence about residence and parenting time before litigation

[ 21 ] The father’s evidence is that he was the primary caregiver, and the child’s primary residence was with him from the separation until the litigation began. He says the mother’s parenting time was typically two overnights per week, sometimes three, depending on her schedule.

[ 22 ] Neither parent kept reliable records of the actual schedule over the years. I address the conflict in their accounts in the credibility section below.

[ 23 ] The father’s belief is not grounded in the law. Section 20(1) and (4) of the Children’s Law Reform Act states:

Equal entitlement to decision-making responsibility

20 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, a child’s parents are equally entitled to decision-making responsibility with respect to the child. 2020, c. 25 , Sched. 1, s. 2.

If parents separate

(4) If the parents of a child live separate and apart and the child lives with one of them with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence of the other, the right of the other to exercise the entitlement to decision-making responsibility with respect to the child, but not the entitlement to parenting time, is suspended until a separation agreement or order provides otherwise. 2020, c. 25 , Sched. 1, s. 2.

[ 24 ] The law permits a parent to make decisions for a child when the status quo reflects that one parent has the primary residence, but it does not extend to decisions regarding parenting time with the other parent.

[ 25 ] The social worker provided the father with incorrect legal advice and should have referred him to a lawyer. It is a cautionary tale for social workers to be extremely careful with the language and terms they use, so as not to assume the role of a lawyer. The misinformation by the social worker has meant that a family that was raising their daughter for years without conflict or the need for the court’s intervention has now been fractured.

Office of the Children’s Lawyer: section 112 report

[ 26 ] A section 112 report dated July 29, 2024, was filed and was an exhibit at trial. In broad terms, the clinician recorded that the parents implemented a shared schedule from separation until court involvement in March 2023, and that the mother brought an urgent motion because the father refused to return E.M.. The report describes the father’s continued refusal after the May 16, 2023 order, leading to police enforcement.

[ 27 ] The father disputes the report’s premise that parenting was shared, and he expressed frustration that the mother’s characterization was accepted in the report and in the early court process.

[ 28 ] The clinician testified she was aware that the father had primary care while the family was in Ottawa, and that the parents later worked out a schedule around the mother’s work.

[ 29 ] The report also addressed the parties’ allegations and concerns, including the father’s assertions that the mother’s home was unstable and his concern about E.M.’s behaviour at school in 2023 (including dysregulation, aggression, and suicidal notes). The mother’s position was that the father’s withholding was triggered by her living with a partner.

[ 30 ] The report contains significant information about both parties’ histories, including mental health and substance use disclosures, and child protection and police involvement. The clinician noted there was no collateral information substantiating the father’s belief that the mother’s substance misuse was ongoing.

[ 31 ] Both parents had long-standing substance misuse issues. The father reports that he has been sober since E.M.’s birth. The mother reports that she was sober for two years after E.M.’s birth, and then relapsed and was using cocaine and drinking to excess.

[ 32 ] The mother acknowledged that her youngest daughter, born on April 13, 2020, tested positive for cocaine at birth. The mother’s urine also tested positive for cocaine and marijuana.

[ 33 ] E.M. told the clinician that she has heard and continues to hear her parents argue. She believes her parents have anger issues.

[ 34 ] The report states that E.M. is content with the current schedule but requests one-on-one time with her mother, without her younger sibling present, and that the child requested a schedule change to facilitate that.

[ 35 ] The clinician expressed concern that, given the deterioration in the parents’ ability to communicate, a joint decision-making order could delay E.M.’s access to needed services. E.M. has special needs, and decisions must be made on an ongoing basis.

[ 36 ] The clinician recommended joint decision-making with final authority to the mother, a shared residence arrangement, a specific holiday schedule, therapy for the child, and parenting covenants .

Child protection and police involvement

[ 37 ] The record includes information from child protection agencies and police services, including involvement in Ottawa and in Guelph. The appendix to the section 112 report describes multiple incidents and referrals, including concerns about parental conflict, mental health crises, and the impact of parental conflict on the child. Involvement has included the following:

Ottawa CAS

• The Ottawa CAS became involved after the birth of the child with concerns about the parenting capacity. The parents engaged with parenting programs and mental health services, and the file was closed.

• In October 2014, the father called to report that the couple were arguing in front of their child, and the mother was threatening suicide. No concerns were verified, and the file was closed.

• In March 2016, the society was called after the mother had an alcohol/drug-induced breakdown, resulting in extensive damage to the apartment. A safety plan was implemented that the mother was not to be present when using substances.

• In June 2016, the society verified concerns with the mother’s substance abuse. No further action was taken by the society as they deemed the child safe in the father’s care.

Guelph CAS

• In January 2019, McMaster Hospital called, as the child had overdosed on aspirin while in her father’s care. It was deemed accidental. The hospital was concerned as the mother was angry and swearing in front of the child. The mother stated, “every time I’m around my ex-partner, I feel like killing myself.” She had to be removed by security as she refused to leave the hospital room.

• In April 2020, a referral detailed that the mother had given birth and had tested positive for cocaine. The society took no action.

• In May 2023, the child’s school called to report that the child was threatening to kill herself and was dysregulated. The author of the report wrote:

It was noted that E.M. was being unnecessarily harmed as a result of her father withholding her parenting time with her mother and then again by her mother attending the home and causing a scene, leading to police involvement. Society notes indicated that E.M. did not want to upset her father and stayed with him despite wanting to see her mother.

Ottawa Police

• On November 2, 2012, the father called the police as the parents were arguing, and he was concerned about the mother’s mental health.

• On November 22, 2012, the father called the police to report that the mother was engaging in self-harming behaviours. The mother was apprehended under the Mental Health Act .

• On March 26, 2016, the police were called as the mother became enraged and pulled a bedroom door off the hinges and ripped a baby gate from the wall, in the presence of the child.

Guelph Police

• From 2011 to 2012, the police were called nine times concerning the mother, which resulted in the mother being apprehended under the Mental Health Act on five occasions.

• December 2011 to February 2012, police were called to the home on three occasions for verbal arguments between the parents. No charges were laid.

• On July 23, 2012, police were called for a domestic dispute. No charges were laid.

• On July 14, 2016, police were called for a domestic dispute. No charges were laid. The child was present for the fighting.

• On August 13, 2017, the father called to report that the mother had assaulted him. When police arrived, they observed the father to be intoxicated, and the police found both parents to be untruthful. The mother and child left to spend the evening elsewhere.

• On March 14, 2023, the mother called the police to report that the father would not return the child to her.

• On May 16, 2023, the father called the police and alleged that the mother was kicking his door. The mother presented the court order to the father. He believed it was falsified. The police noted that the order lacked an official seal and was not enforceable by them.

• On May 31, 2023, the father called as the mother attempted to collect the child.

• In June 2023, the police attended with the mother at the father’s home as an order had been issued allowing for the police involvement in apprehending the child.

• In August 2023, the father called the police to report that the mother had not returned the child. The police spoke with the mother, who assured them she would return the child within the hour.

[ 38 ] In the report, police and CAS workers describe the parents as presenting as aggressive and confrontational when a service provider did not respond in a way that the parents expected. The mother’s outbursts far exceeded those of the father. Both parents frequently contact the CAS and the police, although the father’s calls exceed the mother’s.

[ 39 ] A worker from Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County filed an affidavit sworn on June 12, 2023. In that affidavit, the society described numerous referrals and investigations. The society noted that, although there had been many referrals, there were no significant verified concerns about the child’s safety in the mother’s care during the investigations, aside from isolated matters, including the fact that the mother’s younger child tested positive for cocaine at birth. The society’s current concern in 2023 focused on emotional harm arising from the custody/access dispute and the father’s refusal to comply with the May 16, 2023, order, which contributed to repeated police involvement and confusion for the child.

[ 40 ] The father has not accepted the Guelph agency’s position that the child is safe in the mother’s care.

Specific disputes raised at trial

The father raised several concerns about the mother, including:

• Compliance with disclosure orders. An order dated December 11, 2024, required the mother to provide the school safety plan for 2024/2025 and proof that her criminal charges for assaulting her partner were withdrawn or dismissed. At the start of the trial, she had not provided these, which frustrated the father and contributed to the matter being delayed in court. When directed again during the trial, she ultimately produced proof that the charges were dismissed once she had completed the Partner Assault Program.

• Housing stability and financial stress, including social media posts where the mother is seeking money and food.

• Mental health concerns and the mother’s unusual beliefs relating to the “Nightingale Equation,” and her view that she could obtain a PhD through publishing, despite not having completed high school. The mother has posted 44 papers. It was challenging to understand the mother’s beliefs, but in broad strokes, she testified that she has an equation that will solve all unsolvable problems. The father is concerned because he believes their daughter subscribes to the theory.

• A text message exchange in which the mother messaged the child in the early morning hours to wake her partner, which the mother explained as arising during a hospital admission when she sought support and could not reach the partner by phone.

[ 41 ] There were also parenting-time disputes around holidays. The evidence includes instances of both parents engaging in self-help: the father’s 2023 withholding and the mother’s conduct during Christmas exchanges, including keeping the child during the father’s 2025 parenting time, after the father allegedly refused Christmas-morning access to the mother in 2024.

Credibility and findings of fact on key issues

[ 42 ] The mother did not comply with disclosure orders in a timely way and did not appear to appreciate the seriousness of compliance until directed again by the court.

[ 43 ] More importantly, her evidence raised concerns about reliability. She testified that her mental health is stable, but she has stopped prescribed medication and could not clearly describe a diagnosis or treatment plan. Her evidence about the “Nightingale Equation” and related beliefs was difficult to follow and suggested impaired judgment and insight. Her evidence regarding stable housing is inconsistent with acknowledgements of repeated social media requests for food and money.

[ 44 ] I do not find that the mother intentionally attempted to mislead the court. However, on several key issues, I do not find her evidence sufficiently reliable to support findings that are disputed.

[ 45 ] The father acknowledged serious misconduct in withholding the child in 2023. That conduct was wrong. However, he testified candidly, including about the misguided basis for his belief that he could act unilaterally. I found the father generally credible.

[ 46 ] Where the parties’ accounts diverged on the historical schedule and primary residence, neither had reliable contemporaneous records. The mother’s own evidence was that she had parenting time two to three days per week, depending on work. On the totality of the evidence, and taking credibility into account, I find as a fact that from separation until the litigation commenced in 2023, the child’s primary residence was with the father, with the mother exercising parenting time that was generally two overnights per week, sometimes three.

[ 47 ] The father’s request for discretion over the mother’s parenting time is not in the child’s best interests. He has kept the child from the mother based on what he believes are issues the mother may be experiencing. He testified that he allows the child to decide whether to go and began allowing her to make that decision when she was in grade 2.

Law and analysis

[ 48 ] In deciding what is in the best interest of a child, Section 24(1)(2)(3) of the Children’s Law Reform Act provides the factors a court must take into consideration when making a parenting order.

[ 49 ] The child is deeply bonded to both of her parents and enjoys her time in each home. The child has expressed that she is comfortable with the schedule but would like alone time with her mother.

[ 50 ] Neither parent submitted a logistical plan for the child that requires analysis. The child will remain in her current school and with her current service providers.

[ 51 ] Below, I will discuss the specific factors relevant to the decision that must be made for this child.

a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

[ 52 ] E.M. has special needs and requires consistent medical oversight and stable educational supports. The record also establishes that the child has been emotionally affected by the parents’ conflict. There is evidence of significant distress in 2023, confusion about transitions, and escalation of behavioural issues at school, including suicidal ideation and the need for a school safety plan.

[ 53 ] This is a child for whom predictability, consistent routines, and timely engagement with services are particularly important.

c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;

[ 54 ] Both parents have, at times, placed their conflict ahead of the child’s interests.

[ 55 ] The father’s 2023 withholding is a serious example of self-help. It caused escalation, police involvement, and distress for the child. If the father believed a change was required, the proper response was to bring his own application.

[ 56 ] The mother, after receiving temporary sole decision-making authority, acted in ways that excluded the father from information and participation with service providers. The evidence supports that the father learned of at least one medication change through the child rather than through the mother, and that there were occasions the mother removed the child from school on exchange days for counselling appointments without timely notice to the father.

[ 57 ] Both patterns are harmful. In different ways, each parent has undermined the other parent’s relationship with the child and has created instability for E.M..

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

[ 58 ] The evidence raises serious concerns about the mother’s stability and judgment, including mental health issues, discontinuation of prescribed medication, difficulty articulating diagnosis and treatment, and unusual beliefs that bear on insight and reliability. These concerns are not abstract: E.M. has special needs that require consistent adult functioning, reliable engagement with service providers, and sound judgment about education and health.

[ 59 ] The father is not without fault. His self-help in 2023 was serious. However, the evidence also supports that he has historically been the primary caregiver, that the child’s needs were met in his care before litigation, and that he has complied with the structured schedule since the order of December 11, 2024, even when he disagreed with it.

[ 60 ] This is a key point. The question is not whether either parent has at times behaved poorly; both have. The question is which arrangement will best secure timely decision-making, continuity of services, and stability for the child.

(ii) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

[ 61 ] This is a high-conflict case. The parents have minimal direct communication, and both have had volatile interactions with third parties. The evidence supports that meaningful, respectful co-parenting communication is presently absent. That matters because decision-making for a child with special needs is not episodic; it is ongoing. Services, school issues, behavioural supports, and medical care, require timely decisions.

Decision-making

[ 62 ] The section 112 report recommended joint decision-making with final authority to the mother, largely to avoid deadlock and delay while maintaining joint involvement. I understand that recommendation. However, it does not fit the reality of the relationship before the court.

[ 63 ] There is no persuasive evidence that these parents can operate under a joint regime, even with a “tie-breaker.” Further, the mother’s demonstrated tendency to exclude the father from service providers while holding sole decision-making, combined with the concerns about her stability and reliability, weighs heavily against vesting her with final authority.

[ 64 ] I am satisfied that it is in E.M.’s best interests that the father have sole decision-making responsibility. The mother must have access to information and the right to be informed, consistent with the Act and with the child’s best interests. The child benefits from both parents being informed and from reduced conflict around information control.

Parenting schedule

[ 65 ] The father’s request that the mother’s parenting time be left to his discretion is not in the child’s best interests. The father has previously withheld the child based on his unilateral assessment of the mother. He also testified that he began allowing the child to decide whether to attend with the mother when she was in grade 2. That is not appropriate. Parenting decisions must be made by adults.

[ 66 ] A discretionary regime would invite renewed disputes and instability. A defined schedule, with clear exchange times and holiday provisions, is necessary to minimize conflict and to prevent self-help by either parent.

[ 67 ] At the same time, the evidence (including the child’s views as recorded in the section 112 report) supports that E.M. is bonded to both parents and is generally content with the current schedule, while also wanting one-on-one time with her mother without the younger sibling present. The schedule should address that expressed need in a practical way.

[ 68 ] Given the child’s history of care, her need for stability, and the evidence that she did well under the pre-litigation arrangement, I am satisfied that the parenting schedule should generally reflect the pattern that existed before the spring 2023 crisis, with added structure to address conflict and to ensure one-on-one time with the mother.

[ 69 ] This case has been before the court for an unacceptably long period. The ongoing hostility and self-help by both parents have created instability for E.M.. E.M.’s best interests require stable routines, reduced conflict, and timely decision-making. Both parents must comply strictly with the order and must stop placing E.M. in the middle of adult disputes.

[ 70 ] For the reasons stated above:

Final order to be issued:

1. The Respondent, C.M., shall have sole decision-making and primary residence for the child, E.M., born on […], 2013. The Respondent, C.M., shall inform the Applicant, A.N., of important decisions made within three days, via the parenting App.

2. The Applicant, A.N., and the Respondent, C.M., shall have the same right and entitlement to information from third parties relating to the health, education and welfare of the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, without the necessity of any release, direction or acknowledgement executed by the Respondent, C.M., and this order shall constitute sufficient release, authorization and direction to a third party for the release of such information.

3. The parents shall use a parenting App, and upload important dates, for example, doctors, dentists, and school appointments. The Respondent, C.M., shall download the App and send an invite to the Applicant, A.N., to join the App

4. The Applicant, A.N., shall have the following parenting schedule:

a) Every Monday from after school until Wednesday, when the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, is to be returned to school. On days when there is no school (for example, during the summer or on PD days), parenting time shall begin at 9:00 a.m. on Monday and end at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday.

b) Every second Saturday from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. starting February 21, 2026. The Applicant, A.N., to confirm with the Respondent, C.M., through the parenting App, the preceding Friday by 4:00 p.m., if she will be able to have the Saturday visit.

5. The following holiday schedule shall supersede the regular parenting schedule :

a. Commencing in 2026 and in each even-numbered year thereafter for Easter long weekend, the Respondent, C.M., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from Friday until Saturday at 6:00 p.m., and the Applicant, A.N., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from Saturday at 6:00 p.m. until the end of her regular parenting time (Wednesday morning).

b. Commencing in 2027 and in each odd-numbered year thereafter for Easter long weekend, the Respondent, A.N., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from Friday at 9:00 a.m. until Saturday at 6:00 p.m., and the Respondent, C.M., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from Saturday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday at 9:00 a.m.

c. Each year, the Applicant, A.N., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, on Mother’s Day weekend from Sunday at 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.; and

d. Each year, the Respondent, C.M., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, on Father’s Day weekend from Sunday at 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.; and

e. Each year, each party shall be entitled to spend up to two non-consecutive weeks (7 days per week or 14 days total) of vacation time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013. To this end:

i. The Respondent, C.M., shall have first choice of vacation dates in even-numbered years and the Applicant, A.N., shall have first choice of vacation dates in odd-numbered years, with the particular dates to be selected by the first day of May for each year.

f. Commencing in 2026 and in each even-numbered year thereafter during Thanksgiving weekend, the Respondent, C.M., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from Friday until Saturday at 6:00 p.m., and the Applicant, A.N., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from Saturday at 6:00 p.m. until the end of her regular parenting time (Wednesday morning).

g. Commencing in 2027 and in each odd-numbered year thereafter during Thanksgiving weekend, the Applicant, A.N., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from Friday at 9:00 a.m. until Saturday at 6:00 p.m. and the Respondent, C.M., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from Saturday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday at 6:00 p.m.

h. Commencing in 2026 and in each even-numbered year thereafter, the Applicant, A.N., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from December 24 at 9:00 a.m. until December 25 at noon, and the Respondent, C.M., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from December 25 at noon until December 26 at 6:00 p.m.; and

i. Commencing in 2027 and in each odd-numbered year thereafter, the Respondent, C.M., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from December 24 at 9:00 a.m. until December 25 at noon, and the Applicant, A.N., shall have parenting time with the child, E.M., born on […], 2013, from December 25 at noon until December 26 at 6:00 p.m.

6. The parents are to be in a sober state when in a parenting role.

7. Neither parent is to denigrate the other parent to the child, E.M., born on […], 2013.

8. The requirement to have the unrepresented parties approve the order is waived.

9. Court Administration shall issue the order.

Released: February 5, 2026

Signed: Justice S. Cleghorn