CITATION: Ippolito v. Palmer, 2026 ONSC 323

COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-00000132-0000

DATE: 2026/01/16

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Christina Ippolito, Applicant

AND:

Sheldon Palmer, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Justice F. Wood

COUNSEL: Applicant Self Represented

Robert A. Fernandes, Counsel for the Respondent

Kristen Morris, Counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: December 2, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

1The trial of this matter proceeded in the spring of 2025. On June 23, 2025, I released oral reasons and made a series of temporary orders, the goal of which was to put in place reunification counselling for the family. I made a number of findings, including that the Applicant mother, Christina, had engaged in a concerted campaign of alienation intended to sever the relationship between the Respondent father, Sheldon, and their son, Brody. I also found that Sheldon was not ready to manage a complete reversal in parenting time.

2The matter came before me again in September 2025. At that time, it was clear that no serious steps had been taken toward getting the reunification therapy started. I made a further series of orders, including a daily fine as long as Christina continued to be in breach of my orders. I also ordered that Brody be moved into Sheldon’s care if Christina did not comply with my previous orders. That order was temporarily stayed while Christina pursued leave to appeal of the September 25, 2025, order, but became effective once again when leave was denied. Nevertheless, Christina continued with her noncompliance. The OCL then engaged a litigation expert with a view to supporting its argument that Christina should not comply with my order.

3On November 17, 2025, I temporarily stayed my order while waiting for the OCL’s report to be completed. The parties returned again on December 2, 2025. By that date, Sheldon had made efforts to obtain some counselling despite Christina’s continued refusal to comply with my outstanding orders. These are outlined in his affidavit of November 28, 2025. On the return date, the report and addendum of Dr. Murphy was admitted into evidence despite Sheldon’s objections to same.

4Both parties and the OCL have introduced fresh evidence since the completion of the trial of this matter. In light of the very serious issues raised, this has been appropriate. To fully consider Brody’s best interests, I found it reasonable to permit as much evidence as possible. With that said, I have ascribed little weight to Dr. Murphy’s report. I assessed that evidence considering the factors as set out in R. v. Mohan, 1994 89 CCC (3d) 402. I have several concerns about it:

a. As argued by Sheldon, the report was written in a ‘silo’. I have previously raised concerns about too many professionals involved with Brody not having the full picture. Despite this, Dr. Murphy spoke to Christina and Brody, but not to Sheldon, and did not read any of the notes or reports produced by other professionals over the years. After being asked to review my endorsements, Dr. Murphy once again sought further information from Christina (despite my significant concerns that her evidence was not credible in many respects) but made no effort to speak with Sheldon or his counsel.

b. After I ordered that Dr. Murphy be provided with a copy of my various endorsements, an addendum was produced in which he made express note of one of my criticisms of Sheldon but fails to make note of the several very serious concerns raised about Christina. Indeed, he appears to have been of the view that the court’s concerns regarding Christina were irrelevant.

c. In the initial report, Dr. Murphy made note of the fact that despite espousing extreme views about seeing his father, Brody was unable to articulate any specifics to support those views. Without explaining why, he opines that this lack of any rational connection between his espoused views and objective reality somehow strengthens the case against forcing Brody to have any contact, even through reunification counselling, with Sheldon.

d. Dr. Murphy’s conclusion is that a ‘custody reversal’ would be “a terrible idea”. No attempt is made to provide any sort of clinical explanation of what is meant by that phrase.

5In the result, the Murphy report adds little to the overall picture. I have, however, accepted Dr. Murphy’s findings to the extent that they confirm other evidence that Brody’s views have become more extreme since the release of my initial ruling in this matter.

6Shelly Polgar, the social worker retained to assist Ms. Morris in placing Brody’s views before the court, confirmed by way of affidavit that Brody’s previous reluctance to see his father had intensified. He had threatened to harm both himself and Sheldon, if forced to move to his father’s home. Brody also advised Ms. Polgar that he would refuse to participate in reunification counselling (although as noted by this court, he has been more than happy to attend on professionals when asked to by Christina or Ms. Morris).

7At this point in time, the following facts have become clear:

a. Christina will not voluntarily comply with any order aimed at repairing Brody’s relationship with Sheldon.

b. Police will not, even if I order it, apprehend Brody for the purpose of bringing him into his father’s care. Realistically, the only way to actually effect a transfer would be either to have Brody apprehended by a Children’s Aid Society, and/or find Christina to be in contempt and sentence her to a term in jail.

c. Moving Brody into Sheldon’s physical care at this time comes with significant risks of Brody running away, harming himself or harming Sheldon.

8In Ginese v. Fadel, 2024 ONSC 2427, Justice Audet was faced with a similarly challenging set of circumstances. Despite concluding that the father in that case was primarily responsible for the complete rejection of the mother by the parties’ four children, and despite expressing significant concern about the risk of abuse at the father’s hands, she nevertheless ordered that the children remain with their father.

9When assessing what parenting orders should be made, Justice Audet wrote:

261The passage of time between the parties’ separation and the time this trial was held was way too long. In cases of severe parental alienation, time is of the essence. To correct the course of action effectively and in a long-lasting way, intervention must be timely, and sometimes drastic. Judicial case management by one judge and expeditious involvement of skilled professionals to assess the causes of a child’s estrangement from one parent and proposed remediation is essential.

262In many of these extreme cases, the alienating parent’s behaviours and strategies are easy to detect early in the process, based on written evidence. But an important number of those extreme cases also raise allegations of family violence and of significant and complex mental health issues. These allegations must be carefully explored and are sometimes very difficult to assess without a trial in which all the evidence is presented and tested.

263The level of complexity in these cases is compounded when there are allegations of family violence against children – as was the case here – and these allegations come from the children themselves. When an alienating parent is a highly skilled manipulator – as was also the case here – it can be very difficult for police officers, child protection workers, assessors and motions judges to determine with any degree of certainty whether those allegations have any merit at all. In the face of uncertainty, the natural tendency is to lean on the side of caution. This gives a severely alienating parent the leverage needed to complete their malicious work. In those extreme cases, there is simply no fast and simple solutions.

264Unfortunately, this case had all the above features. The mother is of the view that the system failed her children. I certainly cannot blame her for that. However, I am of the view that this is one of those exceptionally complex cases which have and will continue to baffle legal and mental health professionals alike for years to come.

267In a limited number of cases, the merits of the parents’ allegations of family violence, child abuse, alienation and poor parenting are too many, too complex and too intermingled to be determined with any degree of certainty at the interim or the assessment stage. This, in turn, impedes on the court’s ability to intervene early and swiftly. Sadly, this was one of those cases.

268There is no doubt that the very lengthy delay in bringing this matter to trial has enabled the father in his campaign to completely eliminate the mother from the children’s lives. These kids have not had any meaningful contact with their mother, or anyone associated with her, for the best of five years. The delay has been such that the oldest two children have “aged out” of viable orders of the court. For this reason, the mother at this stage is asking for a custody reversal for the two youngest children only, who are now 15 and 12 years old.

269The parties are asking this court to fix long-standing consequences of significant past trauma, and years of family dysfunction. The only solution for this family lays in the hands of the only person who has demonstrated time and again that he cannot, or will not, meaningfully participate in any process proposed or imposed by the court; the father. Indeed, the evidence of what has transpired over the past five years shows unequivocally that the father will actively interfere, thwart and obstruct any attempts to reunite these children with their mother. I have no confidence that the father will gain the necessary insight into his behaviour to effect meaningful change in the future, at least not on the short or mid-term.

270While I am of the view that it would be in the children’s best interests to be placed in the full-time care of their mother, with no access to their father until such time as he has accessed all the mental health and counselling services that he needs to address the many issues outlined above, the evidence presented to me in this trial convinces me that this plan is doomed to fail and would only cause the children further significant harm. To put it simply, the mother does not have the emotional and psychological stability and strength necessary to handle what she will be faced with if these two children are placed in her care: severe rejection, significant emotional and psychological abuse as well as potential physical abuse and ongoing unfounded allegations of abuse.

10In the case before me, it is the father who has unjustifiably been alienated from his child, and there is only one child of the relationship. Otherwise, these paragraphs could have just as easily be written about this case. These decisions are some of the most challenging faced by our courts. Any decision which leaves children with a parent who has actively undermined the children’s relationship with the other parent for their own gain, risks a perception that such behaviour is being rewarded by the court. Social science tells us that alienated children as adults experience a range of mental health difficulties, increased risk of addiction and reduced coping and resilience skills.¹

11I am alive to a very serious concern that making an order in line with what Brody has expressed he wants will place a terrible burden upon him – suggesting to him that at the young age of 12 he is responsible for the severed relationship. Placing such a burden on a child is something that no responsible parent should ever do. When making a decision in a child’s best interests, it may well be appropriate to consider the child’s long-term best interests – the impact on their long-term mental health of permitting them to perceive that they have an active role in the severing of the relationship.

12But, on the facts of this case, those concerns are speculative. Today, a decision must be made about Brody’s best interests based on the information currently available. While a court is generally required to review the list of factors as set out in s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, the facts of this case do not lend themselves well to a typical analysis. That is because, regardless of any other findings, the court is left with the inevitable conclusion that a plan which places Brody with Sheldon at this time would be doomed to fail and would likely cause him further harm.

13In our justice system it is the parties who frame the action before the court. While courts in cases such as this do have some flexibility to make an order that differs from what either party has put forward, its ability to do so is limited. The court cannot, for example, order that a child be placed with someone who is not a party to the action. The court cannot force a local Children’s Aid Society to apprehend a child. This is not a protection application pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 – if it were, I would almost certainly have found that a protection concern exists and made appropriate orders resulting from that finding. But that is not what is before the court. As it is, I am realistically left with only two options – make one further attempt at a reversal of primary parenting or leave Brody where he is.

14And it is here that I again turn to Justice Audet who wrote:

280It is therefore with much regret, and incredible sadness, that I have come to the conclusion on the specific facts of this case that it would not be in E.G. and M.G.’s best interest to place them in their mother’s exclusive care at this point, by way of a custody reversal. They have already been through too much trauma and stress, and the chances of this custody reversal succeeding are – at best – minimal, whereas the risks to the children’s emotional, psychological, and physical well-being associated with a custody reversal are simply too high at this stage.

15I have, with the same degree of regret and sadness, come to the same conclusion.

16Regrettably, I have also come to the conclusion that reunification counselling will not work at this time. Christina has demonstrated that she will refuse to participate in same. Even if a contempt finding along with a jail sentence would prompt her to formally comply with my earlier orders, I have no doubt that her alienating behaviours would continue. And the cost of such a process is too high for Brody. Sentencing Christine to any time in jail would leave Brody in an untenable situation and would only serve to further entrench his views about his father whom he would undoubtedly blame.

17Dr. Murphy recommends that Brody participate in counselling with someone experienced with high-conflict family dynamics to assist him with his intense negative feelings and in differentiating his own feelings and needs from those of either parent. Such counselling appears to be the only realistic option at this juncture. In order to avoid further dispute about counselling, I will order that Christina shall enroll Brody with an appropriate counsellor at her own cost. The counsellor shall be recommended by Dr. Murphy, in consultation with Ms. Polgar and Ms. Morris. If Dr. Murphy wishes input from either parent in making a recommendation, he shall obtain the input of both parents.

Child Support

18In his Motion to Change, Sheldon asks that Christina pay him child support. That request is based upon his request that Brody reside primarily with him. Because this order provides that Brody will continue to reside with Christina, it is appropriate that support continue to be paid by Sheldon to Christina. Sheldon did not otherwise seek an amendment of child support.

19The final order in this matter provides that Sheldon pay support of $350 based on an income of $43,000 and the Child Support Guidelines. He stopped paying for a period of time after Justice Gibson ordered that Brody be placed with him but has since started making support payments once again. In her Response to Motion to Change, Christina asks that Sheldon be obliged to pay arrears of support owing since 2023. She does not otherwise make a request for a change in the amount of support being paid.

20Sheldon’s recent income tax returns show a significantly reduced income of between $2,500 - $8,000 annually over the past few years. But, during testimony, he acknowledged that his reported income is net business income. No significant evidence was tendered with respect to what the business expenses are.

21In the circumstances, I see no basis upon which to vary the monthly support amount. Because Brody never did transition into Sheldon’s care, no further variation of child support is warranted.

22Orders to go:

a. Brody shall have his primary residence with Christina;

b. Christina shall make all major decisions for Brody;

c. Prior to making any major decision for Brody, Christina shall first provide at least 30 days notice (unless the matter is urgent and a decision is required immediately) to Sheldon, who shall then have an opportunity to provide his input before a decision is made;

d. Sheldon shall be named as the second contact for all third party service providers including school, doctors, counsellors, camps, extra curricular activity providers, etc.;

e. Sheldon shall be entitled to make inquiries and receive information from all third-party providers including school, doctors, counsellors, camps, extra curricular activity providers, etc.;

f. The parties shall continue to use AppClose (or other mutually agreed upon communication application) for all communication between themselves, which communication shall be restricted to matters pertaining to Brody;

g. Christina shall enrol Brody in counselling with the goals as set out in Dr. Murphy’s addendum report. The counsellor shall be recommended by Dr. Murphy in consultation with Ms. Polgar and Ms. Morris. If Dr. Murphy wishes input from either parent in making a recommendation, he shall obtain the input of both parents;

h. If and when the counsellor retained pursuant to the above paragraph recommends that the parties engage in reunification counselling, the parties shall retain Ms. Murie and Ms. DeVeto, pursuant to paragraphs 1-8 of my June 23, 2025, order. For clarity, the terms of that order are held in abeyance until and unless such counselling is recommended by the counsellor retained to assist Brody in accordance with paragraph (f) of this order;

i. Parenting time between Sheldon and Brody shall take place in accordance with Brody’s wishes as expressed to his counsellor(s) retained in accordance with this order.

23Except as otherwise set out herein, the orders of June 23, September 25 and November 17, 2025, are terminated. Any fines accrued pursuant to those orders to date, however, remain enforceable.

24If the parties are unable to resolve costs, they may make submissions to me. Sheldon shall make submissions on or before February 1, 2026. Christina shall make any responding submissions on or before February 13, 2026. Should the Office of the Children’s Lawyer wish to make submissions, it shall do so on or before February 13, 2026.

Date: January 16, 2026

CITATION: Ippolito v. Palmer, 2026 ONSC 323

COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-00000132-0000

DATE: 2026/01/16

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Christina Ippolito

Applicant

AND:

Sheldon Palmer

Respondent

ENDORSEMENT

F. Wood J.

Footnotes

1. 1See e.g. Suzanne Verhaar, Mandy Louise Matthewson and Caitlin Bentley, ”The Impact of Parental Alienating Behaviours on the Mental Health of Adults Alienated in Childhood” (2022) 9:4 Children 475. The parties in this case did not lead this social science evidence and no factual findings are being made in reliance upon it. The court has included this reference only to assist in providing a broader understanding of the complexity of cases such as this.