- Marriage Contracts
- Real Estate
- Wills & Estates
- Spousal Support
- Areas We Service
- Child Protection
- Hiring News
- Separation & Divorce
- Division Of Property
- Custody & Access
- Spousal & Child Support
- Enforcing Support
- Domestic Violence
- Financial Disclosure
- Alternatives To Court
- Matrimonial Home
FAQ: Custody & Access
Find out the answers to frequently asked questions ("FAQs") with regard to family law and other legal issues.
Grandparents & Access
Some of the hardest and most emotional cases in family law deal with grandparents & access. More specifically – the issue of whether grandparents should have access to their grandchildren. It is to be noted that in a general sense, grandparents usually do not have independent rights of contact or access, which are exercisable in favour of their grandchildren.
Very often, the result of this type of litigation dealing with grandparents & access leaves the grandparents involved unsuccessful.
The case of Nichols v. Herdman dealt with an application made by grandparents seeking access to their grandchild. As is commonly the case, there were external factors that affected the relationship between mother and grandmother, and that led to a grandchild being unable to build a relationship with her grandparents.
In Court, Justice Stevenson reiterated the notion that only the parents of the child have rights of access, unless the grandparents can satisfy a 3-step test. The test is set out below.
The response to the following questions must be answered in the affirmative:
(i) Does a positive grandparent-grandchild relationship already exist?
(ii) Has the parent’s decision imperilled the positive grandparent-grandchild relationship?
(iii) Has the parent acted arbitrarily?
To learn more about grandparent & access in Ontario family law as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 today.
The ultimate goal and principle that judges take into account when ruling on the issue of custody is the children’s best interests.
In a surprising and interesting case titled K. (L.D.) v. K. (M.A.), Justice Harvey used this crucial legal principle when ruling on a case that concerned itself with the issue of custody reversal.
The intriguing fact of the case was that the two children were ages 16 and 17.
In this case, a father had successfully alienated his two children from their mother, to the point where the children had not seen their mother for numerous years. Justice Harvey reviewed the evidence of alienation directed toward the mother, and agreed with the psychiatrist’s report with respect to how the matter should be dealt with.
Justice Harvey understood the implications of a custody reversal in this case, as evidenced by the fact that he stated that any ruling with regards to the 17 year old would have no effect upon the child turning the age of majority.
Ultimately, Justice Harvey ruled that both children should attend therapeutic reunification programs and that custody should be reversed from the father to the mother.
To learn more about custody reversal as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, contact our lawyers at Krol & Krol at 905.707.3370.
Gatekeeping and Alienation – Breastfeeding
The case of Squires v. Smith brought forth an interesting issue with respect to the access of a new-born baby.
The case revolved around the issue of whether a father’s request to have overnight access to his new-born child interrupted the child’s breastfeeding patterns, and thus the request should be refused. In its ruling, it was clear that the Court was not suggesting that the mother had engaged in gatekeeping or alienation, however, the Court did rule in favor of the father.
In coming to a decision that awarded the father overnight access to his child, the Court also ordered the mother to provide pumped and stored breast milk to the father so as not to interrupt the child’s eating habits.
The Court also noted several cases that conveyed clear principles with respect to the issue at hand. The following cases were highlighted by Justice Douglas Cook in his ruling:
Preserving a breastfeeding schedule for newborn children up to at least one year of age will often be protected; See McDonald v. Deagnon, 2009 SKQB 154,  S.J. No. 249.
Similar feeding and sleep patterns in each parent’s home ensure and promote stability: See Cooper v. Cooper, 2002 SKQB 151,  S.J. No. 226.
The goal of an access plan should be to avoid long separations from both parents to minimize separation anxiety and to have sufficiently frequent and broad contact with each parent to keep the infant secure, trusting and comfortable in each relationship. See: Cooper v. Cooper.
Limited overnight access has been successfully argued for infants as young as 12 months old: See Baird v. Webb 2002 SKQB 518,  S.J. No. 748.
To learn more about Gatekeeping and Alienation as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 today.
When a couple decides to terminate the marriage and begin to live separate and apart from one another, it is often the case that one of the parties wishes to relocate and start fresh. If the couple had children, complexities arise as to whether the custodian parent wishing to relocate may bring the children with him/her. If the non-custodian parent objects to the relocation of his/her children, a motion will be brought before the court and the parties will submit their respective positions.
Upon hearing the motion, the issue that a Judge faces is whether to obtain evidence from the children themselves with respect to the potential relocation.
Justice Martinson, in G. (B.J.) v. G. (D.L.), 89 R.F.L. (6th) 103 (Y.T. S.C.), ruled that the Court must ascertain the wishes of the children if they were of an age and maturity where their wishes and preferences should be taken into account.
Interestingly, in the case of Kelly v. Harvey, Justice Forgeron neglected to obtain the views of the two children aged 10 and 14.
In that case, the mother planned to relocate from Nova Scotia to British Columbia with her two children, and the father opposed the relocation. The father had regular access but did not have a positive relationship with both children and was not receiving any overnight access with them.
Justice Forgeron ruled in favor of the mother and permitted the relocation.
The status quo on issues involving the children
One of the first things client ought to be aware of is the fact that either the client or the opposing party may be creating a “status quo.” The reason why lawyers emphasize this point, is because many parties involved in a family law proceeding are unaware of the fact that, despite all the efforts they have made to prove their case and disengage from any unbecoming behavior, courts rule in favour of the best interests of the child. Once a party has created a status quo on issues involving the children – something the child has now become accustomed to – the court is often reluctant to take the child out of that environment.
In the recent case of White v. Noel, the power of the status quo was conveyed clearly in a somewhat controversial ruling by Justice Penny Jones of the Ontario Court of Justice.
The case involved a father with a cocaine addiction, and a neglected wife desperately wishing to return home to her parents in New Brunswick. The couple had a young child together, and were constantly in court fighting for custody and access.
Despite there being a consent order that contained a clause prohibiting the wife from removing the child from relocating with the child outside of Ontario, the mother unilaterally decided to take her child and move back to New Brunswick. There, she proceeded to move for a change in the consent order, when her husband served her with a contempt motion.
Due to the fact that the father was self-represented, he opted to wait for his day in court and not take any interim action. This resulted in an oral hearing scheduled 2 years after he served his wife with the contempt motion.
At the hearing, Justice Jones ruled that because the child had settled into New Brunswick and made a stable home there for the past two, accompanied by the fact that the mother had found stable employment for the past years, a status quo had been created and the court would not prejudice the child by moving the child back to Toronto at this stage in the game.
To learn more about the status quo in Ontario as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 today.
Is there a presumption of shared parenting?
The case of Ackerman v. Ackerman brought to life some significant features of the Divorce Act and the concepts of custody and access.
The Court of Queen’s Bench to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dealt with a mother’s attempt to reverse the trial judge’s ruling of shared parenting between the parties, by conveying to the judge that the parties did not get along and were in a constant state of conflict.
The court acknowledged that the fact that both parties do not get along would factor in to its decision to reverse an order for shared parenting, but that it was not the sole factor when weighing in on a decision to disregard shared parenting. Thus, the court turned its attention to the status quo between the parties.
The status quo tipped the access scales in favor of the mother, but once again, the court stated clearly that evidence of a status quo was only one factor to account for when ruling on an award to set aside the shared parenting plan between the parties.
The father attempted to bring to make an argument based on Section 16 (10) of the Divorce Act which states:
“In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.”
The father argued that the above-mentioned provision in the Divorce Act creates a presumption that courts should rule in favor of a shared parenting plan.
The court rejected the father’s attempt to create a presumption of shared parenting based on section 16 (10) of the Divorce Act. However, despite the judge stating that the status quo stood in favor of the mother, the court ruled that a shared parenting plan should stand and that a troubled relationship between two parties did not prevent the courts from ruling in favor of a shared parenting plan.
To learn more about shared parenting as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 today.
Can my spouse change the name of our child if I don’t have custody?
Spouses who have recently separated often look to change their name. The Change of Name Act outlines the steps and protocol if one were seeking to alter the name listed on his or her birth certificate.
Section 4(1) of the Change of Name Act depicts the prerequisites that one must satisfy before applying for a change of name are that he/she must be at least 16 years old and ordinarily resident for at least 1 year prior to the application.
Section 4 of the Change of Name Act deals with applicants over the age of 16, while section 5 of the Act deals with a parent’s wish to change the name of their child. Consent by each person with lawful custody of the child will be required prior to the change of name, and depending on whether the child has reached the age of 12, consent from the child may also be required.
Relevant to this matter is whether an access parent, who does not have custody of his child, can take measures to prohibit his (former) spouse from changing their child’s name. In the case of Zho v. Chen, the court ruled that a separation agreement preventing the custodial parent from changing the child’s name is not guaranteed to stand uncontested in a court of law; that is, a court has jurisdiction to look at the whole matter and rule contrary to what the separation agreement prescribes.
Similarly, there have been cases that prove the above-mentioned notion that a separation agreement preventing the custodial parent from changing the name of the child is enough to prohibit the name change from occurring. (Felix v. Fratpietro)
To learn more about custody as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 today.
Best Interests of the child
Judges will resolve custody and access disputes by keeping the best interests of the child ahead of all else. The test is given statutory credibility by means of the Divorce Act (s.16(8)) and the Children’s Law Reform Act (s.24). The Court will analyze the following factors when applying the test:
- The physical well-being of the child;
- The emotional well-being and security of the child;
- The plan in-motion for the child’s education and maintenance;
- The financial needs and requirements of the child;
- Religious and ethical upbringing;
- Whether the parent understand the needs of his/her child;
- As the child gets older, the child’s preference;
- The importance of keeping siblings together; and,
- The bond that has been created between the child and his caregiver.
The Court will also ensure that the “maximum contact principle” is being complied with to the highest degree.
The “maximum contact principle” essentially advocates that the child should have as much contact as possible with each parent if it benefits the child. Therefore, Judges will investigate into whether the either parent has fully complied with the principle or has placed various bulwarks that hinder the relationship of the child with the other parent.
The principle is codified in section 16(10) of the Divorce Act, and although there is no comparable section in the Children’s Law Reform Act, courts also apply this principle under the CLRA.
To learn more about the best interests of the child principle as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 today.
In the case of Hammond v. Nelson, Justice Chipman created a non-exhaustive list of what the court should review and analyze when one parent is seeking an order for shared parenting.
In his analysis of the 8 relevant considerations, Justice Chipman states:
Nova Scotia Courts have determined shared custody arrangements require an even greater level of cooperation and communication between the parents than joint custody arrangements. Parents must not only foster and encourage meaningful, regular and frequent contact between the children and the other parent they must also cooperate in providing similar routines and value systems in each household for the children.
The 8 considerations that a court should take into account when ruling on a shared parenting order are as follows:
- In different circumstances would the Court consider each of the parents to be an appropriate “primary parent”? Equal joint and shared custody essentially places both parties in that position.
- If a parent resides with a partner the Court must be satisfied that the partner is fully supportive of the parenting plan, that the child and the parent’s partner have a good relationship, that the parent’s partner is an appropriate secondary support to the parent and is a suitable role model to and influence on the child. Evidence of instability in the relationship between the parent and his/her partner may also be a consideration.
- Does anyone else reside with the parent, such as other children, roommates, boarders and the like, and if so, what would be the effect of their presence in the same household on the child?
- Do the parents live in close proximity of each other? A shared parenting arrangement should not be at the expense of the child’s ability to maintain relationships with his/her peers. Ideally the residences of the parents should be sufficiently close to each other that the child, when old enough to be outside the home without the direct supervision of her or his parents, should be able to easily walk from one parent’s home to the other and, just as important, should be able to maintain friendships in his/her neighbourhood and to go to and from school as easily from one parent’s home as the other. If the parents’ homes are not in close proximity then more than likely the child’s social network will suffer.
- The age, maturity and personality of the child and how those factors may impact the child’s ability to cope with shared custody. If a child is very young such that they are napping and/or breastfeeding then shared parenting may not be workable. Further, the younger the child the more dependent the child is on the parents for transportation, social activities and the like. Older children tend to be more resilient, independent and more able to go from one parent’s home to the other and to connect with their friends. Also, some children may adapt to a shared parenting arrangement more easily than others. Every child is different. While efforts should be made to minimize costs, the opinion of an expert in this area would almost always be helpful to the Court.
- The wishes of the child if ascertainable. The child’s preference is often relevant and the weight to be given to the child’s opinion would, as always, depend on, among other things, the age and maturity level of the child.
- The communication level between the parents and their ability to cooperate with each other and make decisions together. It is easy to say that parents should put aside their differences and do what is necessary to serve the best interests of their children but the Court must recognize human nature for what it is. Many couples are able to set aside their personal differences for the sake of their children and frequently are able to agree upon a shared parenting arrangement that works for them and their children. The Court sees it in agreements that accompany consent orders. However, frequently parents whose relationships have broken down are unable to achieve the necessary degree of cooperation in spite of their best efforts. A shared custody arrangement requires an unusual level of cooperation between the parents on a day in and day out basis. As Justice Coady said in Bryden(supra), it is “the rare case, the rare parents and the rare children” who can make shared parenting work.
- Ultimately the Court must consider what is in the best interests of the particular child who is the focus of the inquiry. It is difficult to argue against the fairness of shared parenting. If a parent truly loves his/her child and wants and is prepared to parent them, then it would seem completely unjust to them to have to accept anything less than an equal opportunity to do so. The Court’s focus however is on the child. The wishes of the parents, although important and require serious consideration, come second to what the Court believes is best for the child. (Hammond v. Nelson)
To learn more about shared parenting as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 today.
Child Protection: Can I get my child back because my section 7 Charter rights have been violated?
It is crucial to understand that family law Judges and courts will always put the child’s best interests above any other factor when rendering a decision.
In the case of Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County v. C. (W.T.), a biological mother argued that due to the delay in the court-proceeding process, she never had a chance in her appeal to take her child back from the adoptive parents, and thus her section 7 Charter rights were breached.
The case witnessed an institutional delay regarding the preparation of certain transcripts that allowed the adoptive parents to hold on to the child and create an uninterrupted four-year bond with no access awarded to the biological mother.
During that time, the biological mother put her life together and claimed to be sufficiently capable of mothering her child.
The Court recognized the progress she had made during the four year period and acknowledged that she would now be deemed fit to raise her child. However, the Court did not rule in her favor.
The Court of Appeal emphasized the bond the child had made with the adoptive parents during these four years, and declared that the child’s best interests were to be place above all other interests.
Therefore, although the biological mother was now deemed capable of raising her own child, and despite the fact that the delay in the appeal process was not her fault – ultimately breaching her section 7 Charter rights, the Court was obligated to put her child’s best interests first, and thus awarded the child to his/her adoptive parents.
To learn more about Child Protection as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 today.