“COVID-19 cases are on the rise in Ontario. Do I really have to facilitate my ex’s access time with our kids?” The amount of COVID-19 cases in Ontario continues to increase. As of April 10th , there are more than 6,200 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in the Province, with the majority of cases in the Greater Toronto Area – Global News Since this pandemic began, the Canadian Government has been urging Canadians to do one thing: stay home. But for many Canadian children with separated parents, this is not practicable, as those families likely have an existing agreement or court order specifying the duration and frequency of each parents’ time with the children. Many separated parents may be tempted to interfere with the existing parenting arrangements amid COVID-19, citing safety concerns as the rationale, but the courts in Ontario have been pointedly clear that this is not appropriate. Worse, if a parent does unilaterally alter the child(ren)’s schedule with the other parent, the Courts have been clear that there may be consequences for that parent once regular court operations resume – Canlii According to Justice Pazaratz of the Ontario Superior Court – Canlii, existing parenting arrangements and schedules should continue in the majority of cases, while potentially making changes to transportation or exchange locations to ensure physical distancing guidelines are followed – Global News If an issue does arise with respect to the existing parenting arrangements, such that it is no longer safe to facilitate parenting-time between your child and your ex, you may meet the test for “urgency”, which would allow your matter to be put before a Judge. In order for your matter to be considered “urgent”, based on the jurisprudence to date in this unprecedented area: Your concern must be immediate, meaning that in no circumstances could it wait for resolution at a later date; Your concern must be serious enough in that it significantly affects the health, safety or economic well-being of you, your ex and/or your children; and Your concern has to be rooted in real evidence. It cannot be speculative or theoretical. If your matter is not urgent, the Courts are encouraging parents, now more than ever, to work together to show flexibility, creativity and common sense — to promote both the physical and emotional well-being of children. Children always need the love, guidance and emotional support of both of their parents, but they need it even more during these unprecedented, troubling and scary times – Canlii If one parent is self-quarantined after travel or possible exposure to the virus, and direct physical contact with his/her child is therefore inappropriate at this time, it is important that parents work together to ensure that a child’s relationship with that parent is not negatively affected in any way. Various communication outlets such as Facetime, Zoom, Skype, etc. can help with that and your willingness to engage your child(ren) in these types of video chats demonstrates your ability to support and encourage your child(ren)’s relationship with their other parent and act in accordance with your child(ren)’s best interests. For more information on these issues, as well as information as to how COVID-19 affects child and spousal support, listen to episodes 45, 46 and 47 of the Ontario Family Law Podcast by John Schuman, Certified Specialist in Family Law and managing partner of the Family Law Group at Devry Smith Frank LLP – Devry Law Podcasts By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, COVID-19, Family LawApril 13, 2020September 30, 2020
Do I still have to let my kids travel with my ex for March Break amid COVID-19? We are all aware of the current COVID-19 pandemic. Yesterday, the Ontario Government announced the closure of all publicly funded schools for two weeks following March Break, which is set to commence this Monday, March 16th. March Break tends to be one of the busiest travel seasons… but not so much this year. While most of us with travel plans have made the decision to cancel or reschedule, others are taking advantage of the cheap cost of travel and have decided to take the risk and travel anyway. So what happens if your ex-partner is insisting upon taking your children away for March Break during his or her parenting time with the kids? Do they have to go? Do you have to sign the travel consent form as required by many international laws and custom officials? The short answer: no. But you should be aware that if you do refuse to sign a travel consent form allowing your children to go on vacation with your ex, he or she may bring forward a Family Court motion, seeking to dispense with your consent to travel. When a parent is unreasonably withholding consent, the travelling party tends to be successful on this type of a motion, so long as the proposed travel is in the child’s best interests. But, in this time of COVID-19, it will likely be very difficult for a Family Court Judge to find such travel to be in the child’s best interests. Not only does the child risk being quarantined in the foreign jurisdiction amid increasing coronavirus concerns and border shutdowns, there is the very real and additional risk that child may actually contract the virus. Even if your child isn’t quarantined while away or ill with the virus, it is highly probable that he or she will be quarantined upon return to Canada. This would mean you – the non-travelling parent and presumed healthy one – wouldn’t be able to see your child for the entire quarantine period. On top of that, there is a chance that the “self-isolation period” for your child could extend past the school shutdown ordered by the Ontario Government. A prolonged absence from school could negatively impact the education of children who need additional assistance in school (exceptional pupils). This is a factor a judge will consider if asked to decide whether or not to allow a trip. Whenever you go to Family Court, it is important to make sure you have evidence to present to the judge about what truly is in your child’s best interests. All of these considerations suggest that travel outside Canada is currently not in a child’s best interests (even though it in normal circumstances, most judges tend to support children travelling). So say NO to travel… for now. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, COVID-19, Family LawMarch 13, 2020September 30, 2020
17 year old, Driven to Therapy Without Parents’ Consent A 17-year-old High school student was driven to therapy appointments by the school chaplain without parents’ permission. Is this even legal? This question touches on a lot of rights of adolescents under Ontario’s Health and Education Laws. To start, in almost every situation, someone who is 17-years-old has the right to go to therapy without parental consent. The work of both psychologists and psychotherapists is covered by Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (because those are both self governing health professions). Under section 4 of the Health Care Consent Act, every person is presumed to be able to understand the information relevant to treatment and the consequences for making a treatment decision. There are no age limits on what “person” means, so everyone is entitled to make their own health care decisions (including therapy decisions.) The only exception to this is where the health care professional has reasonable grounds to believe that the person does not have that understanding. A young child or a person with a serious mental illness or a developmental delay may not be able to have that understanding. But, unless the health care professional believes there is a problem, any person, including a child, can consent to treatment, including psychotherapy. It is also important to note that section 15 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 recognizes that a person (including a child) can have the required understanding to consent to one type of treatment even if he or she cannot understand others. The impact of the Act is that a child can direct the treatment he or she understands, even when there are treatments the child does not understand. Check out this page for more about children directing their own health care. Note that leading institutions, such as the Hospital for Sick Children (“SickKids”) are very careful to respect the rights of children to direct, or participate in directing their treatment. Additionally, some practice areas, such as Adolescent Medicine Specialists, usually assist older children without the involvement of their parents. So, a child getting therapy without a parent’s permission is not “against the law.” The Code of Ethics for Canadian Psychologists is consistent with Ontario Law. It does caution psychologists to be careful around vulnerable groups and people who may not have the capacity (such as children), especially when there are multiple people involved in the therapy or aspects of it. But, that is not the case here. The Professional Standards of Practice for Registered Psychotherapists in Ontario specifically reference the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 and adopt its principals. So, the therapist did not do anything wrong either. Family Law does not apply to your chaplain because he or she is not acting as your parent. It does not give your parents a right to interfere with your therapy either. Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act addresses custody rights when parents are separated. Section 18(2) of that law says the custody provisions apply to children up to the age of 18. The term custody, which will soon no longer exist under Canadian Law, includes the right to make medical decisions. However, that law does not supersede the rights of the child under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996. Section 74(2) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act allows Children’s Aid Societies to intervene when a child is not receiving treatment to prevent the child from suffering harm. That section explicitly states that the Society is not able to intervene when a child has the capacity to make treatment decisions under the Health Care Consent Act. Although, there have been court cases where the Children’s Aid Society has challenged whether the child has capacity. The Chaplain is not a member of any recognized self-governing profession and is either an employee or a volunteer with the school board or school. Things are little greyer there. Since you agreed to go with the Chaplain, she was not kidnapping you or otherwise committing a criminal offence, but it is not clear that taking you out of school is permitted by the Education Act. Under section 21 of the Education Act, every person between the age of 6 and 18 is required to go to school every school day. Under section 21(5) of the Education Act, it is the duty of parents to make sure their children do attend school. The Education Act does provide some excuses for not attending school, one of which is because the student is “unable to attend school by reason of sickness or other unavoidable cause.” Your circumstances may or may not have met that criteria. But, the duty of your parents to make sure you attend school probably gives them some right to have a say in whether you can “skip school”. That they were not informed at all, might be a problem. Depending on which School Board your school belongs to, there may be School Board Policies or insurance requirements that prevent a school employee or volunteer from transporting a student for a non-school related matter. That could get your Chaplain into trouble with the Board. And might have led to bigger trouble if there had been a car accident. However, those would have been internal School Board issues and not necessarily legal ones – unless the Board decided to fire your Chaplain. Under Health Law, Family Law and Education Law, your Chaplain did not do anything that was clearly illegal. And, it may have been the right thing to do for you. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawMarch 3, 2020September 30, 2020
How Do I Convince a Family Court Judge That My Ex-spouse Is Incapable of Being a Good Parent? Differential parenting styles can have a negative effect on the family and is a frequent cause of separation or divorce. With that being said, concerns about the changes in a spouse’s behaviour can also lead to the end of the relationship, ultimately causing stress, anxiety and for one party to believe the other is incapable of being what they believe to be a good parent. Encompassing all of these concerns could also mean one parent may prevent the children from having regular contact with the other parent. However, voluntarily leaving the matrimonial home and taking the children, or otherwise acting unilaterally will indisputably create a very unfavourable position for one parent in family court. If children are going to be denied post-separation contact with a parent, then invariably, the parents will be heading to family court – perhaps on an emergency motion to restrict or allow a parent to have parenting time. Any parent going to family court on the premise of an emergency motion has to convince the judge that there is reason for this request. It is imperative that the reasoning behind the petition is compelling enough for the judge to agree. Here are some tips on how to obtain the correct parenting order: Family court judges typically aren’t interested in how one parent feels about the other parent – even if that parent has been wronged. Ontario (and Canadian) Family Law stipulates that the child’s best interest is the only factor to be considered. A parent who is focused on the children’s perspective and best tells the judge what the children need will be the parent who succeeds. The parent who appears to be focused otherwise, will lose. 1. Parents have to base their case on evidence, not speculation, no matter how incompetent one parent believes the other parent may be. Judges only take into account what the evidence shows. Judges will not base a decision on suspicions unless there is some evidence those suspicions are correct. 2. If a parent has not displayed evidence of bad parenting, there is no basis on which a judge can rule that he or she is a bad parent. The only exception to this is where there is objective evidence (not just the other parent saying) that a parent has threatened to harm the children or has expressed comments that sound like he or she might allow the children to be in harms way. 3. Judges view parents who try to undermine a child’s relationship with the other parent as a bad parent. They believe it shows poor judgment. So, if there are texts, social media posts, instant messages, emails or other evidence of a parent conveying damaging things about the other parent, that can assist the judge in making a determination. 4. Domestic violence, against any family member, is also a sign of bad parenting. Section 24(4) of the Children’s Law Reform Act specifically requires a judge to consider all forms of domestic violence when evaluating parenting. However, judges will not tolerate any party who makes false or exaggerated claims of domestic violence to gain an advantage in family court. 5. Finally, it is almost certain that a judge will view a parent who defies court orders, or will not cooperate with a parenting coordinator, as a bad parent. But again, a judge will not assume that a parent will breach a court order unless there is some evidence of the parent doing so in the past or there is clear of evidence of the parent’s intention to breach an Order. The key to convincing a judge, even on an emergency motion for child custody, is to have evidence of a parent’s bad parenting and to express those concerns from the child’s perspective – how do the concerns negatively impact the child. Once that is established, it is important to tell the judge, in light of the parenting concerns, what parenting arrangement is in the child’s best interest so the judge can order it. Protecting the well-being of your children should always be your top priority. For assistance, contact certified specialist in family law, John P. Schuman of Devry Smith Frank LLP. Contact him directly at 416-446-5080 or email john.schuman@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawJanuary 28, 2020September 9, 2022
What happens when ex-spouses have opposing views on whether or not to vaccinate their children? This polarizing issue has become the subject of significant media coverage as anti-vaccine groups are becoming increasingly vocal. One father even launched a GoFundMe campaign in order to appeal an arbitrator’s decision that allowed the mother to refuse to vaccinate their children. The arbitrator cited the work of anti-vaccine activists to support his decision, and as a result, a number of experts have come forward to testify for free during the appeal of the decision. HOW HAVE THE COURTS QUALIFIED ANTI-VACCINE EXPERTS IN PAST CASES AND HOW HAVE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS BEEN DECIDED AS A RESULT? In G. (C.M.) v. S. (D.W.), 2015 ONSC 2201, the father, in this case, refused consent for his 10-year-old daughter to travel unless she was vaccinated. As a result, he brought a motion to change the joint custody order to sole custody when it came to medical-related decisions. The hearing went on to become a battle of the experts. The motion judge found that the mother demonstrated a “lack of objectivity and thoroughness of research” and went on to critique the experts she put forward for their dearth of objective facts, research and literature that was peer-reviewed. The motion judge also considered the evidence of the amicus curiae who pointed out that Canadian Public Health Policy is in favour of vaccinations which has led to the decline or elimination of potentially fatal illnesses. Their testimony was found to be based on many years of research and clinical participation in the field of infectious diseases. Furthermore, the Immunization of School Pupils, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER I.1, requires the immunization of school children unless exempted for religious beliefs or as a matter of conscience. In the end, the motion judge granted the father decision-making ability with respect to vaccinations and ordered the mother to no longer give the child negative information about vaccines. This decision was circulated and heavily cited by the judge in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision W. (P.) v. M. (C.), 2017 NSSC 91. The judge, in this case, found that the mother’s rigid and inflexible approach when it came to vaccinations demonstrated an inability to make medical decisions that were in the child’s best interests. As a result, the father was granted sole decision-making authority with respect to medical decisions, including vaccinations without the mother’s consent. Finally, in Di Serio v. Di Serio, 2002 CanLII 49568, the motion judge found that the father’s affidavit and book of authorities citing various anti-vaccine articles were not considered properly tendered evidence from a qualified expert. The mother called the children’s family physician to provide an opinion that they are in need of childhood immunizations and again the Immunization of School Pupils Act was cited. As a result, the motion judge found it was in the children’s best interests to be vaccinated. Based on the case law, it appears that the father appealing the arbitrator’s decision has a fighting chance in court. Unfortunately, since the decision was rendered, his two young children contracted whooping cough, an infection avoided by one of the standard childhood vaccinations. Proponents of both sides of the debate will surely be closely following and anticipating the decision’s release. For more information about decision making authority when it comes to the medical care of your children contact our family law group. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawDecember 20, 2019September 30, 2020
Our Child Has Come to Live with Me, How Do I Stop My Child Support Payments to My Ex? Child support payments are based on where the child actually lives, not where a Court Order or Separation Agreement says that they are living, or should be living. Since child support is the right of the child, it is also irrelevant as to why the child is residing in one place as opposed to another; child support goes to the parent with whom a child is primarily living with. However when a child’s situation changes, the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) does not have the authority to stop collecting child support. As with many instances within family law, there are various ways in which one can resolve a situation. If both parents agree that the child has changed homes, is not longer entitled to child support (note: child support does not always end when a child turns 18), or is living on his or her own, then they can write to the FRO and request a cease on further child support payments. Subsequently, the FRO will verify the information with each parent before honouring the request. Alternatively, the receiving parent can obtain a withdrawal form as a means of notifying the FRO. When a child changes residence, child support payments should not be terminated. The parent whom the child was living with initially, is now responsible for making child support payments. Because of this, some parents are reluctant to acknowledge that a child has moved. However, not paying child support, and not agreeing that you should stop receiving child support, is highly frowned upon in family court. Cases whereby one parent refuses to adhere to the guidelines, often results in having to sit in front of a judge. Only a judge can look at the circumstances and determine which parent should be paying support and how much (it is also possible to arbitrate those issues if both parents agree) The judge will inform the FRO on how to proceed. Many people may avoid seeking the appropriate change to child support because of the complexities of the family court’s procedures. The Ontario Government’s Child Support Online Recalculation Service only changes support when a support payer’s income changes in a particular way; it cannot change support because a child’s circumstances changed. Fortunately, there is a simplified court procedure for changing an existing support order. That procedure is based on the premise that there is no dispute about the facts of the case. Where a child has clearly changed homes, that fact should be clear to the Court. Ideally, when a parent serves a “Motion to Change Support”, that will be enough for the other parent to acknowledge the child has moved and agree to a change in support. A party who fails to acknowledge the obvious and is ultimately forcing a parent through the court process, can expect to pay the majority, or all, of the other party’s legal fees. Certified Specialist in Family Law John Schuman, has extensive experience assisting complicated child support and custody/access parenting matters. Contact John Schuman at 416-446-5869 or john.schuman@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawDecember 12, 2019July 5, 2023
Do I Have to Give Half Our House to My Ex-Spouse Even Though I Paid for it Myself? This blog is co-written by our former articling student, Janet Son. With the rising costs of housing in the GTA, the question of what happens to property after divorce can loom heavily on those who enter into marriage with significant assets. In Ontario, the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, (the “FLA”) is the legislation that governs the property rights of separating spouses including the “equalization of net family property”. Generally speaking, the purpose of equalization is to calculate the value of assets accumulated during the course of the marriage and to have it divided equally between the spouses, subject to exclusions such as gifts and inheritances. However, it does not actually change the ownership interest of the property itself. There are special rules that apply to the matrimonial home which is property where at the time of separation was “ordinarily occupied by the person and his or her spouse as their family residence”. Even if only one party owned the matrimonial home prior to marriage, the full net value of the home is equalized. This leads to the question: is it worth it to get a marriage contract (also known as a pre-nuptial agreement) to protect your property that you purchased prior to marriage and are now using as the matrimonial home? In Martin v. Watts, 2018 ONSC 2622, clauses in the parties’ marriage contract regarding the division of their matrimonial home upon relationship dissolution were upheld. The wife in this case used her assets to purchase a property that would become their matrimonial home. The parties entered into a marriage contract in 1990 that stipulated if the parties separated, the wife would receive a return of her cash contribution plus 25% free of any claim by the husband, with the balance divided equally. This provision would apply when there was a sale or buy out of the matrimonial home. The husband brought a motion to have the matrimonial home sold and for him to be given carriage of the sale. He relied on s. 52(2) of the FLA, which provides that “a provision in a marriage contract purporting to limit a spouse’s rights under Part II (Matrimonial home) is unenforceable.” However, the motion judge upheld the marriage contract and reminded the husband that the FLA does not actually create ownership rights so he does not have the authority to force the sale of the home. As long as the “intent of the contract is sufficiently clear, a domestic contract may provide an exemption from the equalization provisions of the legislation”. In other words, a carefully worded marriage contract could protect your property from equalization even when it is the matrimonial home. For more information on the specific wording required, speak to certified family law specialist Katelyn Bell on 416-446-5837 “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawNovember 19, 2019July 5, 2023
How are “deals” made on “Shark Tank” and “Dragon’s Den” valued when it comes to family law? This blog is co-written by our former articling student, Janet Son. The public got a behind the scenes look at how the deals made on reality television shows “Shark Tank” and “Dragon’s Den” really take place though Robert Herjavec’s family law case with ex-wife Diane Plese. The lengthy decision Justice Mesbur looked at how the “investments” Mr. Herjavec made on the shows are valued in relation to his Net Family Property. In 2003 Mr. Herjavec established a company called the Herjavec Group (“THG”) and during his appearances on the Shark Tank and Dragon’s Den, Mr. Herjavec caused THG to invest in some of the companies that were “pitched” during the episodes. The independent business valuators were tasked with determining the value of the Shark Tank and Dragon’s Den investments in order to value THG. There were two approaches: Mr. Herjavec’s valuators Duff & Phelps simply looked at the investment’s book value and Ms. Plese’s expert, Mr. Beaton predicted that at least one of the investments would turn a profit and made an “implied investment” calculation. However, Justice Mesbur found that the deals made on the reality shows are for entertainment purposes primarily and there is no real value or potential value of these investments besides the upfront amount already invested. Though there is a bidding process, offers made and final handshakes on the episodes, there are no binding contracts made between the Sharks/Dragons and the entrepreneurs. The usual due diligence takes place after the cameras finish rolling and the Sharks/Dragons then decide whether or not they still want to finance these companies. Oftentimes, the terms of the deal made while filming change drastically after this process. Justice Mesbur found there is no expectation of profit from any of these investments, therefore no expectation that they will increase THG’s value. In the end, the approach taken by Duff & Phelps to use the book value was accepted instead of the inflated value of their “potential growth”. If you have questions about how you or your spouse’s business and investments could be valued contact family lawyer Katelyn Bell at 416-446-5837 “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawOctober 22, 2019September 30, 2020
After the Family Court Changes a Final Order, is the Original Order Still Enforceable? Family Law is all about changing family dynamics. Families do not stop changing just because a court makes a final order. Parenting arrangements and child support are particularly prone to changes because children’s lives change as they get older and child support is centered around parents’ incomes, which can vary each year. Consequently, there is a simpler court process to change most Family Court Orders and an online child support recalculation service that is available to many parents to adjust Child Support Orders. The entire procedure pertaining to changing an order, is based on the premise that almost all of the issues related to the separation have been addressed in the original final court order. The court process is significantly shorter because the Family Court judge is only making minor adjustments to reflect how the family has changed since the original order. In addition, since decisions and settlements on issues such a property division are not affected by on-going changes to the family, these orders can be very difficult to change. When a judge changes a Family Court Final Order, he or she only changes elements that must be revisited because of a change in the family’s circumstances. If the circumstances have not changed to warrant modification of the Family Court Final Order, then the judge will leave things the way they were initially. Moreover, the new Order will specify precisely which paragraphs of the original Order the new Order is changing. The remainder of the Final Order remains in effect and the parties can enforce the terms already established. That being said, one change a judge can make is to “terminate” a particular term of an Order, such as a requirement that one party pay support to the other. If a Court “terminates” a term of a previous Order, than those terms are “dead” and neither party can enforce them. Until a judge has specifically changed or terminated a term of a Final Order, that term remains in full force and effect. On the contrary, Temporary Orders are slightly different. The purpose of a Temporary Order is to address issues between separated spouses or parents until their matter goes to trial or is settled on a final basis. Once the case has concluded, Temporary Orders are no longer needed. Final Orders have the effect of terminating all Temporary Orders. Once a Final Order is in effect, any outstanding Temporary Orders are no longer enforceable – unless the Final Order states that specific terms of a Temporary Order continue to be in effect. If you need to enforce a Court Order, then it is likely that one party is not adhering to the terms. The best way to protect yourself, your children and your financial security, is to find out how the law applies specifically to your situation and what steps you should take moving forward. If you need assistance with family separation, contact certified family law specialist, John P. Schuman of Devry Smith Frank LLP. John has extensive experience in assisting clients with difficult legal issues, such as enforcement of Court Orders, or the difficult situations that lead to ultimately attaining a Court Order. Contact him directly at 416-446-5080 or email john.schuman@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawSeptember 5, 2019July 5, 2023
My estranged wife is denying me access to our baby. She refuses to communicate with me and I am yet to meet our new-born child. Is there something I can do? Ontario Family Court judges generally have a very dim impression of parents, mothers or fathers, who deny their children the opportunity to have a relationship with both parents. Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act requires that judges give children of married parents the maximum possible contact with each parent that is consistent with the child’s best interests. Section 20(1) of Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act states that, until decided otherwise, parents are equally entitled to custody of a child. A significant exception to this is when one parent leaves the child in the care of the other parent at separation as this action typically connotes that by doing so, the leaving parent gives the other parent temporary full custody of the children. That being said, the foregoing principle may not apply in a situation whereby the separation occurred prior to the child’s birth and the leaving parent was not actually given the opportunity to leave the child. Even for very young children, especially infants, current research says that frequent contact with both parents is ideal to allow the children to form a relationship with their parents and vice versa. When one parent refuses to allow the other parent to have contact with a child, it could in fact become a situation where it is possible to obtain an emergency family court order; however, if deemed possible, parents should first try parenting mediation with a parenting professional, before going to court. The parenting professional can help the parents understand the child needs and help them work out a parenting plan that best suits the child’s needs at each stage of development. If one parent does not agree to mediation, it is still beneficial to suggest this option to the other parent because Ontario family courts prefer parents take a more amicable approach, as opposed to one that is likely to cause conflict. Nonetheless, if a parent is denying a child the opportunity to have a relationship with both parents, it is always advised to seek advice from an experienced legal professional. For assistance with family separation and child access, contact experienced and certified specialist in family law, John P. Schuman of Devry Smith Frank LLP. Contact him directly at 416-446-5080 or email john.schuman@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawMay 28, 2019September 30, 2020