In a recent trial addressing issues of parenting and child support, the court made a significant ruling that highlights the importance of prioritizing the best interests of the child. The case involved a 12-year-old child who primarily lived with the mother. The mother, along with counsel from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, sought an order to deny the father any parenting time, while the father requested a graduated parenting schedule.
The legal journey began in August 2019 when the mother initiated an application that led to an uncontested trial order in December of that year. This order granted the mother sole custody, primary residence, and alternating weekend access with the father, contingent on him proving adequate accommodation for overnight visits. The court also imputed an income of $134,000 to the father for child support purposes. Despite this order never being appealed or set aside, the father only formally responded in March 2020, and the proceedings continued, with both parties attending multiple court conferences.
As the father resumed parenting time, conflict arose. The child expressed significant anxiety about these visits, citing her father’s disturbing spiritual discussions, which included sermons about protecting her from the devil and narratives about “aliens, demons, and devils populating the universe.” These interactions frightened the child, leading her to refuse further visits with her father.
The trial judge determined that the child’s best interests were not served by continuing the father’s parenting time at this stage. Several factors contributed to this decision: the father’s failure to provide proof of suitable accommodation as required by the court, his disregard for court proceedings (evidenced by frequent absences), his non-compliance with court orders, and the child’s strong wishes against seeing him. Additionally, the judge found that the father could not be trusted to avoid discussing topics that distressed the child.
Furthermore, the court adjusted the father’s child support obligations to better reflect his apparent income, despite his failure to submit complete tax returns.
This case underscores the court’s commitment to safeguarding the emotional well-being of children and ensuring that parenting arrangements truly serve their best interests: Anglin v. Elliott, 2024 ONSC 3846 (Jarvis J.).
0 Comments