Recent case: Parenting time and inflammatory comments
Gill v. Gill 202 ONSC 6803: This case looks at parenting time amidst high conflict between parents and the courts disinterest in seeing inflammatory comments about one party to the litigation.
After the parents’ child, E, died in a tragic drowning accident, the father unilaterally assumed sole care of the parties’ remaining child, J. The mother moved for a shared parenting arrangement for the three-year-old and sought to have J returned to her care during the week and the father’s care on the weekends, as this was the arrangement that mirrored the parents’ parenting arrangements before E’s tragic death. The mother also has 2 kids from a previous marriage.
The father spent much of his time trying to denigrate the mother in this case. While attempting to show her parental unfitness, he pointed to the mother’s alleged irresponsibility and drug use over 25 years ago at the age of 16. He also personally attacked the mother regarding her own past trauma and sought the sympathy of the court for his loss.
Justice Kurz noted that while the father’s anguish at the loss of his child is understandable and worthy of the court’s compassion, his comments about the mother who suffered an equal loss, diminishes his credibility in the eyes of the court. It tells the court that he is so consumed by his unchecked animosity towards the mother that he is willing to say just about anything to diminish her in the eyes of the court.
The only independent evidence provided to the court with respect to both parents’ ability to parent was through the local children’s aid society. The CAS became involved with the parents after a referral from Halton Women’s Place where the mother had reported verbal and physical abuse by the father before E’s tragic death. At the time the mother was interviewed for this, CAS noted that they did not have any child protection concerns. The CAS worker’s opinion on the relationship between the parents was that it was dysfunctional and abusive.
In reaching a decision on parenting time, Justice Kurz states that the father was simply not open to the notion that E’s death was a tragic, senseless accident. Even though the father berated the mother for her alleged instability, mental health and inadequate parenting, he knew everything relevant to her parenting ability before he left the matrimonial home. The father left the mother with the sole responsibility of making necessary repairs to the property all while parenting three young children. Justice Kurtz states that if the father felt J was unsafe in the mother’s care, he should have gone to court rather than assume the sole right to parent the child.
Justice Kurz also mentioned that he was required to consider the willingness of each parent to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent. Since the father was unable to moderate his comments to the court, he fears what he may be saying to and doing with the child in private regarding the mother. Whereas Justice Kurz felt that since the mother favoured shared parenting time and did not reciprocate the father’s inflammatory comments to the court, he felt the mother’s plan of care was more appropriate.