OVERVIEW
This case pertains to a father’s request for extended parenting time on a temporary basis.
BACKGROUND
The parties married on May 2, 2009 and separated on May 3, 2023, when the father vacated the family home. The parties have 3 young children, whose primary residence post-separation has been with the mother. The father exercises parenting time with the children. The father now wishes to have shared parenting; the mother wants to continue having primary parenting.
ISSUE
What parenting schedule should the court order on a temporary basis?
ANALYSIS
Best Interests of the Child
Section 16(1) of the Divorce Act states that a parenting order must only be made according to the best interests of the child.
Sections 16(2) and 16(3) of the Divorce Act outline the factors concerning the child’s best interests. The relevant factors for this case are:
- Each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;
- The history of care of the child;
- The child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
- The child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
- Any plans for the child’s care; and
- The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child.
Status Quo
Courts have long ruled that in making an interim parenting order, a court should generally maintain the status quo in the absence of important reasons suggesting that change is necessary in the child’s best interests.
To change the status quo, there must be evidence that clearly and unequivocally establishes that the status quo is not in the child’s best interests. The Court also noted that the status quo in a recent separation involves looking at the status quo pre-separation.
Applying the Law
Best interests of the Child
Each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse
The father argued that the mother is refusing to expand his parenting time with the children, despite his repeated requests, in order to position herself as the primary parent.
The Court did not agree with the father. In May 2023, the mother advised the father that she wished to follow the original post-separation parenting schedule. The father responded by refusing to see the children unless the mother agreed to shared parenting. To that effect, the father did not see his children for one month. Despite this, the mother agreed to reinstitute the parenting arrangement, even though she could have refused same unless ordered by the court. She even expanded the father’s parenting time.
Thus, the Court found that the mother supported the children’s relationship with the father.
The history of care of the child
Pre-separation, the mother was often left caring for the children on her own while the father went on frequent snowmobiling trips for days at a time. Further, the mother was the primary parent even when the father took paternity leave for 5 weeks. Additionally, when the parties’ eldest child started school, the mother reduced her work hours so she could drop off and pick up her children from school and daycare on time. This was the status quo pre-separation.
The child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability
The children are ages 5, 3, and 5 months. The Court stated that for children ages 3 to 5, if both parents were employed outside the home at the time of separation and were equally involved in the child’s care, it may be appropriate to have an arrangement with roughly equal parenting time.
However, as stated above, the father was not equally involved in the children’s care at the time of separation. Further, the Court determined the current parenting regime provided the father with parenting time equal to or exceeding what the Guide recommends. The Court also noted that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the child’s best interests.
The child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained
The children are ages 5, 3, and 5 months. Thus, the children are too young to be able to express their views in a meaningful way.
Any plans for the child’s care
The parties have adjusted their work schedules in order to provide appropriate care for the children, which includes assistance from their respective families.
The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child
The parties are equally capable of caring for the children. With respect to the infant child, the mother voluntarily agreed to increase the child’s parenting time with the father at a reasonable pace.
CONCLUSION
The father’s motion is dismissed. Maintaining the status quo would not be contrary to the children’s best interests.