Introduction
The sole issue the court in LeClair v. Johnson had to decide was a parenting schedule in the best interests of the child. Determining what the best interests were was complex given the circumstances of the case. Notably, the mother who had been the primary caregiver had a history of mental illness and bipolar disorder. In comparison, the father lived and worked hours away which made a consistent parenting schedule in the child’s best interests difficult to maintain.
Background
The parties in this case began their relationship in 2020 and cohabitated until July 18, 2024. The parties shared one daughter, while the mother had two sons from a previous relationship who also lived with her.
The mother historically suffered from mental health issues, which she acknowledged contributed to the breakdown of the family unit. On the day the parties separated, the mother had a mental health crisis where she was removed from the home, hospitalized, and diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The court issued a Release Order for the mother, including conditions such as no contact with the father and stipulating that she had to live with her own mother.
The parties did not have a formal parenting arrangement. In August of 2024, the father returned the child after exercising his parenting time. Since that date, the mother has not allowed the father any parenting time with the child. The father struggled to communicate with the mother in an attempt to resume parenting time and brought the motion as a result.
Analysis
In this case, the sole issue before the court was to determine a parenting schedule for the parties’ child. The father proposed a schedule that saw his parenting time increase until it reached a 2-2-3 schedule. The mother agreed that the father should have parenting time, but disagreed about the pace at which it should increase.
As the parties were not married, the issue of parenting time is governed by the Children’s Law Reform Act. Under this legislation, the court had to examine the best interests of the child. The primary consideration of which is the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.
The first concern regarding the child’s best interests was the geographic separation of the parties’ homes. The father lived in Ottawa, while the mother lived in Brockville, nearly 1.5 hours way. Furthermore, the father worked in Gatineau which required a commute of 2 hours each way from Monday to Friday.
The court noted that neither party described the home that the father lived in. Similarly, neither party mentioned in their affidavits whether the father had a child seat for his vehicle or could facilitate safe and efficient changes. Given these circumstances, and the exchange location, the court found it was not in the child’s best interests to commute with the father for parenting time on a weeknight.
The next concern the court addressed was the history of care of the child. The mother noted that she had historically been the primary caregiver, and given the child’s age, it was not reasonable for the child to have increased parenting time with the father, because she was still being breastfed. However, the court found that this idea of a child’s “tender years” to be antiquated. Instead, the court should give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the child’s best interests. Further, that the court should consider each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent. Here, the mother was not supporting the child’s relationship with the father.
Based on these facts, the court ordered a schedule awarding parenting time to the father on a gradually increasing basis. The mother was to bring the child to Ottawa and parenting had to be exercised within the city’s limits. The parenting order was temporary for 9 weeks, at which point the parties would be in a better position to present the court with evidence of how the child is faring with the parenting schedule.
Furthermore, the court recommended that the parties identify a method of communication that is satisfactory to them, given difficulties communicating in the past. The court recommended either the use of a parenting app, or a third party such as the maternal grandmother who had successfully communicated with the father in the past.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the court in LeClair v. Johnson ordered a parenting schedule in the child’s best interests given the circumstances. Although the mother had suffered from mental illness, this did not impact her ability to parent the child, as she had always been, and continued to be the primary caregiver. Likewise, although the father lived several hours away, the best interests of the child also included a meaningful relationship with both parents. Thus, the court did order parenting time for the father, who had not had any in nearly four months, but on a gradually increasing schedule. This schedule gave the parties the opportunity to test out the arrangement and determine if it worked well for the child. After the 9 weeks were over, the parties could reevaluate and discuss a future parenting schedule that aligns with the child’s best interests.