Rigillo v. Rigillo was a child custody/access appeal decision. At trial the judge limited the father's parenting time to the minimal amount that he had secured under a without prejudice temporary order where the mother was the primary caregiver. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that it is mandatory for a court to consider the MPT principle.
R.B. v. A.H. is an interim child custody access decision from the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court. It is remarkable for some startling yet what should be patently obvious observations with respect to the importance of maintaining children's bonds with both parents in a meaningful way.
This 2019 child custody/access grandparent case - Ninkovic v. Utjesinovic - comes from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The case is a good example of how the court may overturn a parent's decision and allow access to a grandparent.
In Part 1, I applauded the positive measures in this new government initiative - Bill C-78. Unfortunately, there are a number of serious deficits in this proposed reform of child custody legislation. I believe that there are tenable solutions available to signficantly improve Bill C-78.
Good Tune-up, But Still Driving With Square Wheels
Child Custody law needs reform! The Family Rights Movement in Canada has long been advocating for real change in our broken child custody system. In 2014, Bill C-560 was voted down at 2nd Reading in Parliament, even though the then ruling Conservative Party officially supported Equal Shared Parenting. Now, the majority Liberal Government has introduced Bill C-78. It is an admirable "first move". It is not enough.
By Jenny Kirshen of the Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre
This story is stranger than fiction! A foster parent couple has held the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton, Ontario accountable for violating their constitutional right to freedom of religion. Child welfare law transitions into constitutional law. The Children's Aid Society ran roughshod over the foster parents' religious beliefs, summarily terminating their foster care of two youngsters. And it was all over the Easter Bunny! Unbelievable? You bet. True? Absolutely!
A Family Shelter for abused men and children is to be established in the Toronto area but it needs your help and support. Such a shelter is an all important social service, hitherto lacking in Canada. Read more about the shelter here: Family Shelter for Abused Men and Children. Without a doubt there are indeed male victims of Intimate Partner Violence (Domestic Violence). They have been a very underserviced population but they need our help just as much as female victims of IPV - DV. It has taken a visionary organization such as the Canadian Centre for Men and Children to undertake the preparatory work in an exemplary fashion. Please consider helping out.
Equal Shared Parenting within child custody law is very much a thriving concept in Ontario. Superior Court Justice W.D. Newton has penned what I believe to be a very important decision: Balke v. O'Connor. Although it was decided on 24 April 2017, remarkably the case has received no further mention other than a brief summary in "Epstein's This Week in Family Law", 2017, Issue #35 (4 September 2017). The decision deserves to have a much wider swath and this blog post is a step in that direction. [Added note dated 2 Feb. 2020: Balke v. O'Connor has now received favourable judicial mention on three occasions according to a Westlaw search.]
I don't like Separation Agreements. Many would surely disagree. In my view, Separation Agreements are not always that easy to enforce. It is much better to have a court order, especially if you seek to enforce a parenting plan. While the provincial government has a government agency mandated to enforce support orders, no similar agency exists with respect to enforcing parenting provisions. So, I don't like Separation Agreements.