And the saga continues. While the contentious and bitter divorce between
former NFL superstar, Deion Sanders, and his wife of 12 years, Pilar Sanders
isn’t new news, it certainly got a bit juicier this week. The spouses
were in court over a matter resulting from an April 23 scuffle at their
Dallas home.
As reported by TMZ, Deion secretly filed for divorce in December, leaving
Pilar to find out about the divorce application on the internet.
According to court documents, Pilar sought to set aside their prenuptial
agreement on the grounds that Deion was a serial adulterer who committed
numerous indiscretions over the course of their marriage. Deion countered,
asserting that Pilar was just trying to extort money from him. Pilar Sanders
also launched a defamation lawsuit against her husband arising from a
tweet from Deion’s daughter, Deiondra, calling Pilar a “gold-digging
[expletive]” to which Deion responded by saying that the statement
could not be defamation because it was true.
Despite their pending divorce, the two continued to share their $5.7 million
home in Prospect, Texas.
On April 23, 2012, however, police were called to the Sanders residence
over an alleged scuffle between the spouses. On Twitter, Deion alleged
that Pilar and a friend “jumped him” in his room at their home.
Shortly thereafter, his estranged wife was taken to hospital after complaining
of a medical condition, and Deion tweeted a picture of him and his two
sons filling out police reports. Pilar then filed her own police report,
and both asked the court for a restraining order.
Last week, Texas State District Judge, Ray Wheless, ruled that Pilar’s
injuries were the result of Deion having acted in self-defence. Pilar
was ordered to stay 500 feet away from the couple’s home. In addition,
Justice Wheless awarded Deion interim custody pending a full hearing.
In Ontario, interim custody orders may be made pending a hearing, trial,
a final order, or while waiting an act by one of the parties. Both s.16(2) of the
Divorce Act and s. 21 and 72 of the
Children’s Law Reform Act deal with interim orders.
In this case, it is likely that Justice Wheless awarded interim custody
to Deion because of Pilar’s violent attack on her estranged husband.
The overriding consideration in determining custody and access is the best
interest of the child. The legislation’s preference for stability
and continuity can be seen in the test applied by the courts on an interim
order; namely, what temporary living arrangements are the least disruptive,
most supportive and most protective of the child. The status quo should
be maintained as closely as possible; this means that an interim order
may favour the existing situation or the parent who has
de facto custody immediately following separation (Marshall v Marshall).
It is also likely that Justice Wheless wanted to keep the couple’s
two sons in the Dallas home, where they permanently reside. This is the
least disruptive solution, and the one that allows the children to resume
their day-to-day routines with the least change.
The question everyone is asking is: will Deion Sanders be awarded sole
custody of the boys on a final basis?
While only time will tell, interim orders in Ontario are often determinative
of final custody orders. Although Deion may not be awarded sole custody,
he might be awarded primary residence. In making a final custody order,
the courts will once again take into consideration the best interests
of the children. In assessing a parent’s ability to act as a parent,
the courts will look at past conduct where the person has committed violence
or abuse against his or her spouse (s. 24(5)(b)).
However, if Deion hopes to maintain custody, he should be wary of limiting
Pilar’s access to the children in the interim period.
Although Deion has a restraining order against his estranged wife, it would
be unwise to make it impossible for their two sons to see their mother.
S. 16(10) of the
Divorce Act, known as the “friendly parent principle,” states that a “court
shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should
have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests
of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the
willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such
contact.”
Accordingly, the courts frown upon a parent limiting the children’s
access to the other parent simply because the relationship between the
spouses is strained.
In the Sanders case, there have never been any allegations of child abuse
or even poor parenting; as a result, it would be unwise for Deion to limit
Pilar’s access to the children.