BACKGROUND
This case involves a Motion to Change parenting arrangements.
The parties married in Ontario in 2011 and moved to Texas in 2015 for the father’s work. They separated in 2018, and a Texas court issued a divorce decree in 2019, designating the parents as “joint managing conservators” (akin to shared decision-making responsibility in Ontario). The mother returned to Ontario with the children in 2019, and the father returned in 2021, now working as a physical therapist in Buffalo, New York, while commuting from Ontario.
The Texas divorce decree was recognized by the Ontario Superior Court in 2021, and the parenting terms have since been modified by temporary Orders. These Orders addressed parenting exchanges, domestic violence and alcohol abuse allegations, and supervised parenting time with the paternal grandmother.
A 10-day trial is scheduled for May 2025. In the meantime, both parties seek temporary Orders: the mother seeks to modify parenting time, add a “no harassment” clause, and compel the father to disclose his employer’s identity. The father requests that the parenting provisions from the divorce decree remain unchanged, the removal of supervision, and permission to register the children for extracurricular activities.
ANALYSIS
It is well-established that courts should not disrupt status quo parenting arrangements on a temporary basis in the absence of evidence that the status quo is harmful to the children or that a change is necessary to meet their best interests. This reluctance to order an interim change comes from the commonsense proposition that it would be disruptive to the children to have change made on a temporary basis and then potentially have them reversed following a trial on the merits.
In this case, the court determined that the mother’s proposed changes were primarily aimed at reducing conflict and benefiting the mother rather than addressing the children’s best interests. There was insufficient evidence to show that the current arrangements were causing harm or negatively affecting the children, who appeared to be thriving under the existing Order. The court also noted that the proposed changes could be reconsidered at trial, where the issue of whether the parties’ relocation to Ontario from Texas constitutes a material change in circumstances would be addressed. The court also highlighted the importance of both parents reducing their interpersonal conflict for the sake of the children, suggesting that revisiting alternative dispute resolution methods could be beneficial.
As a result, the court maintained the status quo regarding parenting time and dismissed the motion, except for the disclosure of the father’s employer. While the father had resisted providing his employer’s information, the court ruled that full financial disclosure is required under the Family Law Rules, and misuse of such information would have serious consequences.
Additionally, the father’s request to lift the supervision Order was denied. Despite his progress with alcoholism, the court determined that maintaining the current arrangements is in the children’s best interests as they have been thriving under this structure.
No costs were awarded due to the lack of success in both motions.