Paper Co-Authored by Katie Hunter Endorsed Twice by Ontario Court of Appeal

The Ontario Court of Appeal has twice endorsed a paper co-authored by Nicholas C. Bala and Katie Hunter on the topic of parental alienation — first in 2019, and again in 2021.

First Endorsement: A.M. v. C.H. (2019)

In 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of A.M. v. C.H. found that the trial judge reasonably concluded that the child’s best interests mandated parenting time with the father and reconciliation therapy, over the child’s heated objections. “Without any conclusive evidence that such orders are ineffective — see for instance, Nicholas C. Bala and Katie Hunter, ‘Children Resisting Contact & Parental Alienation: Context, Challenges & Recent Ontario Cases’ (2015) .. this court should not and cannot interfere.” (para. 76)

This paper, authored by Nicholas C. Bala and Katie Hunter, notes that the legal profession can have a critical role in “encouraging” parents who engage in alienating behaviour to desist in such behaviour and focus on the interests of their children. Further, even though in many less severe alienation cases parents can be helped (or pressured) to reduce their conflict, in the most severe alienation cases contact with an alienating parent may need to be suspended to prevent emotional trauma to the child. In other cases, it may be best for the child to give up efforts to legally enforce contact with a rejected parent.

Second Endorsement: M.P.M. v. A.L.M. (2021)

In 2021, the Ontario Court of Appeal again referenced the Bala and Hunter paper. The ONCA used the paper to discuss that the social science evidence is inconclusive about whether reversal of custody orders (now called decision-making) in a situation of parental alienation is effective.

The paper outlines that transferring decision-making rights should be done only as “a last resort” in cases of parental alienation and that doing so has inherent risks. For instance, if courts delay in transferring decision-making rights too long, the transfer may not be effective when it commences. In addition, in the short-term a transfer of decision-making may have a negative effect on a child even if it benefits the child in the long term. Ultimately, any transfer of decision-making must be in a child’s best interests and the rejected parent and their advisors should have a detailed and child-focused plan to support the transition.

If you have questions about parental alienation, custody, or decision-making rights, please contact our lawyers today.