“The concept of parallel parenting initially emerged in the social work realm rather than on the legal landscape. In that context, it was used to describe arrangements where there was either a sole or joint custody order in effect, but the parties were granted the right to make daily decisions and establish their own routines for the children during their residential time (Peter G. Jaffe et. al., “Custody Disputes Involving Allegations of Domestic Violence: Toward a Differentiated Approach to Parenting Plans” (2008) 46 Fam. Ct. Rev. 500 at 516-17, cited in Lambert v. Peachman, 2016 ONSC 7443 (S.C.J.)). On the legal front, the concept of parallel parenting has morphed into a phrase that describes regimes respecting major decision-making. There are four main types of arrangements that have been described as “parallel parenting” regimes in the case-law, as follows:
-
-
-
- First, in some cases, the phrase has been used to describe an order that grants joint custody to the parents in all traditional major areas of decision-making such as medical, educational, religion and extracurricular activities, but which specifically states that each parent has the right to make daily decisions and to establish parenting styles and routines independently of each other. This arrangement is often referred to as “joint custody in the parallel parenting mode.” The phrase was used in this fashion in Mol v. Mol, 1997 CarswellOnt 3693 (S.C.J.), L.(A.) v. M. (C.), 2010 CarswellNB 58 (Q.B.)and by the trial judge in Ursic v. Ursic, 2004 CarswellOnt 8728 (S.C.J.), aff’d 2006 CanLII 18349 (ON CA), 2006 CarswellOnt 3335 (C.A.). While the term “parallel parenting” was used in these cases, the type of arrangement under consideration in these decisions was essentially a traditional joint custody arrangement, but which specified that the parties could make day-to-day decisions and establish their own routines during their residential time. In practice, a traditional joint custody order has been presumed to include these rights to make daily decisions and establish household routines. The real distinction between a traditional joint custody order and the orders made in this line of decisions is that the orders in these cases also included numerous detailed terms about day-to-day parenting issues to assist the parties in managing areas that have been problematic. In order to avoid confusion in terminology, it is helpful to refer to this type of order as a “multi-directional joint custody order.”
- A second line of cases has used the phrase “parallel parenting” to describe a regime which divides up the major areas of decision-making between the parties, such that each party has sole, final decision-making authority in specified areas (Moyer v. Douglas, 2006 CarswellOnt (S.C.J.); Hensel v. Hensel, 2007 CarswellOnt 7010 (S.C.J.); V.K. v. T.S., 2011 ONSC 4305(S.C.J.); Suchanek v. Lavoie, 20140 CarswellOnt 1236 (O.C.J.); Baetans v. Arthurs, 2013 CarswellOnt 5112 (Div. Ct.)). In the case of V.K., I described this type of arrangement as a “divided parallel parenting regime.” As in the first line of cases, these types of orders typically also give each parent the right to make general day-to-day decisions and establish daily routines during their residential time, and set out specific and very detailed terms regarding the management of problematic issues. Some cases have also referred to this type of arrangement as “joint custody in the parallel parenting mode.” Again, this causes confusion, since this type of order does not require the parties to make major decisions together. The descriptor “divided parallel parenting” is helpful for this type of arrangement, since it reflects that the major areas of decision-making are divided up between the parties.
- A third manner in which the courts have used the phrase “parallel parenting” is to describe an arrangement that essentially grants each parent the right to make major decisions respecting the child in all important areas of parental authority during their residential time, without the consent or involvement of the other parent (see Mol v. Mol, 1997 CarswellOnt 3693 (Gen. Div.); Ursic). As I indicated in V.K. the phrase “full parallel parenting” is helpful to describe this type of custodial arrangement, since the parents are essentially exercising full decision-making in all areas during their time with the child, but independently of each other. These types of orders typically require the parties to confer with each other before making a major decision. In Ursic, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld such an order on appeal.
- A fourth line of cases that have used the phrases “parallel parenting” or “joint custody in the parallel parenting mode” are those where the parties are granted joint custody, the order sets out specific steps they must take to resolve any differences about major decisions, and the order goes further to state that if they still cannot agree, each party has final say in specified areas of decision-making (see for example Andrade v. Kennelly, 2006 CarswellOnt 3762 (S.C.J.), aff’d 2007 ONCA 898 (CanLII), 2007 CarswellOnt 8271 (C.A.); Desjardins v. Desjardins, 2013 CarswellOnt 4496 (S.C.J.); Plugers v. Krasnay, 2014 ONSC 7078(S.C.J.), aff’d 2016 ONCA 279 (C.A.)). For the sake of clarity in terminology, I find it useful to refer to this type of arrangement as “joint custody with a divided parallel parenting fallback.”
- Finally, “parallel parenting” has been used to describe hybrid-type custodial arrangements, where the order requires the parties to make some major decisions together, but then divides up other areas of decision-making between the parties (see for example Roy v. Roy, 2004 CarswellOnt 8591 (S.C.J.), reversed in part 2006 CanLII 15619 (ON CA), 2006 CarswellOnt 2898 (C.A.); Grindley v. Grindley, 2012 O.J. No. 3717 (S.C.J), where the court ordered joint custody respecting the children’s activities, but divided parallel parenting in regard to all other areas of decision-making). In some cases, the orders add an additional layer of complexity by ordering a joint custody with a divided parallel parenting fallback plan in certain areas of decision-making. Again, in order to avoid confusion respecting terminology, I refer to this type of arrangement as a as a “hybrid” custody regime.”
-
-