“Parallel parenting is a parenting arrangement that has evolved, in order to address high conflict cases where neither a sole decision-making order to one parent nor a cooperative joint decision-making order will meet a child’s best interests. Parallel parenting orders generally take one of two different forms. A “divided parallel parenting” regime, in which each parent is given separate areas of parental decision-making authority, independent of the other parent, or a “full parallel parenting” regime, in which parents are given the right to make major decisions regarding the child while the chid is with them without the consent of the other parent.
In V.K. v. T.S., Chappel, J. thoroughly reviewed the case law and set out the factors that the court should consider in determining whether a parallel parenting regime, rather than sole decision-making authority custody, was appropriate. at paragraph 96, as follows:
a. “The strength of the parties’ ties to the child, and the general level of involvement of each parent in the child’s parenting and life. In almost all cases where parallel parenting has been ordered, both parents have consistently played a significant role in the child’s life on all levels.”
b. “The relative parenting abilities of each parent, and their capacity to make decisions that are in the child’s best interests. Where one parent is clearly more competent, responsible and attentive than the other, this may support a sole custody arrangement. On the other hand, where there is extensive conflict between the parties, but both are equally competent and loving parents and are able at times to focus jointly on the best interests of the child, a parallel parenting regime may be ordered.”
c. “Evidence of alienation by one parent. If the alienating parent is an otherwise loving, attentive, involved, competent [sic] and very important to the child, a parallel parenting arrangement may be considered appropriate as a means of safeguarding the other party’s role in the child’s life. On the other hand, if the level of alienation is so significant that a parallel parenting order will not be effective in achieving a balance of parental involvement and will be contrary to the child’s best interests, a sole custody order may be more appropriate. [italics added]”
d. “Where both parties have engaged in alienating behaviour, but the evidence indicates that one of them is more likely to foster an ongoing relationship between the child and the other parent, this finding may tip the scale in favour of a sole custody order.”
e. “The extent to which each parent is able to place the needs of the child above their own needs and interests. If one of the parties is unable to focus on the child’s needs above their own, this may result in a sole custody order, even if that parent is very involved with the child and otherwise able to meet the child’s day to day needs.”
f. “The existence of any form of abuse, including emotional abuse or undermining behaviour, which could impede the objective of achieving a balance of roles and influence through parallel parenting.”
In Batsinda v. Batsinda, Chappel, J. refers to a case, H. (K.) v. R. (T.K.), decided by Sherr, J. in which he adopted the above-noted factors and added the following further considerations:
a. The likelihood of one category of decision-making conflicting with another (the spillover effect) and the ability of the parents to navigate those conflicts. For instance, it might appear on the surface that there is a clear delineation between medical and educational decisions. However, that might not be the case with two parents determined to fight and perpetuate conflict. If a school recommends speech-language therapy or therapeutic counselling to take place at school, high-conflict parents will likely fight over whether these are medical or educational decisions.
b. Whether the parents have the ability to navigate scheduling conflicts between activities and appointments. Since they are each acting independently in their own sphere of decision making, what happens when both soccer practice and math tutoring are scheduled for the same time?
c. The geographical distance between the parties. Decisions by the non-residential parent are easier to implement if the parties reside close to one another. If the parties live far apart, the residential parent may not be able to take the children to a doctor, tutor, counselor, school or activity (depending on the area of decision-making) chosen by the non-residential parent. If the parents cannot communicate well, the geographic distance between them can create significant conflict and adversely affect the children.
d. The family dynamics. The court must evaluate if a parallel parenting order is more likely to de-escalate or inflame the parents’ conflict.”