January 5, 2023 – Using Police Station for Parenting Exchanges

“Please, Please, Please…don’t use a police station for parenting exchanges.

If you think mere proximity to the cop shop will make unruly adults behave – or protect children from emotional harm – you should have sat in on any one of the 22 days of this nasty trial.

This was a motion to change a consent final order.  Except, clearly the parents never really regarded the order as final.  More like an interlude in a never-ending high-conflict war.  A strategic pause while they assembled better evidence for inevitable motions and cross-motions.

They love their son and hate each other.

They really love their son.

And really hate each other.

We delude ourselves if we think court orders will ever overcome such powerful and conflicting emotions.

1. 1. 1.    All we can really do is try to separate the good from the bad.
      2.    Promote more opportunities for the love.
      3.    And eliminate anyopportunities for the hate.

But routinely sending combative parents with their anguished children to a police station is an abdication of responsibility.

1. 1. 1.    It’s like assembling a bomb every week and driving it to the fire hall.
      2.    Sure, it’s nice to know first responders will be on the scene if there’s an explosion.
      3.    But why set the stage for predictable disaster?
      4.    Wouldn’t it make more sense to defuse the bomb ahead of time?  To keep volatile ingredients – volatile parents– as far apart as possible?

The “safety” rationale for police station exchanges is dubious at best.

1. 1. 1. The police aren’t equipped for this type of service.  The station is not a child-friendly environment.
      2. They don’t know you’re coming.
      3. They don’t want you there.
      4. They don’t know anything about you, or what to watch for.
      5. Generally, they’re so busy with other duties, they may not notice who’s doing what.
      6. At any given time, there may not even be a police officer anywhere in sight.

And if we’re choosing a location intended to intimidate adults – what about scaring the kids?

1. 1. 1. By the time high conflict couples make it to family court, their children have already been exposed to far too much chaos and upset.
      2. Many have experienced significant family violence (with its recently expanded definition).
      3. Painful memories of officers attending their home for family trouble calls may be triggered by the dramatic and hyper-stimulating stationhouse environment (the police cars, the uniforms, the guns, the crackling radios, the commotion, the people in crisis).
      4. We can’t undo the unhappiness these children experienced pre-separation.   But why perpetuate the trauma by exposing them to more negativity and upset in the strange and frightening environment of a police station lobby?
      5. These are emotionally vulnerable children who need rescue from parental conflict.  Not a ringside seat.

What message do police station exchanges convey to the innocent child?

1. 1. 1. That the trouble’s not over?
      2. That their world isn’t safe yet?
      3. That they still need to worry?
      4. That someone they love is dangerous or can’t be trusted?
      5. That something bad could happen every time their parents meet?
      6. That officers with weapons might have to intervene?
      7. That one of their parents might get taken away or hurt or punished?
      8. That every transition between parents will be anxiety-producing?
      9. How is a fragile young mind supposed to process so much upsetting information?

Candidly, far too little thought goes into selecting a police station for pick-ups and drop-offs.  It’s a simplistic, convenient default position.

1. 1. 1. It’s an option if you can’t think of anything else.
      2. It’s always open.  You don’t have to re-arrange your schedule
      3. It’s free.
      4. It’s quick.
      5. There’s no waiting list. It’s available instantly and for as long as you want.
      6. There’s no paperwork or pre-arrangement.
      7. There’s usually free parking or bus service.
      8. It requires little effort and not much parental insight or discipline.
      9. It’s open even during the pandemic.
      10. It checks off a lot of boxes for adults.

But how is any of this child-focused?

1. 1. 1. We are constantly told that the best interests of the child must always prevail over adult preference and convenience.
      2. Why then do we gravitate toward this obviously terrible option, simply because adults lack the creativity or commitment to work at better solutions?
      3. Should children suffer just because parents won’t put more effort into solving the problems they created?

As soon as police station exchanges are proposed, the response should be obvious:

1. 1. 1. If the level of conflict is so great that these parents need armed guards to keep the peace, they shouldn’t be having face-to-face contact anywhere.
      2. Even if actualmisconduct is averted, children who have been exposed to family violence will likely experience heightened anxiety whenever they see their parents together.  The presence of police officers isn’t calming.  To the contrary, it reinforces the child’s perception of imminent danger.

Why am I starting this judgment with such a strong warning?  Because this trial could have been avoided – and a four-year-old boy could have had a much happier life – if only the parents had selected an exchange location better than Hamilton Police Station 30.”

            K.M. v. J.R., 2022 ONSC 111 (CanLII) at 1-15