“The Mother argues that for children under 3, parenting plans should be. incremental, slowly introducing longer periods of parenting time and monitoring the child’s adjustment to each step of the plan as new changes are implemented. She relies upon Holtzhauer v. Murphy, 1996 CarswellOnt 1831 for the proposition, “nighttime in a strange bed and a strange place is a real vulnerability for a small child.”
However, the antiquated “tender years” principle no longer applies to determining the access schedule for a young child: Botticelli v. Botticelli, 2009 ABQB at paras 15, 32 and 37.
As well, in this case the Father has been spending significant time bonding with the Child. The Child knows and loves him and there is no time required for the Child to get used to the Father as is required in some cases where there has been the complete absence of one parent in the child’s life.
In Holomey v. Hills, the Father sought overnights with the 18 month old child. His current schedule included parenting time every other day, for two hours from 10: am to 12 pm. The Father faithfully availed himself of that time. The Mother’s evidence was that the Father was a barely competent parent, that he had been abusive during the relationship and that she was still breastfeeding, so overnight access was not practical. The Court stated that the Mother’s resistance to an increased schedule appeared to be punitive. It also stated that breastfeeding is a factor, but one amongst many. The Court cited caselaw stating that regular contact should exist between access parents and young children, which should include regular overnight visits. Holomey v. Hills, 2020 ONSC 6299, at paras 8-10, 13-14, 17-21.
In Cavannnah v. John, 2008 CarswellOnt 7455, the Mother claimed the Father could not have reasonable access with the parties’ 2 year old child because the child was breastfeeding. The court recognized that the importance of the child having a relationship with his father superseded the importance of a child continuing to breastfeed at his age. The Court found that the father had shown patience with the mother’s desire to breastfeed the child, patience that restricted his time with the child. The Court held that the mother was using breastfeeding as an excuse, and not considering the totality of the child’s needs when she restricted the Father’s access due to unclear and unspecific evidence about the benefits of breastfeeding.
See also S.D.G. v. D.K.N., [2017] B.C.J. No. 422 the court accepted the following statement regarding the importance of a young child bonding with both parents:
It is necessary for the interactions with both parents to occur in a variety of contexts (feeding, playing, diapering, soothing, putting to bed, etc.) to ensure that the relationships are consolidated and strengthened. In the absence of such opportunities for regular interaction across a broad range of contexts, infant-parent relationships fail to develop and may instead weaken.
The evening and overnight periods (like extended days with nap times) with nonresidential parents are especially important psychologically not only for infants but for toddlers and young children as well. Evening and overnight period provide opportunities for crucial social interactions and nurturing activities, including bathing, soothing hurts and anxieties, bedtime rituals, comforting in the middle of the night, and the reassurance and security of snuggling in the morning after awakening, that 1 to 2 hours visits cannot provide.”
Kelly, Joan and Lam, Michael, “Using Child Development Research to Make Appropriate Custody and Access Decisions for Young Children”, Family and Conciliation Courts Review, July 200, 4 of 14.
In my view, the fact that the Child is breastfeeding is only one consideration and should not be a bar to overnight parenting time for the Father if that is in the Child’s interests.”