Case summary: Parental alienation and reunification therapy

This case summary was prepared by Pamela Cross.

In this case, Justice Sullivan comprehensively reviewed the evidence, law and case law in making an order that the 14-year-old son be required to participate in reunification therapy, against his wishes, largely because she believed the father had influenced the child to such an extent that his wishes were not his own. This is a case worth reading in its entirety. 

A brief background

The parents separated when their only child was three years old, and he was 14 years old at the time of this proceeding. For 10 years following the parents’ separation the child lived primarily with his mother. In 2016, the court made an order granting the mother “full and final custody,” with the authority to make final decisions after consulting with the father. The child’s primary residence was to remain with the mother, and the father was to have parenting time as set out in a schedule. Approximately two years later, after a visit with his father, the child told his mother that he was being physically abused by his father, was afraid of him and no longer wished to see him. Three years after that, in 2021, he began to see his father every few months for day visits. 

The child had ongoing social struggles, which escalated as he got older, eventually leading his mother to homeschool him. As the pandemic began, he began to demonstrate more serious challenges: he refused to engage in basic hygiene and became more defiant. His relationship with his mother became filled with conflict, and she felt overwhelmed. She asked the father to take their son for a short period of time, hoping this would lead to a change in behaviour for him.  

After two weeks with the father, the son refused to return to the mother’s home, as had been agreed he would. His communication with his mother became disrespectful. When she spoke with him on the phone, she could tell her was on speaker phone and could hear the father laughing in the background when their son was rude to her. 

Parental alienation and ordering reunification therapy

The mother was unable to have the 2016 final order enforced, and so began a motion, which led to this order. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer was involved and prepared a report. During the OCL investigation, the mother disclosed that the father had been physically, emotionally and financially abusive to her during their relationship. This abuse had included threats that when their son got older he would take him away from her. 

The father told the OCL that he would not force his son to do anything didn’t want to do, including visiting his mother, asking “why would the court force him to see this evil person?” He denied that he had been abusive towards the mother. 

The son had nothing positive to say about his mother to the OCL and, during an OCL observed visit with his mother, he was sarcastic, attempted to instigate an argument with her and told the investigators that he did not enjoy being with his mother. 

He said he was not interested in rebuilding his relationship with his mother, and the OCL report did not support requiring him to enter into reunification therapy. 

Noting that the court has jurisdiction to make therapeutic orders, Justice Sullivan identified 10 principles to be considered by the court in determining whether or not to make such an order. Those principles include: 

• These orders are to be made sparingly 

• There must be compelling evidence that the therapy will be beneficial to the child 

• Resistance to therapy is an important but not the determining factor 

Justice Sullivan noted that: 

“The court should give little weight to a child’s expressed wishes if the evidence indicates that those wishes have been tainted by negative influence, inducements, or alienation exerted by the other parent or any other individual.” 

In her analysis, she found that the mother had been the child’s primary caregiver for most of his life and that, overall, they had had a close and loving relationship, with the mother making good decisions for the child’s upbringing. 

She expressed concern about the fact that the child’s memories and perceptions of his mother were all bad, that he devalued and “viciously vilifies” his mother and that his views of her were closely aligned with those of his father: 

“it is integral to [the child’s] emotional and psychological well-being that he be given the opportunity to re-establish his relationship with his mother, with professional assistance…“ 

Justice Sullivan noted that she had serious concerns about the father’s willingness to support the development of the child’s relationship with his mother as well as his ability and willingness to meet the child’s emotional needs. In her decision, she strongly encouraged the father to participate in the reunification therapy, and said that if he did not, this could lead to a more intrusive order. 

In making her order requiring the child to participate in reunification therapy, Justice Sullivan wrote: 

“When the overall context is considered, along with the profound negative influence exerted by [the father], it is not possible to give significant weight to [the child’s] stated views and preferences. I have listened to what [the child] has said, respect his views and have paid attention to his stated preferences, but the evidence does not support a finding that he reached his own conclusions free from his father’s influence, therefore, the weight given his views regarding reunification therapy is minimal.”