If only he'd been nice to Fluffy

This is a factual case and there is no new law here. However, it is a case that warring parents should read and heed carefully.

"Chomos v. Hamilton, 2016 CarswellOnt 13157 (Ont. S.C.J.) - A. Pazaratz J. It is very hard to gloss over a case that begins "if only he had been nice to Fluffy". Fluffy as we learn in the judgment is a small, white, stuffed animal that the two-year-old child in issue became attached to when she was about seven months old. For reasons eloquently explained in this fascinating judgment, the father was definitely not nice to Fluffy. Although the child was very significantly attached to this small stuffed animal, the father went to great lengths to take Fluffy away from her during parenting visits, and at some point relegated Fluffy to the trunk of his car where it became immersed in some sort of noxious substance. As Justice Pazaratz notes "sometimes little things speak volumes and the father's treatment of Fluffy was the crowning touch."

Justice Pazaratz says this about Fluffy:

I have no idea why the Respondent allowed Fluffy to turn into such a major and unwinnable competition.

a. He doesn't like the Applicant. I get it.

b. He doesn't like Grace wearing the Applicant's clothes. So the child has to change into his clothes as soon as she gets into his car. I get that too.

c. It's quite apparent that at every step in this parental turn war, the father sought to imprint his "brand" on the child, and eradicate any reminder of them mother.

d. But Fluffy was just . . . Fluffy.

e. Just a harmless little toy of no consequence to anyone . . . except a vulnerable two year old caught in the middle of a bitter custody dispute.

f. Would it have killed him to just let the child hang on to her toy?

g. Was it really necessary to make his daughter cry, just to flex his need for control?

h. In Coe v. Tope 2014 ONSC 4002 this court offered some very simple advice for situations like this: ?Stop acting like you hate your ex more than you love your child.

In the background was a custody dispute between the parents who had never married. Justice Pazaratz considers all of the criteria under section 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act. He finds that neither joint custody nor parallel parenting would be appropriate given the level of conflict between the parents. He finds that the father might be a wonderful father, but is a terrible separated parent and was not going to get to the starting gate with respect to his claim for custody. Justice Pazaratz' post script is an interesting one.

If only he'd been nice to Fluffy.

If only he'd been nice to the Applicant.

If only the Respondent had remembered the two magic words of custody cases.

Be nice.

This is a factual case and there is no new law here. However, it is a case that warring parents should read and heed carefully.

Justice Pazaratz has made the world safer for fluffies and for that he should be highly commended."

Source:

FAMLNWS 2016-42 Family Law Newsletters, October 24, 2016

— Epstein's This Week in Family Law 

Philip Epstein

 ? Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its Licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved.