FerebeeBlanchette262

There had been a expanding trend, in Ontario, in household and divorce law, over the final handful of years, for household courts to order joint custody of kids. The hope, by some, was that the parenting abilities of the parties could be enhanced with awards of joint custody. The current Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, has tried to put this trend into perspective.

In this decision, the parties were married in 1998 and separated in January 2002. The parties had a daughter who was born in October 2001. At trial, the father requested joint custody and the mother opposed the application, stating that the parties could not communicate without having screaming at each and every other. The trial judge granted the parties joint custody and the mother appealed the order. The appeal court set aside the order of joint custody and the mother was granted sole custody.

The Appeal Court held that, for an award of joint custody to be granted, there must be some evidence that demonstrates, that regardless of the parents personal robust conflict with each other, the parties can and have cooperated and communicated appropriately with 1 one more. In this case there was evidence to the contrary, there was no specialist evidence to help the trial judge figure out how a joint custody order would advance the childs emotional and psychological requirements and the child was also young to communicate her own wishes.

Approximately the exact same time this case was decided, the Ontario Court of Appeal also ruled on the case of Ladisa v. Ladisa, where the appeal court upheld the trial judges order of joint custody. In this case the trial judge had the benefit of hearing the evidence of the Childrens Lawyer who presented the childrens wishes and who suggested joint custody. It was held that the trial judge had heard evidence from third parties with respect to cooperation and appropriate communication amongst the parties. The trial judge also looked at the history of co-parenting in the course of the marriage and that despite their intense conflict, the parties could and had successfully communicated with every other and placed the interests of their children ahead their own, when required.

To summarize, in Ontario joint custody cases, it would seem that the courts will now be searching more closely for evidence from third party and specialist witnesses, which can demonstrate that the parties can and have cooperated and communicated appropriately and have been able to put aside their personal differences and conflict, for the benefit of the youngsters. The lack of historical cooperation and proper communication in between the parties will greatly limit the achievement of a joint custody application. The assumption by some, that the granting of joint custody will improve the parenting skills of the parties, will not be a adequate reason on its own to grant joint custody, in the absence of existing great cooperation and communication among the parties. To know more, please go to: <a href="http://vegaacosta.com/">child custody lawyer junction city ks</a>alimony attorney junction city ks, alimony attorney kansas To know more about it, please go to: <a href="http://vegaacosta.com/">divorce attorney wichita ks</a>alimony attorney junction city ks, alimony attorney kansas To find out more about it, please go to: <a href="http://vegaacosta.com/">divorce attorney topeka ks</a>alimony attorney junction city ks, alimony attorney kansas