In a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, a judge has declined to immediately force a fourteen year old girl to resume visitation with her father after a year of estrangement1. However, the court issued strict conduct orders against both parents in an effort to repair the fractured relationship before more drastic legal measures become necessary. Justice Ellies presided over the motion, ultimately deciding that while the child needs space, the status quo cannot continue indefinitely without causing irreversible damage to the father and daughter bond.
The case centers on a family that separated in December 2024 after more than twenty years of marriage. While the separation process began with mutual intentions to protect their only child from conflict, the situation deteriorated rapidly due to a specific incident involving a holiday cottage rental. According to the court decision, the parents had originally agreed to wait until after Christmas to announce their separation to their daughter, referred to in the documents as G. The father had rented a cottage for the month of December, intending to stay there after the announcement was made. To maintain normalcy, the parents told G. the rental was simply for family fun leading up to the holidays.
Matters unraveled on December 2, 2024, when the father invited his daughter to visit the cottage after school. The mother objected, claiming this deviated from their parenting plan and inconvenienced her. Following this disagreement, the daughter called her father in distress, demanding to know the true reason behind the cottage rental. During this telephone conversation, the father revealed that he and the mother were separating. This phone call proved to be a pivotal moment in the family dynamic, serving as the catalyst for the daughter’s subsequent refusal to see him.
The immediate aftermath of the phone call was volatile. Evidence presented to the court indicated that the mother sent text messages to the father accusing him of being selfish and ruining the family. She reported that their daughter was crying and expressing hatred for both parents. When the father attempted to return to the matrimonial home to explain that the separation could be a positive step, he refused to provide specific details about the marital breakdown to the child. In contrast, when the daughter asked her mother if she wanted the separation, the mother reportedly answered no. The father eventually left the home in frustration, and the family dynamic has remained hostile since that day.
Since that incident in late 2024, the father has had almost no meaningful contact with his daughter. The court record details a series of failed attempts at reunification. Christmas of that year was described as a disaster. A meeting at a restaurant in May 2025 went poorly, as did a brief visit on Father’s Day. The estrangement was severe enough that the daughter insisted her father not attend her middle school graduation. She also largely refused to answer his text messages, leading to a situation where the father became increasingly desperate in his attempts to communicate.
The father approached the court seeking a temporary order for graduated parenting time, proposing a schedule that would begin with weekly dinners and progress to regular visits. He argued that the mother was alienating the child by blaming him for the marriage ending and by sharing inappropriate details about the separation. He also requested that the family attend counseling. Conversely, the mother and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer argued that G. should not be forced to see her father against her wishes. They requested an order allowing the teenager to decide when and if she would have contact with him. The child’s lawyer went further, asking for restrictions that would prevent the father from texting the child more than once a week or contacting her school.
Justice Ellies conducted a private judicial interview with the teenager on December 4, 2025, to ascertain her views and preferences. The judge noted that G. appeared to be an intelligent and articulate young woman but observed that she had become highly opinionated to the point of losing perspective. The court concluded that G. was blaming her father for the family breakup, a view that was being reinforced by the mother’s behavior. The judge emphasized that marriages rarely fail solely because of one spouse and that the child lacked the necessary perspective to understand the complexity of the adult relationship.
In his analysis, Justice Ellies found that while the father had made mistakes, particularly in how the separation was revealed, he was not an unfit parent. The court noted that the father was legally correct to withhold the “dirty details” of the marital breakdown from the child. The judge criticized the mother for challenging this decision in front of the daughter and for failing to shield the child from the conflict. The decision highlighted that by shutting her father out, the daughter was inadvertently increasing the tension between her parents, turning what could have been an amicable co-parenting arrangement into a litigious battle.
A significant portion of the decision focused on the legal obligations of the custodial parent. Justice Ellies reminded the mother that she has an affirmative duty to do everything possible to encourage the child to spend time with the father. The judge cited established case law stating that a parent must go as far as possible short of physical force to ensure visitation occurs. The court found that by simply leaving the choice to the child, the mother was failing in this duty and implicitly validating the narrative that the father was solely to blame for the divorce.
Despite these findings, the court decided against ordering forced visitation immediately. Justice Ellies reasoned that forcing a fourteen year old to visit a parent against her will is difficult and could potentially backfire at this specific stage. The judge determined that the child needs time and space to process the separation without the pressure of a court mandate. However, the court made it clear that this reprieve is temporary and conditional on changes in the family dynamic.
To create an environment where reconciliation is possible, the court issued several specific orders designed to lower the temperature of the conflict. First, the mother was ordered to immediately stop discussing the parents’ relationship or the separation with the daughter. This order aims to stop the flow of adult information that has contributed to the child’s alienation. Second, the mother must actively encourage the daughter to see her father, including using age appropriate parental sanctions if necessary. The court made it clear that passivity is no longer an option for her.
The father was also given strict instructions regarding his communication. The judge acknowledged that the father’s desperation had led him to “smother” the daughter with excessive text messages and attempts at contact. To rectify this, the court ordered the father to limit his written communications to one text, letter, or email per week, and one phone call per week, unless the daughter initiates further contact. This restriction is intended to give the teenager the breathing room she requested during her interview with the judge.
Additionally, the court ordered that the parents must communicate exclusively through a parenting app. The decision noted that the text messages exchanged between the parents were uncivil and that a dedicated app would help keep their focus on the child rather than their personal grievances. The order also addressed the issue of therapy, mandating that the mother keep the father informed about the daughter’s progress in counseling and at school, as the father is entitled to this information despite the estrangement.
The court emphasized that time is a critical factor in these cases. Justice Ellies wrote that the longer a relationship is allowed to wither, the harder it is to revive, noting that one can never recover lost time. To ensure that the situation does not stagnate, the judge adjourned the motion to August 2026. This adjournment serves as a review period. The judge explicitly stated that the order is made on a “without prejudice” basis, meaning that if sufficient progress toward reintegration is not made by next summer, the court may impose a different, potentially more intrusive parenting schedule without the father needing to prove a material change in circumstances.
The decision represents a judicial attempt to balance the autonomy of a teenager with the long term best interests of maintaining a relationship with both parents. By placing specific behavioral requirements on both the mother and the father, the court aims to de-escalate the conflict and allow the daughter to come to her own conclusion that her father deserves a place in her life. The matter remains before the courts, with the expectation that the parents will use the intervening months to repair the damage caused by the tumultuous separation.
Read more family law cases here.
