The matter of Deschamps v. Deschamps, 2025 ONSC 4737 involved a 10-year marriage with two children (ages 13 and nine at the time of the decision) who had grown estranged from their mother after a history of family violence committed by the father against the mother.
The family’s history involved catastrophic accidents resulting in brain injuries for the father, mental health issues for the father and the mother, several incidents involving the police, child protection societies and supervised centres due to family violence, and several breached court orders, including by the father who kept the children from the mother.
All of this culminated in the parties’ eldest child strongly preferring her father over her mother. By the end of the relationship, the mother was estranged from the family. While she had started to rebuild a relationship with the children post-separation, the children still preferred their father.
Legal Proceedings
Following their separation in 2019 and until trial in 2025, the parties went through various court attendances, including case management and urgent motions, and they were placed on and removed from trial lists. Throughout these proceedings, the parties at times consented to equal time with supervised or unsupervised parenting orders, and at other times breached court orders and withheld the children from the other parent.
The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) was appointed in this case. The OCL recommended that sole decision-making and primary care of the children be awarded to the mother, and that supervised parenting time be awarded to the father. An updated OCL report was needed by the time of trial, which maintained its earlier position.
An amicus was also appointed for both parties, to assist the court. However, the mother chose to appoint her own lawyer by the time of trial.
Trial Decision
The court ultimately found it was in the children’s best interests that they reside primarily with the mother and awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary care to the mother, with regular unsupervised parenting time for the father. However, in recognizing that the eldest child (and the father) could resist the court’s decision and retaliate, the court went on to refer the matter to the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) to monitor the situation and to protect the eldest child, if and as required during the transition period.
The court recognized that the father’s time may need to be supervised for one or both children to prevent him from impeding the court’s order and causing further harm to the children. Furthermore, the court remained willing to oversee the matter for up to one-year post-decision, to ensure its orders would be carried out effectively.
Mental Health and Family Violence
The court reviewed extensive evidence of the parents’ mental health history in the context of their ability to parent the children. Justice Julie Audet was alive to the father’s history of family violence when he was a child. The court found that while both parties exhibited troubling inabilities to regulate their emotions, which placed their children’s well-being at risk, the mother had shown insight into her behaviour and a willingness to change, while the father had not.
The court carefully analyzed the father’s behaviour. While the father did not tender evidence of a diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of his physical and mental health, including his alcoholism, the court inferred from his history that he was at risk of addictions and losing his temper, and this posed a risk to the children’s well-being.
The court determined that while the father was abusive towards the mother, there was no evidence that he was abusive towards the children. The court did, however, note multiple incidents involving the father and third parties, including the mother, his new partner, the children’s counsel, the CAS workers, police, access supervisors and the court. The court found that despite the father having obtained support and finishing programming in the past, his anger, violence and poor judgment continued, which impacted the children’s well-being.
The trial judge determined that the family violence the father committed against the mother was extreme. The court found that the father was unable to gain insight and change his behaviour, as evidenced by his criminal past stretching back to his youth and continuing throughout the proceedings.
The trial judge further found that the parties’ eldest child had normalized the father’s abusive and violent behaviour against the mother.
By the time of trial, the eldest child decided she wanted to remain in the father’s care.
Despite the father’s assurances to the court that he was now sober, the court hesitated to accept them, in light of his failure to disclose his health records and his significant history.
Turning to the mother’s history, the court found there were mitigating circumstances for her breach of court order and relocation out of the matrimonial home with the children. The court inferred that the mother’s need to relocate was to distance herself from her former abusive partner and break the cycle of violence. Due to the parties’ violent history, the trial judge, without condoning the mother’s relocation, at least understood the decision.
The court, however, also found blameworthy conduct by the mother that at least partly led to her estrangement from the children, including her removal of the children from their community, taking them away from their support system. Additionally, the court found that factors such as the mother’s re-partnering and giving birth to a child with her new partner created further distances between the children and the mother. The court found the eldest child, and the youngest to a lesser extent, were placed in a loyalty bind, preferring their father to their mother’s new partner.
While there were reports of yelling between the mother and her new partner, the court noted that perfection is not required of the parents and found that the mother had shown greater insight and changed her behaviour, whereas the father did not.
Parenting Responsibility
The court found that the father relied on his children for his own emotional support and admonished him for keeping the eldest child away from the mother and from school. The court noted this as evidence of the father neglecting the eldest child’s academic needs and his willingness to let the child make her own decisions, at the risk of her schooling. The court reminded the parties that it is the parents’ responsibility to make decisions about the children in their best interests, which, in this case, the father failed to do.
Furthermore, the court found there was ample evidence of the father failing to foster a positive relationship between the children and the mother. However, the court also placed blame on the mother for her deteriorated relationship with the children, due to her decision to uproot them from their community and relocate, and becoming more rigid by frequently resorting to calling the police and CAS.
Turning to the children, the court found that while the eldest child was mature enough to express her own wishes, her wishes were not expressed independently and consistently, and her wishes were not consistent with her best interests.
Ultimately, the court granted sole decision-making responsibility and primary care to the mother, unsupervised visits on alternating weekends with the father, with further orders in place, including the visits becoming supervised in case of conflict or resistance to the court’s orders.
The court further referred the matter to the CAS, allowing the society to remove the eldest child from the parents’ care and place her in the society’s care, at the society’s discretion and as they saw fit, if there were concerns during the transition to the mother’s care.
If you’re navigating a complex parenting dispute involving mental‑health concerns or family violence, don’t do it alone. Contact our family law lawyers today to discuss your options and protect your children’s best interests.
This article was originally published on Law360™ Canada (www.law360.ca), part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.
At Mills & Mills LLP, our lawyers regularly help clients with a wide range of legal matters including business law, real estate law, estate law, employment law, health law, and tax law. For over 140 years, we have earned a reputation amongst our peers and clients for quality of service and breadth of knowledge. Contact us online or at (416) 863-0125. The material provided through the Mills & Mills LLP website is for general information purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advice or opinions of any kind.
2 St Clair Ave West
