When Can You Legally Stop Your Ex From Seeing the Kids?

Blocking the Kids from a Parent Can Have Severe Consequences in the Wrong Situation

Cutting off the kids from the other parent, or even trying to intervene in the children’s relationship with the other parent, is one of the most dangerous things a separated parent can do.

There are many reasons why a parent may feel justified in stopping the kids from seeing the other parent. Those reasons include domestic violence, concerns about child abuse, to disagreements over parenting strategies, to questions about the other parent’s competences, to issues over child support and the children’s wishes.

However, there are very limited circumstances that judges believe justify one paent cutting off the other parent from the children. Any excuse that is not on that list puts a parent in jeopardy of serious Family Court trouble. A judge may even order that parent be cut off from the kids.

When parents do not separate on good terms, they often have concerns about the other parent’s priorities. This especially true when the children are very young or infants. In high conflict separations, one, or both, parents believe they need to start court right away. When a parent has been denied contact with the kids, he or she feels the situation is an emergency. That parent does not want to try any of the better ways to work things out.

The Best Interests of the Children is Most Important

The guiding principal in Family Court, family arbitrations and all family law matters is supposed to be the best interests of the children. Everything that a separated parent does should be based on what is best for the children. A Parent should not make decisions baed on what is best for that parent. The concept of the best interests is not an air fairy concept. In the Family Law and Divorce changes from 2021, there are specific rules about exactly what is in children’s best interests. The video below explains changes to the parenting laws in 2021 and explained how they influence judges and arbitrators’ decisions.

Parents Must Support Each Other After Separation

How well a parent supports the children’s relationship with the other parent counts as at least TWO factors in the determination of what parenting situation is in the children’s best interest. Many other factors, such as the children’s wishes, the history of care for the child and the parenting abilities of each parent are just ONE factor each.

Ontario’s Family Laws deliberately did not create a presumption of shared parenting. Still, for many Family Court Judges, the emphasis on the children having a meaningful relationship with each parent means that each parent should treat the other as an equal and so should the court. Or at least do so as much as possible.

Social science research looking into Family Law decisions found that judges placed more weight on equal parenting than other factors such as family violence, the needs of the children and the children’s views and preferences. In that research, circumstances where the children are being denied a relationship with one parent trump all other concerns. Parent-child contact concerns sometimes erased all other concerns from consideration. Such an approach may lead to an order that the parent who was being denied a relationship with the kids be the sole parent for the children, at least for a while. That is not what the Family Laws say, but it does reflect what many Family Court judges are doing.

Judges believe it is critical for separated parents to support the children’s relationship with the other parent. Lets look at the reasons that some parents use to justify cutting the children off from the other parent.

Concerns About Parenting Skills

One frequent reason is that the child is an infant and the other parent either is not ready, or does not have the skills, to parent an infant. There is rarely evidence to support that conclusion. Often both parents to an infant are new parents. Also, they are new to parenting that infant. Judges have to base their decision, especially decisions related to alleged child maltreatment, on evidence, not speculation or stereotypes.


It is a consideration that the medical literature strongly suggests that infants should breastfeed until they are six months of age. Unless a mother is clearly abusive, neglectful or unable to parent because of substance abuse or another condition, an infant will spend a lot of time with that mother.

However, judges also weight that against the importance of the child being able to bond with both parents. Allowing a child to bond with parents means the father has to spend a lot of time with the infant too. That time must be parenting time, not just visiting. The infant’s father must be actively involved in all aspects of caring for the child. For that bonding to happen, the father has to actively parent several times a week. How long each parenting time lasts is less important than frequency.

Absence actual evidence of abuse or neglect, or the inability of a parent to participate because of employment, or distance, or a similar reason, both parents should be actively involved in raising an infant.

Child Support Arrears Do Not Affect the Parenting Schedule

Another justification that parents use to cut off or restrict the other parent’s time is that the parent is behind in, or is not paying, child support.

Judges have a very negative impression of a parent who does not pay child support. They view that parent as not wanting to provide for his or her child. That, in turn, is a strong indication that the parent does not have the right priorities to be a good parent.

However, parenting and child support are completely separate legal issues. One should not impact the other. A parent falling behind in child support, or even not paying support at all, Is not a justification for the other parent to cut off parenting time. Ontario judges even had problems with no child support/no contact agreements. That is because social science research shoes that children benefit from having a relationship with both parents. Children should not be denied a relationship with a parent unless it is extremely harmful.

At best, not paying child support indicates a lack of interest or caring for the children. That lack of interest is something a judge can consider to decide what parenting order is in the children’s best interest. But, not paying child support is not, in itself, a reason to take a parent away from the children entirely.

Family Violence May Not Justify Keeping the Kids from a Parent

Mane professionals involved with marginalized or disadvantaged people in family court say that judges do not give much, if any, consideration to family violence. This is despite explicit requirements in both the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, that the family court take that violence into account when making parenting orders. It is also despite the requirement on the Form 35.1 Parenting Affidavit that parents report family violence to the Court.

This skepticism of Family Judges about domestic abuse may come from the fact that there are a lot of allegations of family violence in Family Court, and not all of them withstand scrutiny. In academic research by John Schuman, he discovered that parents do make allegations of violence simply to get an upper hand in litigation. However, allegations of abuse also arise from the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of relationships. At that time, the partners have lost trust in each other and are suspicious of each other’s motives and actions. Those suspicions arising from separation can lead to mistaken beliefs about the former partner’s intentions. Separated parents can be too quick to assume that a former partner is trying to, or has been, abusive.

Obviously, a judge will not cut off a parent from the children because of false or mistaken allegations against that parent. However, that judge will be very concerned about the motives and parenting ability of someone who makes untrue allegations, for any reason. Judges are more concerned, even angry, with those unmerited allegations impact the children. They are even more concerned when the accusations impact the children’s relationship with the other parent.

The issue is more complicated than courts being unkind places to victims of violence. The law requires the judges to consider the nature, seriousness, and frequency of family violence, whether there is a pattern of coercive controlling behaviour, and what harm, or safety concerns, that violence may continue to inflict upon the children. Put, another way, not all family violence is of equal concern.

A single incident,, or even a limited number of times, when a one parent becomes frustrated and acts angrily, or in an intimidating matter, or even commits a violent assault is very different from a parent who uses behaviour, even subtle behaviour without explicit or implied physical violence, to coerce or control another family member over a period of time. The abusive parents intent such behaviour to keep other family members constantly intimidated and to use that intimidation to deprive the other family members of their free will. That behaviour is harmful to the other family members, especially the children.

Proponents of parental alienation as a disorder, and of parental alienation treatment programs, are very clear in the opinion that parental alienating behaviours are a from of abuse. Not only that, but actions designed to deprive one parent of a relationship with the children are a form of coercive controlling family violence. Thy argue such actions are much more serious than many types of physical or sexual violence. Consequently, a parent who uses family violence as a justification to cut of the children from the other parent may find him or herself being accused of coercive controlling behaviour. A judge who believes that to be the case will take the children away from that parent entirely as a result of raising those family violence concerns.

Consequently, it is often only extreme forms of family violence, which result in very serious harm, that will justify one parent stopping the other from parenting the kids. Except in cases where there is clear that the other parent will be convicted in criminal court for violence directed at the children, a parent should seek advice from a good family law lawyer, and other professionals, about how to protect children from family violence in Family Court.

Differences in Parenting Style and Discipline Cannot Limit Parenting Time

Differences in parenting styles, or the “rules” between houses, are not a reason to restrict another parent’s opportunity to parent the children.

The exception to this is when there is a risk that a parent will endanger the children. As noted above, judges are very skeptical of the suspicious that separated parents have that the other parent is putting the children at risk. After separation, the breakdown of trust causes many parents to believe that every aspect of their ex’s life is driven by evil intentions and that is rarely the case.

Consequently, judges will not act on suspicions, they will only act on Evidence. John Schuman’;s excellent (and inexpensive) book on Ontario Family Law explains the importance of evidence in Family Court. It is very rare for there to be evidence that a parent will put children at risk of harm until the parent has actually put the children at risk of harm. So, it is very difficult to get a judge to restrict parenting without some compelling evidence of previous very bad parenting.

The exception to this is where a parent suffers from a diagnoseed mental illness or substance abuse problem. Again, there has to be clear evidence of this type of challenge, usually in the form of a formal diagnosis. However, as these types of challenges often lead people to act irrationally or without self control, judges are more inclined to play it safe with the children and restrict parenting time until there is evidence that these conditions are under control or do pose a risk to the children.

Investigations of Abuse or Neglect

Another time when parents feel they should restrict the children’s time with the other parent is when a children’s aid society becomes involved with the family. Note that judges always view with suspicion when one parent reports the other to the children’s aid society – it seems like a litigation tactic or an attempt to get the upper hand. Professional who have researched parental alienation contend that making reports to a children’s aid society is parental alienating behavior.

Even when a teacher or other professional makes the report, (check out this page on why a professional might make a report). parents need to remember that children’s aid societies do not have the authority to suspend a parenting order or a parenting agreement. If a children’s aid society believes such an action is necessary, the agency must either get the parents to agree or it must go to court for a court order restricting a parent’s involvement with the children. (John Schuman also covered the powers and limitations of children’s aid societies in his book.)

After separation, one parent cannot stop the children from seeing the other parent just because a children’s aid society asked for that. A judge will not support that decision if the other parent objects. Instead, the judge will say that if the children’s aid society wanted to cut off a parent, the agency can start court proceedings and ask the court to limit the children’s contact with a parent. One separated parent cannot do that unilaterally, even if a children’s aid society worker tells the parent it is a good idea.

Introducing New Partners

One specific difference of opinion on parenting matters that can lead to significant problems is with regard to introducing new partners. It is a common for one parent oppose the other parent introducing a new partner to the kids. Often they say that it is “too soon” to do that. The reality is that once a new partner becomes permanent, the kids will have to meet him or her. New partners will be part of the children’s lives. Judges understand and expect that. They don’t like a parent being bitter or jealous of an ex having a new partner and basing parenting demands on those feelings.

Ideally, the introduction of new partners is something that the children’s parents should discuss, coordinate and get professional advice with. Introducing new partners in a way that is not sensitive to the kids feelings can really strain a parent-child relationship.

However, the lack of cooperation between the children’s original parents on the issue of new partners is not a reason for one parent to stop the kids from seeing their other parent who has a new partner. If a parent introduces a new partner in a bad way, the children may need some professional intervention. But, a judge is going to be very critical, and may even take parenting time away from, a parent who restrict the kids time with the other parent because that other parent has new partner. Doing so just looks like vindictive jealousness that creates a disregard for the children’s needs and best interests.

A Child’s Wishes Does Not Justify Stopping Contact with a Parent

A final reason why parents may restrict their ex’s time with the kids is because they say that is what the children’s want. This a justification with many serious problems.

.There is some research, which is not universally accepted, that even abused kids want to maintain contact with their abusive parents.

Regardless of the strength of the research, judges do NOT like kids having to pick sides between their parents. Judges do not like it when kids say they like one parent more than the other or that they don’t want to spend time with the other parent. Placing a child in that situation creates all kids of unhealthy feelings that can lead to mental illness. It creates loyalty conflicts, guilt, embarrassment, and a feeling that in rejecting a parent the child is rejecting half of him or herself. It can lead to many serious mental health problems down the road.

Do not read this article as saying that kids should not have a voice. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child guarantees children the right to have a voice on matters that affect them. But, it is not child focused to require a child to say they don’t like a parent or to force a child to chose between parents.

Often the issue is not that the child wants to show more love for one parent than the other. Usually, it comes down to the practicalities of life: Dad doesn’t do homework with me, or Mom won’t take me to swimming or cheer practice, or I don’t like Dad’s food, or Mom always has to work late or Dad lives closer to my friends and I want to spend more time with my friends. These are all child-centred reasons why a child may want a change to a parenting schedule.

Under the 2021 changes to the Family Laws, which required a child centred approach to parenting issues, the above concerns of the children are reasons to adjust the parenting schedule and parenting responsibilities so that each parent is doing as much parenting as he or she is able to do. They are not reasons to restrict the children’s contact with the other parent.

Summary

To summarize, the general rule, which has very few exceptions, is that one parent should not unilaterally restrict the children’s time with the other parent. Doing so can have serious negative consequences. Those consequences include the parent who acts unilaterally losing all parenting time and responsibilities with the kids. It is only with really compelling evidence that a parent can restrict the children’s time with the other parent. To know whether the evidence is compelling, a parent should speak to a good family law lawyer.

Every time a parent takes such a drastic step, that parent must go to court as soon as possible to get the court’s permission to continue that action. Parenting differences, deficiencies in child support, the children’s wishes and even family violence directed toward the kids may not be accepted by the judge as being justification for cutting out the other parent. If the judge does not agree that the kids should lose contact with one of their parents, that judge may order that parent who has the kids lose the kids, and perhaps all contact with the kids.

This article specifically addressed the parenting laws in Ontario and Canada. The specific laws in relation to parenting arrangements for children may be different in other jurisdictions. However, the approaches of family judges in most Western legal systems is very similar to the approaches of judges as described above.

Guide to the Basics of Ontario Family Law – 5th Edition

Making parenting decisions after separation, especially in high conflict separations, can be extremely difficult.  Doing the wrong thing can have horrendous consequences.  Before you make any big decisions after separation, read a copy of this $9.99 eBook on Ontario Family Law (paperback also available). 

To get the best advice, specific to your situation, you should speak to a family lawyer. Certified Specialist in Family Law, John Schuman, is known for his concern for children in separation and divorce and has won many parenting cases. To contact John call 647-342-6775, email him, or fill out the form below. You can use the same form to comment on this page.