Family Violence and Parenting in A v. A, 2024 ONSC 5449Family Violence and Parenting in A v. A, 2024 ONSC 5449

The Ontario Superior Court’s recent decision in A v. A, 2024 ONSC 5449 offers a clear and thoughtful look at how family violence continues to shape parenting decisions under the Divorce Act. The case highlights that when there has been a history of violence or coercive control, the court’s priority is not parental equality, but the safety, stability, and emotional well-being of the children.

Background

The parents in Anonby were both linguistics scholars with four children, all of whom are on the autism spectrum. Following their separation after more than twenty years of marriage, the dispute centred on the two youngest children, aged 17 and 15.

The mother had been the children’s primary caregiver throughout their lives. She asked to maintain that arrangement and to have sole decision-making authority for their education and autism programming. The father, a university professor, sought shared parenting and joint decision-making, emphasizing his ongoing involvement and commitment to his children.

The Impact of Family Violence

Although the most serious incidents of violence had occurred many years earlier, the court found that the effects of that early family violence remained relevant to the parenting assessment. Evidence showed that the father had physically assaulted the mother during the early years of their marriage. While he later completed an anger management program, the court found that he continued to demonstrate a lack of insight into how his behaviour had affected others.

After the parties separated, the father engaged in behaviour that the court described as controlling and emotionally harmful, including taking one of the children to British Columbia without the mother’s knowledge, restricting her access to joint funds, and undermining her within their church community. Justice Somji held that these actions met the Divorce Act’s definition of family violence, which includes coercive control and emotional harm.

The court emphasized that family violence does not need to be physical or recent to be relevant. What matters is its impact on the parents’ ability to communicate and cooperate, and on the children’s emotional security.

The Children’s Voices

Both children were intelligent, high-functioning, and capable of expressing their views clearly. They told the parenting assessor that they loved both parents but felt more comfortable and secure in their mother’s care.

Justice Somji gave these views considerable weight. He noted that older children’s wishes are an important part of the best interests analysis, particularly when those views are consistent with the evidence of who provides them with the most stability and emotional support.

The Court’s Decision

The court ordered that the children would reside primarily with their mother, who would have sole decision-making authority for their education and autism-related therapies. The parents would share decision-making on all other matters, but the mother would have the final say if they could not agree.

The father was granted parenting time on alternate weekends and one mid-week overnight, along with three weeks of summer holidays. The mother was directed to hold the children’s passports and government documents and was permitted to renew them without the father’s consent.

Justice Somji was clear that the order was not intended to punish the father but to protect the children’s emotional well-being. He found that ongoing conflict and a lack of trust made shared decision-making impractical and contrary to the children’s best interests.

Conclusion

Anonby v. Anonby reinforces that when family violence is present, it fundamentally alters how the court approaches parenting. Even where both parents are educated, caring, and involved, a history of coercion, control, or intimidation can make joint decision-making unsafe and unworkable.

The decision reflects the modern approach under the Divorce Act, which places the child’s safety and emotional security above all else. It also recognizes that the effects of family violence can endure long after the relationship ends — shaping how parents interact, how children feel, and how the court must ultimately craft a parenting plan.

For parents navigating similar issues, Anonby is a reminder that meaningful insight, accountability, and respect for boundaries are essential to rebuilding trust. For survivors, it offers reassurance that Ontario courts take family violence seriously and will structure parenting arrangements to ensure that children grow up in a safe, stable, and supportive environment.