Reunification Therapy pursuant to Marinovic v. Marinovic, 2025 ONSC 4856
- Jared Davies, Lawyer
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
In Marinovic v. Marinovic, 2025 ONSC 4856, the Ontario Superior Court refused a father’s request for reunification therapy with his children despite his argument that the relationship had become fractured following separation. Instead, the Court reinforced an important principle in Ontario family law: parenting orders, including therapeutic interventions, must be driven by the children’s best interests, not a parent’s desire to repair the relationship on their own timeline.
Background
The parties had three daughters, ages 16, 14, and 10. Following separation, the parties participated in a section 30 parenting assessment conducted by Howard Hurwitz. The assessor recommended:
sole decision-making responsibility to the mother;
primary residence with the mother; and
limited parenting time for the father without overnights.
The evidence before the Court showed that the children had significant anxiety surrounding their father’s emotional regulation, conflict behaviour, and post-separation conduct. The Court accepted evidence that the children’s strained relationship with their father was not caused by parental alienation, but rather by the father’s own conduct.
The father sought an order requiring the children to participate in reunification therapy for six months, followed by an updated parenting assessment.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Kraft dismissed the request for reunification therapy.
The Court emphasized that therapeutic orders are not granted simply because a parent wants more parenting time or hopes to improve a strained relationship. Instead, courts must carefully examine whether the proposed therapy is actually in the children’s best interests.
In doing so, the Court relied heavily on the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Leelaratna v. Leelaratna, which sets out factors relevant to ordering therapy or counselling in parenting cases. These include:
whether the source of the family dysfunction is clear;
whether there is compelling evidence the therapy would benefit the children;
whether the children are likely to participate voluntarily; and
whether the parents are likely to engage meaningfully in the process.
Importantly, the Court noted that older children’s wishes carry significant weight. The two older children were 16 and 14 years old, and there was no evidence they wished to participate in reunification therapy. The Court held that forcing them into the process could itself be harmful.
No Evidence of Alienation
One of the most significant findings in the decision was the Court’s rejection of the father’s allegation that the mother was alienating the children.
The section 30 assessor concluded there was “no evidence” that the mother was gatekeeping or interfering with the children’s relationship with their father. Rather, the children’s reluctance to spend additional time with him stemmed from his own emotional outbursts, inability to regulate his behaviour, and tendency to place his emotional needs onto the children.
This distinction mattered greatly. Ontario courts treat parental alienation allegations seriously, but the Court confirmed that a poor parent-child relationship does not automatically mean alienation is occurring.
Family Therapy Instead of Reunification Therapy
Although the Court refused reunification therapy, it did not ignore the fractured relationship.
Instead, the Court implemented the recommendations from the parenting assessment that the children first attend individual family counselling focused on:
coping with family conflict;
managing anxiety; and
developing strategies for responding to stressful interactions with their father.
Only after several months of counselling would the therapist potentially involve the parents to begin addressing the father-child relationship.
This staged approach reflected the Court’s view that rebuilding relationships must occur at a pace that protects the children’s emotional well-being.
Final Thoughts
Marinovic v. Marinovic is an important reminder that Ontario family courts approach reunification therapy cautiously. Even where a parent sincerely wishes to repair a damaged relationship, the Court’s focus remains squarely on the children’s emotional safety, readiness, and best interests.
Where significant conflict, emotional dysregulation, or anxiety are present, courts may prefer a gradual therapeutic approach rather than immediate reunification efforts.
