| There had been a growing trend, in Ontario, in family | | | | the Ontario Court of Appeal also ruled on the case of |
| and divorce law, over the last few years, for family | | | | Ladisa v. Ladisa, where the appeal court upheld the |
| courts to order joint custody of children. The hope, by | | | | trial judge's order of joint custody. In this case the trial |
| some, was that the parenting skills of the parties could | | | | judge had the benefit of hearing the evidence of the |
| be improved with awards of joint custody. The recent | | | | Children's Lawyer who presented the children's wishes |
| Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Kaplanis v. | | | | and who recommended joint custody. It was held that |
| Kaplanis, has tried to put this trend into perspective. | | | | the trial judge had heard evidence from third parties |
| In this decision, the parties were married in 1998 and | | | | with respect to cooperation and appropriate |
| separated in January 2002. The parties had a | | | | communication between the parties. The trial judge |
| daughter who was born in October 2001. At trial, the | | | | also looked at the history of co-parenting during the |
| father requested joint custody and the mother | | | | marriage and that despite their intense conflict, the |
| opposed the application, stating that the parties could | | | | parties could and had effectively communicated with |
| not communicate without screaming at each other. | | | | each other and placed the interests of their children |
| The trial judge granted the parties joint custody and | | | | ahead their own, when required. |
| the mother appealed the order. The appeal court set | | | | To summarize, in Ontario joint custody cases, it would |
| aside the order of joint custody and the mother was | | | | appear that the courts will now be looking more |
| granted sole custody. | | | | closely for evidence from third party and expert |
| The Appeal Court held that, for an award of joint | | | | witnesses, which can demonstrate that the parties can |
| custody to be granted, there must be some evidence | | | | and have cooperated and communicated appropriately |
| that demonstrates, that despite the parent's own | | | | and have been able to put aside their own differences |
| strong conflict with each other, the parties can and | | | | and conflict, for the benefit of the children. The lack of |
| have cooperated and communicated appropriately | | | | historical cooperation and appropriate communication |
| with one another. In this case there was evidence to | | | | between the parties will greatly limit the success of a |
| the contrary, there was no expert evidence to help the | | | | joint custody application. The assumption by some, that |
| trial judge determine how a joint custody order would | | | | the granting of joint custody will improve the parenting |
| advance the child's emotional and psychological needs | | | | skills of the parties, will not be a sufficient reason on it's |
| and the child was too young to communicate her own | | | | own to grant joint custody, in the absence of existing |
| wishes. | | | | good cooperation and communication between the |
| Approximately the same time this case was decided, | | | | parties. |