Navigating Parenting Time Modifications in High-Conflict Circumstances

Child's feet in pink sneakers standing on a colorful hopscotch court, illustrating the journey and parenting time modifications children experience.

Written on behalf of Shariff & Associates

Parenting arrangements often require adaptation over time to reflect the child’s evolving needs and the parents’ changing circumstances. In Dey v. Cronk, 2025 ONCJ 294, the Ontario Court of Justice considered whether additional overnight parenting time during the school week was in the best interests of an 11-year-old child. The case provides practical guidance on the law of variation motions, the weight given to a child’s expressed preferences, and the courts’ expectations for parental cooperation in high-conflict settings.

A Longstanding Parenting Order Meets New Realities

The parties in Dey v. Cronk are the parents of Lailah, born in 2014. A final parenting order had been issued in 2014, when Lailah was just a few months old. That order granted Ms. Dey primary custody and gave Mr. Cronk access on reasonable notice, but no fixed schedule. At the time, Mr. Cronk was grappling with addiction issues and was not in a position to parent consistently.

By 2025, circumstances had changed significantly. Mr. Cronk had completed a rehabilitation program, established a stable home life with a long-term partner, and maintained steady employment. He sought a variation of the existing order to obtain more defined and expanded parenting time. Ms. Dey conceded that a material change in circumstances had occurred, a threshold requirement for variation under section 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The Legal Framework: Material Change and Best Interests

The court reaffirmed that parenting orders can only be varied if a material change in circumstances affects the child’s best interests. This principle, established in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Gordon v. Goertz, requires a two-step process: first, establishing a material change, and second, conducting a fresh analysis of the child’s best interests.

Justice Paull confirmed that the passage of time and Mr. Cronk’s significant life changes constituted a material change. More importantly, the previous order lacked specificity, leading to ongoing parental conflict and ambiguity that negatively impacted Lailah’s well-being.

What the Child Wants: Voice of the Child Report Carries Weight

Central to the case was a Voice of the Child (VOC) Report prepared by a clinician from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL). Lailah was interviewed in both parents’ homes, and her views were consistent: She wanted to live primarily with her mother and spend more time with her father during the week, perhaps one additional overnight.

The clinician found Lailah to be articulate, thoughtful, and honest. She desired to maintain her current primary residence with her mother while increasing her contact with her father, particularly during the school week and holidays. The court accepted the VOC Report as reliable and entitled it to significant weight.

Justice Paull emphasized that the VOC Report was not undermined by age (approximately 12 months) or Mr. Cronk’s concerns about the interview setting. The report remained the only evidence of Lailah’s wishes and was supported by a sound investigative process.

Parenting Time Requests: Why the Court Denied Thursday Overnights

The main unresolved issue at trial was Mr. Cronk’s request for an additional overnight on Thursdays during the school week. Although the parties had already agreed to alternate weekend visits and a weekly Tuesday overnight, Mr. Cronk argued that Lailah would benefit from more weekday parenting time.

The court, however, declined to grant the additional Thursday overnight. Justice Paull explained that such an arrangement would effectively turn the school week into a shared parenting schedule, with Lailah transitioning between homes nearly daily. For an 11-year-old, this was viewed as potentially disruptive, particularly in a high-conflict co-parenting environment.

Furthermore, a schedule involving frequent transitions requires a high level of parental cooperation and communication—qualities that were notably absent in this case. The parties had a documented history of conflict, including police involvement and disagreements about school pickups, hygiene, and communication about activities and medical issues. In such circumstances, imposing a schedule that necessitates even greater coordination would not be in the child’s best interests.

Assessing the Parents: Stability vs. Conflict

Justice Paull acknowledged Mr. Cronk’s positive changes in his life, including his sobriety, employment, and a stable household with a supportive partner and stepchildren who had bonded with Lailah. However, the judge also noted troubling behaviour, including Mr. Cronk’s unilateral decisions to pick Lailah up early from school and his failure to communicate key information to Ms. Dey.

Conversely, Ms. Dey was faulted for not informing Mr. Cronk about taking Lailah to the U.S. for several days and for not facilitating regular contact between Lailah and her father when she was in her care. While neither parent’s behaviour rose to endangering the child, both demonstrated a lack of mutual respect and an inability to communicate effectively—factors that weighed heavily against any expansion of shared parenting time.

The Importance of Minimizing Parental Conflict

One of the key findings in the case was that Lailah experienced anxiety not from time spent with either parent, but from being caught in the middle of their ongoing disputes. This is a common theme in high-conflict parenting litigation. The court repeatedly emphasized that parents must shield their children from adult conflict and foster respectful co-parenting.

To mitigate the risk of future conflict, Justice Paull included provisions in the final order that restricted communication between the parents in Lailah’s presence and prohibited disparaging comments about the other parent. The court also required both parents to facilitate private, unhindered communication between Lailah and the non-residential parent.

The Final Order: What Was Granted and Why

In the end, the court issued a detailed order maintaining Ms. Dey as the primary residential parent and allowing Mr. Cronk parenting time on alternate weekends and every Tuesday overnight. The summer holidays and other special days like Easter, Thanksgiving, and Father’s Day were to be shared.

Mr. Cronk was ordered to handle all transportation, and pickups and drop-offs were to occur at the school whenever possible to minimize conflict. Each parent was also prohibited from attending the other’s home without invitation and discussing litigation matters with Lailah.

Notably, the court reiterated that its role was not to reward or punish parents but to design an arrangement that served Lailah’s best interests. While Mr. Cronk’s desire for additional time was understandable and Lailah clearly loved both parents, the legal and factual context did not support more frequent mid-week transitions at this time.

Key Takeaways for Family Law Clients

The Dey v. Cronk decision offers valuable lessons for Ontario parents navigating post-separation parenting issues:

  1. Material Change Threshold: Courts require a meaningful shift in circumstances that impacts the child before considering variations. This includes changes in the child’s age, parental stability, or patterns of interaction.
  2. Children’s Voices Matter: A well-prepared VOC Report can carry significant weight, especially when the child is of an age and maturity to express clear, consistent views.
  3. High-Conflict Co-Parenting Limits Options: Where hostility and poor communication prevail, courts will be hesitant to impose shared parenting arrangements that demand cooperation.
  4. Unilateral Action Undermines Trust: Even well-intentioned changes to the parenting schedule must be discussed and agreed upon. Acting without consent can backfire legally.
  5. Parenting Time Isn’t About Parental Rights—It’s About the Child’s Needs: Courts will prioritize a child-focused analysis, considering how each parent can support the child’s well-being with minimal disruption and conflict.

Structure, Clarity, and Respect Are Essential

Parenting after separation is never easy, particularly when trust is low and emotions run high. The court’s decision in Dey v. Cronk reinforces that clarity in court orders, respect in communication, and consistency in parenting time are vital to safeguarding a child’s emotional and psychological health. For family law clients seeking to vary parenting orders, the path forward lies in demonstrating change and showing that the proposed new arrangement truly serves the child’s best interests.

Experienced Stouffville Family Lawyers Helping You Navigate High-Conflict Co-Parenting Issues

The legal process can feel overwhelming and contentious when navigating a high-conflict co-parenting situation. At Shariff & Associates, our compassionate collaborative family lawyers can help you find a path forward that minimizes stress and prioritizes your child’s well-being. Don’t let conflict dictate your child’s future. Schedule a consultation to discuss your specific circumstances and learn how we can help you work toward a respectful and lasting resolution. Contact us today at 905-591-4545 or through our online form to arrange a confidential consultation.