One of the worse parts of practicing family law is that when parents separate, every difference of viewpoint can become grounds for war.  Pre-separation Mom might be Mormon, and Dad might be Druze.  During the marriage, somehow they make it work.  Upon separation, each claims theirs is the “right” way and the other parent is wrong. It might be whether the child should be in soccer vs. ballet; a vegetarian vs. omnivore.  Whatever.  Suddenly every hill is one they are prepared to die on. 

These parents never seem to recognize that the child needs love, mutual respect, and harmony.  If Mom believes in X and Dad believes in Y – respect that.  The other parent loves the child.  Each want what’s best for the child.  Sometimes what’s “best” isn’t a single answer.  Sometimes there are many “bests”. 

What’s always worst for the child is a constant battle between the parents. Let the two homes be different.  Let the child grow up with different experiences, don’t force her/him to reject one parent.

But what happens when a parent’s beliefs are harmful?  The recent case of AF v. CAG: https://canlii.ca/t/jht7j forced Supreme Court Master Robertson to deal with allegations that Mom was giving her 8-year-old son urine as “medicine”.  In her usual sensible and thoughtful fashion, the Master considered all the evidence.  She concluded there was no proof Mom had been forcing the child to drink urine.  However, the Master found there was enough evidence to suggest that Mom should have her access to the child supervised.  The Master so ordered.

When the evidence is close, court always defaults to safety.  Isn’t that what we all want?

When you pick a lawyer for your family matter, don’t pick one who just parrots your own views.  Try to pick one that will give you clear advice.  Sometimes the medicine is bitter.  Better to take it, than spend $20,000 and then lose.