In contested parenting cases it’s common for each parent to accuse the other of child neglect or abuse.  The accusations are endless and cliched: Dad doesn’t provide proper meals; Mom doesn’t supervise homework; the kid is not properly clothed; missing school; not being taken to the doctor; someone is smoking around the kid; somebody is beating the child black and blue; blah, blah, blah.

Most of the time, the Court realizes that these are exaggerations at best, lies at worst. 

Once in a while, the Court sees that one parent really is neglecting the child to the point of abuse.  When that happens, action is swift and decisive.  An example is the recent case of J.A.P. v. V.M.R. https://canlii.ca/t/jzr3z.  Master Peter Keighley decided this, and has since retired.  Since he’s gone, I can say anything I want….

Master Keighley was one of those Masters that all lawyers liked.  It wasn’t just that he was a truly decent guy (he was).  More, it was that he brought calmness and common sense to every decision.  Family law can be emotional.  Often, the parties are in the room – sometimes shouting, weeping, or viciously whispering.  Master Keighley had a way of getting even ranting whackos (even me) to calm down and listen.  His decisions were always thoughtful, practical, and gently-phrased.  He was always polite to everyone.  We lawyers will miss him.

In J.A.P. , Master Keighly had some strong words for Mom:

[2]          … I am appalled by what I have heard today.  It may be that the mother is simply incapable of looking after this boy, that she just lacks the ability to appreciate what his needs are individually and what the needs of a child are in general and that she is simply unable to recognize her insufficiency as a parent; or it could be that she simply does not care about him, that she regards him as a capital asset, either as a source for child support from the father and/or an increased amount of support from the provincial government.

[6]          Now, she says that the child is happy, that she loves him and cares for him.  A loving mother does not send her child to her father's home dirty, disheveled, and in dirty clothes. …

[8]          …  It must be humiliating for him to be forced to compete with others at school who are prepared, who are well fed, who are washed, properly clothed, and no doubt he is subject to ridicule.  I have not heard any evidence about that, but I think we all know how children behave given an opportunity of that sort to disparage a weaker and more vulnerable child.

Before the application, Mom had had primary care of the boy. Master Keighley flipped that, giving Dad primary care. He allowed Mom some limited parenting time.  All of her time ensures the boy will be with his Dad the night before school.  The Master dropped a few hints that he’d have limited Mom’s parental authority and made her pay child support – but hadn’t been asked for those orders.

One hopes this kid will get over the selfish neglect his mother inflicted on him. 

It's clear that Mom’s lawyer could not control her.  Master Keighley recognized how nasty Mom was based on the affidavits that Mom’s lawyer prepared, had her sign, and then filed at court.  Ironically, the lawyer’s lack of control had the benefit of revealing Mom’s truly awful personality to Master Keighley.  But OMG: sometimes a good lawyer has to tell the client: STFU!

At Clear Legal, we have been teaching our clients to listen to their better angels since 1990.