Parental Alienation and How a Court Can Help You

A recent case, N v. G, 2025 ONSC 3565 (CanLII), gives us much-needed guidance and relief to parents who have been faced with parental alienation from their children. 

This case was originally reported at 2025 ONSC 3565 (CanLii), <https://canlii.ca/t/kcphr> but for unknown reasons, the public citation and report has been removed. However, it continues to be good case Law and this case continues to be reported on a paid subscription site of Quick Law found at [2025] o.j. 2642 and contains the exact same material from the since removed publicly reported document.

Let us first look at the factors that describe parental alienation:

Child Behaviours:

•View of parents one-sided, all good or all bad; idealizes one parent and devalues the other

•Vicious vilification of target parent; campaign of hatred

•Trivial, false and irrational reasons to justify hatred

•Reactions and perceptions unjustified or disproportionate to parent's behaviours

•Talks openly to anyone about rejected parent's perceived shortcomings

•Extends hatred to extended family and pets (hatred by association)

•No guilt or ambivalence regarding malicious treatment, hatred, etc.

•A stronger, but not necessarily healthy, psychological bond with alienating parent than with rejected parent

•Anger at rejected parent for abandonment; blames him/her for divorce

•Speed is brittle, a litany; obsessed; has an artificial quality; affect does not match words; no conviction; unchildlike, uses adult language; has a rehearsed quality

•Stories are repetitive and lacking in detail and depth

•Mimics what siblings report rather than own experience

•Denial of hope for reconciliation; no acknowledgement of desire for reconciliation

•No photos of target parent; removes reminders of the other parent

•Refusal to hear positive comments about rejected parent; quick to discount good times as trivial and unimportant

•No encouragement of calls to other parent between visits; rationalizes that child does not ask

•Tells child fun things that were missed during visit with other parent

•Indulges child with material possessions and privileges

•Sets few limits or is rigid about routines, rules and expectations

•Refuses to speak directly to parent; refuses to be in same room or close proximity; does not let target parent come to door to pick up child

•No concern for missed visits with other parent

•Makes statements and then denies what was said

•Body language, non-verbal communication reveals lack of interest, disdain and disapproval

•Engages in inquisition of child after visits

•Rejected parent is discouraged or refused permission to attend school events and activities

•Telephone messages, gifts and mail from other parent to child are destroyed, ignored or passed on to the child with disdain

•Distorts any comments of child that might justify accusations

•Does not believe that child has any need for relationship with other parent

•When child calls and is quiet or non-communicative, parent wrongly assumes pressure from target parent, or that child is not comfortable with target parent; evidence of bad parenting; does not appreciate that child is uncomfortable talking to alienating parent about target parent

•Portrays other parent as dangerous, may inconsistently act fearful of other parent in front of child

•Exaggerates negative attributes of other parent, and omits anything positive

•Delusional false statements repeated to child; distorts history and other parent's participation in the child's life; claims other parent has totally changed since separation

•Projection of own thoughts, feelings and behaviours onto the other parent

•Does not correct child's rude, defiant and/or omnipotent behaviour directed towards the other parent, but would never permit child to do this with others

•Convinced of harm, when there is no evidence

•False or fabricated allegations of sexual, physical and/or emotional abuse

•Denigrates and exaggerates flaws of rejected parent to child

•Says other parent left "us", divorced "us" and doesn't love "us"

•Over-involves child in adult matters and litigation

•Child required to keep secrets and spy or report back on other parent

•Child required to be messenger

•Overt and covert threats to withdraw love and affection from child unless other parent is rejected

•Extreme lack of courtesy to rejected parent

•Relocation for minor reasons and with little concern for effects on child

So what happened in the case? what are the facts?

The father had complained that the mother and her partner were alienating the 7 year old child against him. At trial, the court accepted the following facts: 

1. From 2019 forward, the mother, and her mother’s mother, have been hypervigilant about the child’s physical state when returning from the father’s care.  She has been regularly examined and photographed, seemingly to build a dossier.  None of the photographs suggests abuse or neglect.  No doctor had concerns that the child was being abused.

2. Recording a one-sided audio that makes it sound as if a child was complaining about the father.

3. The child does not make any clear statement about inappropriate actions. The mother and her partner fill the conversation with leading questions and suggestive comments.  

4. There are significant gaps and spaces between the child’s statements. It does not sound “organic” or “spontaneous” as the mother, suggests.

5. The child’s comments that don’t fit the mother’s narrative are ignored.  The child says that she threw the gummy bears right off and then “I stuck them right in his eyeball….so he can see me.”  The court said that this comment was nonsensical, as is much of the recording.  It raises doubts as to whether the child is reciting real or imaginary events.

6. The child did not seem upset.  She was calm throughout.  

7. The court noted that Children’s Aid workers verified the sexual abuse concerns based mainly on the audio recording.  They did not fully explore the father’s concerns regarding coaching or the toileting issues that the child was experiencing. In other words, it would appear that the Children's Aid workers had not done their job properly.

8. The Children’s Aid Society internal tribunal called ICRP, examined the entire case. They unanimously overturned the verification finding. They recommended that unsupervised parenting time resume as soon as possible. 

9. The additional disclosure made to the therapist in August of 2023 weakens the allegation against the father. The child’s reiteration of the abuse story to the therapist and then subsequently to the police, a year after the initial disclosure, is riddled with problems.  

10. The new information (ropes around her shoulder and neck, confinement without food or drink, access to keys and a nonexistent porch) is implausible to say the least.  

11. Combine this with the many observations that the child seemed to be following a script in her recent interviews, mentally surveying whether she had hit all her talking points, and it is not possible to put any reliance on the child’s disclosures of alleged abuse.  

12. The child’s interactions with her father post August 22, 2022, are not consistent with an abused child. The few visits that the father had were all reported to be positive.  The child was noted as laughing, giggling, and playing with her father. No fear was noted.

13. During the September 19, 2022, visit, the child was holding on to her father, not wanting to let go. The child leaned over to her father with her arms out, wanting to be picked up and hugged.  

14. The mother is not able to open herself up to the possibility that the father is innocent.  She still refers to him directly and indirectly as an abuser and a pedophile.

15. The mother tells the child and others in the presence of the child that she has been abused.  

16. The mother has seen and read the reports of the positive interactions between the child and her father, which occurred without the mother being present.  She insists, regardless, that the child is afraid of the father.  She has never acknowledged the possibility that the child is feeding off her negativity and has no inherent fear of her father.

17. The mother insists she is doing all she can during the attempted parenting exchanges to get the child into the father’s care. She is not. The videos are very clear.  Her body language, her actual words, her tone, and her actions all communicate to the child that she doesn't have to go, her mom doesn’t want her to go, and there will be no consequences if she doesn’t go.  

18. No example exists of the mother genuinely encouraging the child to complete the exchanges.  Sometimes she says the right things about wanting it to happen, but her actions speak louder than her words.  Instead, the evidence included the mother flipping the father the bird through a car windshield, a behaviour that the child soon mimicked. 

19. Her verbal outburst at the father, screaming at him not to touch her daughter, as he tried to reach into the car where the child was playing keep-away, was over the top.  It did not sound genuine.  It sounded theatrical.  

20. The mother’s claim that she has no control over the child jumping back and forth between the front and back seats of the car is not credible. She is a young child. The mother has no problem controlling the child elsewhere. The mother could have easily controlled that situation if she had wanted to.  

21. The child’s level of distress during the failed exchanges appears to be insincere. It seems like play-acting, the kind of emotion that young children easily turn on and off.  This impression is supported by the fact that the child does warm up to her father immediately each time she is allowed to, without the mother being present.  Unfortunately, that has been limited to about seven total hours since the events of August 22, 2022.

22. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer noted that there were no documented or observed behaviours by the father during his parenting time that would warrant the child’s rejection of him.

23. The child has been exposed to the mother’s negative view of the father. She said, “We don’t like him,” when speaking about the father.  The “we” is referring to the maternal family constellation.  

24. On multiple parenting exchanges, the mother dressed the child in a t-shirt with the logo “MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.”  This overtly suggests to the child that her mother is opposed to the visit, and so the child should be as well.  

25. The Children’s Lawyer noted that the child’s behaviour toward the father in the presence of her mother is in stark contrast to her behaviour in her absence.

26. The interim court order specifically allows for parenting time at the father’s residence, with the mother required to physically remove her child from the car and to leave the scene.  This has not happened once despite the clear wording of the order.

So what did the Court do?

The court indicated that there was no expectation that this abusive situation will be corrected if this child were to continue to stay in the mother’s immediate care. It ordered a dramatic reversal. It ordered the child to be placed in the father’s care immediately.

The court noted that the father has established that he will encourage the child’s relationship with her mother.  He has been consistent throughout the child’s life on that point.  

Given that the child is young and the interruption of her relationship with her father has been relatively short, the expectation is that the alienation can be overcome and reversed quickly.

The father should have the ability and the responsibility to control the parenting schedule until it is normalized.

The court gave the father final sole decision-making authority and the primary residence of this young child. After reconciliation is complete, the mother will have alternate weekend parenting time and a mid-week overnight.

The father was given the ability to expand the mother’s parenting time as he deems appropriate as the decision-maker.

The child’s schooling was put under her father’s control.  There is no indication as to how long it will take to normalize the parenting regime. 

It is hoped that it will not take long, but hope is not a plan. The father confirmed he has arranged an appropriate school for his child.  The child has friends in this school. No difficulty is expected in transitioning her from homeschooling to school in the father’s catchment area.  

The transition of the child to her father’s care is an important matter to address. This decision was expected to be released on Monday, June 16, 2025. The child was to be transitioned to the father’s care on Friday, June 20, at 4:00 p.m. Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, the father will attend at the mother’s residence to pick up their child.  He will be entitled to put the police on notice and to have them ready if needed to enforce the transition. It would be highly problematic if the mother acted in any way other than in accordance with the letter and spirit of this decision.  There is no reason why she cannot facilitate a smooth transition for the child. 

Analysis:

I receive a lot of queries from concerned parents about parental alienation. This is easily one of the most sensitive and complex topics in family law. Unfortunately in most cases, the evidence takes a long time to gather and to put together. Invariably, the various pieces of evidence have to be collated in preparation of a trial which can be a long time away.

So, are you the father or the mother as in the above case? How we can help?

We have a lot of experience in dealing with complex family litigation. We will analyze your situation and try and let you know what relief we can get you based on your facts and analyzing caselaw. Do the criteria given above apply to your case for alienation?

At Shankar Law, we look forward to welcoming you and working with you to put forward the best case that you have before a court. We look forward to hearing from you.

We practice all over Ontario.

We now have four offices conveniently located to serve you better in Owen Sound, Port Elgin, Wiarton, and Kincardine. Serving the Lake Huron and Georgian Bay Shorelines from Goderich to Collingwood and the surrounding areas. We are here to help with all of your Family Law, Criminal Law, Real Estate Law and Will matters.