5,310
edits
Changes
→Parenting schedules
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(c) that decisions among guardians should be made separately or together.</tt></blockquote></blockquote>
The absence of any presumptions about parenting schedules in the legislation, whether for shared parenting time or something else, is intentional. Both the ''Divorce Act'' and the ''Family Law Act'' say that decisions about children are to be made considering only their best interests. As a result, parents, arbitrators and judges have to think about is what is best for the particular child in the particular circumstances of their particular family, not what is generally best for children. As This is what Justice McLachlan said in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/1fr99 Gordon v. Goertz]'', a 1996 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada,:
<blockquote>"The argument that a presumption would render the law more predictable in a way which would do justice in the majority of cases and reduce conflict damaging to the child between the former spouses also founders on the rock of the ''Divorce Act''. The Act contemplates individual justice. The judge is obliged to consider the best interests of the particular child in the particular circumstances of the case. Had Parliament wished to impose general rules at the expense of individual justice, it could have done so. It did not. The manner in which Parliament has chosen to resolve situations which may not be in the child's best interests should not be lightly abjured. Even if it could be shown that a presumption in favour of the custodial parent would reduce litigation that would not imply a reduction in conflict. The short-term pain of litigation may be preferable to the long-term pain of unresolved conflict. Foreclosing an avenue of legal redress exacts a price; it may, in extreme cases, even impel desperate parents to desperate measures in contravention of the law. A presumption would do little to reduce the underlying conflict endemic in custody disputes."</blockquote>