Case involves concerns about father's substance use, family discord
Following a separation between parents after the mother’s assault charge, the Ontario Superior Court found it in their daughter’s best interests to reside primarily with the mother at the paternal grandparents’ home or the townhouse where the family previously lived together.
In Liwanag v. Figari, 2025 ONSC 5781, the parties cohabited in a townhouse in the applicant mother’s name. They had a nine-year-old child, born in December 2015.
The respondent father had not worked in five years. On the other hand, the mother was a registered nurse who paid all household bills, family expenses, and costs for the townhouse.
The mother worried about the drug paraphernalia she discovered at home, given the father’s past drug use. The parties separated as of May 19, when the mother was charged with assault.
The father prohibited the mother from returning home and withheld their daughter, who continued to live in the townhouse under his care.
The mother moved into the residence of the father’s parents, 10–15 minutes from the townhouse. She had parenting time with the child only as the father allowed.
On Sept. 15, the mother brought an urgent motion requesting:
The mother alleged family violence, including physical and psychological abuse, against the father.
The father agreed to the OCL’s involvement, the drug test, and the child’s therapy sessions. However, he asked for an order dismissing the mother’s motion seeking temporary decision-making responsibility and primary residence.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided that the daughter’s primary residence would be with her mother. The court determined that it was not in the child’s best interests to be in her father’s primary care.
The court applied the facts to the applicable factors for a child’s best interests and made the following findings.
First, regarding the daughter’s needs, the court noted that she was often late to school, missed too many classes, and had no extracurricular activities since her father assumed primary care.
Second, the court ruled that the child had a strong relationship with both parents.
Third, the court held that the father seemed unwilling to support the development and maintenance of the daughter’s relationship with the mother.
Fourth, on the child’s history of care, the court found that the mother had acted as the primary parent before her arrest. The court noted that the daughter has primarily resided with the father since May due to that incident.
Fifth, the court noted that the child’s views and preferences were not before it.
Sixth, regarding plans for the child’s care, the court noted that:
Seventh, the court expressed concerns about the father’s ability and willingness to care for and meet the daughter’s needs. The court noted that the evidence demonstrated that the father:
Eighth, on the impact of family violence on the daughter, the court noted that she witnessed her father’s violence against the mother and was beginning to mimic his name-calling and gestures toward the mother.
Regarding the parenting schedule in line with the child’s best interests, the court issued a temporary order for the father to have parenting time on Wednesdays from after school to 8:00 p.m. and on alternating Fridays after school to Sundays at 6:00 p.m.
Lastly, the court found it unnecessary at this point to order temporary decision-making in the mother’s favour or address any medical decisions. The court noted that the daughter continued to attend the same school.
