When a Child Resists Parenting Time: Key Lessons from J.D. v. A.S.
In a recent decision, the British Columbia Supreme Court considered the difficult question of what happens when a young child strongly resists spending time with a parent, particularly where the child is experiencing anxiety and distress, and professionals have recommended that parenting time be suspended. In today’s article Armaghan Aliabadi discusses a recent case that looked for solutions.
Vancouver When a Child Resists Parenting Time Tel: 604 602 9000
In J.D. v. A.S., 2026 BCSC 1520, Justice Ormiston was asked to determine whether a mother was justified in withholding the parties’ six-year-old child from court-ordered supervised parenting time with her father. The Court ultimately found that the ongoing withholding was not justified, ordered parenting time to resume on a graduated basis, and declined to find the mother in contempt.
The decision provides important guidance for parents and counsel dealing with high-conflict parenting disputes where a child expresses a strong reluctance or refusal to see the other parent.
A Longstanding Parenting Dispute
The parties separated in May 2022, when their daughter was approximately two or three years old. Since separation, the child had primarily lived with her mother and had not had parenting time with her father since November 2024.
In May 2025, the Court ordered supervised parenting time. The order was intended to preserve the father-child relationship while the more complex issues underlying the child’s resistance could be investigated. The child attended one attempted visit on June 7, 2025, but the mother did not facilitate further parenting time.
Surrey When a Child Resists Parenting Time Tel: 604 602 9000
The mother relied heavily on the child’s distress, counselling records, and a family doctor’s opinion that parenting time should be suspended. The father, meanwhile, argued that the existing order should be enforced and that the child’s resistance required further investigation rather than indefinite suspension of contact.
A Child’s Distress Does Not Automatically Justify Withholding Parenting Time
One of the most important findings in the decision is that a child’s reluctance or distress, standing alone, does not necessarily justify a parent withholding court-ordered parenting time.
The Court acknowledged that the child was genuinely upset. There was evidence that she cried, became distressed and wet her pants when parenting time was attempted. She also expressed fear about seeing her father. However, the Court emphasized that the child was only five years old at the time, had never had unsupervised parenting time with her father, and was being introduced to a supervised visit involving a professional supervisor.
Justice Ormiston concluded that the mother’s ongoing withholding could not be justified simply because the child did not want to attend. The Court stressed that parents have a responsibility to exercise their parental authority rather than allowing a young child’s reluctance to determine whether a court order will be followed.
Medical Opinions Must Be Based on a Proper Foundation Tel: 604 602 9000
The Court also carefully scrutinized the family doctor’s recommendation that parenting time be suspended.
While the Court accepted that the child was experiencing anxiety and stress, it did not accept that the doctor’s evidence established that supervised parenting time itself was inappropriate. The doctor had received much of the relevant family history from the mother and had limited information about the actual parenting arrangement. He also had not obtained information from the father before forming his opinion.
The Court therefore distinguished between diagnosing a child’s symptoms and determining the appropriate parenting arrangement. The latter is ultimately a legal determination to be made by the Court after considering the full evidentiary picture.
Importantly, the doctor’s original recommendation was also time limited. It recommended suspension until counselling and the appeal process had occurred. Those events subsequently took place, yet parenting time remained suspended for more than a year.
Counselling Should Support Parenting Time, Not Necessarily Determine Whether It Occurs Tel: 604 602 9000
The Court also rejected the mother’s request for a further recommendation from the child’s counsellor about whether parenting time should proceed.
Justice Ormiston found that the counsellor’s clinical notes were already available to the Court and that there were concerns about relying on the counsellor as an opinion witness. Among other things, the Court found that the counsellor did not have particular expertise in parent-child reunification and that the disclosed records did not adequately explain the basis for the counsellor’s apparent fear of the father.
The Court instead ordered that the child work with a professional with greater expertise in parent-child reunification.
Significantly, the Court clarified that counselling was not intended to determine when parenting time should begin. Rather, its purpose was to help the child adjust to the fact that parenting time would resume.
The Court’s Solution: A Graduated Return to Parenting Time Tel: 604 602 9000
The Court did not simply reinstate the original schedule immediately. Recognizing that the child had gone approximately a year and a half without seeing her father, Justice Ormiston found that a graduated approach was appropriate.
The child was ordered to attend six weekly counselling sessions before supervised parenting time resumed. The father would not participate in the first three sessions and could participate in the final three if invited by the counsellor. Parenting time would then begin with a three-hour supervised Saturday visit, followed by a return to the existing schedule after three weeks of Saturday visits.
This approach reflects the Court’s effort to balance two competing concerns: protecting the child’s emotional well-being while preserving the child’s opportunity to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents.
Wrongful Withholding Does Not Automatically Mean Contempt
Although the Court found that the mother had wrongfully withheld the child from parenting time, it declined to find her in contempt.
A finding of contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the party intentionally breached the order. Here, the Court found that the mother had taken some steps that demonstrated an attempt to address the child’s distress, including bringing the child to the first scheduled visit and seeking professional guidance. The evidence was therefore insufficient to establish the necessary intent for contempt.
The Court nevertheless ordered costs in favour of the father, noting that the mother’s conduct had caused significant delay and required the father to bring enforcement proceedings.
When a Child Resists Parenting Time -Key Takeaways for Parents Tel: 604 602 9000
J.D. v. A.S. reinforces several important principles:
- A child’s resistance to parenting time must be taken seriously, but it is not automatically determinative.
- A parent cannot unilaterally replace a court-ordered parenting schedule with a child-led arrangement.
- Professional opinions must have an adequate factual foundation and appropriate expertise.
- Counselling and reunification therapy can assist with parenting time without necessarily becoming a precondition to it.
- Interim parenting orders are designed to preserve stability and relationships until a full trial can determine the underlying issues.
- A breach of a parenting order does not automatically result in contempt, but wrongful withholding can still have significant consequences, including costs.
Kelowna When a Child Resists Parenting Time Tel: 604 602 9000
Ultimately, the decision underscores the Court’s central concern: the best interests of the child. Where the reasons for a child’s resistance remain unresolved, the answer may not be to allow the child-parent relationship to disappear while waiting for trial. Instead, courts may seek a structured and professionally supported path forward that protects the child while preserving the possibility of a meaningful relationship with both parents.
If you have a case when a child resists parenting time, contact us immediately before things decline.
