Scott & Kent 2013 FCCA 127
Parents disputed arrangements for a 10 year old child. The father proposed orders that the judge considered would amount to micro-management of parenting, including a formula for extracurricula activities, and a request that medical and dental appointments be arranged on a regular basis.
The judge noted that the parents participated in tit-for-tat arguments and demonstrated low levels of trust for each other (mutual distrust). The judge declined to make an order that parents live within a specified distance as neither parent proposed to relocate. The judge noted that specific restraint orders are difficult to enforce, and concluded that courts should be minimalist in the orders made. The judge commented that it is not the role of a court to identify and to determine every matter in dispute between estranged parents.
A judge found that a child aged 10 years expressed a clear view (child’s wishes) to live with his mother, and that he was of sufficient maturity that his views should be given some weight but his views would not determine the matter (age of child).