In the emotionally charged aftermath of separation and divorce, few issues are as devastating as the severance of a parent-child bond. In cases where a child has no contact with a parent following the ending of their parents’ relationship, terms often used to describe the situation are parental alienation, child estrangement, or severance of the parent-child bond. While these terms may differ in tone and implication, they all point to a common and painful reality: a once-existing relationship between a parent and child has been lost.
For the parent who finds themselves suddenly “removed” from their child’s life, the initial reaction is often one of grief, urgency and a strong desire to restore the relationship. The first step some take is to seek court intervention – typically in the form of a court-ordered parenting schedule and/or reunification therapy – a process ordered by the court to rebuild the parent-child relationship. In more extreme cases, this may even involve seeking a court order for a change of residence, removing the child from the care of the “favoured” parent to facilitate reconciliation. bond. In cases where a child has no contact with a parent following the ending of their parents’ relationship, terms often used to describe the situation are parental alienation, child estrangement, or severance of the parent-child bond. While these terms may differ in tone and implication, they all point to a common and painful reality: a once-existing relationship between a parent and child has been lost.
For the parent who finds themselves suddenly “removed” from their child’s life, the initial reaction is often one of grief, urgency and a strong desire to restore the relationship. The first step some take is to seek court intervention – typically in the form of a court-ordered parenting schedule and/or reunification therapy – a process ordered by the court to rebuild the parent-child relationship. In more extreme cases, this may even involve seeking a court order for a change of residence, removing the child from the care of the “favoured” parent to facilitate reconciliation.
However, these efforts are not always successful. The child may refuse to see their parent, and reunification therapy may be rejected outright by the child or be ineffective. The court may also refuse to enforce such measures if it believes the child’s autonomy should be respected, or if the child’s emotional or psychological well-being could be harmed.
At this juncture, a striking shift often occurs in the litigation strategy of the estranged parent. When attempts at mandating parenting times or reconciliation have failed, and the parent no longer sees a path back to a meaningful relationship with the child, they may pivot – not towards remediation but towards vindication.
In these cases, the estranged parent may approach the court not to compel future contact with the child, but to secure a declaration of the past: a formal court order stating that they did nothing wrong, and that it was the actions and influence of the other parent that caused the child’s estrangement. This kind of relief, known as declaratory relief, serves a very different purpose than a parenting order – it does not seek to restore a relationship, but rather to define and preserve the removed parent’s reputation and legacy as a parent.
This legal approach is not without precedent. In R.G. v. K.G. et al., 2017 ONCA 108, the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the use of declarations in family law disputes by affirming that “courts have jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief under their inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 97 of the Courts of Justice Act.” In deciding whether to grant such relief, the court set out three essential requirements: (1) the question must be real and not theoretical; (2) the person seeking the declaration must have a real interest in raising the issue; and (3) there must be someone who has a genuine interest in opposing the declaration. This framework provides a basis for understanding how and when a declaration might be issued in cases of parental estrangement. The parent bringing the application must demonstrate that the severance of the relationship is not speculative or hypothetical, but real. They must show that they have a genuine stake in the matter and that the other parent has a sufficient interest to challenge the application.
Recently in the case of Cousins v. Healey 2025 ONSC 5512 (CanLII), the estranged father asked the judge to issue a declaration that the mother caused the severance of his relationship with his children. Given the futility of all past court orders for parenting and reunification, the trial judge wrote:
[449] Now, in large measure because of Sarah’s failure to comply with the orders, which is layered over years of alienating actions, I have found that Adam is not able to achieve that result. As bad as that is, he also continues to be blamed by both Sarah and the children for the non-existence of a relationship with the children. That narrative is false and must be corrected.
[450] As part of my order, I am including a declaration that Sarah is the primary reason the children do not have a relationship with Adam.
[454] I have concluded that, absent such a declaration, Adam is left with no official finding about the cause of his non-existent relationship with the children or the result of the efforts that he made to reconcile with them. A declaration will allow him to counter the false narratives of Sarah and the children. In future, it may also help the children understand, if ever they want to, as adults, that these proceedings stood for something more than merely being a source of punishment for them, which they were not.
[455] I also find that making a declaratory order, without having heard submissions on the point from Sarah, is not unfair to her. She had ample opportunity to deny her role in the children’s rejection of their father, and voiced that position repeatedly. I have found that she was primarily responsible. The declaration is simply a memorialization, in the form of an order, of that finding.
While such declaratory orders do not restore the parent-child bond, they serve another purpose: they offer the removed parent a form of closure. For many, it is about more than legal recognition – it’s a chance to be remembered by their child, even if only through a court record, as a parent who tried. It may also serve to counter the narrative, sometimes advanced in court or in social settings, that the estranged parent was the cause of the severance.
This decision reflects a growing recognition of the psychological and reputational impact of parent-child estrangement – and the need for legal remedies that reflect more than just future parenting arrangements. The move from reconciliation to vindication in family law reflects the deep emotional and personal toll of losing a child to estrangement. While reunification remains the preferred outcome, the reality is that not all relationships can be restored. In those cases, the law now offers an avenue – declaratory relief – for parents seeking not a reunion, but recognition. It is a solemn reminder that while courts cannot always mend broken bonds, they can sometimes offer clarity, truth and a measure of dignity to those left behind.
CASE LINK: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc5512/2025onsc5512.html
This article was recently published in Lexis Nexis’ LAW360 at: https://www.law360.ca/ca/family/articles/2400389/alienated-parents-have-one-more-remedy
Steve Benmor, B.Sc. LL.B., LL.M. (Family Law), C.S., Cert.F.Med., C.Arb., FDRP PC, is the founder and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a Certified Specialist in Family Law, a Certified Specialist in Parenting Coordination and was admitted as a Fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. Steve is regularly retained as a Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator. Steve uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, court-room experience and expert problem-solving skills in Divorce Mediation/Arbitration to help spouses reach fair, fast and cooperative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court.
Editorial note: This article was first published on LinkedIn in October 2025 and is republished here for reference.
Share this article on: