In D.F. v. R.W.F., 2025 ONCA 129, the Ontario Court of Appeal tackled the rare but increasingly important question of how family courts should manage decision-making and parenting arrangements for an adult child with a permanent cognitive disability – in this case, a 22-year-old man with Down Syndrome who functions at the level of a 4 year-old. This decision provides critical guidance to judges, lawyers and Family Mediator/Arbitrators navigating parenting disputes involving adult children who remain lifelong dependents.
In this case, the parents were married in 1983 and separated in 2019. They have seven children, the youngest being a boy born with Down Syndrome. When the mother initiated divorce proceedings in 2020, she sought exclusive decision-making authority and primary care of their son. After a series of temporary orders were put in place, the parents could not settle the parenting schedule and so the case proceeded to trial. At trial, the judge made key determinations including that the mother was granted sole decision-making and guardianship of their son and that the father was limited to supervised parenting time at the mother’s discretion. The trial judge recognized that the parents could not cooperate and were deeply steeped in acrimony. The trial judgment aimed to minimize exposure to parental conflict, maintaining sibling connections, and protecting their son’s need for stability. The trial judge found that the father demonstrated “little insight” into his responsibilities as a parent and had placed their son at risk through concerning parenting decisions.
The father proceeded with an appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The three judge panel upheld the trial judge’s findings regarding the father’s failures, the need for supervised access, and the prioritization of their son’s best interests. However, it identified a significant omission: the lack of a built-in review mechanism to revisit the parenting order over time. The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized that their son will never “age out” of court orders due to his lifelong developmental delay. This then caused the panel to requires the court to build flexibility into its order. The panel was concerned that the absence of a mechanism to reassess the appropriateness of supervised parenting time risked freezing the status quo indefinitely, and that this was contrary to section 16(6) of the Divorce Act which affirms the principle of maximum contact with both parents consistent with the child’s best interests.
D.F. v. R.W.F. underscores the evolving complexity of parenting arrangements when adult children with disabilities are involved. It affirms that parenting orders may persist beyond childhood in these cases, and that courts must navigate a delicate balance between protection, autonomy, and relational continuity. Importantly, it sets a precedent that even in high-conflict separations, the parenting relationship with a disabled adult child must remain subject to periodic judicial scrutiny – not only to prevent harm, but to preserve the possibility of healing and increased contact where justified.
This case should serve as a template for all family law professionals handling similar matters, reminding them that when parenting never truly ends, neither should the court’s openness to revisiting what parenting should be.
This article was published in LAW360 at: https://www.law360.ca/ca/family/articles/2373640/parenting-adult-children-with-disabilities-post-divorce
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.
Share this article on: