In the case of S.C. v. M.S., 2024 ONCJ 371 (CanLII), Justice Daudlin heard a trial on parenting for the parties’ 10-year-old daughter.
The mother asked for an order that the father only see his daughter under supervision and that she have sole decision-making authority.
The mother had reported to the police her concerns about the father’s abusive conduct and poor parenting. When the police interviewed the girl, she stated that she was fearful of her father because he sometimes hits her when he is angry. The father denied this and accused the child of lying to the police.
The father admitted that he occasionally used corporal punishment to discipline his daughter and that spanking is not against the law.
The judge wrote:
“That father uses corporal punishment to discipline the child. This is not disputed.
The father views spanking as a useful and necessary corrective tool of last resort. However, the evidence does not support his claim.
The court finds, therefore, that the father’s decision to spank the child was not a spur-of-the-moment reaction but rather a predetermined consequence he had communicated to the child, and that he followed through on.
The father’s justification for his actions is that they do not rise to the standard of criminality as set out in the Criminal Code, not only downplays the severity of the use of corporal punishment but underscores that the father does not perceive his behaviour as problematic or harmful.
This is further supported by the court’s previous findings that the father has engaged in family violence against the mother, including threatening, abusive, and coercive and controlling behaviour. Such a history of family violence, coupled with the father’s insistence on his authority to hit the child, despite warnings from the mother, provides a broader context for the father’s actions, reinforcing the mother’s evidence that these incidents are part of an ongoing pattern of abusive behaviour and indicating a risk of future occurrences.
That a spanking does not meet the standard of criminality under the Criminal Code is not relevant. Conduct deemed “reasonable under the circumstances” as a criminal defence can still be excessive when it comes to determining the best interests of a child in circumstances that fall short of constituting a crime.
The use of spanking as a form of discipline is not to be condoned. It constitutes family violence, the negative consequences of which on a child can be serious and long-lasting.
A child’s direct or indirect exposure to family violence is itself recognized as family violence and a form of child abuse. Exposure to domestic violence, and corporal punishment (including slapping and hitting) are recognized as forms of violence that impact children uniquely.”
The judge gave a stern order stating:
“The father shall not use corporal punishment of any kind to discipline or correct the child. If the child reports the use of corporal punishment by the father, the mother shall have leave to bring an urgent motion, on notice to the father, to vary the terms of parenting time, including the level of supervision.”
In the end, the court granted the mother primary care of the child and sole decision-making authority with an obligation to consult the father. The father was granted unsupervised parenting time on alternating weekends on the condition that he be prohibited from using any form corporal punishment against the child.
CASE LINK: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj371/2024oncj371.html
Share this article on: