Background

In Shokoufimogiman v. Bozorgi, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed a high-conflict temporary parenting motion involving a four-and-a-half-year-old child. The father brought a motion seeking a fundamental restructuring of the child’s living arrangements, including primary residence with him or, alternatively, an equal time-sharing schedule. He also sought sole decision-making responsibility, control over the child’s government-issued identification, and restrictions on the mother’s travel with the child.

The mother opposed the motion in its entirety. She sought primary care of the child, limited parenting time for the father, sole decision-making responsibility, and possession of the child’s passports and identification. Both parties alleged family violence, controlling behavior, and litigation misconduct by the other.

The parties separated in March 2022 and continued to live under the same roof until July 2022, when the mother moved out with the child after contacting police and the Children’s Aid Society to implement a safety plan. Parenting arrangements quickly deteriorated, with the father refusing to accept anything less than a 50-50 schedule and, as a result, having no parenting time for nearly a month.

Shortly before the motion, the father contacted police regarding alleged assaults dating back years, resulting in criminal charges against the mother and a criminal undertaking limiting communication between the parties. The Court was therefore required to determine temporary parenting and decision-making arrangements in an atmosphere of extreme conflict, incomplete evidence, and pending criminal and child protection processes.

The Law

Temporary parenting motions are governed by the best interests of the child, as set out in section 16 of the Divorce Act. At the interim stage, courts are cautioned against making dramatic changes to a child’s living arrangements unless there is compelling evidence that such change is immediately required.

Key principles include:

• maintaining the status quo where possible;
• avoiding “experimentation” with a child’s life on a limited record;
• recognizing the limits of affidavit evidence in high-conflict cases; and
• exercising restraint where credibility disputes and serious allegations have not been tested.

Joint decision-making responsibility requires a minimum level of trust, communication, and cooperation. Courts will not impose it in the hope that it will improve parental communication.

Analysis

What Was the Court Being Asked to Decide on a Temporary Basis?

The Court was asked to determine:

• whether temporary joint or sole decision-making responsibility was in the child’s best interests;
• what temporary parenting schedule best served the child’s needs; and
• which parent should retain the child’s government-issued identification.

Should the Court Disrupt the Existing Parenting Status Quo?

No. The Court emphasized that temporary motions are not the proper forum for dramatic restructuring of a child’s life. The evidence was sharply conflicting, credibility could not be assessed, and an OCL assessment was pending.

Absent compelling evidence that the child’s safety or well-being required immediate change, the Court declined to adopt either parent’s extreme proposal.

Was Joint Decision-Making Responsibility Appropriate?

No. The Court found that the parties lacked the mutual trust, communication, and cooperation required for joint decision-making responsibility.

The criminal undertaking, mutual allegations of family violence, repeated accusations of dishonesty, and the father’s failure to raise safety concerns in his pleadings or Form 35.1 all demonstrated that joint decision-making would expose the child to ongoing conflict.

Why Was Temporary Sole Decision-Making Responsibility Granted to the Mother?

The Court concluded that the mother should have temporary decision-making responsibility because:

• the parties were unable to communicate directly;
• the father appeared focused on his “rights” rather than the child’s needs;
• the father had withheld child support after separation;
• the father’s conduct suggested a risk that decision-making authority would be used as a tool of control; and
• stability was required pending trial and assessment.

However, the Court required the mother to consult the father in writing and to provide him with notice of decisions, reflecting an effort to preserve the father’s involvement without exposing the child to conflict.

Was an Equal Parenting Time Schedule in the Child’s Best Interests?

No. The Court rejected the father’s proposed 50-50 schedule. Equal parenting time for a young child requires a high degree of coordination and cooperation, which was absent in this case.

The father’s proposed schedule would have resulted in the child sleeping in a different home almost every night, creating instability and excessive transitions for a preschool-aged child.

Was the Mother’s Proposed Parenting Schedule Appropriate?

Also no. The Court found that the mother’s proposal would have resulted in the child going up to ten days without seeing the father, which was too long for a child of this age and inconsistent with maintaining meaningful relationships with both parents.

How Did the Court Ultimately Structure the Parenting Schedule?

The Court crafted a bespoke, child-focused schedule that:

• limited the child to no more than three consecutive nights away from either parent;
• reduced transitions;
• preserved regular contact with both parents; and
• used daycare exchanges and third-party assistance to avoid direct parental contact.

This approach balanced stability with continuity of relationships.

How Did the Court Treat the Allegations of Family Violence?

The Court did not make findings on the truth of the allegations, recognizing that they were untested. However, it considered the existence of the allegations, criminal charges, and safety plan as relevant context when assessing communication, trust, and the appropriateness of joint decision-making.

The Court was particularly troubled by the timing of the father’s police complaint and his failure to raise alleged violence earlier in the proceedings.

Who Should Retain the Child’s Government-Issued Identification?

The Court ordered that the mother retain the child’s passports and identification, while requiring her to provide copies to the father. Given the allegations, criminal undertaking, and travel concerns, this arrangement best protected the child while preserving transparency.

Conclusion

Shokoufimogiman v. Bozorgi is a textbook example of judicial restraint in high-conflict temporary parenting disputes. The decision reinforces that:

• temporary motions are not trials;
• stability and predictability are paramount for young children;
• joint decision-making cannot function without trust and communication; and
• courts will intervene to prevent parental control dynamics from harming children.

Rather than choosing between polarized positions, the Court crafted a balanced interim solution designed to protect the child until a fuller evidentiary record could be developed through assessment or trial.