- " Instead, a parent's willingness and ability to communicate, cooperate, and support the child's relationship with the other parent is one of the non-exhaustive factors considered under…
- Does the parent respond to reasonable requests about the child in a timely, constructive way?
- A court weighs this alongside everything else relevant to the child's best interests — it doesn't automatically outweigh concerns about safety, caregiving capacity, or the child's own needs.
Ask any family lawyer what judges notice, and one theme comes up constantly: how each parent talks about, and behaves toward, the other. Courts pay close attention to whether a parent genuinely supports the child's relationship with the other side, or quietly undermines it. This is sometimes called the "friendly parent" consideration, though it isn't a standalone legal test on its own.
Understanding what this factor actually looks at — and, just as importantly, what it doesn't override — helps parents avoid two common mistakes: assuming it's decisive, and assuming that reasonable, safety-based boundaries will be held against them.
Here's how it fits into the broader picture Ontario courts use to decide parenting arrangements.
Where This Factor Comes From
Ontario and federal family law don't use a single labelled "friendly parent test." Instead, a parent's willingness and ability to communicate, cooperate, and support the child's relationship with the other parent is one of the non-exhaustive factors considered under the best-interests-of-the-child test — the only test used for parenting and contact decisions. It sits alongside every other relevant consideration, including the child's own needs, each parent's caregiving history, and family violence where it's present.
What Courts Actually Look At
- Communication patterns. Does the parent respond to reasonable requests about the child in a timely, constructive way?
- Facilitating parenting time. Does the parent make the exchange happen smoothly, or create friction, delays, or last-minute changes?
- What the child hears. Does the parent speak neutrally or positively about the other parent around the child, or disparage them?
- Flexibility on the margins. Reasonable accommodation for a schedule change or a special occasion, versus rigid or punitive behaviour.
- Consistency with court orders and agreements. Following the existing plan is itself evidence of cooperative behaviour; ignoring it is evidence of the opposite.
What This Factor Is Not
This is the part parents most often get wrong in both directions:
- It is not a single deciding factor. A court weighs this alongside everything else relevant to the child's best interests — it doesn't automatically outweigh concerns about safety, caregiving capacity, or the child's own needs.
- It does not mean "agree to everything." Advocating for a child's genuine needs, or raising a legitimate concern about the other parent's household, isn't the same as being uncooperative.
- It does not penalize legitimate, safety-based limits. A parent who restricts or supervises contact because of a documented family violence concern is not treated the same as a parent who simply dislikes the other parent or wants to limit their involvement for its own sake. Family violence is itself an express factor courts must weigh — it isn't cancelled out by a "friendliness" consideration.
Friendly Cooperation vs. Safety-Based Caution
| Behaviour | Generally viewed as cooperative | Generally viewed as a legitimate safety response, not "unfriendly" |
|---|---|---|
| Responding to requests | Timely, constructive replies | Communicating through a lawyer or a monitored platform where there's a documented concern |
| Flexibility on schedule | Accommodating reasonable changes | Declining a change that would remove a needed safeguard |
| Speaking to the child | Neutral or positive about the other parent | Age-appropriate honesty about a genuine safety issue, without disparagement |
| Supervised contact | Not typically an issue | Requesting supervision based on a documented risk, rather than refusing contact outright |
The distinction a court draws is between behaviour that reflects genuine cooperation and behaviour that reflects a proportionate, well-founded response to risk — not between "agreeable" and "difficult."
Practical Takeaways
- Keep communication about the child factual, timely, and in writing where possible
- Follow the existing order or plan even when you disagree with it, and raise disagreements through the proper process rather than unilaterally
- If you have a genuine safety concern, document it — the distinction between caution and obstruction is made with evidence, not assumptions
- Avoid discussing the other parent negatively with or around the child, regardless of how justified the frustration feels in the moment
Frequently asked questions
Can refusing contact ever hurt my case, even if I have real concerns?
Undocumented or unexplained refusal can be viewed unfavourably, since courts look for evidence behind any limitation on contact. A well-documented, safety-based reason is treated very differently from an unexplained refusal.
Is being the "friendly parent" enough to win a parenting dispute?
No. It's one relevant factor among many the court weighs under the best-interests test — it doesn't override concerns about a child's safety, needs, or overall well-being.
Does using a co-parenting app or written communication only make me look uncooperative?
Not generally. Courts often view structured, written communication as sensible and constructive, especially where there's a history of conflict or a documented reason for keeping communication factual and recorded.
What if the other parent is the one being difficult?
Document the pattern factually and consistently, and raise it with your lawyer. A pattern of one-sided obstruction is itself relevant evidence, but it's most persuasive when it's well-documented rather than simply asserted.
This is a family law question
Start a file online — flat, published fees, reviewed by a licensed Ontario lawyer before a dollar is owed.