“Parallel parenting” refers to a particular type of custody and access arrangement of the children after the parents have separated. In recent years, judges have been increasingly favouring this kind of arrangement, particular in high-conflict cases.
Typically, under the parallel parenting regime each parent has the ability to make day-to-day decisions when the child is with that parent, but decision-making with respect to major issues, such as the education, health care, and religion of the children, are divided. The division of decision-making power is usually very detailed, including most foreseeable contingencies.
For example, suppose one parent is responsible for all schooling decisions and the other medical ones, the detailed plan will likely contain provisions pertaining which parent gets to make the decision should the child requires medical attention while at school. The idea is that the parents have equal status but exercise the rights and responsibilities associated with custody independently.
In Ontario, parallel parenting is considered as a subcategory of joint legal custody, where both parents have (albiet mutually exclusively) decision-making powers regarding the well-being of the child.*
As the result of each parent wielding mutually exclusive, clearly-defined decision-making powers, there is little need for communication between the parents. The successful parenting under parallel parenting doesn’t depend on the cooperation or even good communication between the parents. The parents are encouraged to communicate through a communication book or emails.
Therefore, parallel parenting may be suitable in high conflict cases, where the parents have difficulties working closely with each other. In fact, parallel parenting may be the only alternative to granting the sole custody of the children to one parent when the parents are openly hostile to each other. By allowing both parents to make major decisions for the children, concerns over potential parental alienation are lessened. The children may hence have maximum contact with both parents even if the parents can’t get along.
*See e.g. M.(T.J.) v. M.(P.G.), [2002] O.J. 398
