I Brought Them, They Refused to Go: Why Passive Parenting Doesn’t Excuse Court Order Breaches
When children refuse to attend court-ordered parenting time, how far must the primary residential parent go to ensure compliance? And when visits repeatedly fail, is a contempt motion the right response?
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered these questions in E.T. v. B.R. (surnames abbreviated), 2026 ONSC 3727, released on June 25, 2026. The decision examines a parent’s responsibility to facilitate parenting time, the limits of civil contempt, and why police enforcement may make a difficult situation worse.
For Ottawa parents dealing with missed parenting time, the case also highlights the importance of choosing an enforcement remedy that addresses the children’s circumstances.
The “passive parenting” defence
The father brought a motion, heard on April 30, 2026, seeking to find the mother in contempt of three successive parenting orders. Much of his court-ordered time with the parties’ three children had not occurred. During a period covering 89 scheduled supervised visits, one or more children failed to attend 71 visits.
The mother’s position was largely that she had put the children in the car and driven them to the exchange location. When they refused to leave the vehicle or go with their father, she maintained that she had encouraged them to attend.
Under the October 6, 2025 order, Wednesday parenting time was taking place through the reunification counsellor, although attendance was inconsistent. Sunday parenting time usually did not occur.
Justice Stewart found that the mother’s passive approach was insufficient:
“Compliance with a court order is up to the parents, not the children. A parent must do all they reasonably can to secure compliance with a court order.”
The court did not require the mother to do the impossible. However, it expected proactive efforts to address the children’s resistance, including seeking professional assistance.
For the October 6, 2025 order, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother’s failure to use her parental authority to ensure attendance at parenting time and reunification therapy was intentional.
Why the court still declined to find contempt
Despite those findings, the court declined to find the mother in contempt. Two aspects of the decision explain why.
The earlier orders were no longer operative
The father sought contempt findings concerning three orders, but the first two had been replaced by subsequent orders.
The court held that contempt was unavailable for those earlier orders because they no longer governed the parties. It nevertheless found that the mother had breached them.
Contempt remained a last resort
For the October 6, 2025 order, the father established the first three parts of the court’s four-part contempt analysis beyond a reasonable doubt:
- the order was clear and unequivocal;
- the mother had actual knowledge of it; and
- her failure to do what the order required was intentional.
That did not make a contempt finding automatic.
The fourth part concerned the court’s discretion to make or decline a contempt finding. The father had not brought an enforcement motion concerning that order before seeking contempt, and the court had no evidence that a contempt finding would assist with the children’s circumstances.
The court emphasized that contempt should be used cautiously and as a last resort, particularly where further escalation could worsen an already difficult family situation.
Why police enforcement was refused
The father also requested police enforcement under section 36 of the *Children’s Law Reform Act*.
The court refused police enforcement at that stage. Exchanges were already required to occur inside a police station, and the reunification counsellor had reported a lack of engagement in recent sessions. The court was concerned that police enforcement could make the situation worse.
Before considering further intervention, it wanted input from the reunification counsellor and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer clinical investigator about an appropriate exchange protocol.
Financial consequences and a further enforcement hearing
Declining contempt did not mean the court accepted the mother’s conduct.
Among its temporary orders, the court required:
- payment by the mother of $250 for every date on which the children did not attend scheduled parenting time and/or therapy sessions, effective immediately and until further court order;
- consultation with the professionals to develop an exchange protocol;
- compliance with that protocol once provided; and
- payment by the mother of additional reunification counsellor fees associated with developing the protocol, within 30 days of the invoice being rendered.
Justice Stewart also retained responsibility for a further enforcement motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules. The factual findings would carry forward, and contempt could be reconsidered if other enforcement measures proved ineffective.
Help with missed parenting time in Ottawa
If court-ordered parenting time is repeatedly being missed, the appropriate response depends on the order, the reasons visits are not happening, and the steps already taken to resolve the problem.
If you are looking for a child custody lawyer Ottawa, our firm can help you assess the available enforcement options and the appropriate next steps.
