Parenting Time Orders Are Not Suggestions — They Are Orders

In our practice, we often see parenting time orders not being followed. A common explanation is that the children say they do not want to attend visits. While these situations can be difficult, it is essential to remember that court orders are not suggestions.

Parenting time provisions are binding and require active compliance. Parents cannot leave it to the children to decide whether an order will be followed. We consistently remind our clients that court orders must be respected and enforced, as failure to do so can have serious legal consequences.

In Graham v. Desgagne, 2025 ONSC 1115, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice delivered a clear reminder that court orders, particularly in the context of family law, must be obeyed, and that continued non-compliance can lead to serious consequences under the law.

At issue in this 2025 decision was the conduct of the Applicant mother in relation to two separate court orders governing parenting time with her children. The Respondent father brought a motion alleging that the mother had repeatedly failed to comply with previous orders. Specifically, the court was asked to consider whether her conduct amounted to contempt of court.

The evidence revealed a pattern of non-compliance. Despite clear instructions, the mother did not facilitate required telephone communications or in-person parenting time. as required by the existing orders.

The judge found that the father had established the necessary elements for contempt:

1. The orders were clear and unequivocal,
2. The mother had actual knowledge of them, and
3. The mother intentionally breached the orders by failing to ensure compliance and by leaving the implementation of parenting time to the children’s discretion rather than enforcing the court’s terms.

Accordingly, the court concluded that a finding of contempt was appropriate. Importantly, the court rejected the notion that a parent can leave compliance “up to the children.” A party must actively ensure adherence to court orders.

The decision reinforces that persistent, willful non-compliance, especially after prior warnings or orders, increases the likelihood of a contempt finding. Courts will typically consider whether lesser enforcement measures have failed before resorting to contempt.

The decision makes clear that court orders are binding obligations, and non-compliance can have significant consequences for both the ongoing proceedings and future parenting arrangements.