Failure to comply with custody or access conditions could also lead to a review of the educational rules, so that a non-compliant party risks losing custody and access if the court is satisfied that a change in parenthood would be in the best interests of the child. The emotional effects that a child may experience when deprived of another parent without a fair reason are serious, as are the effects that a child may experience when subjected to police interventions to move from one parent to another. I believe that lawyers, judges and parents all have a duty to assess this risk to the child when determining custody and access and to organise them in such a way as to minimise their potential harm. In some recent cases, requests for a second type of enforcement mechanism have been made in Ontario. In Mackie v. Crowther,[2] the mother requested that a policy enforcement clause be included in the court order that sets out the custody/access rules for her 9-year-old daughter. In response to the facts of the case — which the court called “simple but revolting” — the mother`s father had unilaterally said via email that he would take his child to an upcoming hockey tournament, even though he stumbled upon his mother`s weekend with her. The father even had a letter vigorously formulated by his lawyer sent to him. s. 36 (1) If, at the request of a person who has received an order for the custody of or association with a child, a court is satisfied that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is unlawfully depriving the applicant, the court may authorize the applicant or a person on the applicant`s behalf that the child is arrested in order to give effect to the applicant. rights of custody or access of the applicant.

The judge will make all custody and education decisions in the best interests of the child. The second scenario relates to the future: a more general concern that a party cannot comply with a custody or access order on an indefinite date and that police assistance may be required to ensure the project of exchanging a child from one party to another. As a general rule, the extent and frequency of such police involvement cannot be determined in advance. The main question in Patterson v. Powell is whether a general clause providing for police enforcement of detention and access can be included in a court order. This goes against a certain concept of police implementation in response to a given situation. In short, the court found that an indefinite police execution clause in a custody and access order was not appropriate. The Canadian judicial system is based on the premise that court decisions must be followed in several letters. . . .