A recent decision shows how swift action can pay off when parental alienation is suspected in wrongful removal or retention cases, says Toronto family lawyer Michael Stangarone.

In M.K. v. F.J., Ontario Superior Court Justice Michael Doi ordered the return of a 12-year-old boy to his mother in Florida, just weeks after the child began sending her “shocking and “highly derogatory” messages towards the end of a brief stay with the father in Burlington, Ont.

While the father urged the court to honour his son’s desire to stay with him, Justice Doi declined to exercise his discretion to refuse a return order, concluding that the boy’s stated wishes were a result of undue influence by the father.

“When you’re dealing with alienation, act immediately, and a finding of parental alienation could potentially be made on the record on an interim basis,” says Stangarone, a partner with MacDonald & Partners LLP, who acted for the successful mother along with Kristy Maurina. “It was excellent how quickly Ontario acted on this, and returned the child to his habitual residence in Florida, where the court that has jurisdiction can deal with the merits of any dispute.”

According to the ruling, the mother and father divorced in Ontario in 2018, 20 years after their marriage in Iran. The following year, relations were cordial enough for both parents to move with their child to Florida for the mother’s work, where the parties lived separate and apart in the same home.

However, things between them deteriorated in the summer of 2019 during a trip to Iran to formalize their divorce in that country, where the mother ended up launching legal proceedings when they couldn’t agree on the terms of their split.

The decision says the father remained with the child in Iran for several months after the mother had departed, returning the boy to Florida only when she agreed to sign a letter granting him “full custody” of the then-nine-year-old. The episode cost the boy three months of schooling and prompted his enrolment in therapy, while the father returned to Canada.

During the pandemic, the father spent more than two years living in the mother and child’s Florida home, before relocating to Montreal in May 2022. Matters came to a head in July when the father flew to Toronto for a short visit with the son while the mother was in town for work.

The night before the boy was due to be returned to his mother, he used a messaging app to tell that he wasn’t coming back:

“And this isn’t daddy’s decision, this is mine. I want to be in Canada, and you want to be in Florida, so it fits perfectly. And honestly, I think that would be better. You don’t seem to want me around anyways, as your actions have shown. Don’t’ call me. Don’t text me. Nothing. We’re OVER. I’M over with you. And don’t unpack my stuff, I will pick them up later. Remember, this is my decision and my life. Thank you and goodbye,” the message continued. 

A series of insulting and profanity-laden messages and phone calls followed from the son to his mother as she attempted to locate the father with help from local police, and arrange for the child’s return to her care.

“Her son was unrecognizable from the child she knew in these venomous, nasty messages,” Maurina says.

At the end of July, the mother had to return to Florida for work, and engaged MacDonald & Partners to begin legal proceedings. Meanwhile, the decision says that the messages continued to flow from son to mother, including questions about other men and the court proceedings themselves that made it clear to the judge that the father had spoken inappropriately to his son about adult issues.  

Following a remote hearing by video, Justice Doi concluded that the boy’s habitual residence under the Hague Convention was in Florida, and that the father had wrongfully retained him in Ontario. The “custody letter” previously signed by the mother had not impacted the mother’s exercise of parenting rights, the judge added, discounting the document as an invalid agreement signed by the mother under duress.

Although Article 13 of the Convention provides judges with the authority to refuse to order the return of a child to their state of habitual residence if the child objects and “has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views,” Justice Doi concluded that this was not an appropriate case to exercise the discretion.

“I am satisfied that the exceptionally offensive nature and tone of the messages are wholly uncharacteristic of what children of R.J.’s age and maturity would say unless subjected to alienating efforts,” the decision reads. “On balance, I find that R.J. became a victim of parental alienation after the father shared negative and disparaging remarks about the mother with the child. Given this finding, I am satisfied that little weight should be given to R.J.’s expressed wishes as his views were clearly tainted by the father’s efforts to alienate him from the mother.

“In my view, the court should respect the fundamental goal of the Hague Convention of deterring international child abduction by not invoking the objection exception in this case which would improperly reward the father’s retention by allowing him to keep R.J. after alienating the child from the mother and wrongly manipulating their relationship,” Justice Doi added.

Following the Aug. 22 order, the child was ultimately flown back to Florida to be reunited with his mother.



“They are doing well, but are still dealing with the aftermath,” Stangarone says. “He has been subjected to so much that needs to be unravelled, but the work has begun to undo the damage.”