Chyher v. Al Jaboury: Navigating True Parental Alienation and Children’s Voices in High-Conflict Custody

Introduction

Justice Engelking’s decision in Chyher v. Al Jaboury, 2025 ONSC 998, stands as one of the most significant Ontario family law judgments on parental alienation in recent years. Released February 13, 2025, this case provides crucial guidance on balancing children’s evolving autonomy against protection from alienating behaviors, while demonstrating the court’s remedial rather than punitive approach to severe family dysfunction. For practitioners handling high-conflict custody disputes, this decision offers both sobering insights into the devastating effects of true parental alienation and hope that therapeutic intervention can restore damaged parent-child relationships.

Case Background and Procedural History

Maryana Chyher (Ukrainian, Christian) and Amar Al Jaboury (Iraqi/Syrian, Muslim) married in 2008 when she was 22 and he was 39. Ms. Chyher served as primary caregiver to their sons A.G. (born 2009) and S.G. (born 2010) throughout their marriage. The relationship ended dramatically on July 22, 2020, when Ms. Chyher left the matrimonial home following an incident that required police intervention.

The Critical Five-Month Period

What followed separation represents a textbook case of systematic parental alienation. Despite Ms. Chyher’s counsel requesting the children’s return within days of separation, Mr. Al Jaboury unilaterally withheld them for five months. During this period, the children’s relationship with their mother transformed completely—from loving and affectionate to hostile and rejecting.

Judicial Interventions

• December 2020: Justice Summers ordered children returned to Ms. Chyher’s primary care, finding Mr. Al Jaboury was “exerting negative influence” (para. 50)
• December 2021: Justice Audet found children at risk of “severe emotional harm” and ordered supervised parenting time for Mr. Al Jaboury (paras. 59 -60)
• January 2024-August 2024: Trial before Justice Engelking

The Expert Evidence: A Rare Finding of True Alienation

Valerie Morinville’s Assessment

Expert assessor Valerie Morinville, qualified after a voir dire, provided devastating evidence of systematic alienation. In approximately 150 parenting assessments, this was the only case where she identified true parental alienation (para. 67). Her findings included:

September 2021 Report:

• Mr. Al Jaboury’s “deliberate sabotage” of the mother-child relationship
• Children’s allegations of abuse were “not believable” and “without any sort of credibility”
• A.G. had made comments about wanting to “kill his mother”
• Children “reject Ms. Chyher, but everything about her”

November 2023 Update:

• Continued “covert” undermining despite supervision
• Mr. Al Jaboury’s “flagrant disrespect” of court orders
• Concerns about his “ability to make change”

The Proof in Practice

The most compelling evidence of alienation came from behavioral changes once supervision was implemented. Within two weeks of supervised access:

• Children became more relaxed and less belligerent
• They resumed calling Ms. Chyher “mom”
• Physical affection gradually returned
• Academic and social functioning improved

Legal Findings and Analysis

1. Domestic Violence Under the Civil Standard

Despite Mr. Al Jaboury’s criminal acquittal (verdict received May 3, 2024), Justice Engelking found on a balance of probabilities that domestic violence occurred, including:

• Physical assault (2018 punch to the head)
• Sexual coercion using fabricated medical conditions
• Coercive control (financial restrictions, hijab requirements)
• Threats of death (“I will kill you”)

As the court stated: “I find that Ms. Chyher was the victim of physical abuse at the hands of Mr. Al Jaboury on more than one occasion, and that she was subject to sexual impropriety, if not abuse” (para. 98).

Practice Point: This reinforces that criminal acquittals don’t preclude civil findings of family violence under s. 16(3)(j) of the Divorce Act.

2. The Children’s Voice Analysis

Perhaps the most complex aspect of the decision involved weighing the children’s expressed wishes against protection concerns.

The Children’s Position:

• A.G. (15) and S.G. (14) consistently wanted 50/50 shared parenting (para. 70)
• OCL social worker found their views “independently held” (para. 70)
• Both could identify positives about each parent and home (para. 71)

Legal Framework Applied: The court relied heavily on Manitoba (Director of Child & Family Services) v. C.(A.) where Justice Abella, writing for the majority, explained how to consider children’s views within a best interests analysis:

“the “best interests” standard must be interpreted in a way that reflects and addresses an adolescent’s evolving capacities for autonomous decision making. It is not only an option for the court to treat the child’s views as an increasingly determinative factor as his or her maturity increases, it is, by definition, in a child’s best interests to respect and promote his or her autonomy to the extent that his or her maturity dictates.”

and Ian Ross’s analysis in “Beyond Lip Service” (2023) 42 CFLQ 29, noting:

“the question in attributing weight to a child’s views is not whether the child has been influenced by individuals in their lives. Rather, increasingly weight is given based on the child’s age and their increasing capacity to understand the decision being made and its consequences” (para. 90).

The Balancing Act: Justice Engelking acknowledged the risk that unsupervised access might revert the children to their 2021 behaviors but found:

• Children had matured and were “tired of the conflict” (para. 105)
• Ignoring their voices could cause “confusion and anger” (para. 105)
• They might “vote with their feet” if orders contradicted their strong preferences (para. 91)

3. Decision-Making Authority

Ms. Chyher received sole decision-making authority for all major decisions except religion. The court’s rationale:

“Given my above findings on domestic violence, especially in relation to Mr. Al Jaboury’s penchant to employ coercive and controlling behaviors, and in keeping with the court’s obligations as set out in subsection 16(3)(j) of the Divorce Act, I will not impose upon Ms. Chyher the burden of attempting to make decisions jointly with Mr. Al Jaboury” (para. 107).

The Remedial Approach: A Judicial Evolution

Moving Beyond Punishment

Remarkably, despite finding severe alienation and domestic violence, the court granted the alienating parent’s ultimate request for shared parenting. Justice Engelking explained:

“Mr. Al Jaboury may consider that he is the successful party in relation to the outcome of the trial. He is not; rather, it is the expressed views and preferences of [S.] and [A.], who are now 14 and 15 years of age respectively, which have ruled the day” (para. 108).

The court was clear about the real problem: “The problem in this case is Mr. Al Jaboury” (para. 93), yet noted this “ought to have been a case of a simple separation of two adults whose relationship was no longer sustainable by July of 2020, which undoubtedly would have resulted in a shared parenting regime” (para. 1).

The Court’s Message to the Children

Uniquely, Justice Engelking included a direct message to A.G. and S.G., warning them:

“I have a worry that you may once again feel some pressure that you should not enjoy or want to be with one of your parents. If that happens, I implore you, as the fine young men that you are becoming, not to succumb to that pressure” (para. 111).

Practice Consideration: Consider requesting judicial communication with children in appropriate cases, particularly where ongoing influence concerns exist.

Practical Takeaways for Ontario Practitioners

1. Building the Alienation Case

Essential Evidence:

• Expert parenting assessments with multiple interview rounds
• Contemporaneous behavioral observations (schools, activities, neutral witnesses)
• Documentation of dramatic behavioral shifts post-separation
• Evidence of improvement under protective orders

The court relied heavily on David Dash’s evidence about the children’s transformation: “within 10 to 15 days of July 22, 2020, A. and S. had changed entirely; their demeanor was dark and foreboding” (para. 102).

Key Witnesses:

• Child protection workers
• Teachers and coaches
• Therapists and medical professionals
• Long-term family friends who observed pre- and post-separation dynamics

2. Strategic Use of Interim Orders

Chyher demonstrates the critical importance of interim supervision orders:

• They protect children from ongoing alienation
• They provide “proof of concept” that the accused parent is the problem
• They allow time for parent-child relationship repair
• They create a track record for trial

As Justice Audet found in 2021: “I come to the clear and unequivocal conclusion, based on all the evidence before me, that the children will be at risk of severe emotional harm if the current parenting arrangements remain in place” (para. 59).

Drafting Considerations:

• Seek specific supervision requirements (trained supervisors, detailed reporting)
• Include communication restrictions (no phone/text contact outside visits)
• Request therapeutic interventions (reunification therapy)
• Build in review mechanisms

3. Addressing Children’s Voices in Alienation Cases

When Children Support the Alienating Parent:

• Engage OCL early for independent assessment
• Distinguish between authentic preferences and coached responses
• Document how views change over time and circumstances
• Consider developmental capacity assessments

Advocacy Framework:

• Frame arguments around Divorce Act s. 16(3) factors
• Emphasize long-term best interests vs. current stated preferences
• Address potential non-compliance risks if orders contradict strong preferences
• Consider graduated approaches that respect evolving autonomy

The court noted the legal principle from L.(N.) v. M.(R.R.): “The wishes of an alienated child may be warped and misconceived, but they are nonetheless real” (para. 91).

4. Managing High-Conflict Communication

Technology Solutions:

• Mandate parenting applications (Our Family Wizard, etc.)
• Restrict communication to child-related information only
• Create audit trails for court review
• Establish information-sharing protocols for medical/educational matters

The court ordered: “The parties shall use Our Family Wizard or such other parenting application that they choose to communicate with each other. Communication shall be restricted to the sharing of information regarding the children” (para. 112).

Boundary Setting:

• Prohibit direct contact between formerly abusive spouses
• Require professional intermediaries for exchanges
• Implement neutral exchange locations
• Address extended family communication boundaries

5. Expert Evidence Standards

Selecting Experts:

• Choose assessors experienced with high-conflict families
• Ensure qualifications in domestic violence and alienation
• Request comprehensive collateral interviews
• Obtain detailed methodology explanations

Maximizing Expert Value:

• Provide complete chronology and documentation
• Facilitate access to all relevant records
• Prepare clients for multiple interview sessions
• Request specific recommendations on supervision and therapy

Morinville’s assessment was particularly thorough: “In addition to listening to approximately five hours of recordings offered up by the parties, Ms. Morinville interviewed several collaterals and reviewed a copious number of records, including those of the OPS, CAS, CHEO, the children’s schools and doctors” (para. 57).

Cost Implications and Strategic Considerations

Financial Consequences

Justice Engelking exercised discretion to make Mr. Al Jaboury solely responsible for supervision costs, stating:

“Having heard all the evidence, and given my findings above, I exercise my discretion and order that Mr. Al Jaboury shall be solely responsible for the costs of supervision of his parenting time from its commencement to its termination. Ms. Chyher shall not be required to contribute to same” (para. 110).

Practice Point: Seek cost shifting for protective measures when alienating behavior is proven.

Timeline Expectations

The Chyher timeline demonstrates that alienation cases require sustained intervention:

• July 2020: Separation
• December 2020: First protective order
• December 2021: Supervision order
• January 2024: Trial begins
• February 2025: Final order

Client Counseling: Prepare clients for multi-year processes with significant therapeutic and legal costs.

Representing Different Parties

For Alienated Parents

Strategic Priorities:

• Document all behavioral changes meticulously
• Seek interim protection orders quickly
• Invest in quality expert assessments early
• Maintain focus on children’s therapeutic needs
• Avoid vindictive or punitive requests

The court noted Ms. Chyher’s approach: “In the multitude of recorded telephone conversations between the children and their father, or conversations between the children and their mother this writer listened to, Ms. Chyher must be commended for her colossal patience with the children, and even with Mr. Al Jaboury” (para. 57).

Common Pitfalls:

• Seeking to completely sever the other parent’s relationship
• Focusing on past misconduct rather than current protection needs
• Underestimating children’s voices as they age

For Accused Parents

Damage Control:

• Address underlying behaviors causing concern immediately
• Demonstrate willingness to support other parent relationship
• Engage in therapeutic interventions proactively
• Comply meticulously with all court orders
• Avoid defensive strategies that ignore legitimate concerns

The expert noted: “Mr. Al Jaboury completed the Caring Dads program, but without appearing to benefit from it. His ability to change is therefore questioned” (para. 57).

Long-term Strategy:

• Focus on therapeutic rather than legal solutions
• Acknowledge harm caused while working toward repair
• Demonstrate genuine change through consistent actions

For Children’s Counsel

Assessment Framework:

• Distinguish between authentic views and influenced positions
• Document changes in views over time and circumstances
• Consider developmental psychology in assessing capacity
• Balance autonomy with protection needs

Advocacy Approach:

• Present children’s voices without necessarily advocating for their stated preferences
• Highlight best interests factors beyond expressed wishes
• Address potential consequences of different outcomes
• Consider graduated approaches that respect evolving maturity

The OCL submitted that “the children’s views and preferences are very clear and consistent, and given their ages and levels of maturity, they must be very seriously considered and given appropriate weight” (para. 87).

Implications for Ontario Family Law

Jurisprudential Developments

Chyher represents several important developments in Ontario family law:

1. Recognition of True Alienation: Courts will identify and address severe alienation while distinguishing it from ordinary parental conflict
2. Children’s Voice Evolution: Even influenced teenage voices carry significant weight in custody determinations
3. Remedial Focus: Courts prioritize therapeutic outcomes over punishment for past misconduct
4. Graduated Approaches: Recognition that rigid protection orders may become counterproductive as children mature

Divorce Act Interpretation

The decision provides guidance on interpreting the 2021 Divorce Act amendments:

• Enhanced focus on family violence under s. 16(3)(j)
• Balancing children’s views with protection concerns
• Primary consideration of best interests while weighing multiple factors

Future Practice Implications

Practitioners should expect:

• Increased court willingness to identify true alienation cases
• Greater emphasis on therapeutic rather than punitive remedies
• Enhanced scrutiny of children’s voice assessments
• More sophisticated interim order structures

Conclusion

Chyher v. Al Jaboury offers both sobering insights into the devastating effects of parental alienation and hope that therapeutic intervention can restore damaged relationships. Justice Engelking’s nuanced approach—acknowledging severe alienation while ultimately respecting teenage children’s voices—provides a template for handling these most challenging cases.

The court’s ultimate finding was clear: while Mr. Al Jaboury caused immense damage through his alienating behavior, the children’s current voices and best interests required a shared parenting arrangement. As Justice Engelking noted: “It is unfathomable to think that a parent would do what Mr. Al Jaboury did to these kids” (para. 103), yet “[A.] and [S.] know not what their father has done to them (or to their mother); it is best that it remains that way” (para. 106).

For Ontario family law practitioners, the decision emphasizes the importance of:

• Early intervention through interim orders
• Quality expert evidence on alienation dynamics
• Therapeutic rather than punitive approaches
• Sophisticated analysis of children’s evolving autonomy
• Long-term perspective on relationship repair

Perhaps most importantly, the case demonstrates that even in the most severe alienation cases, courts will prioritize children’s current needs and voices over past parental misconduct. This represents a maturation of family law’s approach to high-conflict cases—one that recognizes the complex interplay between protection and autonomy in serving children’s best interests.

As practitioners, we must be prepared to navigate these competing considerations with the same sophistication and nuance that Justice Engelking demonstrated in this landmark decision.

Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!

Connect with us on LinkedIn.

Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.