LAKKINENI v. PILLI: Parenting Orders for Special Needs Children

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Lakkineni v. Pilli, 2025 ONSC 2896, offers both a cautionary tale and a valuable case study for family law practitioners dealing with parenting motions involving special needs children. Justice Bingham’s judgment delivers a clear, structured application of the Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC) framework, while offering sharp insights into the realities of raising a special needs child in a high-conflict, cross-border co-parenting situation.

The Family Context: Cross-Border Challenges and a 2019 Parenting Order

The parties—Alekhya Lakkineni (Mother) and Leela Pilli (Father)—separated in 2018. The final parenting order issued in 2019 granted the Mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their son, D., with the Father having limited parenting time three out of four weekends.

Due to the Mother’s strong ties to India and her repeated requests to relocate there with D., the 2019 order also imposed strict international travel conditions: travel to India was only permitted with a mirror order from an Indian court and a $10,000 security deposit.

The Turning Point: Autism Diagnosis and Unilateral Travel

In February 2023, D. was diagnosed with autism and ADHD. He required constant supervision, struggled with transitions, and had limited verbal skills.

Then, in March 2024, after learning that her father was unwell, the Mother traveled to India to care for him without informing the Father, leaving D. in his care. She revealed her travel plans only after the Father picked D. up for a regular parenting weekend. Her stated reason? She feared he would refuse to care for D. if told in advance. This decision on the Mother’s part was not child focused and created significant upheaval for D.

This unplanned shift in caregiving responsibility was significant: D. had to switch schools and adapt to new routines in Hamilton. The Father, to his credit, “rallied”, arranging full-time school attendance, autism-specific supports, and pediatric care within weeks.

Motion to Change: What Each Parent Sought

When the Mother returned in September 2024, she resumed weekend visits and filed a motion to change, originally to relax travel restrictions, later narrowed to removing the mirror order requirement. The Father sought:

• Sole decision-making responsibility
• Primary residence
• Stricter travel restrictions
• Adjustment of child support to reflect the new reality

A temporary order in August 2024 had already given the Father interim decision-making authority. The Mother, though represented, did not contest the order.

Legal Framework: Applying Gordon v. Goertz and Best Interests Analysis

Justice Bingham followed the two-stage test in Gordon v. Goertz for determining a motion to change parenting time or decision-making responsibility:

1. “First, the parent seeking the change must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in circumstances affecting the child.
2. If the threshold requirement is met, the court must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all relevant circumstances relating to the child’s needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.” (emphasis added)

Stage 1: Material Change

The Court found three significant changes:

• D.’s ASD/ADHD diagnoses requiring enhanced care
• The Mother’s abrupt departure, causing instability
• Her unilateral cessation of prescribed medication

These met the threshold of being “substantial, continuing, and likely to have changed the original order” if known at the time (L.M.P. v. L.S., 2011 SCC 64).

Stage 2: Best Interests of the Child

Under s. 16 of the Divorce Act, the Court examined emotional security, consistency, and parental capacity. The court determined that, due to D.’s significant special needs and the parents’ disagreements on key issues, joint decision-making was not in the child’s best interests. Sole decision-making was required to ensure prompt, consistent decisions regarding D.’s care and therapies and to provide the stability needed for the child’s wellbeing. Accordingly, the court made the following order.

• Sole Decision-Making: Awarded to the Father. The Mother minimized D.’s needs and stopped medication without consultation. The Father demonstrated proactive care and effective coordination with health and education providers.
• Parenting Time: D. would reside primarily with the Father. The Mother received parenting time on three of four weekends, with additional time by agreement. Weekday visits were impractical due to distance.
• International Travel: The Court removed the mirror order requirement but replaced it with a consent-or-court-order regime. i.e. travel is allowed with the other parent’s consent or a court order. If the Father refuses consent unreasonably, the Mother may seek court approval to travel with the child. The Father was made passport custodian. This decision resulted from the Mother, while in India, seeking legal ways to bring D. there despite the Ontario court order.
• Child Support: The Mother’s income was imputed at $31,870 based on her financial resources and earning capacity. She was ordered to pay $271/month starting October 2025, with offset for arrears owed by the Father.

The Autism Factor: Why Joint Custody Became Impossible

Perhaps most significantly for family law practitioners, this case illustrates how an autism diagnosis can eliminate joint decision-making as a viable option, even where it might otherwise be appropriate. Justice Bingham explicitly found that while the parents could communicate, “they do not agree on the best course of action to meet D’s significant special needs” and expressed concern that conflict “could delay decisions being made for D”.

The competing medical approaches exemplified this irreconcilable conflict: the father connected D. with “a pediatrician and team of medical specialists at the Ron Joyce Centre in Hamilton,” while the mother “relies on the child’s autism doctor in India” who prescribed “homeopathic pills” that were “not compatible” with the Canadian pediatrician’s prescribed medications.

The court’s reasoning, citing Ciutcu v. Dragan, 2014 ONCJ 602, was compelling: “A further level of caution is required when considering joint decision making for a child with special needs; for these children, important decisions concerning their health and education need to be made frequently. A stable regime for making these decisions is required”. Given D’s needs, “there are many decisions that will need to be made with respect to his education and therapies. A requirement for joint decision making may lead to a delay in decisions and this is inconsistent with D’s wellbeing”.

Practice Point: When advocating against joint custody for special needs children, focus specifically on the frequency and urgency of required decisions, not just the parents’ general inability to communicate. Emphasize how delays in decision-making could harm the child’s development and progress.

The “Good Parent, Bad Judgment” Paradox

What makes this case particularly instructive—and sobering—is that the mother wasn’t a “bad parent” in the traditional sense. She was caring for her own ill father in India, a compelling family emergency. Yet Justice Bingham was unequivocal: “as a parent, D. needed to be her priority. The decisions she made in March 2024 did not prioritize his wellbeing”.

The court found her decision to leave without notice was “not child focused and created significant upheaval for D”. This is particularly damaging when dealing with an autistic child, as the court noted that D. “is a child for whom transitions are hard”.

Practice Point: Always counsel clients that compelling personal circumstances do not excuse failures in child-focused decision-making. Courts will not accept that family emergencies justify destabilizing a special needs child. Document evidence of proactive parenting—detailed steps like participating in IPRC processes, attending school functions, and connecting with specialized resources carry significant weight.

The International Travel Transformation

The travel provisions in this case offer crucial guidance for practitioners dealing with Hague non-signatory countries and abduction risks. The original 2019 order allowed annual four-week travel to India with a $10,000 deposit and mirror order requirement, reflecting “the value of travel to D, while providing safeguards to the Father given the Mother’s repeated requests to relocate with D. and the fact India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention”.

However, Justice Bingham found the mother’s conduct during her 2024 India trip particularly concerning. Her consultations with Indian lawyers and attendance at the Indian Embassy to circumvent the final order (from which the court inferred that she did so hoping to obtain a legal option in India that would circumvent the final order) demonstrated that “the Father’s concern that she will not return with D.to Canada remains valid”.

This course of conduct on the part of the mother resulted in complete elimination of unilateral international travel rights, replacing it with a consent-or-court-order requirement: “neither parent shall be permitted to travel outside of Canada with the child without the consent of the other parent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, or further court order”. The father was designated custodian of D’s passport, “to be provided to the mother for approved trips and returned promptly”.

Practice Point: Document any evidence of a parent attempting to circumvent travel restrictions or exploring options to avoid compliance. Such conduct can completely eliminate previously-granted travel rights. The shift to a consent-or-court-order model offers flexibility but may lead to future litigation—counsel clients on what constitutes “unreasonable withholding” of consent.

The Best Interests Analysis: Child-Focused Decision Making Under the Microscope

Justice Bingham’s comprehensive best interests analysis under sections 16(2) and (3) of the Divorce Act consistently returned to whether parental decisions prioritized D’s complex needs. The father’s actions—quickly enrolling D. in appropriate schooling, accessing medical care, facilitating therapy connections, and supporting the mother’s relationship with the child—demonstrated sustained child-focused decision-making.

The court found that the father “supports D’s relationship with his Mother and actively foster’s this relationship,” contrasting this with “the Mother’s view of D’s relationship with his father and her repeated desire to relocate with D. to India”. The father’s insight and responsibility were evident in his systematic approach to meeting D’s needs, while his prioritization of “D’s full-time attendance at school” and steps to “support his continued attendance” stood in stark contrast to the mother’s approach.

Conversely, the mother’s pattern of decisions—the abrupt departure, medication cessation, minimization of D’s needs, and attempts to circumvent court orders—showed a concerning lack of child-focused priority setting.

Practical Strategic Takeaways for Ontario Practitioners

This decision serves as an invaluable guide for preparing and arguing motions to change in cases with international elements and special-needs children:

Building Your Material Change Case

• Document the “before-and-after” narrative: Use detailed affidavits, school reports, medical letters, and communication records to show how changes fundamentally altered the child’s needs
• In special-needs contexts: Emphasize how diagnoses like ASD/ADHD necessitate ongoing, efficient decision-making to avoid harmful delays
• Focus on substantial, continuing changes: Temporary disruptions aren’t enough—show how the changes have lasting impact on the child’s needs or parental capacity

Constructing Your Best Interests Argument

• Evidence of proactive parenting carries tremendous weight: Document systematic approaches like IPRC participation, therapy connections, educational advocacy
• For special needs children: Gather third-party confirmations early (teacher letters, medical reports, therapy progress notes)
• Avoid unilateral actions: Any medication changes, school decisions, or travel plans should be transparent and collaborative where possible

Handling International Travel in Non-Hague Jurisdictions

• Document relocation risks thoroughly: Embassy consultations, lawyer inquiries abroad, statements about wanting to relocate
• The consent-or-court-order model: Offers flexibility but requires clear guidelines about what constitutes “unreasonable withholding”
• Passport custody matters: Courts will designate a custodial parent for the passport in high-risk cases

Managing Temporary Orders

• The trial isn’t an appeal: Focus on the full history since the last final order, not just interim arrangements
• Use positive outcomes wisely: If a temporary shift shows good results, document them without over-relying on the interim order itself

Final Thought

Lakkineni v. Pilli serves as a stark reminder that in special needs parenting cases, the margin for error approaches zero. Parents must demonstrate not just love and good intentions, but consistent, evidence-based, child-focused decision-making that prioritizes stability and appropriate care over personal circumstances, family emergencies, or cultural desires.

For practitioners, this case provides both a roadmap and a warning. The roadmap shows how to build compelling material change arguments and best interests cases in complex international parenting disputes. The warning is that courts will scrutinize every decision through the lens of what serves the child’s complex and evolving needs, with little tolerance for actions that prioritize adult interests over child welfare.

The mother in this case loved her son deeply and faced genuine family emergencies that would tug at any person’s heartstrings. But in the exacting calculus of family law involving special needs children, good intentions proved insufficient when weighed against the demonstrated ability to provide the stability, consistency, and specialized care that D. required. Justice Bingham’s decision reminds us that when it comes to vulnerable children with complex needs, the law demands nothing less than unwavering child-focused decision-making—and the consequences of falling short can be swift and decisive.

This case is particularly relevant for practitioners dealing with mobility issues, international ties, and special needs children. As we continue to see more complex international custody disputes, Lakkineni v. Pilli will undoubtedly serve as a leading authority on how courts balance cultural connections, family relationships, and the paramount need for stability in the lives of our those most vulnerable.

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.