Step-Parents as Psychological Parents: Van Scoy v. Leblanc and the “Settled Intention” Question

As blended families become increasingly common in Ontario, courts are frequently tasked with defining the rights of step-parents who assume parental roles without a biological tie. The recent Ontario Court of Justice decision in Van Scoy v. Leblanc, 2024 ONCJ 563, offers a roadmap for navigating these complex dynamics. Justice Jenner’s thoughtful analysis reinforces the primacy of children’s best interests over labels and provides critical guidance for family law practitioners.

Case Background

In Van Scoy, the respondent father sought to vary a temporary order to obtain primary residence of his six-year-old child or, alternatively, to establish week-about shared parenting with the ultimate goal of eliminating the applicant’s parenting time. The applicant, Ms. Van Scoy, had been in a long-term relationship with the respondent and lived with him and the child for approximately four years before their separation in September 2023. The child’s biological mother had passed away in 2021.

Following separation, the child resided primarily with the applicant under a temporary consent order, with the respondent having parenting time on alternating weekends and certain weeknights. The respondent characterized the applicant as merely his “ex-girlfriend” who should play no significant role in the child’s life moving forward, while the applicant identified as the child’s step-mother.

Step-Parent Status and Parental Autonomy

Justice Jenner confronted the threshold question of the applicant’s status in relation to the child. While acknowledging that Ms. Van Scoy did not meet the definition of a “parent” under the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA), the Court noted that s. 62(3) grants party status to a person who has demonstrated a “settled intention” to treat a child as a child of their family or had actual care of a child.

Notably, the Court addressed the respondent’s implied argument that, as the child’s only biological parent, he should have autonomy to determine what relationship the child would have with his former partner. The Court distinguished this case from grandparent contact cases where parental autonomy is often given significant weight.

Justice Jenner referenced the Court’s previous rejection in Agmon v. James, 2018 ONCJ 4, of applying parental autonomy principles to “settled intention” or “actual care” figures. The decision also noted Arbuzova v. Scriver et al., 2024 ONSC 832, which treated a party’s settled intention as one factor among many in the best interests analysis.

Importantly, Justice Jenner highlighted Hicks v. Geist, 2022 ONSC 5671, which emphasized the “wide spectrum” of step-parent relationships, ranging from short-term partners uninvolved in parenting to those who play significant or primary roles in a child’s development. The Court concluded that the applicant’s relationship with the child demonstrated “a meaningful, beneficial relationship, involving many of the imperatives of parenting, and sustained throughout the majority of this six-year-old child’s life.”

Best Interests Analysis

Justice Jenner’s thorough examination of the best interests factors under s. 24(3) of the CLRA is instructive:

1. Relationship and Care History: The Court found that the applicant had been at least as involved in parenting the child as the respondent, if not more so, during their four years of cohabitation.
2. Ability to Meet Needs: The Court acknowledged that each party could meet the child’s day-to-day needs but emphasized that the case centered on “how the child benefits from the fundamental relationships she has with her caregivers.”
3. Willingness to Support Relationships: The Court found the respondent’s position—that the applicant’s relationship with the child was contingent on her relationship with him—prioritized his wishes over the child’s interests. The Court rejected this view as “misguided.”
4. French Language Education: The Court noted that the applicant spoke French (the language of the child’s schooling), while the respondent did not, making the applicant a critical liaison for the child’s education and reinforcing her role in decision-making responsibility.
5. Family Violence: The Court accepted the applicant’s evidence of concerning behavior by the respondent, including substance abuse (e.g., crack cocaine use as recently as January 2024), impaired driving with the child as a passenger in March 2024, and violence toward the applicant, such as an assault in February 2024.

The Court ultimately denied the respondent’s motion, finding that maintaining the current arrangement was in the child’s best interests.

Practice Implications

Van Scoy offers several key takeaways for Ontario family lawyers:

1. Psychological Parent Doctrine: The decision reinforces that courts will look beyond legal labels to the reality of parent-child relationships, particularly where a non-biological parent has functioned as a psychological parent over a significant period.
2. Step-Parent Spectrum: The Court’s recognition of the “wide spectrum” of step-parents reminds us to thoroughly document the nature, duration, and quality of our clients’ parenting roles.
3. Primacy of Best Interests: The decision demonstrates that parental autonomy arguments may carry limited weight when weighed against a child’s established beneficial relationship with a psychological parent.
4. Practical Considerations: The Court’s consideration of the applicant’s ability to communicate with the child’s French-language school highlights the importance of identifying practical advantages that non-biological parents may offer in decision-making and caregiving.
5. Family Violence and Safety: Allegations of family violence or substance abuse can significantly influence temporary orders, particularly when supported by credible evidence. The Court’s findings on the respondent’s behavior underscore the weight of such factors in assessing a child’s safety and well-being.
6. Evidentiary Strategy: Given the constraints of interim motions, where conflicting affidavit evidence cannot be fully tested, lawyers should ensure affidavits are detailed and bolstered by contemporaneous records. Justice Jenner’s preference for the applicant’s evidence rested heavily on its consistency with text messages and photographic proof.

In conclusion, Van Scoy provides a nuanced analysis of the “settled intention” question and serves as a reminder that in family law, substance often prevails over form when determining a child’s best interests. Step-parents who have functionally assumed a parental role may have stronger claims than labels like “ex-girlfriend” or “ex-boyfriend” might suggest.

When counseling clients in similar situations, family lawyers should focus not merely on legal status but on the quality, duration, and characteristics of the relationship between the non-biological parent and the child. This approach, paired with robust evidence and attention to safety concerns, will better align with the courts’ child-centered analysis and lead to more effective advocacy.

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.