TRIGGS & TRIGGS

In *Triggs & Triggs*, Austin J considered an application concerning the residence and parental responsibility of a child. The applicant, the child's biological father, had undergone hormone therapy to re-assign his gender to female. The child was estranged from the applicant and strongly opposed any interaction. While the evidence did not establish sexual abuse or an unacceptable risk of such abuse by the applicant, the respondent's struggles with the child's school truancy and both parties' fragile psychological health were noted. The court also considered the child's emotional needs and sibling relationships.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, given allegations of family violence, and, in light of the child's best interests, with whom the child should live and what form of parental responsibility should be ordered. The court was required to determine how to balance the child's expressed wishes against the potential benefits of maintaining some form of connection with the applicant, while also addressing the significant estrangement and the parties' respective parenting capacities and psychological vulnerabilities.

Austin J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to reasonable grounds to believe both parties had engaged in family violence. The court concluded that, on balance, the child's emotional needs and overall interests were more likely to be met living with the respondent and his siblings. Forcing the child to reconcile with the applicant was deemed likely to cause further deterioration of their relationship. Consequently, the respondent was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with the respondent. The court made detailed orders regarding the child's limited contact with the applicant, permitting correspondence only in accordance with the child's wishes and allowing periodic communication through letters and gifts. The respondent was also ordered to facilitate the child's ongoing psychological therapy and to keep the applicant informed of the child's schooling and medical emergencies, with specific restrictions placed on the applicant's proximity to the child's school.