What are the consequences of seeking a therapeutic order in the context of a motion for spousal support?

Therapeutic orders sought in the context of a motion, based on untested and contradictory evidence or without a professional assessment, may run the risk of not properly addressing the issues that they mean to resolve. On the other end, delays in imposing therapeutic orders in situations of high conflict may increase the risks associated with unjustified rejection, estrangement and alienation. In the presence of such family dysfunction, the longer a child or parent goes without therapeutic intervention and (as is often the case) without access, the more difficult it will be to repair the relationship (McClintock v. Karam, para. 34).

In Testani v. Haughton, Justice Jarvis J. stated that resistance to therapy was an important factor to consider, but that it was not the determining factor as to whether such an order should be made. There may be various reasons for a parent’s resistance to therapeutic intervention; the parent may not be satisfied that the cause of the breakdown in the child-parent relationship has been properly identified; the parent may feel that therapy is premature and that other steps must first be completed; the parent may lack the financial resources to retain the recommended therapist, and/or; the parent may not wish to have to physically force a resistant child to attend counselling. The court should assess the likelihood that a parent will comply with a therapeutic order once it is made, despite that parent’s professed refusal to engage.