Yahoo Sports 
Hockey mom breached court order by scheduling son's games during father's visitation, court rules
Clearly, rep hockey is a higher priority than trying to make the best of a tense family situation.
Organized sports mostly take place on weekends, which is often when children whose parents are divorced or separated have a visitation. A collision of those two has created a minor hockey story that probably won't be accompanied by tinkly piano music on a Hockey Day In Canada special any time soon, although it's probably closer to the reality than the former.
Thinking of young children caught in the middle between their feuding parents is heartbreaking, but a recent Ontario court decision is rather extraordinary for how it illustrates what can happen when children whose parents are separated also have a full schedule of organized sports. It's hard to explain, but last month the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sided with a father — who had been under a restraining order that forbid him to be in the same room with the mother — who filed a complaint stating that his estranged spouse was, "monopolizing the children’s time whenever possible ... [by] deliberately schedul[ing] the children’s soccer and hockey activities during times when he was supposed to have access, and that various tournaments were scheduled during his time with the boys as well."
The mother's affidavit in response could basically boiled down to saying her younger son would be benched if he missed any games.
Picture the scenario. The dads go into the dressing room before a game to tighten skates, impart some fatherly wisdom and whatnot. Only one parent cannot. Russell Alexander at the Ontario Divorce and Family Law Blog dug out the pertinent bits from the court decision, which is online (I choose to leave names out in order to offer some measure of anonymity to the two sons, ages 13 and 11):
Another explanation for the deterioration in relations ... is that [the mother] served as liaison for [the son's] hockey team and joined the team in their locker room with the result that [the father], whose terms of probation prohibited him from being in the same room as [the mother], was prevented from accompanying [the son], like the other fathers, even if the practice or game fell on a night when he was to exercise access. [The mother's] lawyer minimizes the importance of this encroachment on [the father's] access, arguing that it interfered with his access for only a short time at the beginning of games, but I find that it would have been humiliating for [the father] to be centred out in this manner in front of the parents of [the son’s] team-mates. It is not surprising, in these circumstances, that hockey assumed a greater importance to [the mother] than it had for [the father]. When there was a conflict between the boys’ hockey commitments, and especially those of [the one son], who served on a 'Rep' hockey team in 2011 and 2012, [the mother] expected [the father] to accommodate [the son’s] hockey schedule, attending at the practices and games and departing from the boys when they joined their mother and their teammates in the locker room. [The mother] explains that the rules of [the son’s] “Rep” team required him to attend every game and practice, or be “benched” if he missed one. If he missed a game, [the mother] explains at para. 17 to 20 of her affidavit, he would not be allowed to play with his team the next season.
... [The mother] states in her affidavit that she did not know whether [the father] would take the boys to their hockey games or practices. Her preoccupation with ensuring that they attended, combined with her uncertainty as to whether [the father] would take them, caused her to refuse access, or support the boys in their resistance to accompany him, so that she could assume responsibility for them herself at these times. (Durkin v. Cunningham, 2014 ONSC 4659, Aug. 11)
The magic words seem to be "preoccupation" and "caused her to refuse access, or support the boys in their resistance to accompany him." The court ultimately ruled that neither parent is to "unreasonably insist on strict adherence to the foregoing arrangements" when the children have a school trip or sports tournament that could affect either parent's custody rights. The restraining order was also lifted.
There is not much else to say, other than that thinking back to childhood, one wouldn't have wished this stress on her/his worst schoolyard enemy. Growing up is rough enough.
Neate Sager is a writer for Yahoo! Canada Sports. Follow him on Twitter @neatebuzzthenet.
