To reach us at any time, call our toll free number: 1-877-602-9900

  • MacLean Family Law Group - Vancouver

  • Suite 3103 - 1077 West Cordova Street
  • Vancouver, BC
  • V6C 2C6
  • Tel: 604-602-9000
  • Fax: 604-682-0556
  • MacLean Family Law Group - Fort St. John

  • 9503 100th Avenue
  • Fort St. John, BC
  • V1J 4N4
  • Tel: 250-262-5052
  • Fax: 250-262-5053
  • Search BC Family Law

Archive for June, 2010

BC Parenting Coordinator should not Usurp a BC Judge’s Role in Protecting the BC Child’s Best Interests

Friday, June 11th, 2010

Lorne MacLean BC Divorce lawyer takes articled student Wormeli and soon to be articled student Macdonnell to BC Supreme


BC Parenting Coordination is a new area of family law which is not yet regulated in British Columbia. We are involved in a case where the role of a BC parenting coordinator needs to be properly defined as it seems contracts are being drafted that give far too much power to the Parenting Coordinators possibly without adequate safeguards.

Is it proper for a Parenting coordinator to Interview Children?

One thing we know as child custody lawyers is that obtaining factually accurate statements by young children can require specialized training. In fact, at paragraph 69 of Stefureak v. Chambers, [2004] O.J. No 4253, (Sp. Ct.) it was stated that, “[i]t is doubtful that very many judges, because of a lack of training in interviewing children, would agree to do so.” If Judges should be cautious then why wouldn’t the same reluctance to interview apply to a parenting coordinator?

Parenting Coordination in Canada

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts notes that the Canadian experience with respect to PCs differs
substantially from the process as utilized in the United States.
First and foremost, the Canadian constitutional framework does not permit
judges to delegate to third parties any judicial or quasi-judicial functions. In essence,
this means that it is not possible for a judge to order the parties to attend and work
with a PC under any circumstances and, accordingly, it is also not possible for a judge to order parties to attend with a PC who has arbitral powers or any decision-making powers. That would be considered an improper delegation.

We are asking the court in our case to apply BC Law on the powers of Parenting coordinators:

21. Hunter v. Hunter, 2008 BCSC 403 (“Hunter”) was a case that discussed the constitutional impermissibility of using a parenting coordinator as an arbitrator without consent. The court stated:
10 I accept that the parens patriae jurisdiction of the court provides a broad authority to make orders where necessary to do so in the best interests of a child. The Supreme Court of Canada has described the jurisdiction as beyond definition in the sense that it is impossible to say what its limits are. Every case must depend on its own circumstances. See E. (Mrs.) v. Eve, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388, at 411. Further, in Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at 35, the Supreme Court traced the best interests test in custody cases back to the equitable parens patriae jurisdiction of the Courts of Chancery. Accordingly, even absent specific legislative authority, the court possesses the inherent jurisdiction under its parens patriae power to make orders in the best interests of the child. While I accept the existence of this broad power, it does not follow that the power is without limit.
11 For example, to what extent, if any, is the court permitted to delegate its responsibility to determine what is in the best interests of a child to an ADR process absent the agreement of the parties? A review of the literature filed on the application suggests that it is not constitutionally permissible to do so in Canada: see Appendix C of the Guidelines for Parenting Coordination document referred to above. Counsel before me did not address this question. (Emphasis added)
28 In the circumstances, the order that I propose to make will permit the coordinator to schedule meetings at which both parents must attend. If the meeting fails to result in an agreement, either party will continue to be entitled to apply to the court under paragraph 4 of the existing order. In other words, Dr. Burima will not have the power to impose solutions in the best interests of the children. This hopefully avoids any question of an improper delegation of judicial authority. (Emphasis added)

If you are thinking of a parenting coordinator make sure your lawyer doesn’t let you sign a standard contract as it likely contains clauses that are not appropriate for your case such as arbitration clauses that can lead you to hire an arbitration lawyer should you disagree with the ruling of the Parenting Coordinator.

Parental Support Claims in BC MacLean Interviewed on Global TV

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

Lorne MacLean, Senior Partner at MacLean Family Law Group, was interviewed on June 9th 2010 by Anne Drewa of Global TV and we provide a summary of the facts of the Interview on this interesting issue.
In a current Osoyoos, BC parental support claim made by Ken Anderson’s mother against him and his three siblings, the facts as disclosed in the media are:
• There was an alleged abandonment/estrangement by the mother when the Mr. Anderson was 15 when his mother disowned him
• Mr. Anderson allegedly does not have sufficient funds to pay the mother
• The children will have to pay money to fight this that could be used to support their immediate families

Section 90 of the Family Relations Act states:
(1) In this section:
“child” means an adult child of a parent;
“parent” means a father or mother dependant on a child by reason of age, illness, infirmity or economic circumstances.
(2) A child is liable to maintain and support a parent having regard to the other responsibilities and liabilities and the reasonable needs of the child

Current claim
The history of section 90 as applied by B.C. judges shows that there have been 5 reported cases of which only two were successful, one of those on an interim basis only. The other was a case where a child had promised to pay a mortgage her mother had taken out. The child reaped the benefits of the mortgage, and then failed to pay for it. MacLean feels the section is anachronistic and should be repealed as a vestige of a bygone era where governments in the 1920′s and 30′s sought to reduce their liability to support indigent persons.

Result of a similar case brought by a father in 1997, Newsom v. Newsom, BCSC per Mr Justice Burnyeat:
Quote: The applicant is the author of his current standard of living. He can blame no one other than himself for the fact that his previous income and his previous capital base are no longer present. The state support which is available to him allows him to live in what the state has decided is a minimum acceptable standard of living. He should not be allowed to look to those he abused and to whom he provided virtually no economic or emotional support so that he can live in a manner more in keeping with a lifestyle that he enjoyed almost 30 years ago.
However, on an appeal at the BCCA in 1999, it was decided that factors of estrangement and the obligations of the children to their families should not be dealt with on an interim application. Therefore, two of the children were ordered to pay a sum of $200 each per month on an interim basis. There is a possibility, therefore, of interim success if the mother can make out a bare bones case, but success on a final Order will be much harder.

Synopsis of principles:
An adult child may be responsible for the support of his or her biological mother and father. Under s. 91, a parent, or an agent of the provincial Attorney General, such as an agent of the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, can make the application on behalf of the parent although in reported cases only parents themselves have applied.

Factors from Newsom:
• “The obligations that of each of the defendants (adult children) have to their own families will take priority over any obligations that they owe to the applicant;
• “Any assets and income which are available to the (adult children/defendants) from their spouse or former spouses are not to be taken into account when determining whether, on the basis of their responsibilities and liabilities and their reasonable needs, they also have an ability to maintain and support the applicant;”
• Evidence of abandonment, abuse and estrangement can be taken into account as one of the factors in the objective evaluation of the application;
• “The length of the period of estrangement is also a factor to be taken into account in the objective evaluation of the application and the consequent ranking of the needs of the adult child; and
• “A parent should first look to spousal support and, only if such support is not available, to then look to possible child support”

There are reasons to repeal the section:

• Many children already support their parents
• Some parents already have provincially and federally funded support such as welfare or CPP
• There is a stigma attached to parental support
• If child support ends in the mid twenties at best why would an adult be entitled to support?
• Why punish children for the choices of their parents?
• There is little prospect of success and a claim will have a negative impact on family relationships caused by this section do we really want to open old family wounds?

The B.C. Law Institute has recommended repealing s. 90 in their March 2007 report:

“Parental support legislation creates mischief for older adults, their families, and the general public, and this mischief cannot be completely remedied by amending the legislation.
Section 90 has been rarely used in the past and it will likely continue to languish in the future, because it is based on a fundamental contradiction. Litigation is too costly, time consuming, and complicated to be an effective method to deliver relief to the poor. Repealing section 90 will not deprive the poor of a practical tool to better their lot.”

It appears no legislative action has been taken, but cases remain few and far between in any event and provinces such as Alberta have already gotten rid of similar legislation.

However, with pending demographic changes and a surging aging population will governments again need to reduce their budgetary commitments to the elderly and infirm?

International Child Abduction Hague Law Update from BC Child Custody and Access Lawyers at MacLean Family Law Group

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

MacLean Family Law Group handles family law and BC child custody files throughout British Columbia and international wrongful removal and retention of child custody cases in BC.

Morocco is the latest country to accede to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, with its accession being effective as of June 1, 2010. There are now a total of 82 countries that are committed to the return of children to their rightful jurisdiction internationally. The act of acceding to the Convention however does not yet make Morocco a safe place to send your children for access with the other parent. When a country accedes to the Convention, the other member states that have joined the Convention have to accept that Country as a treaty partner. Until one country formally accepts the accession of another country under the Convention, the provisions in the Convention are not enforceable between the two member states. Canada has not yet formally accepted Morocco as a Convention member. The area of law is complex and immediate action is required when a child has been wrongfully removed from the home country.

For a consultation on your international child custody dispute, contact Lorne MacLean of the MacLean Family Law Group for an appointment at 1-877-602-9900.

International Child Custody Wrongful Removal Law and BC Child Custody Abduction and Hague

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

On the final day of the AFCC Conference, Mary Damianakis, MPA, MSW spoke about this growing field. Ms. Damianakis is a leading international mediator for these cases and has extensive experience in this unique area. Surprisingly, given the nature of child abduction cases, some jurisdictions require a mandatory mediation prior to the hearing of a return petition under the Hague Convention. This does appear to be a growing area of mediation however as many families are now multi-jurisdictional, with both the parents and children having two or more passports for their countries of birth, citizenship and residence.

Few mediators are equipped to deal with many of the issues that can arise with an international custody agreement. Beyond the normal issues of custody and access, international custody cases also have to address serious issues such as determination of jurisdiction, conflict of laws, registration of consent orders, dealing with both countries that have ascribed to the Hague convention and countries that have not, arrangements for access and methods for enforcement and/or incentives for the return of a child after access has occurred. These can be very complicated agreements and require someone with training and experience in international law.

Ultimately however as with any agreement, international custody agreements are only enforceable so long as the parties are committed to adhering to them. An agreement executed in BC for custody and access has little or no weight in a foreign country in terms of enforcing the return of a child to BC. This is particularly so with respect to countries that have not ratified the Hague Convention. Of the close to 300 countries that there are in the world, only approximately 80 have agreed to abide by the Hague Convention and some of those countries have done so with specific reservations, meaning that there are exceptions as to when or how they will enforce the Convention when it comes to returning a child.

If you have an international custody situation, contact Lorne MacLean at MacLean Family Law Group to discuss your unique situation. While international child abduction cannot be stopped, there are steps that you can take to help prevent the chances your child being abducted.

MacLean Family Law Group
Suite 3103-1077 West Cordova Street
Vancouver, BC, V6C 2C6
Telephone: (604) 602-9000 Ex. 224
Fax: (604) 682-0556

British Columbia Child Custody Parental Alienation, BC Access Denial and Vancouver Child Custody Conference in Denver Colorado Provides Amazing Information

Saturday, June 5th, 2010

Lorne MacLean- Kelowna Parental Alienation lawyer

Lorne MacLean has handled a number of parental alienation cases in Vancouver BC and was impressed with cutting edge materials provided by lawyers, psychologists and Judges from the Denver Colorado conference on parental Alienation.

The third day 2010 AFCC Parental Alienation Child Custody conference started off with a panel of Judges including BC’s own Madam Justice Martinson, a local Justice and a Justice from Australia discussing Judicial Perspectives on Parental Alienation. All three Judges agreed that the earlier intervention occurred with parties where there were indicators of alienation, the more likely it was that the alienation could be successfully combated. All three Judges also agreed that maintaining consistency with a single Judge throughout the process was essential. The BC family law court system has some work to do to catch up to the prevention measures in place in many other jurisdictions to address Parental Alienation Syndrome. The key seems to be education for all involved, Judges, lawyers, mental health professionals and parties themselves. In our next session, we learned how Parental Alienation, stress and domestic violence not only does emotional damage to Children but can actually physically interfere with the manner in which a child’s brain develops and how genes are expressed as the Child develops. The most critical time of brain growth in a child occurs from the time that the child is 6 months in utero to 21 months post birth however rapid brain growth occurs for the first 4 years. When a child is exposed to toxic stress, alienation, etc. physical neuropathways are formed and chemical responses generated, which stay entrenched. Therefore, even after a child is removed from the situation, their brain is still physically patterned to respond as if they are still in that situation and the Child has to actively unlearn the fear state that they live in. While social science has supported these theories for years, scientific evidence is now firmly confirming it.

We finished the day being regaled with stories of high conflict mediation from three local justices who have retired but who mediate through an organization called Judicial Advocates Group (JAG). Each former Justice described their different methods of dealing with these situations which ranged from reciprocal confrontational positions to empathy, each method being unique to the parties and specific needs of the case. It is clear that dealing with high conflict families requires a lot of dedication from all of the professionals involved including counsel, mental health professionals, mediators and judges. This conference has highlighted the need of all of these parties to understand the role of the other and the dedication that all of these professionals display in trying to help these families.

If you need help in this area contact us immediately as the sooner these difficult issues are dealt with the safer and healthier your children will be.

International BC Child Custody Abduction and Hague Convention Lawyers and AFCC Child Custody Conference

Saturday, June 5th, 2010

Our firm sent an associate to Denver Colorado at the ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS CONFERENCE. In the afternoon sessions,the topic of International and BC Child Abduction and the difficulties associated with prevention was discussed. The statistics on the number of children abducted annually from the USA were staggering, surpassing 200,000 per year and it has been rapidly increasing worldwide. There continue to be many challenges to trying to prevent international child abduction and all the experts agreed that while preventative measures could be taken, if a parent is intent on removing a child from a country they will find a way to do so. In many countries, one parent can obtain a passport without the signature of the other parent. Some countries right out refuse to return children once the child enters their territorial jurisdiction and even those countries who have signed on to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction will not always cooperate. Several member states have signed on to the Convention but with “reservations” meaning that their cooperation is conditional. Some member states that have signed on even without reservations still just simply refuse to comply and there is little that can be done about it internationally in terms of enforcement or punishment. There continues to be a lot of work to be done in this area of law

Call us immediately if you fear a removal of your child from BC or your child has been abducted taken to British Columbia.

BC Child Custody and Parental Alienation Solutions and Strategies

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010

Day 2 -Parental Alienation Conference Solutions and Strategies are being explored in Denver this week. Shawna Specht BC Family Lawyer at the MacLean Family Law Group provides daily reports from the conference.

Today we explored a range of different topics ranging from 3 very different methods to help families address alienation after the damage has been done, studies on the effectiveness of parenting coordination, the conflict between constitutional rights and the best interests of a child and the impact of lawyers on alienation in our role as counsel.

Three very well known doctors of psychology described their separate innovative methods to address alienation. The first called “Family Bridges” focused on the “Plutoid” method of bringing an alienated parent back to their former status. This intensive course focused on face-saving, creating a moratorium oon discussing family conflicts and repairing and strengthening an alienated child’s relationship with both parents. The second method involved an intensive 4 or more day “camp” where both parents and the child engage in a gradual trust building process to work back towards reunification and acceptance. The final method involved an intense, child-focused therapy. What all three methods recognized however is the need to address all parties involved in the situation as it was widely agreed that when alienation occurs, it is rarely the result of the actions solely of one party. A myriad of factors allow alienation to spark and grow into a full fire situation.

This was highlighted by a seminar discussing how as advocates, counsel can actually make a bad alienation situation worse by not assisting our clients in realizing that their unconscious and sometimes conscious behaviours that they are engaging in are serving to make an already difficult situation worse. This applies equally to the alienating parent and the rejected parent.

The use and training of parenting coordinators in the USA is far more structured than in BC currently for child custody and access disputes. This is a rapidly growing and successful area helping high conflict divorce. Many US states are abandoning the phrase “custody” and focusing more on parental responsibility. This leads us to the final issue of conflict however, which is how much interference the government should have over individual parenting choices and decisions. Should the Court have the right to reject parenting plans that are consented to by the parents? Who has the right to decide what is in the ultimate best interests of a child? Two capable parents or the Court? We heard from several judges who had and were prepared to reject parenting plans that in their subjective view did not suit the situation, even though the parents had agreed.
>>
>>
>> Tomorrow proves to be an equally intriguing day – stay tuned to our MFLG child custody updates to learn more!

BC CHILD CUSTODY, GUARDIANSHIP AND PARENTAL ALIENATION UPDATE

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010

Day 1 – Denver AFCC Conference

MFLG Associate Shawna Specht arrived in beautiful Denver, Colorado yesterday to attend the annual Association of Family and Conciliatory Courts Conference. This year’s conference focuses on the very important issue of Parental Alienation, which is one of the most difficult issues to deal with for families going through high conflict divorces. At yesterday’s opening session, the AFCC was welcomed by the Chief Justice for the Denver Courts after which a very esteemed panel of doctors and psychologists engaged in a lively debate as to whether the determination of Parental Alienation in a child’s relationship with one of their parents should be classified as an actual mental disorder, for which treatment would be available. Concerns were raised as to whether “parental estrangement” which generally results in the situation of abuse could be properly distinguished from “parental alienation” which generally results from an active campaign to interupt the relationship between a child and parent without justification, as these two conditions can co-exist to some degree. Concerns were also raised that if PAS is considered a mental disorder, whether medical intervention such as behaviour modification drugs would be introduced as opposed to reunification counseling would be employed in an effort to address the problem. All panel members had interesting perspectives on the issue, however it was clear that there was no straight answer from any discipline, including those of the advocates for parents of alienated children. This will certainly be a topic that continues to be debated!


MacLean Family Law Group Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).