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 the ‘Blog Articles’ Category

« Older Entries

BC PARENTING COORDINATION and COORDINATOR UPDATE

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

Shelagh Kinney Family Mediator Vancouver and Fort St John BC

BC Parenting Coordination in British Columbia child custody cases is an emerging alternative BC family law dispute resolution process in which a BC lawyer or British Columbia mental health professional with BC mediation training and experience assists BC parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs and, with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

BC Parenting coordination may be of assistance in “high conflict” cases dealing with BC child custody related issues where parents have demonstrated a chronic inability to resolve conflicts about the children and bring frequent contested court applications regarding BC parenting issues.

Parenting coordination is not therapy or counseling for any family member, nor a formal custody evaluation or assessment. Although the Parenting Coordinator (“PC”) may act as a mediator to try to assist the parents to reach agreement on issues, parenting coordination is not only mediation as the PC will also have the ability to make certain decisions if the parties do not agree. The PC is appointed for a defined term, and the fees for the PCs services will be allocated between the parents by agreement or order.

Some examples of parental disputes settled by a PC include:

1. parenting time schedules, including regular access, holidays and vacations, temporary variations for special events, travel and passport arrangements;

2. a child’s recreational activities;

3. education (tutoring, summer school, school choice) or daycare;

4. health care (medical/dental);

5. child rearing issues ( bedtimes, alterations of the child’s appearance such as haircuts and piercings);

6. sharing of special or extraordinary expenses for the children; and

7. forms of communications between parents, including monitoring of emails and other correspondence by the PC if these have been an issue.

Parenting coordination is relatively new in British Columbia. In the United States, several states have statutes authorizing the appointment of PCs, including Oregon, California, Texas, and, most recently, Florida. Although there is currently no statutory authority in British Columbia governing parenting coordination, there have been several reported cases in which PCs have been appointed by a Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

For the past few years, a group of British Columbia family law lawyers and mental health professionals have been working towards establishing parenting coordination as a new legal mechanism in BC to deal with the unique issues facing high-conflict parents, including providing a roster of PCs under the BC Parenting Coordinators Roster Society.

Lorne MacLean recently defined the rules in BC Supreme Court that should apply to the terms of a parenting coordination contract and you should be aware of what the parenting coordinator can and cannot do.

If you have any questions on Parenting Coordination please call Shelagh Kinney, family mediator of our offices at 604-602-9000 who has taken the Parenting Coordinator training and courses related to this area from Joan Kelly as well as arbitration training.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Articles, Common Law and Same Sex, Custody and Access, General | No Comments »

CHANGES PROPOSED FOR BC SEPARATION, BC PRENUPTIAL, BC COHABITATION AND BC MARRIAGE AGREEMENTS

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

MacLean Family Law Group-BC Separation Agreement Changes Coming


BC Family law changes and clarification of the law related to BC Separation, BC, Cohabitation and BC prenuptial and Marriage Agreements are proposed in Family Relations Act Reform White Paper 2010 legislation which will include a separate section for Bc family agreements acknowledging the important role marriage and separation agreements play in resolving family law issues.

The law respecting bc marriage, cohabitation and separation agreements will be simplified in that references to different types of agreements will be eliminated. The proposed statute will set out formalities for agreements, which if used will limit the court’s ability to set aside property and spousal support provisions of agreements.

It is important that the legal framework for agreements be as clear and straightforward as possible in order to encourage the use of written agreements. In furtherance of this objective, the proposed legislation provides further guidance on how agreements may be set aside:
• Child-related provisions in agreements may be set aside if they are not in the best interests of the child. (restates current law)
• Child support provisions in agreements may be set aside if they fail to comply with the Federal Child Support Guidelines. (restates current law)
• All agreements may be set aside on the basis of procedural fairness concerns, such as where there is inadequate disclosure or where one party has taken unfair advantage of the other.
(restates current law)
• Property and spousal support provisions in agreements that meet the formalities may only be set aside for non-procedural reasons in the limited circumstances where it would be clearly unfair not to do so. This is a significant restriction of the ability to vary compared to the current law. In considering whether to set aside a provision in an agreement a court will consider the length of time that has passed between the making of the agreement and the time at which the application is made, the intention of the parties in making the agreement to achieve certainty, and the objectives of the Act in relation to spousal support.

The government feels providing greater clarity around when a particular provision in an agreement may be set aside increases the certainty of the law and encourages parties to use written agreements to manage their affairs.
Parenting plans will not be made mandatory. While they are useful in many contexts, there are some circumstances, such as where there is an ongoing risk of family violence, where they are not appropriate.
These changes are only proposed at this time and it remains to be seen if part or all of them are made law in BC.
Call us at 1-877-602-9900 if you have a question concerning the fairness of any agreement you are contemplating making, enforcing or seeking to vary.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Articles, Child Support, Separation Agreements | No Comments »

New BC Family Relations Act Reform 2010 BC Family Law White Paper-Lorne N. MacLean interviewed on CKNW AM 980 on the Proposed BC Family Law Act

Monday, July 19th, 2010

New BC Family Law changes- BC Family Relations Act Reform 2010 and the BC Family Law Act White Paper provides dramatic BC Family Law reforms to BC spousal support, BC family property division, BC common law property division, BC child custody-Lorne N. MacLean will be interviewed on the BC Family Relations Act Reform Law , tonight at 5:30PM on CKNW AM 980. Mr. MacLean will be talking about important new changes to the Family Relations Act. The new act will be called the Family Law Act and the deadline for written input/comment on the white paper will be October 8, 2010. Some of the proposed changes to Family Relations Act reflect issues that Mr. MacLean has addressed before the Supreme Court of Canada in Young v. Young [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 and in the Leskun v. Leskun [2006] 1 S.C.R. 920 decision. Some of the proposed changes will address the property rights of married and common-law couples; guardianship of children and decision-making about children; the enforcement of access orders; mobility and relocation issues; spousal support; and, parenting coordination, arbitration and mediation. Below is the executive summary, for the report click here.

New Family Relations Act Reform 2010 Changes Coming


White Paper on Family Relations Act Reform 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

British Columbia’s Family Relations Act has not been comprehensively reviewed since its introduction in the late 1970s. Since 2006, the British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General has been researching and consulting on how best to modernize this important area of the law. The draft legislation discussed in this white paper reflects the results of its policy review.

The main features of the proposed new family statute are:

TOPIC RECOMMENDED POLICY
Overall Approach Promote co-operation to the extent possible. For example:
• Structure the law so that court is not the only implied starting point.
• Promote a broader range of non-court dispute resolution options.
• Adopt a conflict prevention approach to family law disputes.
• Increase the law’s ability to deal with family violence and safety issues.
• Use less adversarial terminology.
• Meet the overall goals of the Family Relations Act review.

Non-Court Dispute Resolution and Agreements

Promote non-court dispute resolution. For example:
• Require family justice professionals to provide early information to clients on dispute resolution options.
Enable parenting coordination by agreement or court order.
• Amend the Commercial Arbitration Act to address family arbitrations.
• Provide for regulation-making authority to define practice standards/qualifications for family dispute resolution practitioners, as and if required.

Encourage agreements by providing greater clarity regarding when and how an agreement may be set aside:
• Parenting agreements may be set aside if they are not in the best interests of the child.
• Child support agreements may be set aside if they fail to comply with the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
• All agreements may be set aside for lack of procedural fairness, such as significant failure to disclose or where one party has taken unfair advantage of the other.
• Property and support agreements can be set aside for non-procedural reasons in limited circumstances where it would be clearly unfair.

Legal Parentage
Include a comprehensive scheme to determine a child’s legal parents, including in situations where reproductive technology has been used.

Children’s Best Interests

Make children’s best interests the only consideration in parenting disputes and identify children’s safety as an overarching objective of the best interests of the child test.
Add further best interests’ factors, including the history of the child’s care, family violence, and consideration of civil or criminal proceedings relevant to the safety or well-being of the child.
Provide for consideration of a child’s views “unless it would be inappropriate” to encourage greater inclusion of children’s views.
Guardianship Enact reforms to the Act’s treatment of guardianship, including the following:
• Replace the terms “custody” and “access” with “guardianship” and “parenting time”.
• Define “guardianship” through a list of “parental responsibilities” that can be allocated to allow for more customized parenting arrangements.

Provide that parents retain responsibility for their children upon separation if they have lived together with the child after the child’s birth. (Note: this does not mean that the law presumes an automatic 50-50 split of parental responsibilities or parenting time.) If they have not, the parent with whom the child lives is the guardian.
• Consolidate guardianship of children into the new law by including testamentary and standby guardianship.

When Orders or Agreements for Time with a Child are not Respected

Include a new range of tools and remedies to address non-compliance with orders and agreements for time with a child:
• Remedies range from moderate to extraordinary remedies depending on the facts of the situation and history of non-compliance.
• Provide different remedies for failure to allow parenting time/contact and failure to exercise parenting time/contact.

Relocation

Introduce a relocation regime that aims to increase certainty and predictability of the law of relocation, the highlights of which are:
• Include a mandatory 60-day notice-of-move provision, to provide an opportunity for parties to try to resolve any disputes about the proposed move.
• List factors that must be considered (e.g. the reasons for the proposed move and whether the proposed move is likely to enhance the general quality of life of the child and the guardian planning the move) and factors that must not be considered (e.g. whether the guardian would be willing to move without the child in any event).
• Include presumptions to be applied where the proposed move is contested.

Children’s Property
Add provisions relating to children’s property that would:
• Enable a child’s guardian(s) to manage property below a certain monetary threshold without a court order.
• Provide court oversight of larger children’s trusts, including the appointment of private trustees.

Property Division

Enact major reforms to the law’s property division regime, that would:
• Extend it to common-law spouses who have lived together for two years in a marriage-like relationship or who are in marriage-like relationship of some permanence and have children together.
• Exclude certain types of property (e.g. pre-relationship property, gifts, and inheritances) from the pool of family property to be divided 50-50.
• Limit judicial discretion to reapportion family property or to divide excluded property to circumstances where it would be clearly unfair not to do so.
• Provide that debts are subject to equal division.
• Set as defaults: the date of separation as the triggering event and the date of the court order or agreement as the valuation date.
• Limit the ability of judges to set aside or change property division agreements.
• Enable interim orders, including for the distribution of property for the purposes of funding litigation or dispute resolution.
• Enact conflict of laws provisions to address property outside of British Columbia.

Pension Division

Enact most of the major and housekeeping recommendations made by the British Columbia Law Institute in its 2006 report on the division of pensions.
Extend the pension division scheme to unmarried spouses who meet the definition of spouse.
Support Minor changes to the child support provisions to ensure consistency with new Act’s language and
structure.

Minor changes to spousal support provisions:
• Align provincial spousal support factors and objectives more closely with the Divorce Act.
• Explicitly permit periodic reviews.
• Permit variation applications in light of the spousal support objectives and factors where there has been a change in circumstances, new evidence or a failure to make full and frank disclosure.
• Limit consideration of a spouse’s alleged misconduct to that which “arbitrarily or unreasonably” affects the need for support or the ability to provide it.
• Provide that spousal support obligations continue after the death of the paying spouse unless otherwise agreed or ordered.
• Clarify that spousal support should be awarded only where spousal support objectives have not already been met through property division.
• Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines will not be referred to in the Act and will remain advisory.

Eliminate parental support obligations.

Case Management and Enforcement Tools

Include a broader range of case management and enforcement tools for judges. In particular:
• Provide for a new type of order called “conduct orders” and corresponding remedies for non-compliance to manage behaviour and facilitate resolution, for example, through referrals to a service, program, counselling or non-court dispute resolution process, providing for a party to pay the other’s reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the non-compliance, and limiting frivolous or vexatious litigation.
• Establish a general duty to disclose information, and provide for a greater range of remedies for failure to comply with an order to disclose.

Protection Orders

Replace existing family law restraining orders with “protection orders” enforceable under the Criminal Code.
Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters The new family statute will carry forward many of the jurisdictional provisions from the Family Relations Act. Proposed procedural changes include the following:
• Lawyers must certify that information about non-court dispute resolution options has been provided prior to filing court documents.
• Family cases are to be conducted, to the extent possible, in a way that minimizes delay, cost and formality, reduces conflict and promotes co-operation, protects those involved, and is proportionate to the dispute.
• Children who are 16 or older or who are parents, spouses or former spouses will be able to conduct court cases without a litigation guardian.

Transition

Where a court action has been started but not yet resolved before the effective date, the Family Relations Act applies unless the parties enter into a written agreement stating that the new Act governs. Cases that have already been time-barred under the Family Relations Act are not revived by the new Act.
Where a court action has been started on or after the effective date, the new Act applies.
Orders and declarations made under the previous law continue in force according to their terms, but subsequent applications made on or after the effective date (e.g., to vary or enforce) are governed by the new Act.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Articles, Common Law and Same Sex, Custody and Access, Division of Property, General | No Comments »

BC CHILD CUSTODY- PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

It is important to deal with Parental Alienation Issues Urgently


BC child custody lawyers need to be aware of the the continuum of parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome that can include, alienation, estrangement and enmeshment. As Vancouver BC child custody lawyers we are aware of the following indicators of PAS:

“In another study ( defining the strategies of alienating parents ), Baker and
Darnell ( 2006 ) identify as many as 1,300 actions, categorized into 66 strategies.
These strategies are summarized into seven groups, plus a catch-all
miscellaneous group:

1. Badmouthing ( e.g. qualities, portrayed as dangerous, mean, abandoning;
using the rejected parent’s first name with the child instead of ” Mom or Dad “,
etc);

2. Limiting / interfering with parenting time ( e.g., moving away, arranging
activities during scheduled time with rejected parent, calling during contact,
giving child ” choice ” about whether to have contact, etc.);

3. Limiting / interfering with mail or phone contact ( blocking, intercepting, or
monitoring calls and mail, etc.);

4. Limiting / interfering with symbolic contact ( limiting mentioning, no photographs,
having child call someone else ” Mom ” or ” Dad “; changing child’s name, etc.);

5. Interfering with information ( e.g., refusing to communicate, using child as
messenger not giving important school and medical information, etc.);

6. Emotional manipulation ( e.g., withdrawing love, inducing guilt, interrogating child,
forcing child to choose/express loyalty or reject, rewarding for rejection, etc.);

7. Unhealthy alliance ( e.g., fostering dependency, child having to spy, keep secrets,
etc);

8. Miscellaneous ( e.g., badmouthing to friends, teachers, doctors, interfering with
the child’s counlsling , creating conflict between child and rejected parent, etc.). ”

If you suspect any of the above criteria are part of your child custody case or you are unfairly being accused of alienating a child call us immediately at 1-877-602-9900.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Articles, Custody and Access | No Comments »

BC SHARED CHILD CUSTODY AND BC JOINT GUARDIANSHIP SUCCESS STORY

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Lorne MacLean and James Macdonnell Celebrate their Child Custody Victory in Victoria


Lorne MacLean, BC divorce lawyer,is delighted to have just won a BC shared child custody, reduced child support and BC joint and shared guardianship case. We just obtained the written reasons on a BC shared child custody and BC child Guardianship success we had on behalf of a father who wanted his children to be able to spend half of their time with him on a shared custody arrangement. We used a number of BC shared child custody case authorities and social science articles to successfully prevail for our client and his children. We focused on the positives in both parents and how well the children were doing and persuaded the court our BC shared child custody plan made the most sense moving forward. The key point to note is that week on week off custody can work when both parents work full time and there should be no bias against shared custody even if one parent is a stay at home parent while the other works full time.

Read the case and take a look at how we crafted the successful argument on behalf of our client and his children.

Metivier Reasons

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Articles, Custody and Access | No Comments »

BC FAMILY ASSET and BC PROPERTY DIVISION- NEW BC FAMILY LAW RULES ALLOW INTERIM ADVANCES FOR BC LEGAL FEES AND EXPERT REPORTS

Sunday, July 11th, 2010

BC Family Law and Interim Distribution of BC Family Assets and Advances to Pay BC Legal Fees: Who Pays the Piper in Divorce?

We are all familiar with the notion that “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” but what happens when you don’t have the money to pay the piper? In contested divorce cases it is not uncommon for legal fees and expenses to reach the point where you face difficulty paying your lawyer to represent your interests for lack of funds. In cases of mid to high net worth divorcing couples there are usually substantial assets that require dividing – bank accounts, trust/income funds, houses, property (local and foreign) and insurance policies to name but a few. Assets by their very nature have an intrinsic monetary value. The question is whether or not a divorcing spouse short on capital before a trial needed to pay their legal fees can access these assets or borrow against them to pay past, present and future legal expenses before the trial that will likely divide these family assets- most often equally? Is there any reason that all assets should remain untouchable until the trial is over and judgment rendered?

A new rule may allow people access to income and assets before a trial where in the past this was more difficult if not impossible to achieve. Lorne MacLean of the MacLean Family Law Group points out new BC Supreme Court Family rule 12-1 may allow a much needed interim advance of funds for a spouse needing funds to live on or to pay legal and expert fees as it states:

Photo Lorne MacLean BC Family Law Attorney

BC Supreme Court Family Law Rule 12-1

Allowance of income from property
(3) If property is the subject matter of a family law case and the court is satisfied that the property will be more than sufficient to answer all claims on it, the court at any time

(a) may allow the whole or part of the income of the property to be paid, during such period as the court may direct, to a party who has an interest in it, or

(b) in the case of personal property, may order that part of the personal property be delivered or transferred to a party.

Recovery of specific property
(4) If a party claims the recovery of specific property other than land, the court may order that the property claimed be given up to the party, pending the outcome of the family law case, either unconditionally or on terms and conditions, if any, relating to giving security, time, mode of trial or otherwise.

In the past a party claiming an advance against their ultimate share in property met with stiff judicial precedent against them.
In British Columbia the leading authority – Ansari v. Ansari [2000] BCJ No. 763 – holds that advances (interim distributions) or borrowing funds against family assets subject to division in a divorce proceeding to pay past, present and future legal fees are not allowed except to fund unusual disbursements relating specifically to the valuation of assets. In Ansari v. Ansari [2000] B.C.J. No. 763 (BCSC) – Macaulay J.noted:

(a) Jurisdiction for interim payment from family assets founded in s.66 of the Family Relations Act (as decided in Erskine v. Erskine (1991) 31 R.F.L. (3d) 273)

(b) Two step test established by Kirkpatrick J. in Jiwa v. Jiwa [1992] B.C.J. No. 3024 (S.C.):

(1) Is the advance required to mount a challenge to the other spouse’s position at trial?

(2) Will the advance or the payment on an interim distribution basis jeopardize the other spouse’s position at trial?

Macaulay J. held at paragraph 28 in Ansari:

As the interim distribution of assets sought relates primarily to past and projected legal expenses in the matrimonial litigation, entitlement falls to be determined, in my view, within s.66 and with regard to the limitations expressed in earlier decisions. The weight of authority is against ordering an interim distribution of assets to meet past and, in particular, future legal expenses except to fund unusual disbursements relating specifically to the valuation of assets. I decline to order an interim distribution in favour of either party.

The more recent case of Herr v. Herr [2006] B.C.J. No. 1624 – held as in Ansari that no interim disposition of funds should be allowed allowed and at paragraphs 19 and 20 Ralph J. stated:

“The purpose for which the true interim distribution was required was not specific but appeared to be for past and future legal expenses. As recognized in Ansari the weight of authority is against ordering an interim distribution of assets to meet past and future legal expenses except to fund unusual disbursements relating to the valuation of assets.”

“In my respectful view, having already authorized a substantial draw upon these funds to pay the arrears of support, the Master erred in further authorizing the payment of $40,000 for the unspecified past and future legal expense. I conclude that Mr. Herr’s appeal with respect to the Master’s order relating to the interim distribution of $40,000 should be allowed and that the order must be set aside.”

Similarly, in Hiemstra v. Hiemstra [2001] B.C.J. No. 522 – No interim distribution of funds was allowed to pay legal fees and in McLeod v. McLeod [2001] B.C.J. No. 1201 (S.C.) – Kirkpatrick J. followed Ansari and refused to make an interim order for distribution of funds for legal fees. Kirkpatrick J. also followed the Pierce decision, in that she did not find that “such an advance is, in equity, required”. The distinguishing features in this case are that the wife was already receiving a substantial sum (close to $5000 per month) for child support and the husband was paying a good portion of the household expenses, and spousal support of almost $4000. Therefore, the circumstances were not so dire as to require the disbursement of funds to the wife out of the property.

An older line of cases did allow some advances for legal fees:

(a) Pierce v. Pierce [1994] B.C.J. No. 3079 (S.C.) as per Melnick J. – the focus in ordering an advance is not whether it is required for one spouse to fund his or her lawsuit against the other, but rather whether, in order to make a determination regarding assets, as contemplated by s.52 of
Family Relations Act, such an advance is, in equity, required.

(b) Ford v. Ford (6 February 1992), Vancouver Registry A913765 – allowed for release of funds for legal fees.

(c) Newbury J. in Lane v. Lane [1991] B.C.J. No. 3246 (S.C.) – lump sum payment ordered to reimburse a wife for past accounting and legal expenses but would not order payment for estimated future legal expenses.

The big change regarding experts in family matters is the emphasis on 1 neutral expert being appointed by consent or if disputed by court order as follows:

Single Court Appointed Expert
13-4
Application to court
(3) If the parties do not agree that a joint expert is required or do not agree on any matter relating to the appointment of a joint expert, any party may apply to the court in accordance with Rule 10-5 for an order
(a) appointing a joint expert, and
(b) settling any matter relating to the appointment of the joint expert.

Note also full cooperation is required and full disclosure mandated under this rule.

Appointment of Court’s own Expert
13-5
(10) The remuneration of an expert appointed under this rule
(a) must be fixed by the court and consented to by the expert, and
(b) may include
(i) a fee for the report, and any supplementary reports, required under Rule 13-6, and
(ii) an appropriate sum for each day that the expert’s attendance in court is required.
Security for remuneration

(11) The court may make one or both of the following orders, without prejudice to any party’s right to costs:
(a) an order directing that the expert’s remuneration be paid by the persons and at the time ordered by the court;
(b) an order for security for the expert’s remuneration

If you have an issue with needing to access monies you are properly owed before trial call us toll free at 1-877-602-9900 to help you ensure your case is handled properly and that funds you need to protect your rights and properly instruct your lawyer and valuation experts can be obtained.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Articles, Division of Property, Divorce Planning, General | No Comments »

Macleans Magazine Article “With this app, I thee divorce“ quotes BC Divorce Lawyer, Lorne MacLean on Technology

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Lorne MacLean, BC Family Law Divorce Lawyer, was quoted in this weeks Macleans magazine once again showing he is at the cutting edge on the development and use of technology to help clients click here to read the article
“With this app, I thee divorce“

Lorne MacLean, MFLG Lawyer

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Articles, General | No Comments »

BC CHILD CUSTODY PAS AND BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDERS AND CUSTODY REPORTS

Friday, June 25th, 2010

BC child custody courts have become more aware of Parental Alienation Syndrome in BC custody and access cases and psychological issues such as Borderline Personality Disorder

Lorne MacLean BC Child Custody Lawyer

affecting British Columbia custody and acesss parents that can impact on their ability as custodial or access parents and as persons who need to cooperate as guardians to raise their children. It is important to note psychologists cannot find a person involved in a BC custody case has borderline personality disorder without concluding the person has 5/9 of the criteria listed below. It is also important that the label not be used by an expert to merely smear a custody or access parent but rather the psychologist must point out how the criteria diagnosed impact directly on the BC custody or acess parent’s ability to parent the children at issue in the BC child custody court case.

Borderline Personality Disorder DSM IV Criteria

A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment. Note: Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.

2. a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation.

3. identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self.

4. impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating). Note: Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.

5. recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior

6. affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days).

7. chronic feelings of emptiness

8. inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)

9. transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms

If you suspect you are involved in a case involving alienation or borderline personality disorder or feel you are being unfairly accused of same contact Lorne MacLean immediately as time is of the essence in these cases.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Articles, Custody and Access | No Comments »

BC High Net Worth Divorce Income and BC Family Assets Divorce Warning

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

Spencer MacLean Heads To Law School

The duty of full financial disclosure in a BC family law case can lead to mischief in the hands of disgruntled spouses

Did you know your BC divorce and BC family law finances disclosed in a BC divorce are not private?

Case in point, Michie v. Michie [2010] B.C.J. a BC family law appeal from the dismissal of an appellant husband’s interim family law application for an order to prevent his former wife from disclosing any information given by him to her in the BC divorce proceedings to determine his BC child support requirement to third party interests. The husband further requested a sealing of the file be established to the registry file with respect to the proceedings to prevent access to information by third parties on the basis it would jeopardize him financially.

Affidavits filed by the husband supporting his financial application that provided details about his current financial situation were copied by his former wife and sent to a previous business associate of the husband. The previous business associate and the husband were involved in an acrimonious dispute where the husband was publically alleged to have harassed the associate as well as his family.

The appeal contested that the chambers judge did not fairly nor fully take into account the husband’s privacy interests. The husband argued that the Rules of Court (B.C) provide a right of privacy most specifically Rule 60D(35), which required confidentiality for documents obtained in accordance with the Rule, as well as Rule 60D(3), which requires a party to provide applicable income documents arguing it was important to recognize that the definition also includes a statement of earnings. Primarily based upon the two rules stated above, the husband believed that these rules were general enough to include information related to the deponent’s financial circumstances contained within an affidavit so it would be kept private.

The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that there was no general right of privacy for financial information disclosed in a family proceeding. Although rule 60D(3) identifies specifically to the material which confidentiality applied it was determined to be an exception to the general open court policy of the law, and therefore did not include an affidavit that provided a comprehensive account of the deponent’s financial circumstances.

The court stated:

[23] Mr. Michie relies on Rule 60D(36) which allows the court to restrict publication of information if disclosure “would be a hardship”. He contends that dissemination of the information would prejudice his opportunity to obtain employment and this is an extra feature of his situation.
[24] The chambers judge specifically rejected this contention and was not satisfied it was “sufficient to establish hardship” under the Rule. In my view, he did not err in principle or commit a palpable and overriding error in so concluding.

This BC Appeal is significant because it provides us with insight into the importance of determining what is private as well as the consequences associated with a lack of privacy whether it be personal or financial. The privacy concerns are balanced against the right of the public to have open access to court files.

Moreover, this case raises serious concerns for parties involved in competitive business enterprises. Since the specific statutory wording in section 60D(35) does not prevent third parties from obtaining sensitive financial information concerning the parties, and in cases of high net worth individuals owning sensitive proprietary assets or being involved in a highly competitive industry the potential for mischief by a disgruntled spouse in revealing sensitive information cannot be underestimated.

It is critical that if you are involved in a case involving significant assets of a sensitive nature that you contact a lawyer who is fully knowledgeable about seeking orders of nondisclosure and the sealing of your file or the use initials on the file for privacy concerns related to finances, the parties, or most importantly their children.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Articles, Child Support | No Comments »

Fort St John BC and Dawson Creek BC Personal Injury and ICBC Claims Free Initial Consultation

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

We can't protect you against a car accident but we will protect your ICBC Claim Rights


Personal injury and ICBC claim clients who have a Fort St John BC or Dawson Creek BC personal injury and ICBC claim can call us at 250-262-5052 to set up a free initial ICBC claim consultation with an experienced ICBC claim and personal injury lawyer.

Doug Conolly, an ICBC claim and personal injury lawyer who is a partner at McQuarrie Hunter in Vancouver BC is assisting us in meeting and helping Fort St John ICBC claim and Dawson Creek BC personal injury clients in the North Peace at our Fort St John personal injury law office located at 9503-100th Avenue.

Mr. Conolly remembers fondly his experience working at the mill in MacKenzie British Columbia prior to becoming a lawyer and loves the North Peace especially in the summer and fall.

MacLean Law Group Fort St John Law Office

Lorne MacLean and Doug Conolly suggest you consider the following before selecting your North Peace area personal injury and ICBC claim lawyer:

How to Find a Skilled Lawyer Who is Right for You

Choosing an experienced personal injury lawyer who will work well with you is an important first step in settling your claim. The right lawyer will give you peace of mind and ensure the best possible outcome.

Here are some tips to help you find a good lawyer or law firm:

1. Check their website. Is there information about individual lawyers? Do they have expertise in personal injury law? Is the website clear, professional and easy to use?

2. Contact them. Did you feel you were given the information you needed to get started? If you left a telephone message or sent an email inquiry, was the response prompt and professional?

3. Meet them. Many firms offer a free initial consultation (up to 1/2 hour). During that first meeting, did they listen? Did you feel comfortable asking questions and were your questions answered clearly? Who did most of the talking? Were fees and expenses discussed openly? Did you feel confident that this lawyer genuinely had your best interests at heart?

4. Ask tough questions. For example:

■”How much experience do you have as a personal injury lawyer?”

■”What percentage of your practice is devoted to personal injury law?”

■”Can you consult with other lawyers in your firm when necessary?”

■”Are you prepared to take this matter to trial if necessary?”

■”How many times have you appeared in court?”

■”What makes you a good negotiator? How do you reach a settlement?”

■”Do you have time to deal with my matter promptly and to follow through?”

■”Will anyone else work on my matter?”

■”What are your fees and what are my payment options?”

5. Ask for their retainer agreement. Review it carefully and ask for clarification on anything you don’t understand before agreeing to its terms.

6. If you have special needs, can the lawyer meet those needs?

Doug Conolly would love to discuss his experince and each of these questions with you at the eaarliest possible opportunity.

If you have been involved in a car accident call us at 250-262-5052

Call us at 250-262-5052 now to set up an appointment and get cutting edge strategies to ensure your claim is properly handled and you get the proper amount you are entitled to.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Articles, General | No Comments »

« Older Entries