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 ‘Custody and Access’ Category

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 Shawna Specht of the MacLean Family Law Group for an appointment.

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 Wins BC Shared Custody for Father

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

Lorne MacLean, Partner MacLean Family Law Group

Lorne MacLean is currently involved in a BC Shared Custody case and he is relying on a case he won for a father a few years ago which BC shared custody and guardianship case accepted MacLean’s arguments and ordered week on week off shared custody as follows:

1. In O.T.H. v. S.L.H. 2003 BCSC 1399, a mother appealed an order of a Master awarding joint custody and equal parenting time for the parties’ child, which was a change in the status quo for the Child since the parties separated. Rogers J. dismissed the appeal and held that the Master had not erred in altering the status quo. At paragraphs 28 & 29 of the decision, Rogers J. held that:

It cannot, as Mrs. H. suggests, be the case that simply because the status quo has pertained for, say, a year and a half, that it must ipso facto serve the child’s best interests. That is, in my view, extremely faulty reasoning. One does not, just because the child has had his primary residence with one parent for a year, conclude that that arrangement is in that child’s best interests. That arrangement may, in fact, have been contrary to the child’s best interests from the outset. It is for the court on an application to upset the status quo to determine where the child’s best interests lie. This is, I believe, one of the bedrock principles of family law. See, for example, Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 and Robinson v. Fylik, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2519.
I do not think that the learned Master fell into error by proceeding on an assumption or some preconceived idea that shared residency is the default position and that it was for either Mr. or Mrs. H. to show that it should not pertain. The learned Master’s reasons clearly indicate that as he considered Mr. H.’s application for shared residency he took into account the fact that for the most part the children had been with their mother since separation and that they were now expressing a desire for more time with their dad. His reasons also indicate that he considered the parents’ own wishes in that regard and whether shared residency would unduly upset the children. The learned Master made reference to Mrs. H.’s agreement that, at least in the summertime, there should be shared residency. I have no doubt that the learned Master considered, as well, the principal of maximum contact between child and parent mandated by s. 16(10) of the Divorce Act R.S., 1985, c. 3. The learned Master took into consideration the children’s circumstances before the application, concluded that shared residency would better serve those interests, and made his order accordingly.