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

MacLean Family Law Group’s Sumit Ahuja BC and Alberta Family Lawyer- Wins For a Satisfied Client

Friday, August 5th, 2011

Sumit Ahuja of MacLean Family Law Group Wins in Edmonton Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

 

Our law firm which is now BC’s biggest Family Law Firm with 9 lawyers and 4 offices across BC in downtown Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna and Fort St John, is now acting in Alberta as well given the demands we are receiving from new Alberta clients.

  • In a win by Mr. Sumit Ahuja  today in Edmonton Alberta,  the firm brought its resources and creative strategies to bear for our client where the  opposing Party was trying to use an emergency protection order to prevent our client from seeing and having time with his five month old child.
  • The mother raised a number of disputed allegations against our client, including physical, emotional and even sexual abuse by our him against his child.
  • Mr Ahuja forcefully attacked the factual basis of these allegations and  expressed to the learned Queen’s Bench Justice that his client contested all allegations and that the mother’s accusations lack merit.  Mr Ahuja  advised the court that it is imperative for a father and infant child to have as much contact as possible with each other so a proper bond forms. The court agreed.
  • Our client is now at liberty to apply to set aside any protection order, bring on an application for access, and/or obtain access to his child through child services as a result of the mother’s application to bar him from contact with his child for the next 12 months was dismissed.

Our client is happy to state “I am ecstatic with MacLean Family Law Group’s  no nonsense approach and thankful that we came all the way from BC to assist him after his former lawyer was getting nowhere.” He further thanked us and said he was “greatful to have us on his team.”

He is very excited to have access to his child again as he had been unnecessarily removed from his child’s life until we were hired by him and were able to succeed on his behalf.

 

If you have a difficult family case in BC or Alberta and need our help call us toll free at 1-877-602-9900.

 

 

BC AND ALBERTA SHARED CUSTODY LAWYERS WIN INVOLVING A BREASTFEEDING INFANT

Friday, July 29th, 2011

MacLean Family Law Group's new Kelowna Office is Very Busy


 
Breastfeeding is not a Barrier to Meaningful Access If You Hire the Right Lawyer

We just enjoyed a recent success for our client- the father of a  breastfed 10 month old son- who he had been provided restricted contact prior to our involvement on his behalf. Within only a few weeks of being hired to represent him in the Calgary Registry of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench we had obtained an Order for shared week on week off custody after a brief phase in period.

In a recent case before the Court of Queen’s Bench in Calgary, Alberta, Mr. MacLean and Mr. Witzman were successful in obtaining a week on/week off shared care arrangement for a ten month old nursing child. It was arranged that the mother could pump breast milk that can be frozen as necessary in order to facilitate meaningful access with our client, the father. This decision follows a growing line of cases in which shared care and overnight visits of infant children who were still breastfeeding are ordered.

According to s. 16(8) of the Divorce Act, the court must, in deciding the appropriate access for a child give paramount consideration the best interest of the child. Section 16(10), known as the “maximum contact rule” states that a child should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with their best interests. This section has been interpreted broadly in Young v. Young (1993), 84 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1 (S.C.C.) where the Court of Appeal held that “contact” means “real communication, … the opportunity to know each other well and to appreciate each other as individuals.”  Mr. MacLean was proud to be the successful counsel for Ms. Young in what is recognized as Canada’s leading case on custody access and guardianship.

Social science evidence supports this position, as it is often stated that children benefit from having meaningful bonds with both parents. Joan Kelly and Michael Lamb in “Using Child Development Research to Make Appropriate Custody and Access Decisions for Young Children” state “the evening and overnight periods (like extended days with nap times) with nonresidential parents are especially important psychologically not only for infants but for toddlers and young children as well … These everyday activities promote and maintain trust and confidence in the parents while deepening and strengthening child-parent attachments.”

If, as the legislation and social science indicate, it is in the best interest of the child to have meaningful contact with both parents, including overnights or extended visits, how do we address the needs of breastfeeding children? Many mothers argue that a breastfeeding child cannot be away from them for an extended period of time, and while they may have the best of intentions, often breastfeeding becomes a barrier to meaningful access with the father. The courts are increasingly recognizing that shared care arrangements can occur even with young, breastfeeding children.

In the case of  T.S. v. A.V.T., 2008 ABQB 185 the court found it appropriate for the father to be have primary residence of the almost one year old child because the mother and mother’s family thwarted father’s attempts at relationship with the child. It was found that breastfeeding had been used as an excuse to deny access or unnecessarily restrict visits to father.

In two other B.C. cases, K.V. v. T.E. [1997] B.C.J. No. 3081; Schloegl v. McCroary [2008] B.C.J. No. 2443, overnight access was granted despite the fact that the infant child was still breastfeeding.  In these cases overnight access was order on a gradually increasing basis, and did not automatically begin with a 50/50 shared time order, to allow the child to adjust.

There are also cases that find a child has reached a sufficient age or stage of development and they should no longer be breastfeeding, such as occurred in the Ontario case of Fletcher v. Fletcher [2003] O.J. No. 1568. Here the judge ordered that the mother wean the child, who was nearly three years old, in order to facilitate more appropriate access. While such an order may appear controversial to some, the World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding, if possible, as the exclusive form of nutrition for the first six months and then a combination of breastfeeding and solid foods from six to twenty-four months. If a party wished to argue for continued breastfeeding after the age of two years, at the detriment of access to the other party, they may need medical evidence to justify their argument.

If your child is being denied meaningful access under the pretense that they cannot be away from their mother because they are breastfeeding call ANY our 4 office across BC to speak with one of our lawyers well versed on this topic or call our toll free child custody hotline at 1-877-602-9900.

We want people to know that active, focused and quality involvement coupled with meaningful access and or shared custody will likely lead to an outstanding result for your children’s development.

By Joey Perpick Summer Articled Student

 

 

 

 

 

LORNE MACLEAN QUOTED IN VANCOUVER SUN ARTICLE ON BC PARENTAL ALIENATION AND HIGH CONFLICT CHILD CUSTODY

Thursday, June 9th, 2011

Lorne MacLean BC Parental Alienation Lawyer with James MacDonnell


Lorne MacLean, BC Child Custody lawyer and head of the 7 lawyer MacLean Family Law Group was quoted today in the Vancouver Sun today and explained the heartbreak of being the targeted parent in a parental alienation high conflict child custody case. MacLean explains the key to success in solving these cases is to hire a lawyer skilled in handling parental alienation cases immediately when you suspect parental alienation is occurring. Secondly you must hire an expert psychologist who is experienced in this specialized area and finally try to obtain and keep one Judge involved from the start of the court case as this type of case is notoriously hard to deal with.

We have offices in downtown Vancouver, Surrey, Fort St John and Kelowna and our toll free number is 1-877-602-9900. Click Here to See our Youtube 2011 Parental Alienation Seminar in HD.
(more…)

Kelowna Family Asset Valuation Lawyer, Vancouver and Fort St John BC Family Property and Business Asset Division Lawyers

Thursday, June 2nd, 2011

Lorne MacLean Business Asset Lawyer-New BC Family Relations Act Property Changes Coming!


MacLean Family Law Group provides divorce and BC family asset, marital property and family business or “other asset” division strategies. We have been handling medium to high net worth family property division cases for nearly 30 years and have one of the best and largest family law firms in Western Canada with four offices located in downtown Vancouver, South Surrey, Kelowna and Fort St John, BC. You can call us at any office or toll free at 1-877-602-9900. We speak English, Cantonese, 我們為客户瓣理離婚手續, 財產分配, 小孩撫養權 Punjabi, Farsi and Hindi.溫哥華離婚律師

Medium to high net worth asset, company, professional practice, trust and income cases that we handle include:

-prenuptial and marriage agreements to create a separate property regime and protect assets;
-discretionary and contingent trust interests as family assets and sources of income for spouses and their children;
-financial statement analysis to value a business on a liquidation, going concern through multiple of earnings basis;
-valuation dates issues where assets go up and down in value after separation or where assets have been disposed of;
-special shares as many people do not understand that voting and non voting shares have different values and rights:
-valuing a book of business for stock brokers and other professionals;
-split pension amounts and lump sum pension valuations to detertmine the real value as opposed to improperly using much lower contribution values;
-non-arms-length payments correction for calculating each spouse’s guideline incomes and strategies to divide company profits before and after trial;
-analysis of company or professional working capital as it impacts support and equalization payments;
-imputed income from employment for both the paying and receiving spouse and how capital is used based on cases following the Leskun, Supreme Court of Canada case Mr. MacLean represented the husband in.

Significant family property division changes are due to take effect immediately and different strategies apply to whether you want to start a claim immediately or not. Don’t be in the dark-call us.

Mr. MacLean was one of the first family lawyers in BC to seek restraining Orders to divide profits from a family business before trial in half rather than merely seeking spousal support in a much lower amount. Mr. MacLean also successfully reapportioned a business in front of the husband and business owner 75/25 in his favour-a rarity! If you need aggressive and focused stratgeies in cases involving claiming or defending a division of these assets call us immediately at any of our 4 offices throughout British Columbia. Delay only makes things worse in many cases.

Vancouver BC Grandparents Child Custody, Relative Child Custody and Access Rights to Grandchildren Vancouver Lawyers

Tuesday, May 31st, 2011

Manny Witzman of MFLG -Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna and Fort St John BC Grandparent Child Custody Lawyer


When parents and grandparents in British Columbia think of child custody and guardianship laws, they often consider it an issue of parental rights. But many children in modern BC households are not raised by their parents, and custody can be given to grandparents, aunts, uncles and even non-relatives in certain situations.
What happens when a grandmother and grandfather apply for custody to the exclusion of a child’s natural mother and father? The result can lead to extremely contested custody battles, as in the case of N.L.W. v. T.M.W. 2006 B.C.J. No. 1338. In that case, the grandmother had raised a child for ten years before relocating with the child, which caused access issues to the child’s natural parents. The British Columbia Court of Appeal clearly said that custody is not an issue of parental rights, and there was no preference to the biological parents in the circumstances.

Theses cases have followed the law set in part by Lorne Maclean the winning counsel in Young v. Young which is the leading 1993 Supreme Court of Canada child custody decision where the court concluded that a natural parent’s rights are not absolute.

If you are a grandparent or non-parent seeking custody of a child, book an appointment with a MacLean Family Law Group lawyer at our Vancouver, Surrey, Fort St John or Kelowna BC office to discuss your options in this complex, evolving area of Children’s Law. You can also obtain our help anywhere in BC by calling 1-877-602-9900.

The critical part of the decision from the BC Court of Appeal on the issue of grandparent custody is set out below:
(more…)

EMAIL AND SOCIAL MEDIA EVIDENCE ALERT FOR BC DIVORCE CLIENTS AND THEIR VANCOUVER FAMILY LAWYERS

Sunday, May 29th, 2011

Lorne MacLean Vancouver Child Support and Kelowna Spousal Support Lawyer


As an experienced Vancouver family lawyer, I routinely warn my Vancouver family law clients that they shouldn’t say or write anything to their spouse or others that you wouldn’t feel comfortable with a divorce judge hearing-because believe me those statements whether written or oral will be used against them in a court of law. Drunken pictures, swinger ads etc, profane emails and dirty tricks are all powerful weapons used against a spouse in a divorce, financial and most critically in a child custody case.

Here is a recent U.S. case summary we obtained from a U.S. attorney John Martin that points out factors for how emails may be used in Court:

In Willis v. Willis, 79 A.D.3d 1029, 914 N.Y.S.2d 243, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 09056 (Sup Ct, App. Div. NY Dec. 21, 2010), the court held that emails sent by plaintiff (ex-wife of defendant) to her attorney were not protected by attorney-client privilege because her children not only knew her password but used the account. In the underlying case plaintiff had sued her ex-husband and his current wife for sending emails containing allegedly defamatory statements to wife’s email knowing that the children had access to the account. Under plaintiff’s theory the slander was “published” when one of the children read the email. Plaintiff had not requested that the children keep her emails confidential.

KEY POINT: If you will be communicating with your lawyer via email, determine who all has access to the account and change passwords and keep them completely confidential, even as to other family members.

We also want to point out the dangers of clients communicating with their attorneys using email accounts or computers provided by employers which have a policy of monitoring their employees’ email.

FREE BC CHILD CUSTODY PARENTAL ALIENATION SEMINAR VIDEO ON ESTRANGEMENT, ENMESHMENT AND PARENTAL ALIENATION

Thursday, May 5th, 2011

Vancouver Parental Alienation Lawyer Lorne MacLean


We held our Vancouver child custody and Surrey BC child custody and access free Parental Alienation seminar on Saturday May 28, 2011 and it was a great success. To help those who could not attend we videotaped the seminar as this topic is a very painful one or many families.

Attendees found out what estrangement, alienation and the enmeshed dyad are. Watch the video to find out if you are a victim of or are unwittingly a part of parental alienation. Attend our offices for a consultation and get a free handout on the criteria for diagnosing possible alienation or to determine whether the situation is one of estrangement, or whether it is a hybrid situation that is present in your case.

When we meet with you will also explore with you the different levels of parental alienation and what the best treatment is for the family unit as a whole. Frequently the Courts need to use reunification counseling and in the worst of cases a temporary parent-ectomy!

Watch the Video Part 1 by clicking here

Watch the Video Part 2 by clicking here

Watch the Video Part 3 by clicking here

TOUGH NEW ENFORCEMENT OF BC CHILD PARENTING TIME AND BC CHILD CONTACT WELCOMED BY MACLEAN FAMILY LAW GROUP

Saturday, April 16th, 2011

Lorne MacLean BC Child Custody, Parenting Time and Child Contact lawyer

We have extracted the new remedies for denial of BC child access as well as the failure to exercise parenting time and child contact (formerly known as BC child access access) and types of enforcement clauses that are expected to be made BC law later this year. It is critical to note the remedies provide enforcement for both a denial of access now called parenting time and contact as well as the refusal or failure to show up for child access now called parenting time and contact. At the present time there is a gap in legislation that prevents the access parent from obtaining a peace officer enforcement clause for example and for remedies in the Provincial family court.

The Family Law Reform Whitepaper states the theory behind the changes:

The proposed legislation will provide for a range of tools and remedies to address both denial and failure to exercise time with a child. The remedies will include moderate sanctions or tools (e.g., an order for mediation or counselling), but will also provide for the potential that some situations will require an escalation in sanctions. Extraordinary remedies, such as imprisonment, would be available only if less drastic remedies would not suffice.
Separate remedies are proposed for access denial and failure to exercise access to recognize the different circumstances in which such problems arise. For example, make-up time or supervised exchanges that promote the child-parent relationship may be an appropriate remedy where there is access denial; however, these same remedies may be inappropriate for failure to exercise access as it may not be in a child’s best interests to force contact with a reluctant parent.
Including more options to address non-compliance is intended to clarify the law and fill legislative gaps (i.e., the lack of effective remedial tools, differing tools in the two levels of court) while at the same time maintaining sufficient flexibility to address the unique facts of each case. Options which fall on the preventative side of the continuum such as counselling could reduce the costs of separation by helping to resolve underlying issues and avoid future difficulties.
Further flexibility is built into the new law through the inclusion of exceptions (i.e., when scheduled parenting time did not go ahead because a doctor’s note indicated the child was too ill) and certain limited remedies for those exceptional circumstances, such as make-up time.

New BC Family Law, Criminal Law and Personal Injury and Immigration Law office Opening in Surrey, BC

Saturday, March 26th, 2011


MacLean Law Group’s Ethnic diversity expands to allow us provide family law, criminal law, personal injury ICBC and immigration legal services in Punjabi, Hindi and Farsi as well as in English!

Lorne MacLean, BC Divorce and family lawyer is proud to announce the location of the MacLean Family Law Group’s new Surrey British Columbia office located at the corner of Number 10 Highway and 152nd Street in Surrey, BC where clients from Langley, Surrey, White Rock and Delta BC as well as the Fraser Valley who speak Punjabi, Hindi as well as English will be helped. Mr. MacLean is delighted to have hired a new law associate who will start work in April 2011, namely Sumit Ahuja a lawyer, vakeel who speaks fluent Punjabi and Hindi as well as support staff who will also be able to help Punjabi speaking clients who need help in the areas of Divorce and Family law matters involving child custody and support, spousal support, property division and common law relationship issues. Sumit Ahuja will also assist with immigration law matters.

We have also hired two new associates who will handle Surrey family law, divorce and criminal law matters in all three of our offices namely Mike Jakeman and Ari Wormeli (May 22, 2011) and who look forward to assisting our clients in the Fraser Valley, Vancouver and in Fort St John BC.

Finally, we will soon add Ronak Yousefi a Farsi speaking Persian articling student who will become a lawyer in July 2011 working at our downtown Coal Harbour, Vancouver office who will help us with Persian and Farsi family law and immigration law clients who are more comfortable speaking Farsi when they seek our legal assistance.

We provide this link to Punjabi articles related to family law to assist our Surrey, Langley, Delta and White Rock Bc family law and divorce clients.

BC CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES -UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR ACCESS COSTS OR SHARING ACCESS COSTS AS A TERM OF CUSTODY

Tuesday, January 11th, 2011

Shelagh Kinney Vancouver family lawyer and Parenting Coordinator

Greene v. Greene 2010 BCCA 595 – December 29, 2010

The BC Court of Appeal considered an appeal of a BC child support order, in part on the basis that BC child access costs had been taken into account in determining the amount of BC child support to be paid.

After the BC separation, the mother had moved with the children from the Lower Mainland to Vernon BC. A BC Child Support agreement was reached at that time to lower the Vancouver BC child support to half of the Table amount to take into account the father’s expenses to exercise access in Vernon BC. Several years later, after seeking financial disclosure, the mother sought an increase in BC child support. An increase in British Columbia child support was granted on the issue of BC access costs, but not to the full Child Support Guidelines Table amount for the father’s current income, or retroactively to the date the mother had sought.

On the issue of BC child access costs being taken into account in setting child support other than the Table amount, the Court of Appeal noted that only one section of the Child Support Guidelines, being section 10 “undue hardship” claims, expressly provided for unusually high access costs as a basis for child support in an amount different from the Table, and then only where the relative household income of the payor is less than that of the payee.

This suggests that the drafters of the Guidelines intended to “draw the line” where the effect of the payment of access expenses is to reduce the payor to a standard of living less than that of the payee, and that otherwise access costs are not to be considered a basis for deviation from the Table amount under any other section of the Guidelines.

The section 7 “special or extraordinary expenses” provisions of the Child Support Guidelines cannot be used as a basis for sharing access costs, but access costs could be taken into account in relations to the “means” of a payor parent in assessing the reasonableness of other expenses to which his or her contribution is sought.

Although the Divorce Act expressly permits the Court to award an amount different from the Guidelines if the court is satisfied that special provisions in an order or written agreement have been made for the benefit of a child, it was found that there was insufficient information on the financial circumstances at the time of the consent order to support Mr. Greene’s argument that the reduced child support payable was a “special provision” for the benefit of the children, nor was he entitled to assume that his child support payments would never be more than half of the table amount at any particular time. Both his income and the children’s basic and other needs had increased since that time.

The Court notes that it is open to parents to reach their own agreements with respect to sharing access costs, as long as those agreements do not short-change the children with respect to child support. The view was expressed that such adjustments should not be at the expense of child support, but on some other basis such as a set off against spousal support or an adjustment to property division.

Access costs have been allocated between parents in mobility cases under s. 16(6) of the Divorce Act where, as a term, condition or restriction of a custody and access order, access costs are to be shared or borne entirely by the parent who wishes to move, even where the payor would not meet the “undue hardship” provisions of the Child Support Guidelines. The Court in Greene left as an open question with significant implications whether the use of s. 16(6) survived the enactment of the Child Support Guidelines, as the claim of the payor in this case was not made under this section of the Divorce Act.

Shelagh Kinney is a senior lawyer at the MacLean Family Law Group and a Parenting Coordinator. Call her if you have a question on this topic or any other family law related issue at 604-602-9000.


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