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

Posts Tagged ‘BC family law’

BC High Conflict Child Custody Parental Alienation- Levels of Alienation

Saturday, February 19th, 2011

Lorne MacLean, BC Child Custody Lawyer, in Victoria BC handling a parental alienation case


Lorne MacLean and Ari Wormeli are just finishing week 4 of a highly contested BC parental alienation and or estrangement case. These cases require a tremendous amount of work to uncover which aspect and or parent is causing the children to ally with one against visiting the other parent. Such cases are heartbreaking below we set out what types of alienation can exist as well as what types of alienating parents may be involved.

LEVELS OF SEVERITY OF PA

When parental alienation is mild, the child resists contact with the alienated parent, but enjoys his relationship with that parent once parenting time is underway. The child may have a strong, healthy relationship with both parents, even though the child recites criticisms of the alienated parent.

When parental alienation reaches a moderate degree of severity, the child strongly resists contact and is persistently oppositional during parenting time with the alienated parent. The child is likely to have a mildly to moderately pathological relationship with the preferred parent.

When parental alienation is at a severe degree of intensity, the child strongly and persistently resists contact and may hide or run away to avoid seeing the alienated parent. The child’s behavior is driven by a firmly held, false belief that the alienated parent is evil, dangerous, or worthless. The child is likely to have a strong, severely pathological relationship with the preferred parent, perhaps sharing a paranoid worldview.

What are the levels of intensity of alienating behavior?
 
In his book, Divorce Casualties: Protecting Your Children from Parental Alienation, Douglas Darnall (1998) proposed a three-tier classification system, now in common use, that distinguishes between naïve, active and obsessed alienators:

Naïve alienators make negative comments about the other parent but without serious intent to undermine the child’s relationship with that parent. Their negative comments tend to be careless remarks, and, in general, naïve alienators support the child’s relationship with the other parent.
 
Active alienators are more consistent and determined in their alienating behaviors. There is an intentional desire to criticize and undermine the targeted parent. Deep down, however, active alienators realize that what they are doing is wrong and potentially harmful to the child.

Obsessed alienators are determined to destroy the child’s relationship with the targeted parent. Obsessed alienators are extremists. They pressure the child to adopt their own negative view of the targeted parent, put much pressure on the child to emphatically reject the targeted parent, and cannot tolerate a good relationship between the child and the targeted parent.

What are the recommended treatments for parental alienation?
 
When parental alienation is properly recognized, that condition is preventable and treatable in many instances. The appropriate treatment is determined partly by the severity of the parental alienation manifested by the child and partly by the intensity of the alienating behaviors manifested by the alienating parent.
 
If the parental alienation is mild, the treatment can be accomplished by a parenting coordinator who helps the parents communicate in a constructive manner and gives them specific advice regarding their approach to the child’s activities with the alienated parent.
 
If the parental alienation is moderate, the treatment typically includes more intensive therapy for the child, mother, and father, as well as meetings with the parenting coordinator. If there are multiple therapists involved with the divorced family, they must agree regarding the nature of the problem and the goals of the treatment (Darnall, 2010).

If the parental alienation is severe, traditional forms of psychotherapy may not be effective. As time goes on, children with parental alienation become intractable in their false beliefs and their mental condition resembles that of individuals with delusional disorder. If the parental alienation is severe, it has usually been induced by an obsessed, alienating parent. Also, in some cases of moderate parental alienation, the cause of the condition is an obsessed, alienating parent. In both moderate and severe cases of parental alienation – when it is caused by an obsessed, alienating parent – it is necessary to greatly reduce or even eliminate the child’s exposure to that parent. See Gardner (2001), Darnall (2010), Warshak (2001, 2010), and Warshak and Otis (2010).
 
In such cases – when the parental alienation has been caused by an obsessed, alienating parent – it is necessary to transfer the children’s custody from the alienating parent to the custody of the alienated parent or perhaps to the temporary custody of a neutral caregiver. Once the child has been removed from the influence of the alienating parent, it is possible to help the child re-establish a comfortable, healthy relationship with the alienated parent. After that has occurred, it should be possible to allow contact gradually with the alienating parent, although that parenting time may need to be supervised. The ultimate goal is for the child to have a good relationship with both parents.

BC WISHES OF THE CHILD IN BC CHILD CUSTODY AND BC PARENTING TIME CASES BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT UNDER NEW BC LEGISLATION AND NEW CHILD CUSTODY DECISION

Tuesday, January 11th, 2011

Photo of Lorne MacLean managing partner at MFLG and the Attorney General lawyers For the New BC Family Legislation

In earlier blog posts we have discussed how BC child custody decision making has evolved from excluding the child to protect them from stress to a new regime of believing children do better after marriage breakdown in child custody cases if they are involved. Of course the concern of how a child’s wishes have been influenced and the maturity of the child as well as whether the child wishes to refrain from telling the court their view must be weighed carefully. Further, what happens if a child changes there wishes 2 weeks after the hearing and then back again and so on. Will this new approach lead to parents frantically lobbying their children to live with them?

Here is the latest decision from Judge Martinson which amplifies her earlier decisions she has given in this regard.

Take note of how these wishes may be obtained including the Judge meeting directly with the children something which many judges are not comfortable with.

Click here for the full decision

BC DIVORCE and Holiday Season Financial Stresses and Child Custody

Tuesday, December 28th, 2010

BC DIvorce Lawyer Lorne MacLean in Kelowna BC


Here is an article we feel relates well to BC divorcing parents who face BC child custody and BC child and spousal support challenges that we obtained from social worker Gary Direnfeld in a past post which we felt appropriate at this time of year.

Happy Holiday Season Depends on Family Financial Planning

Many kids have parents convinced that life will just be a bust without the latest video game or hottest cell phone. With the recession looming large though, parents are struggling to shelter the children from their financial and employment woes, yet bestow upon them a memorable Christmas.

As parents withhold their concerns, their children continue to up the ante for this year’s Christmas take. The risk is either a disappointing Christmas or overwhelming New Year’s bills.

The challenge is for parents to resist the incoming tide of subtle and not so subtle expectations.

To reduce the risk of Christmas gift disappointment and overwhelming bills, try some family financial Christmas planning with these strategies:
Be honest and forthright with teenaged children about your financial and employment concerns, without trying to instill fear. Let your children know of your plans to survive the economic meltdown including cutting back on the Christmas gift-giving budget. This may actually put them to ease despite their upset at the impact of the current economic situation too.

Inform your children of your budget and ask them for their gift preferences in line with the budget. When expectations are clear on both sides, there is less room for disappointment.

Involve your children in cost-cutting decisions and making plans for Christmas celebrations. It just may be that if included, they come up with some good ideas. Being part of the planning process, they will then likely enjoy what you mutually determine.

Pool resources. You may not be able to afford that one special gift yourself. However, if you go in on it with a few relatives, it may then be affordable. So the answer may not be how many gifts are given and received, but how many people contribute to that one special present

Children typically respond and adjust better to change when they are part of the process. The recession is real and discussing it with them can help them to cope better and you to feel better. Children may be initially disappointed and that would be normal and reasonable. However, they too must learn to live within their means and make the best of life and circumstances. A memorable Christmas may just be one where everyone comes together with a workable plan to enjoy the day.

BC SEPARATION AGREEMENT WIN FOR MACLEAN FAMILY LAW GROUP IN ENFORCING A PROPERTY AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT

Thursday, November 18th, 2010

Lorne MacLean BC Separation Agreement and Family Law Lawyer


The MacLean Family Law Group are delighted to have just won an enforcement of a BC separation agreement case for Ms Bayne where the separated BC parties had negotiated a Vancouver separation agreement and reduced the separation agreement to writing by way of letters but once the agreement was converted to a Consent Order for the husband to sign he refused to do so. You can see how the prompt, fair and ethical negotiation took place between the parties, with BC Family Law Lawyer, Lorne MacLean acting on behalf of the wife and the husband acting for himself but who apparently had an unspecified legal advisor in the background assisting him.

It was a nice win for the MacLean Family law Group and we also appreciate the BC Supreme Court’s comments on Lorne MacLean’s diligent work in negotiating the end to a very lengthy and difficult high net worth settlement.

This issue happens frequently in negotiations and it is an important case on what you must prove to enforce a settlement.

The Court Held:
[23]I am satisfied on the evidence that as of December 30, 2009, Mr. and Mrs. Bayne were ad idem with respect to the terms upon which their dispute was to be resolved. To put it simply, there was an
agreement that the family assets consisted of those listed by Mr. MacLean in his draft order. There was an agreement as to how those assets were to be divided between the parties. In particular, there was
an agreement that Ms. Bayne would pay $150,000 to Mr. Bayne and would give up any claim to spousal support, RSP reapportionment, and a division of Mr. Bayne’s pensions, in return for all of which she
would have full title to the matrimonial home. In this way, their agreement met basic contractual requirements, was intended to have legal effect with respect to the couple’s rights and obligations, and be
final and determinative of the significant issues between the parties: see Lahaise v. Lahaise, 2006 BCSC 1052 at para. 12.

29] Ms. Nordlinger pointed out that Mr. MacLean had never said anything to Mr. Bayne about representing only Ms. Bayne and not acting for Mr. Bayne, until the final letter of January 5, 2010. But Mr. MacLean had made it quite clear in November of 2006 that he was acting for Lorraine Bayne. There is no evidence at all to suggest that Mr. Bayne was under any illusion to the contrary.

[30] Ms. Nordlinger then asserted that the change in format set out in Mr. MacLean’s letter of August 18, 2009, was significant, and of a sort that would not be evident to a layperson. The significance, she submitted, is that if everything is set out in a separation agreement, the court can assess its fairness pursuant to the provisions of the Family Relations Act, and, if appropriate, order a reapportionment of assets. To put those terms in a court order, however, insulates them from later variation by the court – except for the mutual waiver of maintenance, which was to be in the form of an agreement. In this, Ms. Nordlinger relied on Schlenker v. Schlenker (1999), 72 B.C.L.R. (3d) 203. These changes, she asserted, favoured the claimant.

[31] If that is so, then surely that is what lawyers are expected to do: attempt to resolve things in a manner as favourable to their clients’ interests as possible. Not only was it open to Mr. Bayne to obtain legal advice about this change, but he expressly stated that he was going to do so. Mr. MacLean can hardly be faulted for the fact that he did not. But in the circumstances of this case, I do not think the proposed change in format matters very much.

In the end Ms Bayne retained the home, its appreciation in value and the security it provided to her while Mr Bayne received the certainty that he had dealt fully and fairly with the issue of spousal support given his much greater employment income.

If you have a complex separation agreement issue give us call at 1-877-602-9900 as we act throughout BC.

BC CHILD CUSTODY AND ACCESS TIPS-HOW TO PROMOTE A HEALTHY POST CHILD AND PARENT OUTCOME-MAXIMUM CONTACT

Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010


10 WAYS TO HELP YOUR CHILDREN DURING DIVORCE
1. Show your children that you still love them.
Spend time with them; show them affection; be ready and willing to listen when they want to share their feelings with you.
2. Encourage your children to respect and love their other parent.
Give your children permission to love their other parent. Don’t talk negatively about your ex to your children. Share positive memories of your married life.
3. Don’t burden your children with adult problems.
Although your children may have to assume extra responsibilities around the house after the divorce, never forget that they aren’t adults yet. Be careful not to burden them with your financial or emotional worries – this is too scary for them. Assure them that no matter what, everything will be okay.
4. Try to agree with your ex on the basics.
If you and your former spouse are sharing custody, try to agree on curfews, disciplines, and grades. However, if you decide on different rules, don’t complain about it to your children or argue with your spouse unless his/her parenting style is clearly doing emotional or physical harm to your children.
5. Make your children feel at home in your new place.
Allow children to help you decorate and create a space that is all their own within your new home. Maintain a supply of toiletries, clothes, and toys at each residence.
6. Avoid manipulation.
Avoid arguing with your former spouse in front of your children, using your children as go-betweens if you are fighting with your ex, or trying to prevent your ex from seeing your children.
7. Keep your promises.
Keeping agreed upon visits and/or phone call times will help children feel their lives are more predictable. Give as much notice as possible if you need to change your plans.
8. Wait to date.
Avoid bringing home dates before or right after your divorce is final. Wait until you are dating someone regularly to introduce them to your children because children can become emotionally attached to new parent figures and suffer if the relationships end.
9. Make your children’s lives stable and predictable.
Maintain as many routines, rules, and traditions as you can. Serve meals at the same time, do homework at the same time, maintain the same standards for discipline.
10. Avoid the “Super Parent” syndrome.
If you feel guilty about the effect of the divorce on the children or competitive with their other parent, don’t try to compensate for these feelings by lavishing the children with gifts, trips, money or by becoming over-protective.
AFCC

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 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 of 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 œarbitrarily 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 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.

Key Canadian Tax Decision Allows Deduction of Divorce and Family Law Legal Fees Related to BC Child Support

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Lorne MacLean -New Tax Deduction for Legal Fees to Claim BC Child Support

A new Tax Court ruling affecting BC child support legal fee deduction could help you save thousands provided your BC family law counsel is aware of this important development. Come see The BC child support lawyers at MacLean Family Law Group to learn more about how this important ruling affects you. In short a new case has expanded the class of people able to deduct legal fees to claim BC child support.

If you are seeking child support from you former spouse you are entitled to a CRA tax deduction of those legal fees against your income tax payable thanks to Trignani v. The Queen [2010] TCC 209.

In this case, the separating parent’s August 2000 agreement stipulated joint custody for the child and the appellant was to pay child support of $350/month. In May 2001 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered that the appellant would have sole interim custody of the child with the spouse having interim access 50 percent of the time with supervision. And, the appellant was to continue to pay $350/month in child support.

For the majority of the time the appellant had physical custody of the child because appropriate supervision at the spouse’s residence was not available.

The Honourable Justice Judith Woods in her decision dated April 9, 2010 notes that as long as the person seeking, or pursuing child support against the other parent does not abandon their claim for child support before the relevant legal services were provided; and, that it has not been determined by a court that you do not have a pre-existing right to child support because that right was extinguished by a court order, then you are entitled to the deduction in computing your income.

It has generally been accepted that legal expenses incurred to obtain child support are deductible in computing income: Wakeman v. The Queen, [1996] 3 CTC 2585; McColl v. The Queen, 2000 DTC 2148; Sabour v. The Queen, [2002] 1 CTC 2585 (in obiter at para 9); and Rabb v. The Queen, [2006] 3 CTC 2266. This principle is also accepted by the Canada Revenue Agency, as evidenced by Interpretation Bulletin IT-99R5, at para 17.

With respect to child support, legal expenses have been considered to be on current account on the basis that there is a pre-existing right by virtue of a legislative obligation on each parent to support their children.

A note of caution must be raised: The person seeking child support or pursuing a claim for child support must be making a bona fide claim that is not frivolous, and must have a reasonable prospect of success. You will also need to have your lawyer keep track what portion of fees related to child custody and get a letter from them that sets out the correct amount.


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