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 lawyers’

Lorne MacLean Vancouver Divorce and Family Lawyer of MacLean Family Law Group-”The Big Divorce”

Sunday, June 19th, 2011

Lorne MacLean and the MacLean Family Law Group have 4 offices throughout BC to help you in downtown Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna and Fort St John and we handle cases throughout the Province of BC and in Alberta as well.

Mr. MacLean recently had a great client success winning a Calgary Alberta shared child custody case involving a week on week off shared custody arrangement of a 10 month old infant where our client lived in BC and the mother had gone to Alberta. The key to winning difficult cases is tenacity and steadfast determination to focus on the client’s success.

We can’t protect your heart but we can protect your rights.

Call any of our 4 offices in downtown Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna or Fort St John or call us toll free across North America at 1-877-602-9900.

We can’t protect your heart but we can protect your rights.

Langley Divorce Lawyer, Surrey Family Law and Surrey Family Lawyer Advice and Vancouver and Fort St John Family Law Lawyers- Best Practices

Friday, May 6th, 2011

Christy Clark and Lorne MacLean Langley divorce lawyer and Surrey Family lawyer at the MacLean Law Group's Fort St John BC law office


All too often Surrey BC Family Lawyers, Langley BC family and divorce lawyers and Surrey family law lawyers and their Surrey BC separated or divorcing Langley BC family law clients can lose sight of the need for respect and civility in their Greater Vancouver and Langley, Delta and Surrey BC family law case. A Langley BC divorce, Surrey family law child custody, Vancouver spousal support, or Fort St John BC property division and family asset case is already stressful enough without rude conduct that inflames the BC family law situation and prevents a prompt BC divorce settlement. Here is a list of Vancouver BC Family Law Best Practices that will be presented for approval at the June Provincial Council meeting of the CBA BC. We as Vancouver, Surrey and Fort St John family lawyers wholly agree with these practices and I tell my clients there is a difference between being rude and firm.

BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR LAWYERS PRACTICING FAMILY LAW

Lawyers involved in a family law dispute should strive to ensure it is conducted in the following manner:
1. Lawyers should conduct themselves in a manner that is constructive, respectful and seeks to minimize conflict and should encourage their clients to do likewise.
2. Lawyers should strive to remain objective at all times, and not to over-identify with their clients or be unduly influenced by the emotions of the moment.
3. Lawyers should avoid using inflammatory language in spoken or written communications, and should encourage their clients to do likewise.
4. Lawyers should caution their clients about the limited relevance of allegations or evidence of conduct.
5. Lawyers should avoid actions that have the sole or predominant purpose of hindering, delaying or bullying an opposing party, and should encourage their clients to do likewise.
6. Lawyers cannot participate in, and should caution their clients against, any actions that are dishonest, misleading or undertaken for an improper purpose.
7. Lawyers should keep their clients advised of, and encourage their clients to consider, at all stages of the dispute:

a. the risks and costs of any proposed actions or communications;
b. both short and long term consequences;
c. the consequences for any children involved; and
d. the importance of court orders or agreements.

8. Lawyers should advise their clients that their clients are in a position of trust in relation to their children, and that
a. it is important for the client to put the children’s interests before their own; and b. failing to do so may have a significant impact on both the children’s well-being and the
client’s case.
9. Lawyers should advise their clients of and encourage them to consider, at all stages of the dispute, all available and suitable resources for resolving the dispute, in or out of court.

1 Lawyers are not obliged to assist persons who are being disrespectful or abusive.

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.

New BC Child Custody Moving Away Rules Coming-BC Child Relocation and BC Child Mobility

Sunday, October 10th, 2010

What is the test for moving away in a child custody case in BC? As BC Family Law and child custody and access lawyers in Vancouver and Fort St. John, BC one of the most heart wrenching family and BC child custody cases we see occurs when one parent wants to, or is required to, move away with the child from the other parent. Our past articles have discussed the current rules for child relocation also known as child mobility. The BC government has issued a new Family Relations Act Reform White Paper that establishes notice provisions to allow parties to agree to the move or failing that to give each party time to deal with the issue in the courts. The new proposals also contain factors to be considered and onus provisions that differ with the level of child raising involvement of both parents.

The Divorce Act and legislation in Alberta and Saskatchewan allow for orders that establish parenting arrangements to also include provisions requiring notice of a proposed move of a child. Saskatchewan’s Children’s Law Act, 1997,106 and the Divorce Act107 require 30 days notice while Alberta’s Family Law Act108 requires 60 days notice. A notice period of less than 60 days was considered an insufficient period of time for cooperative discussions to take place and 60 days was seen as sufficient time to prepare for a hearing if settlement was not possible.
The second prong of the proposed policy is to include a child-centred definition of relocation that takes into account the specific circumstances of individual families. A child-centred definition of relocation that focuses on the impact of the proposed move on the child’s primary relationships avoids the potential arbitrariness of distinctions drawn on threshold distances, travel times or borders.
The third prong is to legislate specific factors that a judge must and must not consider and introduce the following presumptions:
 Where the day-to-day care of the child is not equal or substantially equal, the initial burden is on the guardian who wants to move with the child to show that the proposed move is in good faith and that reasonable efforts have been made to find ways to preserve the relationship with the other guardian(s) and with others who are significant to the child. If this initial burden is met, then the onus shifts to the other guardian to prove that the proposed move is not in the child’s best interests.
 Where the day-to-day care of the child is equal or substantially equal, the burden is on the guardian who wants to move with the child to show that the proposed move is in good faith and is in the child’s best interests.
106 SK Children’s Law Act, 1997, Above Note 33, s. 6(6). 107 CAN Divorce Act, Above Note 2, s. 16(7). 108 AB Family Law Act, Above Note 32, s. 33(2).
71White Paper on Family Relations Act Reform 2010
When assessing good faith, it is proposed that judges be directed to consider: the reasons for the move; the likelihood it would enhance the general quality of life of the child and the guardian proposing the move, including improved financial, emotional or educational opportunities; and any existing restrictions on relocation in an order or agreement. However, judges would be prohibited from considering whether a guardian proposing a move with a child would relocate without the child in any event.
If a judge grants an order in favour of relocation, he or she may also order reasonable security (e.g., posting of a bond) to ensure the relocating guardian complies with orders designed to preserve the relationship between the child and the other guardian(s) or people significant to the child.
The granting of a relocation application will likely necessitate a change in the parenting arrangements for a child, like parenting time schedules. The proposed new Act allows a judge to make those changes needed to facilitate the new reality without the need to establish a change in circumstance. However, the judge will be limited to making changes only insofar as needed to accommodate the move and is directed to preserve the existing parenting arrangements to the greatest extent possible. This responds to the criticism that relocation applications may evolve into an unintended re-examination of the entire parenting arrangement. The concern is that previous agreements or court orders regarding which guardian is best to exercise particular responsibilities should not be re-examined simply because the residence of one of the adults and the child is to be different.
On the flip side, if the judge does not grant the request for a relocation order, the proposed move is not to be considered a material change of circumstance that would alone justify a change to existing parenting arrangements.

BC PARENTAL ALIENATION LAWYER -SHOULD THE CHILDREN SUFFERING FROM PARENTAL ALIENATION BE MADE TO VISIT THE TARGET PARENT?

Friday, October 1st, 2010

Lorne MacLean BC Child Custody Lawyer Celebrates Julie's 25th Anniversary at his Firm


All professionals involved in child custody cases agree it is important to involve a lawyer familiar with parental alienation syndrome, one judge to manage the case and a psychological expert with specialized knowledge as early in the process of a suspected case of Parental Alienation Syndrome as is possible. We handle a number of these cases and are familiar with the warning signs and the types of alienators that may exist whether it be a naive alienator or an active alienator and whether the PAS is mild moderate or severe and what other hypotheses need to be explored such as estrangement or enmeshment.
One thing you will learn very rapidly is that there are a variety of opinions on this contentious issue from one side who says PAS does not exist to the other end of the spectrum where experts say it exists in the majority of cases!

Call Lorne MacLean at 1-877-602-9900 to get an objective opinion on whether your case involves Parental Alienation Syndrome.

CURRENT CONTROVERSIES REGARDING PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME
Richard A. Warshak, Ph.D.
SHOULD CHILDREN BE FORCED TO SPEND TIME WITH THE TARGET PARENT?

By far the most controversial issue in the PAS literature is the recommendation of enforced access between children and their alienated parents and reduction of access between the children and the parent promulgating the alienation.

In the majority of cases of moderate PAS, Gardner recommends that the court award primary custody to the alienating parent, appoint a therapist for the family, and enforce the child’s contact with the target parent through the threat and imposition (if necessary) of sanctions applied to the alienating parent (33). Such sanctions are similar to those the court would use against a parent who is in contempt for failure to pay court-ordered alimony or child support. The sanctions include a continuum from requiring the posting of a bond, fines, community service, probation, house arrest, to short-term incarceration. Some states grant courts the power to suspend a contemnor’s driver’s license or order public service duty. Turkat notes that the absence of such sanctions has allowed parents to interfere with visitation and flaunt court orders with impunity (86).

The goals of therapy with children suffering from moderate PAS are to foster healthy contact with the target parent and to assist children in developing and maintaining differentiated views of their parents as opposed to polarized views of one parent as all good and the other as all bad. One way to get children involved with the rejected parent is to take the decision about contact out of the children’s hands, reminding them of the possible sanctions against the preferred parent for resisting court-ordered contact, and thereby giving them an excuse to spend time with the target. The therapist also tries to help the children appreciate that their animosity has been influenced by programming which has undermined their ability to reach conclusions on the basis of their own direct experiences with the target. Some authors compare this aspect of treatment with the “deprogramming” that is used with cult victims to help counteract the effects of indoctrination (29, 33).

In some cases of moderate PAS, when the parent is more intensively programming the children and there is a high risk of the alienation becoming more severe, Gardner recommends a different legal approach. In such cases he recommends that courts consider awarding primary custody to the alienated parent and extremely restricted contact between the alienating parent and child, in order to prevent further indoctrination. Similarly, in the most severe cases of PAS (which, in Gardner’s experience, comprise about 5-10 percent of all PAS cases), Gardner recommends that the court remove the children from the home of the alienating parent.

Because children with severe PAS will not generally comply with court orders, and the programming parent cannot be relied upon to facilitate contact with the target parent, and because courts are reluctant to place children with a parent they appear frightened of, Gardner recommends temporary placement of the children in a transitional site before reintegrating the children in the home of the target parent. Possible transitional sites range from least restrictive to most restrictive, depending on the amount of control necessary to ensure the children’s cooperation and the alienating parent’s compliance with court orders. Such sites include the home of a relative or friend, a foster home, a community shelter, or a hospital. Gardner makes a good case for the transitional program, but he has had little direct experience with it, mainly due to courts’ general hesitance to implement it (3). Rand, however, describes some success with it (2).

In addition to serving as transitional sites, the threat of temporary placement in a foster home, community shelter, or juvenile detention center may induce children to cooperate with court-ordered visitation. With older children (ages 11-16) who refuse visits with the alienated parent, Gardner suggests the possibility of finding the child in contempt of court (4). This recommendation has met with the most opposition.

One author who objects to enforced visitation argued that a contempt finding for a child who refuses visitation is strictly punitive in nature and counterproductive (87). The concern is that such actions will reinforce the child’s hatred of the alienated parent. Instead, this author recommends that the court examine why a child resists contact with a parent and rely on family counseling and supervised visitation as a first step in repairing the child’s relationship with the alienated parent: “Instead of punishing them for their feelings, we need to work with them to help them understand the value of a relationship with their parent” (87; p. 95). Gardner, on the other hand, warns against unnecessary indulging of children’s visitation refusal (3). He believes that the best way to reverse alienation is to provide a child with direct experiences which can counteract negative programming and correct the child’s distorted perceptions of the target parent.

One problem with supervised visitation is the message it can send to a child: It can suggest that the child’s fears of the target parent are rational and that the court agrees that the child needs some sort of protection from the alienated parent. Thus, rather than increase the child’s security around that parent, it may reinforce the child’s uneasiness. The AC model makes a similar point (25).

The importance of separating the child from the alienating parent, and ensuring the child’s exposure to the target parent, is consistent with treatment methods for victims of brainwashing, including prisoners of war and members of cults. Clawar and Rivlin report on the similarities between the methods used by cult leaders to control their followers and the manipulations of alienating parents (29). Brainwashing scholars have identified the victim’s dependence on the programmer and isolation from the target as critical conditions for successful indoctrination. These conditions must be removed for effective deprogramming to take place.

The results of the ABA-sponsored study support a firmer approach to enforcing parent-child contact. The study reported, “One of the most powerful tools the courts have is the threat and implementation of environmental modification. Of the approximately four hundred cases we have seen where the courts have increased the contact with the target parent (and in half of these, over the objection of the children), there has been positive change in 90 percent of the relationships between the child and the target parent, including the elimination or reduction of many social-psychological, educational, and physical problems that the child presented prior to the modification” (29; p. 150).

Gardner’s recent follow-up study of 99 children diagnosed with PAS found a strong association between environmental modification and reduction in PAS symptoms (76). In 22 instances, the alienated child’s contact with the rejected parent was increased and contact with the alienating parent was decreased. In all 22 cases, PAS symptoms were reduced or eliminated. By contrast, only 9% of the children (7 out of 77) whose contact with the rejected parent was not increased by the court, showed a reduction in PAS symptoms. This study also provides a beginning understanding of the factors that lead alienated children to initiate their own reconciliation with the rejected parent. Further study along these lines may assist decision-makers in determining which children might not require environmental modification in order to recover from PAS. The large sample and the statistical test of significance allowed by this size sample make this an important study. Nevertheless, its limitations must be noted, chiefly that the children were not interviewed, the only informant for the follow-up was the rejected parent, and the interviews were conducted by a clinician who had formulated the hypothesis being tested.

Other treatment approaches to severe PAS have been reported in the clinical literature, but in general such approaches have met with failure. Dunne and Hedrick published a clinical study of 16 severe PAS cases (41). The court ordered a custody change and/or strict limitation of contact between the alienating parent and the children in only three of these cases. In all three cases PAS was eliminated. The other 13 cases were treated with various, less restrictive interventions, ranging from individual or conjoint therapy for the parents, therapy for the children with either the alienating parent or target parent, or the assignment of a Guardian Ad Litem. In none of these cases was the PAS eliminated. Two cases showed “some” or “minimal” improvement, nine showed no improvement, and two were worse after the interventions.

This study has significant limitations. The sample size is small. Details are not provided about the methods used to analyze clinical case material. As is typical in clinical research with small samples, no statistical analyses were conducted to document that the findings were not due to chance. Nevertheless, the 100% correspondence between elimination of severe PAS and transfer of custody does provide some evidence in support of this intervention.

Lampel analyzed clinical case studies on 18 families, out of which seven children were described as rejecting a father who had no objectively noted parental dysfunction (48). Such children could be classified as moderately to severely alienated. The therapists conceptualized the children’s rejection of the father as a phobia with hysterical features and tried two different approaches commonly used to treat phobias.

The first approach, used with six children, included individual therapy sessions with the child followed by gradually increasing times with the father both in and out of the therapist’s office. Sessions were also held for the mother, both individually and jointly with the child, for the father, and for both parents and child jointly. This approach is similar to Gardner’s recommended treatment for moderate PAS cases.

The second approach, used with one child, is similar to Gardner’s recommendation for severe PAS. The child was placed with the father for six to eight weeks while the therapist provided individual therapy sessions for the child and parents, and joint sessions with the child and father. This child was the only one of the seven children whose symptoms reduced markedly. The children whose treatment did not include placement with the rejected father experienced results varying from minor improvement to deterioration. In three cases the treatment was regarded as a clear failure. Lampel attributed the failures to the mothers’ “collusive involvement” with their children. Again, although this is a very small sample, the results support the effectiveness of placing the child with the alienated parent.

Naturally, treatment approaches to PAS will benefit from more and higher quality research. Given the limitations in the available studies, some might dismiss the current professional literature as too inadequate to serve as an authoritative guide to decisions for alienated children. But no study is free of limitations. The issue is whether the limitations render the study useless. The peer review process, though no guarantee of a study’s lasting value, is designed to weed out studies whose flaws outweigh their contributions.

Courts and clinicians face decisions about alienated children on a daily basis. These decisions can draw on the best available information, while duly noting its limitations, and thereby benefit from the experience of the families reflected in the published reports. Or the decisions can ignore this information. At this point in time, all the published findings on treatment outcomes support the effectiveness of enforcing contact between the child and alienated parent and no findings oppose this policy. When all available studies point to the same conclusion, it makes sense to pay attention to that conclusion, while allowing for the possibility that the circumstances of any single case may dictate an alternative treatment approach. Indeed, an emerging consensus among mental health professionals supports the idea that “court orders for continued contact are the cornerstone for treatment” of PAS cases (30; p. 309). Similarly, Stahl refers to “general agreement” that recommendations should include “forced consistent time between the child and the alienated parent” (88; p. 6).

But no consensus has been reached on the proposal for courts to consider a transfer of custody (as opposed to enforced contact) in severe PAS cases. Some have expressed the concern that alienated children are ill-equipped to cope with the change in custody, and that they could be seriously harmed (23). Although this possibility must be entertained, if this were a likely outcome, one would expect to see reports in the professional literature; to date there is no published documentation of such harm. Some allegations that harm has resulted from custody transfer may actually be misrepresentations promulgated by embittered litigants. Nevertheless, some clinicians advise parents of severely alienated children to accept the loss of their children while maintaining hope for future reconciliation (88).

Based on their ABA-sponsored study, Clawar and Rivlin conclude, “Caution must be exercised in judging that the point of no return has been reached. We have seen numerous cases where children have been successfully deprogrammed by making radical changes in their living arrangements—often with appropriate legal interventions” (29; p. 144). As they explain it, “There are risks incumbent in any process; however, a decision has to be made as to what is the greater risk. It is usually more damaging socially, psychologically, educationally, and/or physically for children to maintain beliefs, values, thoughts, and behaviors that disconnect them from one of their parents (or from telling the truth, as in a criminal case) compared to getting rid of the distortions or false statements” [emphasis in the original] (29; p. 141).

MacLean Family Law Group-BC’s Family Law Firm Celebrates Julie Dadgar’s 25th Anniversary with Our Firm

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010

MacLean Family law Group Celebrates Julie's 25th Anniversary

We are delighted to have had our first employee, Julie Dadgar, reach her 25th Anniversary with us. She has been a joy to work with and has been an integral part pf helping us grow our firm and better focus on our clients!

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.


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