As top rated British Columbia child custody and guardianship lawyers with offices in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, and Fort St. John British Columbia we are often asked by our clients how the issue of which parent is in charge of making child related decisions whether solely or jointly is decided.
- The British Columbia courts have the power to award one parent the sole decision-making authority by awarding them sole custody and sole guardianship, the court can also order the parties to share decision-making on issues such as education and health residence location and religion amongst other major decisions.
- The court can give one side the power to decide a disputed issue after discussion under what we call the joists model clauses or to leave the disputed decision making authority to a parenting coordinator or a judge.
- Finally, a judge can allocate decision-making authority between the parents giving one parent sole decision-making power on one area involving the child, for example schooling, while giving the sole decision-making power on another issue, for example health, to the other parent.
The court will take a look at the respective parenting abilities and challenges of each parent and make a decision regarding who should be in charge of which issue, based on the best interests of the child test. The British Columbia courts frequently deal with issues of where a child should go to school, what activities they should be registered in, who their doctor and dentist should be, what their medical treatment should be and even how long the child should be breast-fed in one case we handled.
In the a recent decision, Justice Wedge of our Supreme Court dealt with a dispute between a father and a mother over the vaccination of a child. The father wanted the child to have the normal vaccinations on the prescribed government schedule. However, the mother opposed vaccinations and had serious concerns about health risks to her child including exposure to aluminum and other additives to the vaccine which she felt would be toxic to the child. The court listened to expert evidence from both sides and ended up accepting the evidence of the husband’s expert who is employed at UBC and BC Children’s Hospital, who addressed the mother’s concerns as follows:
[95] In response to [the mother’s] questioning, Dr. Scheifele explained that aluminum adjuvants are important components of some vaccines because they enhance the immune response to the vaccine. He noted that researchers at the United States Food and Drug Administration recently modelled carefully the amounts of aluminum in infants after infant vaccinations using the best available human data. They found that the amount of aluminum in infants’ bodies from vaccines and diet was significantly less than the levels determined to be safe. The researchers concluded that episodic exposures to vaccines containing aluminum adjuvants continue to present an extremely low risk to infants, and that the benefits of using those vaccines outweighed any theoretical risks.
[96] [The mother] asked Dr. Scheifele whether he could guarantee that [the child] would not suffer any adverse reaction to any of the vaccinations recommended for children. Dr. Scheifele was clear in his response: medical science can never offer such a guarantee. He reiterated his opinion that the risk of [the child] suffering an adverse reaction is extremely low, and the benefits to [the child] of receiving the vaccinations significantly outweighed the theoretical risks.
[97] Addressing [the mother’s] concern that vaccinations may cause autism, Dr. Scheifele said that studies have convincingly shown that autism does not result from immunization. In any event, autism becomes evident during early childhood; this is no longer a concern for [the child], who is developmentally normal.
[99] Dr. Scheifele pointed out that at the age of 5, [the child] has passed beyond the peak risk period for benign febrile convulsions without showing any indication of proneness to seizures. The colds, ear infections and cough illnesses he had already experienced did not trigger seizures, thus it was unlikely that vaccination-related fevers would do so. Dr. Scheifele went on to say that in the largest study to date (Huang WT et al., Pediatrics 2010), no increased risk of febrile seizures was detected after immunization with modern pertussis vaccines administered to young children.”
[100] After reviewing all of the information provided to him by [the mother] and [the father], Dr. Scheifele stated that he would not hesitate to immunize [the child], who is a normal, healthy child. According to Dr. Scheifele, nothing in [the child’s] personal or family history poses a contraindication to routine childhood immunizations or presents any greater risk than that faced by other healthy children. In fact, the risk of giving vaccines at [the child’s] age — 5 years — is lower than with vaccinations in the first two years of life.”
The court noted that, as in most family cases we had 2 good parents who both felt they knew what was in the best interest of their child and who both might, if they took a step back from a gut reaction response, be able to understand the position of the other party a bit better. In the end result the court awarded the parties joint custody and joint guardianship BUT the court made a decision allowing for the vaccination as requested by the husband:
“[176] …. I accept Dr. Scheifele’s opinion that the benefits of immunization to [the child] significantly outweigh any risk of side effects. For that reason, I conclude that [the father] is entitled to make the decision concerning [the child’s] immunization.”
If you have a child decision making issue call us toll free at 1 877 602 9900 or request a consultation.
