Lorne MacLean, Q.C. heads our high conflict family law case department. The recent case of JCW v. JKRW involved a court ordered change of custody from a shared arrangement to a temporary exclusive custody arrangement.
BC judges make it clear that if they find parental alienation is occurring they will not hesitate to take action. BC courts are also open to ordering reunification counseling in parental alienation cases. Lorne MacLean, Q.C. has written and produced videos on Vancouver parental alienation and estrangement cases. Parental alienation cases require someone with proven experience in the area.
If you need an experienced Vancouver parental alienation lawyer call Lorne MacLean, Q.C. at 604 602 9000.
Madam Justice Loo in a well reasoned judgment explained why shared parenting had not prevented parental alienation and why a more radical approach to heal the entire family dynamic was needed:
[73] I echo Dr. England’s concerns, and what I find troubling is that the children only resumed their court ordered time with their father after the mother received Dr. England’s report and saw what she considers drastic steps were being recommended. There is little doubt that the mother, like most reasonable people, can be motivated to change. If as she suggests the children have been seeing their father on a regular basis because his parenting style is now more flexible, that has played but a small part.
[74] After the parties received Dr. England’s report, they never spoke to each other. Instead, the mother’s boyfriend TK called the father on September 15, and again on September 19, 2013. The father says that TK told him that he was “shaken up” by the report, and they arranged for the father’s weekend access, that is pick up after school on Friday September 20 and return to school on Monday September 23, 2013. The father says that TK informed him that the children have been told that if they do not go on their time with him, they may be put in foster care or not allowed to see or talk to their mother or him (TK). This has not been denied by either the mother or TK.
[75] Since Dr. England’s report, the children have been willing to be picked up after school, the transitions have been uneventful, neither child has been hostile, and they no longer shut themselves in their room as they did before. The father is trying to resume a normal and positive life with his children, by taking them shopping, engaging in conversations with them about school and extra-curricular activities, and arranging for events where they can spend time with their cousins and paternal grandparents. But despite the fact that the children are spending equal time with their father, they are distant from him. They show no affection towards him; and are not receptive to any show of affection from him. They seem to withdraw more when he drops them off after the Wednesday visits. At least both girls are now calling him “dad”, instead of by their first name.
[76] I agree with Dr. England, that I do not think that simply returning to a shared parenting arrangement is enough, or in the best interests of the children in the long term. The children became alienated after almost nearly three years of a shared parenting arrangement, and I am concerned that it could happen again.
[77] As noted in the article by B. Fidler and N. Bala, “Children Resisting Post-Separation Contact with a Parent: Concepts, Controversies, and Conundrums” (see Footnote 1], the literature consistently reports that alienated children are at risk for emotional distress and adjustment difficulties and at greater risk than children from litigating parents who are not alienated (p. 20). Alienation is a systemic and family problem, and while there may be strong disagreement between various professionals, and the parents as to the causes of the alienation, both parents must take responsibility for a solution (p. 25). The authors in commenting on counselling or programs similar to Overcoming Barriers, and likewise, FRRP, state (p. 27) that “… the goals of the therapy include not only reunification with the rejected parent, but also facilitating global healthy child adjustment and coping mechanisms. This includes correcting the child’s distorted and polarized view and replacing them with more realistic view of each parent, improving the child’s health relationships with both parents, addressing divorce-related stress, boundaries and age-appropriate autonomy and restoring adequate parenting, co-parenting and parent-child roles.”
[78] It is in the children’s best interests that they develop a healthy relationship with both parents. The fact that their relationship with their father is not healthy is reflected not by just the father’s evidence, but by what mother’s counsel stated during the hearing of the application on March 5, 2014. She stated that the shared parenting schedule has been followed, but K. “is shutting down”, spending many days in bed, and refusing to go to school.
[79] The mother wants to follow up with Dr. Locke’s recommendation and have the children see a psychiatrist – rather than attend FRRP. Dr. Locke in his two June 28, 2013 reports – one in respect of each of the children – expressly stated that the consultation solely for the purpose of determining whether there was a psychiatric disorder requiring some form of other intervention. He found no psychiatric disorder. Instead, he found both girls presenting with features of anxiety and depression. N.’s symptoms were not as severe as K’s, but “…appears to largely be in context of the domestic struggle that is happening in the family.” K. similarly presented “…with symptoms of anxiety and depression in the context of a very acrimonious separation divorce/custody situation. Although parents have been separated since 2008 [K.] continues to have significant adjustment difficulties to this.” He recommended that both children would benefit from monitoring for anxiety, and evolving depression in the case of K., and suggested that a referral be made. However, it is clear that Dr. Locke suggested a referral to Vancouver Coastal Health only because of the significant expense of a private psychologist. The children are now seeing Terri Rypkema, a registered clinical counsellor.
[80] I am satisfied from the report and evidence of Dr. England, that strong measures need to be put in place, and the children reunited with their father in a healthy relationship, and that the children become emotionally healthy. That can only happen if the conflict between the parties resolves, and certain of their behaviours are modified. It is obvious that what I will refer to as traditional counselling has not worked. The children – and the family as a whole – continue to have significant problems which need to be addressed.
[81] I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children that the parties and the children attend FRRP along the terms sought in the father’s notice of application.
[82] The mother has a number of concerns and I will address them as best I can. She is concerned that cutting the children off from her in such a drastic way will be extremely distressing for them. As Dr. England testified – they may be extremely distressed in the short term – but it is only a short term effect and not a long term effect. Research demonstrates that when there is cessation of contact with the aligned parent, the outcome for the children is greatly increased. The mother is concerned that it is going to be more difficult to mend the problems given the length of time since separation, and the fact that K. will soon be 14 years old. Dr. England testified that the turnaround time and success rate of the reunification programs is just a few days, and K. is not too old. Dr. England is also not concerned that the father will abuse any parental responsibilities if he is given interim sole custody, guardianship and primary residence.
[83] I am fully aware that the children may likely be distressed at having to attend FRRP – but the court is required to give consideration to a child’s best interests in the long term, and not the short term. In A.A. v. S.N.A., 2007 BCCA 363, the Court of Appeal states at paras. 27 and 28:
[27] We are of the view that in so concluding, the trial judge erred in law. We agree with counsel for the appellant that the trial judge wrongly focused on the likely difficulties of a change in custody – which the only evidence on the subject indicates will be short-term and not “devastating” – and failed to give paramountcy to M.’s long-term interests. Instead, damage which is long-term and almost certain was preferred over what may be a risk, but a risk that seems necessary if M is to have a chance to develop normally in her adolescent years. As Ms. Label argued, it was a contradiction in terms, and legal error, for the trial judge to state that M will be damaged by continuing in her mother’s custody, but to order that she remain in exactly that situation. The obligation of the Court to make the order it determines best represents the child’s interests cannot be ousted by the insistence of an intransigent parent who is “blind” to her child’s interests.
[28] While it is obvious that no court should gamble with a child’s long-term psychological and emotional well-being, the trial judge’s findings show that the status quo is so detrimental to M that a change must be made in this case. Although M has not been permitted to have a normal relationship with her father for two years, the expert opinion suggests she will succeed in adjusting, although the process will be difficult.
[84] I conclude that there the order sought for interim sole custody, guardianship, and primary residence in favour of the father should be made.
Parental alienation is serious. If you, or someone you know is trapped in this destructive cycle and need a top Vancouver parental alienation lawyer call Lorne MacLean, Q.C. at 604 602 9000.
