Vancouver Wishes Of Child Lawyers 1-877-602-9900
Vancouver Wishes Of Child Lawyers deal with cases where ages and maturity of a child impact a child parenting time, child parenting responsibilities, child custody, guardianship and access/contact decision. Vancouver Wishes Of Child Lawyers know the ages, maturity and motivation of a child AND whether they are improperly influenced all affect what a judge will do in child parenting time and custody issues. The stability of a parent’s parenting plan is also a crucial factor. Vancouver Wishes Of Child Lawyers at MacLean Family Law led by Lorne N MacLean, QC will help you find a proper solution.
Vancouver Wishes Of Child Lawyers Look At Children’s Reasonable Wishes
Lorne N MacLean, QC leads our team and he was winning counsel in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Young v Young, Canada’s leading child custody and guardianship case. In that case and in MacLean Law’s other precedent setting case of O’Connell v. McIndoe (1998), 56 B.C.L.R. (3d) 292 (C.A.) the wishes of children played a factor in the outcome. The phrase “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” can apply to cases of mature children who have a set view of parenting time arrangements affecting them.
Our law firm has been consistently ranked by prestigious Top Choice Awards as Vancouver’s Best Family Law Firm. Our Approach is focused, supportive and creative. We believe a child doesn’t forfeit the love and guidance of two caring a concerned parents merely because of relationship breakdown. Call one of our leading family lawyers toll free now at 1-877-602-9900.
Vancouver Wishes Of Child Lawyers Note New BC Appeal Case
[21] In general, the sufficiency of evidence is a matter for the Chambers Judge. It is not for this Court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its own opinion: Burchill v. Roberts, 2013 BCCA 39 at para. 42. The Chambers Judge had before her a lengthy affidavit provided by the Mother. The affidavit does not contain only generalizations as suggested by the Father but specific details of the problems encountered.
[22] While a child’s views and wishes are not determinative, courts should give considerable weight to the views of an older child, proportionate to their age and level of maturity: O’Connell v. McIndoe (1998), 56 B.C.L.R. (3d) 292 (C.A.), leave to appeal ref’d (1999), [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 576; T.(T.) v. H.(J.M.), 2014 BCSC 451 at para. 54. A child’s newly formed views may constitute a material change in circumstances: Rashtian v. Baraghoush, 2013 BCSC 2023 at paras. 16‑17.
[23] As held in R.E.Q. v. G.J.K., 2012 BCCA 146, a trial judge is owed significant deference in discretionary family decisions:
[33] The most important matter, of course, is the children’s residence. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that the standard of review is a high one, i.e., that in family cases as elsewhere, an appellate court may not interfere with the exercise of discretion of a trial judge in the absence of a material error (including a “significant misapprehension of the evidence”, the trial judge’s having “gone wrong in principle or [his] final award [being] … clearly wrong”): see Moge v. Moge [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813, at 832; and R.M.S. v. F.P.C.S. 2011 BCCA 53, at para. 43, citing Hickey v. Hickey [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518 at para. 12 and Van de Perre v. Edwards 2001 SCC 60, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1014 at paras. 14‑5. In the latter case the Court wrote:
… Second, an appellate court may only intervene in the decision of a trial judge if he or she erred in law or made a material error in the appreciation of the facts. Custody and access decisions are inherently exercises in discretion. Case-by-case consideration of the unique circumstances of each child is the hallmark of the process. This discretion vested in the trial judge enables a balanced evaluation of the best interests of the child and permits courts to respond to the spectrum of factors which can both positively and negatively affect a child. [At para. 13.]
Thus the authorities make it clear that it is not for an appellate court to re‑weigh the evidence or to interfere on the basis that the appellate court would give more weight than the trial judge did to one factor or another ‒ or, in the words of the Court in Hickey, that it would have “balanced the factors differently.”
[Emphasis added.]
[24] I see no reason to interfere with the Chambers Judge’s decision with respect to C. It was open to her to accept the hearsay evidence which was not contradicted. The source of the information was given. The underlying context was before the Chambers Judge. In my view, there was no requirement for expert evidence on the views of the child in these circumstances. With respect to J, I have outlined the Chambers Judge’s finding with respect to his recent serious and ongoing difficulties.
[25] A further concern of the Chambers Judge was that the Father has failed to provide stability for his children and has been persistent in exposing them to the parties’ conflicts….
[26] It is apparent that the Father’s unpredictable work schedule and changing living arrangements are obstacles to the parenting arrangement he seeks. That is a matter underlying the original custody order in 2011 and a continuing theme in subsequent parenting orders.
[27] Rather than focusing on changing the circumstances of his work and living arrangements to facilitate parenting, the Father continues to try to bend the parenting regime around his changing circumstances and variable work schedule. The Chambers Judge aptly observed that the Father’s circumstances do not provide J and C with needed stability. It is those circumstances which must change if there is to be a different parenting regime.
[28] The Chambers Judge had seized herself of applications in this proceeding for two years and had made five orders during that period. She was clearly in the best position to assess the best interests of the children and whether there was a material change in circumstances. I see no error in her determinations.
Vancouver Wishes Of Child Lawyers at MacLean Family Law know how to help you create a parenting plan that focuses on your children first. Our Vancouver Wishes Of Child Lawyers have helped set the law for British Columbians and Canadians. Meet with us so we can provide you with the benefit of our expertise so your children move forward in life successfully.
Our firm has 7 offices across Canada in Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, Kelowna, Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, Calgary and Winnipeg.
