Surrey Section 211 Child Custody Report Lawyers understand that parents perceptions of what is in the best interests of their child can differ radically from one another. Both parents have the best interests of the child in mind but their plans for what they think is best for their child conflict frequently.
MacLean Law is Western Canada’s largest family law firm and a repeat winner of Vancouver’s best family law firm. We have offices in:
- Vancouver
- Calgary
- Surrey
- Richmond
- Kelowna
- Fort St John
- Winnipeg
Surrey Section 211 Child Custody Report Lawyers
High conflict cases are the most damaging to a child and parental alienation cases can destroy a child’s healthy bond with both parents and compromise their physical and psychological health for life.
Click here to see Lorne N MacLean, QC’s powerful video on what high conflict separation does to a child.
What Is A Section 211 Parenting Capacity and Custody Report and How is It Used in Court?
Surrey Section 211 Child Custody Report Lawyers reviewed Mr Jutice Kent’s recent decision involving parental alienation and a reunicification therapy program and he tidily explains the current state of the law on Family Law Act section 211 reports.
In Kwan V Lai the Court summarized the law as follows:
[1] The claimant father applies to vary a custody and parenting order issued by this court on October 21, 2013. He argues the respondent mother’s campaign of alienating the couple’s eight-year-old child from his father has now reached such an acute stage that immediate intervention is necessary to protect the child’s long-term psychological and emotional well-being.
[2] The mother opposes the application. She denies any alienation behaviour on her part. She claims the child is happy and that the existing parenting schedule which has been in place for the past four years (a two-week alternating two-two-three arrangement) should continue.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I agree immediate intervention is necessary and the October 21, 2013 order of this Court is varied accordingly.
[53] The existence of alienation dynamics in this case is clearly established by both the lay and expert evidence that has been adduced. Dr. England is the court-appointed expert in this case and her assessment deserves much respect.
[46] I have commented elsewhere on the context and purpose of a Section 211 Report (see Dimitijevich v. Pavlovich, 2016 BCSC 1526) and there is no need to repeat those observations here. Suffice it to say:
- Section 211 of theFamily Law Act permits the court to seek the assistance of an independent and impartial investigator and to call on that investigator to make recommendations based on the results of his/her investigation (K.M.W. v. L.J.W., 2010 BCCA 572 at para. 50)
- The facts stated in the Section 211 Report are prima facie evidence of their truth (supra, para. 50)
- In performing this role, the court appointed expert functions as “the eyes and ears of the court” and is expected to be impartial, and unbiased, and to make objective recommendations rather than acting as an advocate for any party
- Where the assessor is a registered professional with the College of Psychologists of British Columbia, he/she is expected to abide by the “code of conduct” promulgated by that college which imposes various requirements for undertaking assessments and formulating recommendations that are appropriately comprehensive, objective and balanced
- There is no protocol or checklist that must be exactly followed in every case and the authors of Section 211 Reports are free to use their education, experience and expertise to conduct the assessments with an eye to assisting the courts in determining what is in the children’s best interests (L.C.T. v. R.K., 2015 BCSC 2378 at para. 419)
- Nevertheless, the court is not obliged to accept the opinions or recommendations of the Section 211 experts; the court does not abdicate its role as the ultimate decision-maker but will give such weight to the Section 211 experts’ recommendations and opinions as is appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the case and the relevant evidence adduced (Shapiro v. Simpson, 2016 BCSC 2011 at paras. 102-103).
Don’t Delay In Contacting Our Experienced Surrey Section 211 Child Custody Report Lawyers. Call us toll free at 1-877-602-9900.
Maclean Law’s skilled Surrey Section 211 Child Custody Report Lawyers can assist you in determining when a section 211 report is required, who would be the best expert to select and what if any critique is needed in a section 211 if our Surrey Section 211 Child Custody Report Lawyers determine the report has flaws and should not be followed by the Court.
Our lawyers are fluent in Mandarin, Cantonese, Punjabi, Hindi, Farsi Russian and of course English.
