Our top rated* Vancouver Surrey Child Custody Guardianship Appeal Lawyers deal with child custody, child guardianship, child parenting responsibilities and child parenting time cases.
MacLean Family Law is one of a select group of highly skilled firm’s that handle high conflict and complex child custody cases. Lorne N. MacLean, QC was proud to have been winning counsel in Canada’s leading child custody case of Young v Young.
*(Top Choice Award (2014, 2016, 2017), top rated* reviews on Google, Yelp, threebestrated, lawerratingz.com).
Child custody and parenting time cases are emotional and top legal representation is crucial to obtaining the best possible result. Click here to meet with us across BC and in Calgary.
Vancouver Surrey Child Custody Guardianship Appeal Lawyers 1-877-602-9900
Our Vancouver Surrey Child Custody Guardianship Appeal Lawyers will meet with you on a priority basis just click here and fill out the confidential consultation form.
The recent BC Court of Appeal case of R.A. v. W.A., dealt with the issue of family violence and the husband bringing a prostitute into the home when the children were present. The husband appealed of a trial judgment that gave his wife sole custody and guardianship. The trial judge had not accepted the recommendations of shared parenting from a child psychologist after finding the parties were unlikely to be able to cooperate in raising their children.
Our Vancouver Surrey Child Custody Guardianship Appeal Lawyers note the case provides a confirmation of the current child custody appeal case law for Vancouver Surrey Child Custody Guardianship Appeal Lawyers and their family clients.
Our Vancouver Surrey Child Custody Guardianship Appeal Lawyers handle child custody disputes, relocation cases and Appeals including Appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada. Lorne N. MacLean, QC was winning counsel on the leading child custody case of Young v. Young where he obtained sole custody, special costs and 100 percent of the family home for his delighted client.
Vancouver Surrey Child Custody Guardianship Appeal Lawyers
R.A. v. W.A upheld a trial judge’s decision that decided the wife should have sole custody and parenting responsibilities despite a psychologist’s report recommending that parenting time should be shared 50/50. Here is what the Court decided:
[17] The parties were married in 2007 and separated in 2014. They have two boys, the older born in 2008 and the younger born in 2010. The husband is a pharmacist and the wife is a registered nurse.
[18] The trial lasted nine days. Much of the evidence heard at the trial concerned the question of child custody and parental responsibilities.
[19] The evidence included a psychologist’s assessment of the children’s interests. The psychologist recommended a joint custody regime, with shared parenting. Ultimately, the judge rejected that model. She made the following orders with respect to custody, parental responsibilities and parenting time:
3. The Claimant has sole custody and guardianship of the Children, save and except as stated herein;
4. The Court is satisfied that the parties are the guardians of the Children under s. 39(1) of the Family Law Act (“FLA”);
5. Under s. 40(3)(a) of the FLA, the Claimant will have exclusive responsibility the following parental responsibilities…
[29] The parties accept that a highly deferential standard of review applies to the decision of the trial judge in this case. The standard was described by Newbury J.A., speaking for the Court in R.E.Q. v. G.J.K., 2012 BCCA 146:
[33] … 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.”[30] While Mr. A. attempts to minimize them, I am unable to say that the two factors that the judge said “figur[ed] prominently” in her decision were unimportant (i.e., family violence and the incident involving the prostitute).
[31] Section 37(1)(h) of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 specifically requires a court, in determining the best interests of a child, to consider “whether the actions of a person responsible for family violence indicate that the person may be impaired in his or her ability to care for the child and meet the child’s needs”. Section 39 of the statute sets out specific factors that must be assessed in considering family violence.
[32] The trial judge, after assessing these matters, concluded that “there is a concern that the respondent will turn to physical force when he is angry or frustrated”. I am unable to say that that was an unreasonable conclusion. Indeed, the new evidence tendered at this hearing shows that Mr. A., frustrated by a failure of Ms. A. to allow him access to the children, went to her home, and assaulted both Ms. A. and her mother in front of one of the children, causing severe bruising to both Ms. A. and her mother. These facts tend to show that the trial judge’s concern was well-founded.
[33] I am also unable to say that the judge was wrong to treat concerns of family violence as of great importance in determining matters of custody, parental responsibilities, and parenting time.
[34] While the issue of arranging for a prostitute to come to the family home is less directly related to the best interests of the children, it demonstrates, at the very least, poor judgment. I cannot find that the judge erred in treating this issue as important.
[35] I note, as well, that the judge had a great deal of evidence before her on the relations between the parties. There was a very strong foundation for her finding that the parties were unlikely to work well together if she were to order joint custody or a shared parenting arrangement. There was also a great deal of evidence showing that Mr. A. treated Ms. A. in a condescending, demeaning, and sarcastic manner. This evidence also tended to show that the trial judge’s assessment of Mr. A. as showing a “remarkable degree of … self-centredness” was reasonable. Such a trait does not bode well for a person in terms of parenting responsibilities.
[36] While the judge’s decision gave prominent weight to family violence and to the incident with the prostitute, her judgment also gave careful consideration to other evidence. I am unable to find any error in principle or misapprehension of the evidence in her reasons.
Vancouver Surrey Child Custody Guardianship Lawyers can meet with you in Vancouver, Calgary, Surrey, Richmond, Kelowna and Fort St John. Call us toll free at 1-877-602-9900.
