Vancouver BC Family Child Abduction Lawyers help prevent BC child abduction by obtaining orders and putting protections in place to prevent the wrongful removal of children from BC. MacLean Family Law’s Vancouver BC Family Child Abduction Lawyers can be reached across BC at our offices in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, Fort St John and Richmond as well as at our Calgary office.
Vancouver BC Family Child Abduction Lawyers 1-877-602-9900
In today’s blog, TRU LAW summer student, Fraser MacLean explains that our BC Family Child Abduction Lawyers know that situations involving international child abduction can be excruciating for the parent that loses contact with their child. International Child Abduction rules are set out in Section 80 of B.C’s Family Law Act and provides that the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction signed at The Hague on October 25, 1980 has effect in B.C. This is a multilateral treaty which aims to protect children from the devastating consequences of abduction across international boundaries by implementing a procedure to help ensure an efficient and prompt return. Our Hague Vancouver BC Family Child Abduction Lawyers
Vancouver BC Family Child Abduction Lawyers Prevention Is The Best Option
Vancouver BC Family Child Abduction Lawyers like the approach taken by our Bc Courts in preventing overseas trips when their is a prospect of abduction. In the case of Usova v. Harrison 2011 BCCA 209 the mother appealed the trial judges decision denying her request to travel with her daughter to Russia for 8 weeks. The two parties dated briefly and were unmarried, had a child together in 2008. Ms. Usova was born in Russia and immigrated to Canada in 2001. While Ms. Usova’s mother lived with her and her daughter in Richmond, B.C, the rest of their family resided in Russia. Ms. Usova sought to take her child with her to Russia for up to eight weeks. Mr. Harrison opposed to this because he feared that the mother would not return their daughter to Canada.
In (Usova v. Harrison 2010 BCSC 733) the trial judge found that neither party was to remove the child from British Columbia without prior written consent of the other, or a court order. In not permitting the mother to travel with the daughter to Russia the trial judge found at para 44:
“It is clear that Ms. Usova does not value Mr. Harrison’s role in Kailey’s life and has made every attempt to restrict or limit his access. In my opinion, there is a real danger that Ms. Usova would fail to return Kailey to this jurisdiction if she were permitted to take her to Russia. Moreover, a lengthy vacation would be detrimental to the fragile relationship Mr. Harrison is trying to build and foster with Kailey.”
The mother was unhappy with the decision, Usova v. Harrison went up to the B.C Court of Appeal. Part of Ms. Usova appeal was the judge’s refusal to permit her taking her daughter to Russia for eight weeks to visit family. In upholding the trial judge’s decision, Madame Justice Levine of the Bc Court of Appeal found that:
41 The trial judge refused to permit the mother to take the child to Russia because she was of the view that there was “a real danger” that the mother would fail to return the child to BC, and a lengthy vacation would be detrimental to the “fragile relationship” with the father.
42 The mother says that this restriction is inconsistent with her rights as the sole custodial parent to make decisions she considers in the child’s best interests, and the term of the joint guardianship order that provides that in the event of a disagreement the mother has the right to make the decision. She points out that she has significant ties to Canada, and has never threatened to remove the child from the jurisdiction.
43 The joint guardianship order provides that the father has the right to seek a review of any decision he considers contrary to the child’s best interests. Thus, the involvement of the court in certain decisions is one of the agreed terms of the mother’s sole custody, and does not legally interfere with her custodial rights.
44 Nor has the mother identified any legal or factual error in the trial judge’s review and assessment of the evidence or in her findings of fact in relation to this issue. I would not accede to this ground of appeal, but in doing so, note (as did the father in his factum) that this order is subject to variation on changed circumstances. The trial judge noted in her reasons (at para. 35) that the parties had initiated counselling that might lead to negotiating future changes to the access schedule. There was little evidence of that on the appeal, but (as also pointed out by the father) the development of greater trust and communication could lead to a different order in the future.
Conclusion
45 I would not accede to any of the mother’s grounds of appeal, but would allow the appeal only to the extent of varying the order granting access to the father to provide that where the father’s access starts on Saturday it will instead start on the immediately following Sunday, and where his access ends on Sunday it will instead end on the immediately preceding Saturday.
Vancouver BC Family Child Abduction Lawyers Can Help Call Us At 1-877-602-9900
Our BC international child abduction lawyers can help you but you need to act early on if you have any fear your child may be wrongfully taken or in the worse case if they have already been taken. Call our Vancouver BC Family Child Abduction Lawyers toll free across Bc , Alberta or Canada and abroad at 1-877-602-9900 or click here to meet with us on an urgent basis.
