BC Parenting Arrangements Variation Lawyers like TOP CHOICE AWARDS “Best Vancouver Family Lawyers” at MacLean Law help family clients obtain, change, vary, suspend or terminate BC parenting arrangements. The test to vary a child custody, parenting arrangement or a child contact order is high. This strict test discourages frequent applications to change an Order by a party who was dissatisfied with the original child custody order. Our BC Parenting Arrangements Variation Lawyers can help you obtain a proper child custody and parenting arrangement Order to start with or change it if a substantial change in circumstances has occurred.
BC Parenting Arrangements Variation Lawyers 1-877-602-9900
In a recent case of Ruemper v. Jones a father wanted to vary an order so he could have the children with him on his days off as the current schedule did not allow him to spend time with his children because of the change to his shift work. His application was unsuccessful. He was also prevented from bringing on further applications to vary the order without leave of the court for a 1 year period. Call one of our experienced BC Parenting Arrangements Variation Lawyers today at 1-877-602-9900. We have offices in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, Fort St John, Richmond and Calgary.
BC Parenting Arrangements Variation Lawyers Explain Test
[15] Mr. Ruemper seeks to change the parenting arrangements. He must meet the requirements of s. 47 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA] which reads:
Changing, suspending or terminating orders respecting parenting arrangements
47 On application, a court may change, suspend or terminate an order respecting parenting arrangements if satisfied that, since the making of the order, there has been a change in the needs or circumstances of the child, including because of a change in the circumstances of another person.
[16] Section 47 has been interpreted in Williams v. Williams, 2016 BCCA 87:
[30] While this provision differs from s. 17(5) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), and does not use the language of a “material change”, this Court has interpreted the equivalent provision in s. 20 of the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 128, which also did not use “material change” language, as requiring a material change in circumstances. This Court held that the two-step test from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 applies despite the differences in the statutory language between s. 17(5) of the Divorce Act and s. 20 of the FRA: Boychuck v. Singleton, 2008 BCCA 355 at para. 14; M. v. M., 2012 BCCA 324 at paras. 27-29.
[31] Although this Court has yet to consider s. 47 of the FLA, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this provision as requiring a material change in circumstances: see for example, Gilmour v. Herrick, 2013 BCSC 1591 at para. 13; Bradley v. Bradley, 2015 BCSC 1587 at paras. 21-23; and, J.D.C. v. K.L.M.F.C., 2014 BCSC 2182 at paras. 261-262. Given the reasoning of this Court in Boychuck and M. v. M, and the similarities between s. 47 of the FLA and s. 20 of the FRA, I conclude that a material change in circumstances is required under s. 47 of the FLA.
…
[34] Absent a material change in the needs or circumstances of the child, the inquiry can go no further. It is only after this threshold is met that the judge on the new application can embark on a fresh inquiry into the best interest of the children.
23] Mr. Ruemper has not proved there is a change of circumstances sufficient to change the parenting arrangement that occurred since the granting of the Order. Further, he has not proved it is in the best interests of the Children that the present schedule set out in the Order be changed.
BC Parenting Arrangements Variation Lawyers
We know your children are the most important part of any family law dispute. We will try to help you reach a successful child focused solution so all parties move forward as winners.
