Child Coparenting Disputes Lawyers help separated parents set expectations to reduce conflict and also help them resolve child coparenting disputes that arise over their children’s financial, activity, school, medical and other issues. The concept of the “friendly parent” is on the rise in Canada. Can a person incapable of co-parenting lose final decision making? Today, our Vancouver Child Coparenting Disputes Lawyers explain the risks that disagreeable parents face.
Improving Parents Relationship v. Children’s Best Interests 1 877 602 9900
Parenting final decision-making powers are critical in ensuring a child is raised properly. Constant power struggles or disputes over large and small decisions relating to your child after separation are unhealthy for both the warring parents and the child themselves. Our top rated Child Coparenting Disputes Lawyers help you focus on your children over “rising to the bait” of your ex-spouse when they act unreasonably.
In today’s blog, MacLean Law explains the recent decision in Harrison v. Haramati 2022 BCCA 302, where the BC Court of Appeal recently granted final decision-making authority to the mother of three children upon finding that the father was incapable of cooperative parenting.
Vancouver Child Coparenting Disputes Lawyers
The best Child Coparenting Disputes Lawyers know that the default position for decision-making is that both guardians can equally exercise parenting responsibilities, but the Courts can order someone be in charge of all or part of the parenting responsibilities or allocate one parent the final say if there is a dispute, or the other party is incapable of cooperative parenting.
Our Revised Divorce Act states
16 (3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including:
(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;
(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;
In Harrison v. Haramati 2022 BCCA 302, the parties have two daughters and a son suffering from a medical condition requiring physiotherapy, occupational and speech therapy, and home support. The parties were married and were together for about six years before they separated.
The parties agreed to the division of property, support, and parenting schedule through a consent order issued in 2018. The couple retained co-parenting counsellors. The counsellors appointed, however, eventually resigned when the father refused to accept their advice, refused to cooperate, and failed to pay them their fees. Additionally, the therapists raised concerns regarding the father’s emotional and psychological well-being and communication abilities and stated he represents someone unwilling to accept input from others with whom he disagrees.
After several unsuccessful attempts to retain a co-parenting counsellor, the mother sought an order from the court for final decision-making authority for her three children. A chambers judge dismissed the mother’s application.
On appeal, the mother argued, among other things, that the chambers judge made an error by focusing on the parties’ relationship rather than the children’s best interests.
The Court of Appeal noted that the chambers judge gave two main reasons for her refusal to grant decision-making authority to the mother.
- First, the judge said giving final decision-making authority to the mother would further divide the parties.
- Second, the judge said inter-cultural differences exist in the parties’ communication styles.
BC Child Coparenting Disputes Lawyers- Best interests of the children 1 877 602 9900
The Court of Appeal concluded, the chambers judge improperly assessed the child’s best interests by failing to address the mandatory factors under section 37 of the Family Law Act, which must be considered when assessing the children’s best interests.
Section 37 of the Family Law Act states the following:
To determine what is in the best interests of a child, all of the child’s needs and circumstances must be considered, including the following:
- the child’s health and emotional well-being;
- the child’s views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them;
- the nature and strength of the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child’s life;
- the history of the child’s care;
- the child’s need for stability, given the child’s age and stage of development;
- the ability of each person who is a guardian or seeks guardianship of the child, or who has or seeks parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact with the child, to exercise his or her responsibilities;
- the impact of any family violence on the child’s safety, security or well-being, whether the family violence is directed toward the child or another family member;
- 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;
- the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child’s guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the child or other family members;
- any civil or criminal proceeding relevant to the child’s safety, security or well-being.
In this case, the child’s history of care, the child’s need for stability, and the guardians’ ability to fulfill their duties are all relevant factors. The court noted that instead of focusing on these factors, the judge focused on the parents’ relationship, noting that giving decision-making authority to one parent would further divide them and considering the need to resolve their cross-cultural communication.
“The judge’s consideration of the parties’ cultural differences as a source of conflict was without any support in the record, and entirely speculative,”. The Court of Appeal also stated it was an error for the judge to focus on improving the parent’s relationship rather than the children’s best interests.
Surrey Child Coparenting Dispute Lawyers
The court said the evidence squarely established that the father was incapable of cooperative parenting. For this reason, an expert recommended co-parenting counselling for the father, and the chambers judge accepted this recommendation. The expert further suggested that if there is a disagreement between the parents, the mother should be afforded decision-making authority because she had been most actively engaged in the children’s care since birth. A parenting coordinator also assessed that the father was more focused on his needs, power and control than the children.
The chambers judge noted that the children were distressed by the conflicted dynamic. The Court of Appeal noted that instead of considering how to relieve that distress in the children’s best interests, the judge focused on the relationship between the parents, which distracted her from the task and led her into error.
The Court of Appeal ultimately granted final decision-making authority to the children’s mother.
Call Our Top Vancouver Family Lawyers Now 1 877 602 9900
If you need the advice op top Child Coparenting Disputes Lawyers, call us across BC and Calgary.
