Vancouver Child Custody Guardianship Lawyers 604-602-9000
Vancouver Child Custody Guardianship Lawyers know the child at the centre of a parenting dispute has a legal right to be heard by the court. If you are experiencing issues relating to child custody, parenting time or contact with your child contact MacLean Law Vancouver child custody guardianship lawyers. Section 211 parenting capacity and best interest of child reports are prepared by forensic psychologists. We are pleased to provide you with more information regarding obtaining a court ordered 211 report and getting the views of your child before the court.
Vancouver Child Custody Guardianship Lawyers Know Section 211 Parenting Capacity and Views Of Child Reports Can Help A Judge
Section 211 of the Family Law Act allows a court to appoint a person to assess one or more of the following:
- The needs of a child in relation to a family law dispute;
- The views of a child in relation to a family law dispute;
- The ability and willingness of a party to a family law dispute to satisfy the needs of a child.
Vancouver Child Custody Guardianship Lawyers can help you choose the proper expert psychologist and to decide whether a wishes of the child or hear the child report is enough or whether a far more thorough section 211 report is needed.
Vancouver Child Custody Lawyers Section 211
In the recent BC Supreme Court case of Broome v Broome 2016 BCSC 1167, the court ordered a s.211 assessment where there was concern over one parent’s abilities and willingness to parent the child.
Vancouver Child Custody Guardianship Lawyers explain the s.211 report provides an independent means for addressing the parenting arrangements and parenting responsibilities and is a useful tool when one parent wants to depart from the status quo parenting arrangement. The court restated in Broome that the legal threshold for ordering the s.211 report is low as the s.211 report assists the trial judge in addressing the ability of each parent to exercise his or her parental responsibilities, including considering the appropriateness of any parenting arrangements requiring cooperation between the parents.
Vancouver Child Custody Guardianship Lawyers Explain Legal Principles
[26] As now enshrined in the FLA, a child at the centre of a parenting dispute has a legal right to be heard by the court: B.J.G. V. D.L.G., 2010 YKSC 44. The child’s views with respect to parenting issues may be expressed to the court indirectly or directly. One method of receiving those views indirectly is through a Hear the Child report. This type of report does not provide an analysis of the child’s views as they might impact parenting arrangements or responsibilities. Nor does the author of the report make any recommendations with respect to parenting of the child.
[27] In contrast, a report ordered under s. 211 is intended to be a more comprehensive investigation of parenting issues and may include recommendations on the parenting arrangements that will meet and promote the best interests of the child. A s. 211 report is not ordered in every family law proceeding involving children. However, the applicant need only meet a low evidentiary threshold as such assessments are seen as “invariably providing a valuable source of information for a court faced with the onerous task of making fundamentally important decisions about the welfare of the child”:R.E.Q. v. G.J.K., 2015 BCSC 1786 at para. 32. The court recognizes that such a report is an intrusion into lives of both the parents and the child. Nonetheless, the probative value to be gained from the report generally outweighs that intrusion. The court has said that, generally speaking, only the cost of such a report will raise a countervailing concern: Marsden v. Bercovitz (3 October 2012), New Westminster E039404 (B.C.S.C.). In addition, a s. 211 report should not be ordered if the purpose is shown to be an attempt by one party to create parenting controversies where none exist or the process is found in some way to be contrary to the child’s best interests.
Analysis
[28] The parties agree that outside assistance is needed to address parenting arrangements and responsibilities going forward and for the purposes of addressing those issues at trial.
[29] The question to be answered on this application is whether hearing Tobin’s views alone will be sufficient, or whether a more comprehensive assessment of Tobin’s needs and the ability and willingness of each parent to satisfy those needs is warranted. The claimant seeks to have only Kerry’s abilities and willingness to parent Tobin assessed. If the report is to be truly impartial and objective, Dr. Burima should be assessing both parents’ capacities in that regard. Tobin will be interviewed by a third party if either a s. 211 assessment or a Hear the Child report is ordered. Contrary to Kerry’s submission, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Tobin will be subjected to psychological testing as part of the s. 211 assessment.
[30] The pleadings were not before me on the application. Thus, I am left to speculate on what precise parenting issues are to be decided by the court at trial. It is fair to assume that by pursuing the s. 211 assessment, Erin intends to argue for a parenting arrangement different from the status quo. Presumably, Kerry seeks the Hear the Child report to support his position that the shared parenting regime should continue indefinitely.
[31] None of the authorities cited by the parties describe with specificity the evidentiary threshold to be met for the court to order a s. 211 report, other than to say that threshold is low. To the extent that the parties disagree on the impact of Kerry’s medical condition on Tobin’s emotional well-being, have longstanding communication difficulties that each believe impacts Tobin’s best interests to a greater or lesser extent, appear to have different objectives on future parenting arrangements, and have been unable to resolve their differences through alternative dispute resolution, I find that the low threshold has been met. At the very least, this evidence will assist the trial judge in addressing not only the ability of each parent to exercise his or her parenting responsibilities and parenting time, but also the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the parents to co-operate with each other: FLA, ss. 37 (2) (f) and (i). Tobin’s views will also be obtained in the assessment: s. 37 (2) (b). While medical opinions can address Kerry’s physical and mental functioning capacity overall, these opinions are not a substitute for a parenting assessment. Even Kerry’s treating psychologist agrees with that premise.
If you are involved in a child custody dispute and want the court to consider the views of the children involved, call MacLean Law Vancouver Child Custody Guardianship Lawyers at 604-602- 9000 to learn how these reports work and how they can influence the court in your family law matter.
