Calgary Child Parenting Time Lawyers 403-444-5503
Calgary Child Parenting Time Lawyers handle cases involving, parenting time, parenting responsibilities, child access, child custody and child guardianship. Calgary Child Parenting Time Lawyers explain that married parents who separate and seek a divorce are usually governed by the Divorce Act and the term “child custody” will then apply. Unmarried Calgary family law clients who separate and Calgary family law married persons- not applying under the Divorce Act -will be governed by the law set out in the Family Law Act of Alberta. Calgary Child Parenting Time Lawyers know that when the Family Law Act applies then instead of the term “child custody” the term “child parenting time” will apply. Calgary child parenting orders replace custody and access orders for non-married partners, adult -interdependent partners, and married parents who are not seeking divorce.
Award Winning Family Law Firm Now In Calgary
Lorne N MacLean, QC the founder MacLean Family Law was honoured to have helped set the law of child custody in Canada in Young v. Young, the leading Canadian child custody case dealing with the principle of “maximum contact”. Our firm is Western Canada’s largest family law firm with multiple offices in BC, Alberta and Manitoba. Our Calgary office is located downtown in the West Tower of Bankers Hall.
Calgary Child Parenting Time Lawyers
Calgary Parental responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
- Providing day-to-day care and control of the child (food, shelter and clothing).
- Supervising the child’s daily activities, homework, extracurricular tutors etc.
- Making major decisions and meeting the required ordinary health, education and welfare needs of the child.
The prime directive for the court in deciding Calgary child custody cases and for deciding Calgary family law cases and for determining Calgary child parenting time is the “best interests” of the child.
When parents cannot agree on child custody and child parenting time and child parenting responsibilities, our Calgary Child Parenting Time Lawyers get involved to try to help them reach an out of court resolution that is a “Win Win” for their children and both parents. Sometimes well-meaning parents have different views of what is in their children’s best interests. In those cases a court decision is often needed to allow the children and their parents to move forward successfully. Calgary Child Parenting Time Lawyers tell their clients that the absence of ongoing parental conflict is the greatest predictor of a successful outcome for a child as they grow up.
When a parent is unhappy with a Calgary child custody or Calgary parenting time court decision, they can appeal. In some child custody and parenting time cases such, as child mobility, change of schools, denial of contact or changes of child parenting time or decision making powers, a stay of that order while the appeal is being readied to be heard can be granted. Calgary Child Parenting Time Lawyers know the court will focus on the child not on the parent’s rights in these appeals and stay of child parenting time decision cases.
Calgary Child Parenting Time Lawyers Explain Stays Pending Appeals
In the recent case of SLG v RTG, 2016 ABCA 186 the Court of Appeal reiterated that the best interests of the child not the interests of either parent governs:
The Test for a Stay Pending Appeal
[21] The well-known test for a stay pending appeal as set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311 at 334, 111 DLR (4th) 385 is binding upon this Court. The applicant has the burden of showing that: (i) there is a “serious question to be tried” or, in other words, an arguable issue that is not frivolous and vexatious; (ii) there will be irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and (iii) the balance of convenience favours granting the stay.
[22] The test is modified in a stay application dealing with parenting orders involving children, to reflect the paramount importance of the best interests of the child: B(C) v C(P), 2003 ABCA 321 (CanLII) at para 4, 346 AR 121; F(E) v S(JS) (1995), 174 AR 296 at para 10; MacPhail v Karasek, 2006 ABCA 320 (CanLII) at para 3, 397 AR 305; G(A) v B(J), 2008 ABCA 61 (CanLII) at para 11, 429 AR 394. The test has been described as being modified to require that, in addition to determining whether there is a serious issue to be argued on appeal that is neither frivolous nor vexatious, it is also necessary, in light of the best interests of the child, to consider from that perspective whether the child will suffer irreparable harm resulting from the granting or denial of the stay: Noel v Maj, 2006 ABCA 393 (CanLII) at para 3. See also B(R) v P(D), 2007 PESCAD 19 (CanLII), 269 Nfld & PEIR 190.
[23] As was said in CLS v BRS, 2013 ABCA 349 (CanLII) at paras 11-12:
It is important to clarify that it is the best interests of the child or children which will have primacy in determining the balance of convenience, not the best interests of the parents. The language in the test as read by the cases makes it clear that it is what the child or children would benefit from, not what the parents might benefit from – not necessarily what the father might like, or what the mother would like, or what their plans may be – that will influence what is in the best interests of the child. Fundamentally the decision as to what the child or children’s best interests are, ultimately, is of central importance in relation to an application for a stay.
I pause to note that the best interests of the children is a matter which impacts all three parts of the test. To that extent, I agree with the sentiment of Macklin J. in Sopczak v. Gye-Sik, 2011 ABQB 77 (CanLII) at para 10, 95 RFL (6th) 338, where he also observed that “[w]henever courts consider the best interests of the child, there is a serious question to be tried.”
[27] When considering the second and third branches of the test for a stay, irreparable harm and the balance of convenience, the best interests of the child or children will determine the balance of convenience. One has to look at the three parts of the test holistically, connecting irreparable harm with balance of convenience when little children are involved. Those interests will ultimately determine the balance of convenience: CB v PC at para 4, EF v JSS at para 10: AG v JB, 2008 ABCA 61 (CanLII) at paras 11-12, 429 AR 394. It is the “convenience” of the children that matters: EG v Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director), 2014 ABCA 237 (CanLII) at para 26. There is a high evidential requirement on the applicant to prove irreparable harm: MacPhail v Karasek, 2006 ABCA 320 (CanLII) at para 3, 397 AR 305.
