Category: Related Cases
A.J.B. v. J.M., 2019 BCSC 2335
The narrow issue in this case was whether a s. 211 report or a Hear the Child report should be prepared. The parents had shared equal parenting time until the father relocated from the Lower Mainland to Victoria. The 13-year old child had been objecting to travelling to Victoria. The father attributed that to the mother’s alienation, which was why he thought a s. 211 report was necessary. The judge reviewed case law about when s. 211 reports would be ordered, noting that the court must strike a balance between the usefulness of the information contained in s. 211 reports, and the countervailing interests of time and delay, intrusion into the child’s life, and
P.J.D. v. W.K.W., 2019 BCSC 1188
The father of 12 year old twins sought an equal time-sharing arrangement. The mother gave evidence that the children said they wanted to spend less time with their father, because they were upset by his criticism of them and of the mother. As the father had not cooperated in having a Views of the Child report prepared, the judge held that there was no evidence to counter the mother’s testimony that the children wanted to spend less time with the father. The judge accepted the mother’s evidence of the children’s views and …
R.D.M. v. X.M.M., 2017 BCSC 1674
The father sought interim changes to parenting time of the parties’ four children, pending a trial. The children, ages 17,15,13 and 11, lived primarily with their mother. The children made allegations of family violence and sexual misconduct against the mother’s new spouse. An order was made that a Hear the Child report be done, and that the report preparer specifically ask each child whether there had been sexual misconduct …
T.J.G. v. A.D.G., 2017 BCSC 1511
Madam Justice Young referred to the M.P.D. decision and found that a Hear the Child report can be ordered pursuant to s. 202 of the Family Law Act. Madam Justice Young held that the threshold for ordering that a report under s. 211 was low, by implication indicating that …
M.P.D. v. C.R.D., 2017 BCSC 397
The judge discussed the legislative authority for ordering a Hear the Child report, noting that s. 211 of the Family Law Act does not envision a simple interview of the children without assessment. As sections 202, 37 and 224 were not cited to the judge, he concluded that …
E.A.B. v. K.J.B., 2017 BCSC 1167
The parties had an 11 year old son. The father had medical issues, and the parties disagreed about how that affected their son’s best interests. They also had long-standing communication problems. The wife applied for an order that a s. 211 report be prepared. The husband applied for an order for a Hear the Child report. Master Bouck described the differences between the two types of reports, noting that …
S.L.M.D. v. A.V.D., 2017 BCSC 394
The judge described this as a high conflict case. The parties had two minor children, aged 18 and 16, and they disagreed about parenting arrangements for the children. The court summarized a “views of the Child” report prepared by a member of the Hear the Child roster. The outcome was …
Thomson v. Thomson, 2016 BCSC 904
The father applied for an order for preparation of a Hear the Child report relating to the views of the parties’ 15 year old daughter, pursuant to s. 211 of the Family Law Act. The mother argued that there was no jurisdiction to grant the order, because there was no application addressing a family law dispute before the court. Mr. Justice Jenkins held that …
L.C.E. v. E.S.B., 2014 BCSC 1111
In the context of a relocation application, the mother, who wished to relocate, obtained a Hear the Child report without prior notification of or consultation with the other parent. While expressing concern about that parent’s actions, the judge …
Henderson v. Bal, 2014 BCSC 1347
This case involved two children, S who was 16 and J, 11. The main issue between the parties was the parenting of J. A Hear the Child report had been prepared. The judge noted that the wishes of an 11 year old could not determine the outcome, but …
