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 there was no legislative basis for ordering a Hear the Child report. He ordered a Views of the Child report pursuant to s. 211.
Read the full case (see specific discussion at paras 54-58)
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 the question was whether a report about the child’s views alone was sufficient, or whether an assessment of the child’s needs and the parents’ abilities to meet those needs was necessary. She stated that on the authorities cited to her, the evidentiary threshold to be met to order a s. 211 report was low. On the evidence, Master Bouck ordered that a s. 211 report was needed.
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 consistent with what the children had said they wanted.
Read the full case (see specific discussion at para 42)
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 there was a family law dispute, and ordered that a Hear the Child report be prepared, pursuant to s. 211 of the FLA.
Read the full case (see specific discussion at paras 16-18)
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 included two segments from the report in his reasons.
Read the full case (see specific discussion at para 22 and 24)
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 the wishes were an important factor. The judge ordered roughly equal parenting time, which was what J had said he wanted.
Read the full case (see specific discussion at paras 88-97)
The judgment notes that this was a “high conflict” case and the trial, spread over a year, took 42 days. The main issue at trial was the parenting of two children: A, 15, and T, 9. The children had been primarily parented by the mother before the separation, but by the time of trial, A was residing with the father. There was a custody and access report and a critique of the report. During the course of the hearing, the judge sought to obtain A’s views. A Hear the Child report prepared by JP Boyd resulted in the mother accepting A’s views, and conceding that A should live primarily with the father. The trial judge quoted from the Hear the Child report. His order reflected that A should be consulted about her desires about sharing holiday time.
Read the full case (see specific discussion at paras 38-41, 88)
BC Court of Appeal finds trial judge failed to give appropriate consideration to child’s view. In Stav v Stav, 2012 BCCA 154, court relies on views of the child contained in Report prepared by Roster Member. See specific discussion at paragraphs 67 to 79 of the judgement.
Read the full case at www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/12/01/2012BCCA0154.htm
Lawyer, Arbitrator
Mobility Legal Solutions
132 – 328 Wale Road
Victoria, BC V9B 0J8
T: 250-940-1879
TF Fax: 1-844-273-0448
mobilitylegal@shaw.ca
Fees: $750.00 one child, plus $250 for each additional child. Taxes extra. Legal Aid referrals accepted.
“Whaddya mean no one listens to the kids!!? It’s THEIR lives we’re talking about!” That was the astounded statement from my own children when I told them I was going to take training to enable me to interview children so that their voices could be heard when their parents were going through separation. I had to agree.
Interviewing children is the highlight of my practice. I have practised almost exclusively in the area of family law for 17 years. I am a member of the Law Society in the Province of British Columbia in good standing and have been trained in the area of “Hear the Child” interviews since November 2007. I have performed non-evaluative interviews with children and prepared numerous reports for the purpose since 2008.
I have always had a good rapport with children, often using humour and age related interests to find common ground with them. Having now replaced my grown children with dogs, specifically German Shepherd Dogs, sometimes I also have puppies to share.
Appointment times are flexible, including weekends and evenings if required.
Lawyer
Strathdee Williams
301-1321 Blanshard Street
Victoria, BC V8W 0B6
T: 778.410.5196
F: 778.410.5001
Fees: contact me for further information
Suzanne has worked with and for children for more than two decades and was called to the bar in 1995 (Ontario) and 1996 (BC). She is a family law lawyer, was the Deputy and Legal Director of the International Institute for Child Rights and Development, and has led several child focused projects in Canada and internationally.
Through Suzanne’s leadership the Hear the Child interview model was adopted in BC. She founded the BC Hear the Child Society in 2011 and was instrumental in launching the initial Roster of qualified child interviewers in 2012. Suzanne trained the original Hear the Child Interviewers and educates professionals about children and their views. She has created international award winning education programs for the Continuing Legal Education Society of BC with psychologist Dr. Joan Kelly on child participation in family justice processes and structured child interviews (2007, 2009, 2011), and with the Honourable Justice Donna J. Martinson (retired) on Children’s Access to Justice (2015, 2017).
Hear the Child Reports:
Suzanne has had the privilege of facilitating children’s participation, listening to children, and sharing their views in many forums, including as a child interviewer in family law.
She finds hearing from a child helps adults better understand what is happening in the child’s life, gives the child an opportunity to comfortably express views on decisions affecting them, and helps adults make decisions that squarely address the child’s concerns and realities.
Suzanne always meets with the child on two occasions, the first to hear the child’s views and the second to confirm the views with the child. She is intentional about putting the child at ease and capturing the child’s own words in her reports.