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 the threshold for ordering a Hear the Child report was even lower. She addressed briefly why a Hear the Child report was sufficient in this case, i.e., the children were coping fairly well and had no mental health issues.

Read the full case (see specific discussion at paras 21-27)

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.

Read the full case

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