In other words, the child’s views presumptively matter, unless it would be inappropriate to consider the child’s views. Which of these three options is the most suitable in the circumstances can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.īritish Columbia’s Family Law Act provides that when determining what is in the best interests of a child, the child’s views must be considered, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them. A third option is having the judge interview the child directly, to hear what the child has to say about his or her needs and wants. This is done in either the form of an expert report from a psychologist, called a “section 211 report”, or a “hear the child report” prepared by a qualified person. ![]() ![]() That is why it is can be most helpful to the court to have a neutral third party to provide information about the child’s well-being, and sometimes, hear what the child himself/herself wants. Parsing through the lengthy and often acrimonious allegations to determine what is best for the child is often the most trying part of a judge’s job. Trials involving custody and access disputes are often costly and time-consuming because the parents each present their own view of what the child’s best interests are, and each parent’s evidence, plus the evidence of multiple collateral witnesses, can take up numerous days of court time. ![]() However, what this often boils down to is a he-said, she-said battle between two parents who both believe themselves to have their child’s best interests in mind. The singular consideration in custody and access disputes is the best interests of the child.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |