Basic Principles of Parenting after Separation - Revision history

Nate Russell at 20:23, 22 July 2025

2025-07-22T20:23:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 22 July 2025
Line 911:		Line 911:
	* [https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/parent/mp-fdp/index.html Department of Justice's guide ''Making plans: A guide to parenting arrangements after separation or divorce'']		* [https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/parent/mp-fdp/index.html Department of Justice's guide ''Making plans: A guide to parenting arrangements after separation or divorce'']

	{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[JP Boyd]], ~~23 August 2022~~}}		{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[JP Boyd]], 20 July 2025}}

	{{JP Boyd on Family Law Navbox\|type=chapters}}		{{JP Boyd on Family Law Navbox\|type=chapters}}

Nate Russell: Undo revision 60313 by Nate Russell (talk)

2025-07-22T20:18:26Z

Undo revision 60313 by Nate Russell (talk)

Nate Russell at 21:44, 18 July 2025

2025-07-18T21:44:48Z

Nate Russell: /* Temporary authorizations */

2025-07-18T02:44:46Z

Temporary authorizations

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:44, 18 July 2025
Line 313:		Line 313:
	*giving, refusing, or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required,		*giving, refusing, or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required,
	*receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive,		*receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive,
	*requesting and receiving from third-parties health, education, or other information about the child, and		*requesting and receiving from third parties health, education, or other information about the child, and
	*exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development.		*exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development.

	Temporary authorizations like these are mostly used when a child has to go somewhere else to attend school and the guardian needs to make sure the child is looked after, when the guardian is seriously ill but going to recover, or when the guardian is going to be out of commission for a while to recover from an illness, a surgery or some other kind of debilitating treatment. In these situations, the guardian is genuinely disabled from exercising parental responsibilities, and ~~delegating them to~~ another person is a wise decision, and a proper use of section 43(2).		Temporary authorizations like these are mostly used when a child has to go somewhere else to attend school and the guardian needs to make sure the child is looked after, when the guardian is seriously ill but going to recover, or when the guardian is going to be out of commission for a while to recover from an illness, a surgery or some other kind of debilitating treatment. In these situations, the guardian is genuinely disabled from exercising parental responsibilities, and authorizing another person is a wise decision, and a proper use of section 43(2).

	On the other hand, temporary authorizations are not needed where a guardian simply needs help from another trusted adult (e.g. a stepparent, daycare provider, or teacher) to provide hands-on care for a child. As the BC Court of Appeal made clear in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/k5djn F.K.L. v. D.M.A.T.]'', 2024 BCCA 238, people are allowed to rely on the assistance of others when it comes to providing care, control, and supervision — and they don't need a section 43(2) written authorization for every person who helps them. In that case, the guardian father regularly left town for work for regular stints of up to 14 days, leaving the child with his wife, the child's stepparent (who was not a guardian). He was still able ~~to use his cell phone and the internet~~ to oversee the child's care, control and supervision from a distance.		On the other hand, temporary authorizations are not needed where a guardian simply needs help from another trusted adult (e.g. a stepparent, daycare provider, or teacher) to provide hands-on care for a child. As the BC Court of Appeal made clear in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/k5djn F.K.L. v. D.M.A.T.]'', 2024 BCCA 238, people are allowed to rely on the assistance of others when it comes to providing care, control, and supervision — and they don't need a section 43(2) written authorization for every person who helps them. In that case, the guardian father regularly left town for work for regular stints of up to 14 days, leaving the child with his wife, the child's stepparent (who was not a guardian). He was still able to oversee the child's care, control and supervision from a distance via phone and internet.

	====Standby appointments====		====Standby appointments====

Nate Russell: /* Temporary authorizations */

2025-07-18T02:34:41Z

Temporary authorizations

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:34, 18 July 2025
Line 316:		Line 316:
	*exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development.		*exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development.

	~~Authorizations~~ like these are mostly used when a child has to go somewhere else to attend school and the guardian needs to make sure the child is looked after, when the guardian is seriously ill but going to recover, or when the guardian is going to be out of commission for a while to recover from an illness, a surgery or some other kind of debilitating treatment.		Temporary authorizations like these are mostly used when a child has to go somewhere else to attend school and the guardian needs to make sure the child is looked after, when the guardian is seriously ill but going to recover, or when the guardian is going to be out of commission for a while to recover from an illness, a surgery or some other kind of debilitating treatment. In these situations, the guardian is genuinely disabled from exercising parental responsibilities, and delegating them to another person is a wise decision, and a proper use of section 43(2).

			On the other hand, temporary authorizations are not needed where a guardian simply needs help from another trusted adult (e.g. a stepparent, daycare provider, or teacher) to provide hands-on care for a child. As the BC Court of Appeal made clear in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/k5djn F.K.L. v. D.M.A.T.]'', 2024 BCCA 238, people are allowed to rely on the assistance of others when it comes to providing care, control, and supervision — and they don't need a section 43(2) written authorization for every person who helps them. In that case, the guardian father regularly left town for work for regular stints of up to 14 days, leaving the child with his wife, the child's stepparent (who was not a guardian). He was still able to use his cell phone and the internet to oversee the child's care, control and supervision from a distance.

	====Standby appointments====		====Standby appointments====

Nate Russell: /* Being a guardian */

2025-07-18T02:04:47Z

Being a guardian

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:04, 18 July 2025
Line 207:		Line 207:
	It's easy to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(a) and (b) because you'll have a written agreement that says you're a guardian.		It's easy to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(a) and (b) because you'll have a written agreement that says you're a guardian.

	It's harder to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(c) because the ''Family Law Act'' doesn't say exactly what "regularly cares for the child" means. The dictionary definition of "regular" is something that occurs at recurring intervals... but surely "regular" intervals of two hours every three months or every three years isn't what the provincial government meant when it was writing section 39(3)(c). This is important for parents, generally fathers, who weren't living with the other parent, generally birth mothers, when the child was born and never lived with the other parent afterward. In cases like this, you may have to go to court to argue that your "regular care" for the child qualifies you as a guardian under section 39(3)(c). This is what the Court of Appeal said in the 2015 case of ''[https://canlii.ca/t/gj15z A.A.A.M. v. British Columbia (Director of Adoption)]'':		It's harder to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(c) because the ''Family Law Act'' doesn't say exactly what "regularly cares for the child" means. The dictionary definition of "regular" is something that occurs at recurring intervals... but surely "regular" intervals of two hours every three months or every three years isn't what the provincial government meant when it was writing section 39(3)(c). This is important for parents, generally fathers, who weren't living with the other parent, generally birth mothers, when the child was born and never lived with the other parent afterward. In cases like this, you may have to go to court to argue that your "regular care" for the child qualifies you as a guardian under section 39(3)(c). This is what the Court of Appeal said in the 2015 case of ''[https://canlii.ca/t/gj15z A.A.A.M. v. British Columbia (Director of Adoption)]'', 2015 BCCA 220:

	<blockquote>"I doubt that a visit once every calendar year could be intended to qualify as 'regular' for purposes of s. 39(3)(c), even though it could be said to have taken place at regular intervals. It seems to me that the intention of the Legislature was to refer to a parent who has demonstrated a continuing willingness to provide for the child's ongoing needs and a record of 'usually' or 'normally' doing so in fact. Certainly, it connotes something more than simply 'visiting' the child, even at regular intervals."</blockquote>		<blockquote>"I doubt that a visit once every calendar year could be intended to qualify as 'regular' for purposes of s. 39(3)(c), even though it could be said to have taken place at regular intervals. It seems to me that the intention of the Legislature was to refer to a parent who has demonstrated a continuing willingness to provide for the child's ongoing needs and a record of 'usually' or 'normally' doing so in fact. Certainly, it connotes something more than simply 'visiting' the child, even at regular intervals."</blockquote>

Nate Russell: /* Being a guardian */

2025-07-18T02:04:00Z

Being a guardian

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:04, 18 July 2025
Line 207:		Line 207:
	It's easy to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(a) and (b) because you'll have a written agreement that says you're a guardian.		It's easy to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(a) and (b) because you'll have a written agreement that says you're a guardian.

	It's harder to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(c) because the ''Family Law Act'' doesn't say exactly what "regularly cares for the child" means. The dictionary definition of "regular" is something that occurs at recurring intervals... but surely "regular" intervals of two hours every three months or every three years isn't what the provincial government meant when it was writing section 39(3)(c). This is important for parents, generally fathers, who weren't living with the other parent, generally birth mothers, when the child was born and never lived with the other parent afterward. In cases like this, you may have to go to court to argue that your "regular care" for the child qualifies you as a guardian under section 39(3)(c). This is what the Court of Appeal said in the 2015 case of [https://canlii.ca/t/gj15z A.A.A.M. v. British Columbia (Director of Adoption)]:		It's harder to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(c) because the ''Family Law Act'' doesn't say exactly what "regularly cares for the child" means. The dictionary definition of "regular" is something that occurs at recurring intervals... but surely "regular" intervals of two hours every three months or every three years isn't what the provincial government meant when it was writing section 39(3)(c). This is important for parents, generally fathers, who weren't living with the other parent, generally birth mothers, when the child was born and never lived with the other parent afterward. In cases like this, you may have to go to court to argue that your "regular care" for the child qualifies you as a guardian under section 39(3)(c). This is what the Court of Appeal said in the 2015 case of ''[https://canlii.ca/t/gj15z A.A.A.M. v. British Columbia (Director of Adoption)]'':

	<blockquote>"I doubt that a visit once every calendar year could be intended to qualify as 'regular' for purposes of s. 39(3)(c), even though it could be said to have taken place at regular intervals. It seems to me that the intention of the Legislature was to refer to a parent who has demonstrated a continuing willingness to provide for the child's ongoing needs and a record of 'usually' or 'normally' doing so in fact. Certainly, it connotes something more than simply 'visiting' the child, even at regular intervals."</blockquote>		<blockquote>"I doubt that a visit once every calendar year could be intended to qualify as 'regular' for purposes of s. 39(3)(c), even though it could be said to have taken place at regular intervals. It seems to me that the intention of the Legislature was to refer to a parent who has demonstrated a continuing willingness to provide for the child's ongoing needs and a record of 'usually' or 'normally' doing so in fact. Certainly, it connotes something more than simply 'visiting' the child, even at regular intervals."</blockquote>

Nate Russell: /* Introduction */

2025-07-18T01:58:54Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 18 July 2025
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Under the federal ''[[Divorce Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "decision-making responsibility." Under the provincial ''[[Family Law Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "parental responsibilities." However, parenting time under the ''Divorce Act'' means the same thing as parenting time under the ''Family Law Act'', and while there are some differences in how the ''Divorce Act'' talks about decision-making responsibilities and how the ''Family Law Act'' talks about parental responsibilities, you can think of them as meaning the same thing.		Under the federal ''[[Divorce Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "decision-making responsibility." Under the provincial ''[[Family Law Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "parental responsibilities." However, parenting time under the ''Divorce Act'' means the same thing as parenting time under the ''Family Law Act'', and while there are some differences in how the ''Divorce Act'' talks about decision-making responsibilities and how the ''Family Law Act'' talks about parental responsibilities, you can think of them as meaning the same thing.

	Unfortunately, this is where the similarities end. The ''Divorce Act'' only applies to people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Divorce Act'', the people who have parenting time and decision-making responsibility are ''spouses'', and a "spouse" might be a parent or a ~~step-parent~~. The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "spouses." People who aren't spouses may, in certain circumstances, ask for parenting time and decision-making responsibility.		Unfortunately, this is where the similarities end. The ''Divorce Act'' only applies to people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Divorce Act'', the people who have parenting time and decision-making responsibility are ''spouses'', and a "spouse" might be a parent or a stepparent. The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "spouses." People who aren't spouses may, in certain circumstances, ask for parenting time and decision-making responsibility.

	On the other hand, the ''Family Law Act'' applies to everyone, including people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Family Law Act'', the people who have parenting time and parental responsibilities are ''guardians''. "Guardians" are usually, but not always, parents. (Stepparents, extended family members and other adults can also ask to be appointed as the guardians of a child.) The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "guardians," including parents who aren't guardians.		On the other hand, the ''Family Law Act'' applies to everyone, including people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Family Law Act'', the people who have parenting time and parental responsibilities are ''guardians''. "Guardians" are usually, but not always, parents. (Stepparents, extended family members and other adults can also ask to be appointed as the guardians of a child.) The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "guardians," including parents who aren't guardians.

Nate Russell: /* Factors */

2025-01-07T22:16:42Z

Factors

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:16, 7 January 2025
Line 649:		Line 649:
	*the wishes of the children, particularly those of children who are 10 or 11 years old or older, although the court isn't required to make the order the children would prefer.		*the wishes of the children, particularly those of children who are 10 or 11 years old or older, although the court isn't required to make the order the children would prefer.

	There really is no standard pattern of parenting time, although a trend toward shared parenting time has developed in case law over the past several years. All of these factors, including the best-interests factors, usually get taken into <span class="noglossary">account</span> when a parenting time schedule is designed, and, in general, a parenting time schedule can be as creative as the flexibility of the parents and common sense allow. This chapter has a chart of different parenting schedules that accommodate some of these concerns in the section [[Parenting ~~after Separation~~]].		There really is no standard pattern of parenting time, although a trend toward shared parenting time has developed in case law over the past several years. All of these factors, including the best-interests factors, usually get taken into <span class="noglossary">account</span> when a parenting time schedule is designed, and, in general, a parenting time schedule can be as creative as the flexibility of the parents and common sense allow. This chapter has a chart of different parenting schedules that accommodate some of these concerns in the section [[Parenting Apart]].

	=====Shared parenting time=====		=====Shared parenting time=====

Nate Russell: /* Resources and links */

2024-09-03T22:39:29Z

Resources and links

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 3 September 2024
Line 895:		Line 895:
	* [https://canlii.ca/t/b8rn Provincial Court Family Rules]		* [https://canlii.ca/t/b8rn Provincial Court Family Rules]
	* [https://canlii.ca/t/8mcr Supreme Court Family Rules]		* [https://canlii.ca/t/8mcr Supreme Court Family Rules]

			===Resources===
			* [https://www.womenslegalcentre.ca/publications/section-211-toolkit Section 211 toolkit] from Rise Women's Legal Centre

	===Links===		===Links===

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 22 July 2025
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Under the federal ''[[Divorce Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "decision-making responsibility." Under the provincial ''[[Family Law Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "parental responsibilities." However, parenting time under the ''Divorce Act'' means the same thing as parenting time under the ''Family Law Act'', and while there are some differences in how the ''Divorce Act'' talks about decision-making responsibilities and how the ''Family Law Act'' talks about parental responsibilities, you can think of them as meaning the same thing.		Under the federal ''[[Divorce Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "decision-making responsibility." Under the provincial ''[[Family Law Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "parental responsibilities." However, parenting time under the ''Divorce Act'' means the same thing as parenting time under the ''Family Law Act'', and while there are some differences in how the ''Divorce Act'' talks about decision-making responsibilities and how the ''Family Law Act'' talks about parental responsibilities, you can think of them as meaning the same thing.

	Unfortunately, this is where the similarities end. The ''Divorce Act'' only applies to people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Divorce Act'', the people who have parenting time and decision-making responsibility are ''spouses'', and a "spouse" might be a parent or a ~~step-parent~~. The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "spouses." People who aren't spouses may, in certain circumstances, ask for parenting time and decision-making responsibility.		Unfortunately, this is where the similarities end. The ''Divorce Act'' only applies to people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Divorce Act'', the people who have parenting time and decision-making responsibility are ''spouses'', and a "spouse" might be a parent or a stepparent. The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "spouses." People who aren't spouses may, in certain circumstances, ask for parenting time and decision-making responsibility.

	On the other hand, the ''Family Law Act'' applies to everyone, including people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Family Law Act'', the people who have parenting time and parental responsibilities are ''guardians''. "Guardians" are usually, but not always, parents. (Stepparents, extended family members and other adults can also ask to be appointed as the guardians of a child.) The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "guardians," including parents who aren't guardians.		On the other hand, the ''Family Law Act'' applies to everyone, including people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Family Law Act'', the people who have parenting time and parental responsibilities are ''guardians''. "Guardians" are usually, but not always, parents. (Stepparents, extended family members and other adults can also ask to be appointed as the guardians of a child.) The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "guardians," including parents who aren't guardians.
Line 207:		Line 207:
	It's easy to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(a) and (b) because you'll have a written agreement that says you're a guardian.		It's easy to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(a) and (b) because you'll have a written agreement that says you're a guardian.

	It's harder to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(c) because the ''Family Law Act'' doesn't say exactly what "regularly cares for the child" means. The dictionary definition of "regular" is something that occurs at recurring intervals... but surely "regular" intervals of two hours every three months or every three years isn't what the provincial government meant when it was writing section 39(3)(c). This is important for parents, generally fathers, who weren't living with the other parent, generally birth mothers, when the child was born and never lived with the other parent afterward. In cases like this, you may have to go to court to argue that your "regular care" for the child qualifies you as a guardian under section 39(3)(c). This is what the Court of Appeal said in the 2015 case of [https://canlii.ca/t/gj15z A.A.A.M. v. British Columbia (Director of Adoption)]:		It's harder to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(c) because the ''Family Law Act'' doesn't say exactly what "regularly cares for the child" means. The dictionary definition of "regular" is something that occurs at recurring intervals... but surely "regular" intervals of two hours every three months or every three years isn't what the provincial government meant when it was writing section 39(3)(c). This is important for parents, generally fathers, who weren't living with the other parent, generally birth mothers, when the child was born and never lived with the other parent afterward. In cases like this, you may have to go to court to argue that your "regular care" for the child qualifies you as a guardian under section 39(3)(c). This is what the Court of Appeal said in the 2015 case of ''[https://canlii.ca/t/gj15z A.A.A.M. v. British Columbia (Director of Adoption)]'', 2015 BCCA 220:

	<blockquote>"I doubt that a visit once every calendar year could be intended to qualify as 'regular' for purposes of s. 39(3)(c), even though it could be said to have taken place at regular intervals. It seems to me that the intention of the Legislature was to refer to a parent who has demonstrated a continuing willingness to provide for the child's ongoing needs and a record of 'usually' or 'normally' doing so in fact. Certainly, it connotes something more than simply 'visiting' the child, even at regular intervals."</blockquote>		<blockquote>"I doubt that a visit once every calendar year could be intended to qualify as 'regular' for purposes of s. 39(3)(c), even though it could be said to have taken place at regular intervals. It seems to me that the intention of the Legislature was to refer to a parent who has demonstrated a continuing willingness to provide for the child's ongoing needs and a record of 'usually' or 'normally' doing so in fact. Certainly, it connotes something more than simply 'visiting' the child, even at regular intervals."</blockquote>
Line 313:		Line 313:
	*giving, refusing, or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required,		*giving, refusing, or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required,
	*receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive,		*receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive,
	*requesting and receiving from third-parties health, education, or other information about the child, and		*requesting and receiving from third parties health, education, or other information about the child, and
	*exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development.		*exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development.

	~~Authorizations~~ like these are mostly used when a child has to go somewhere else to attend school and the guardian needs to make sure the child is looked after, when the guardian is seriously ill but going to recover, or when the guardian is going to be out of commission for a while to recover from an illness, a surgery or some other kind of debilitating treatment.		Temporary authorizations like these are mostly used when a child has to go somewhere else to attend school and the guardian needs to make sure the child is looked after, when the guardian is seriously ill but going to recover, or when the guardian is going to be out of commission for a while to recover from an illness, a surgery or some other kind of debilitating treatment. In these situations, the guardian is genuinely disabled from exercising parental responsibilities, and authorizing another person is a wise decision, and a proper use of section 43(2).

			On the other hand, temporary authorizations are not needed where a guardian simply needs help from another trusted adult (e.g. a stepparent, daycare provider, or teacher) to provide hands-on care for a child. As the BC Court of Appeal made clear in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/k5djn F.K.L. v. D.M.A.T.]'', 2024 BCCA 238, people are allowed to rely on the assistance of others when it comes to providing care, control, and supervision — and they don't need a section 43(2) written authorization for every person who helps them. In that case, the guardian father regularly left town for work for regular stints of up to 14 days, leaving the child with his wife, the child's stepparent (who was not a guardian). He was still able to oversee the child's care, control and supervision from a distance via phone and internet.

	====Standby appointments====		====Standby appointments====

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, 18 July 2025
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Under the federal ''[[Divorce Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "decision-making responsibility." Under the provincial ''[[Family Law Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "parental responsibilities." However, parenting time under the ''Divorce Act'' means the same thing as parenting time under the ''Family Law Act'', and while there are some differences in how the ''Divorce Act'' talks about decision-making responsibilities and how the ''Family Law Act'' talks about parental responsibilities, you can think of them as meaning the same thing.		Under the federal ''[[Divorce Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "decision-making responsibility." Under the provincial ''[[Family Law Act]]'', the time children have with their parents is called "parenting time," and parents' responsibility for making decisions about their children is called "parental responsibilities." However, parenting time under the ''Divorce Act'' means the same thing as parenting time under the ''Family Law Act'', and while there are some differences in how the ''Divorce Act'' talks about decision-making responsibilities and how the ''Family Law Act'' talks about parental responsibilities, you can think of them as meaning the same thing.

	Unfortunately, this is where the similarities end. The ''Divorce Act'' only applies to people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Divorce Act'', the people who have parenting time and decision-making responsibility are ''spouses'', and a "spouse" might be a parent or a ~~stepparent~~. The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "spouses." People who aren't spouses may, in certain circumstances, ask for parenting time and decision-making responsibility.		Unfortunately, this is where the similarities end. The ''Divorce Act'' only applies to people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Divorce Act'', the people who have parenting time and decision-making responsibility are ''spouses'', and a "spouse" might be a parent or a step-parent. The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "spouses." People who aren't spouses may, in certain circumstances, ask for parenting time and decision-making responsibility.

	On the other hand, the ''Family Law Act'' applies to everyone, including people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Family Law Act'', the people who have parenting time and parental responsibilities are ''guardians''. "Guardians" are usually, but not always, parents. (Stepparents, extended family members and other adults can also ask to be appointed as the guardians of a child.) The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "guardians," including parents who aren't guardians.		On the other hand, the ''Family Law Act'' applies to everyone, including people who are or who used to be married to each other. Under the ''Family Law Act'', the people who have parenting time and parental responsibilities are ''guardians''. "Guardians" are usually, but not always, parents. (Stepparents, extended family members and other adults can also ask to be appointed as the guardians of a child.) The people who have "contact" with children are people who aren't "guardians," including parents who aren't guardians.
Line 207:		Line 207:
	It's easy to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(a) and (b) because you'll have a written agreement that says you're a guardian.		It's easy to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(a) and (b) because you'll have a written agreement that says you're a guardian.

	It's harder to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(c) because the ''Family Law Act'' doesn't say exactly what "regularly cares for the child" means. The dictionary definition of "regular" is something that occurs at recurring intervals... but surely "regular" intervals of two hours every three months or every three years isn't what the provincial government meant when it was writing section 39(3)(c). This is important for parents, generally fathers, who weren't living with the other parent, generally birth mothers, when the child was born and never lived with the other parent afterward. In cases like this, you may have to go to court to argue that your "regular care" for the child qualifies you as a guardian under section 39(3)(c). This is what the Court of Appeal said in the 2015 case of ''[https://canlii.ca/t/gj15z A.A.A.M. v. British Columbia (Director of Adoption)]~~'', 2015 BCCA 220~~:		It's harder to show that you're a guardian under section 39(3)(c) because the ''Family Law Act'' doesn't say exactly what "regularly cares for the child" means. The dictionary definition of "regular" is something that occurs at recurring intervals... but surely "regular" intervals of two hours every three months or every three years isn't what the provincial government meant when it was writing section 39(3)(c). This is important for parents, generally fathers, who weren't living with the other parent, generally birth mothers, when the child was born and never lived with the other parent afterward. In cases like this, you may have to go to court to argue that your "regular care" for the child qualifies you as a guardian under section 39(3)(c). This is what the Court of Appeal said in the 2015 case of [https://canlii.ca/t/gj15z A.A.A.M. v. British Columbia (Director of Adoption)]:

	<blockquote>"I doubt that a visit once every calendar year could be intended to qualify as 'regular' for purposes of s. 39(3)(c), even though it could be said to have taken place at regular intervals. It seems to me that the intention of the Legislature was to refer to a parent who has demonstrated a continuing willingness to provide for the child's ongoing needs and a record of 'usually' or 'normally' doing so in fact. Certainly, it connotes something more than simply 'visiting' the child, even at regular intervals."</blockquote>		<blockquote>"I doubt that a visit once every calendar year could be intended to qualify as 'regular' for purposes of s. 39(3)(c), even though it could be said to have taken place at regular intervals. It seems to me that the intention of the Legislature was to refer to a parent who has demonstrated a continuing willingness to provide for the child's ongoing needs and a record of 'usually' or 'normally' doing so in fact. Certainly, it connotes something more than simply 'visiting' the child, even at regular intervals."</blockquote>
Line 313:		Line 313:
	*giving, refusing, or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required,		*giving, refusing, or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required,
	*receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive,		*receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive,
	*requesting and receiving from third parties health, education, or other information about the child, and		*requesting and receiving from third-parties health, education, or other information about the child, and
	*exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development.		*exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development.

	~~Temporary authorizations~~ like these are mostly used when a child has to go somewhere else to attend school and the guardian needs to make sure the child is looked after, when the guardian is seriously ill but going to recover, or when the guardian is going to be out of commission for a while to recover from an illness, a surgery or some other kind of debilitating treatment~~. In these situations, the guardian is genuinely disabled from exercising parental responsibilities, and authorizing another person is a wise decision, and a proper use of section 43(2).~~		Authorizations like these are mostly used when a child has to go somewhere else to attend school and the guardian needs to make sure the child is looked after, when the guardian is seriously ill but going to recover, or when the guardian is going to be out of commission for a while to recover from an illness, a surgery or some other kind of debilitating treatment.

	On the other hand, temporary authorizations are not needed where a guardian simply needs help from another trusted adult (e.g. a stepparent, daycare provider, or teacher) to provide hands-on care for a child. As the BC Court of Appeal made clear in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/k5djn F.K.L. v. D.M.A.T.]'', 2024 BCCA 238, people are allowed to rely on the assistance of others when it comes to providing care, control, and supervision — and they don't need a section 43(2) written authorization for every person who helps them. In that case, the guardian father regularly left town for work for regular stints of up to 14 days, leaving the child with his wife, the child's stepparent (who was not a guardian). He was still able to oversee the child's care, control and supervision from a distance via phone and internet.

	====Standby appointments====		====Standby appointments====