5,483
edits
Difference between revisions of "Children and Parenting after Separation"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Children and Parenting after Separation (view source)
Revision as of 20:02, 17 January 2017
, 20:02, 17 January 2017→The Divorce Act and the Family Law Act
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
For married spouses, the law about the care of children after separation is governed by the federal ''Divorce Act'' as well as the provincial ''Family Law Act''. For unmarried spouses and other unmarried couples, the only law that applies is the ''Family Law Act''. Although married spouses can ask for orders under both the ''Divorce Act'' and the ''Family Law Act'', it's usually best to pick one Act or the other to determine issues related to the care of children because the two Acts approach the care of children with different attitudes and use different language. | For married spouses, the law about the care of children after separation is governed by the federal ''Divorce Act'' as well as the provincial ''Family Law Act''. For unmarried spouses and other unmarried couples, the only law that applies is the ''Family Law Act''. Although married spouses can ask for orders under both the ''Divorce Act'' and the ''Family Law Act'', it's usually best to pick one Act or the other to determine issues related to the care of children because the two Acts approach the care of children with different attitudes and use different language. | ||
If parties disagree over which act applies, be prepared to understand what ''paramountcy'' is. The doctrine of paramountcy says that provincial laws must give way to federal laws if there is a conflict between the two, even if both laws are otherwise valid and even if either could apply. There are a number of cases that consider which of these two Acts should apply and how they work together. A good summary is found in [http://canlii.ca/t/gf1gz Jirh v. Jirh | If parties disagree over which act applies, be prepared to understand what ''paramountcy'' is. The doctrine of paramountcy says that provincial laws must give way to federal laws if there is a conflict between the two, even if both laws are otherwise valid and even if either could apply. There are a number of cases that consider which of these two Acts should apply and how they work together. A good summary is found in [http://canlii.ca/t/gf1gz ''Jirh v. Jirh''], 2014 BCSC 1973 and another good summary is found in [http://canlii.ca/t/g6700 ''B.D.M. v. A.E.M.''], 2014 BCSC 453. | ||
While both the ''Divorce Act'' and the ''Family Law Act'' speak about the best interests of children, the ''Divorce Act'' contains the concept of ''maximum contact'' (between the child and both parents), that is not included in the ''Family Law Act''. Maximum contact is not a concept that is included in the ''Family Law Act''; in fact, the ''Family Law Act'' says that there is no particular parenting plan or arrangement that “is presumed to be in the best interests of a child.” | While both the ''Divorce Act'' and the ''Family Law Act'' speak about the best interests of children, the ''Divorce Act'' contains the concept of ''maximum contact'' (between the child and both parents), that is not included in the ''Family Law Act''. Maximum contact is not a concept that is included in the ''Family Law Act''; in fact, the ''Family Law Act'' says that there is no particular parenting plan or arrangement that “is presumed to be in the best interests of a child.” | ||
