42
edits
Difference between revisions of "Children Who Resist Seeing a Parent"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Children Who Resist Seeing a Parent (view source)
Revision as of 22:29, 14 April 2017
, 22:29, 14 April 2017no edit summary
Sam Rapoport (talk | contribs) |
Sam Rapoport (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 288: | Line 288: | ||
<blockquote>"I find that [the mother's] sabotaging actions have been knowing, wilful and deliberate. As a result of [her] behaviour, the children have little or no relationship with the father who loves them, who has tried to be a good father, and who has been a good provider throughout their lives."</blockquote> | <blockquote>"I find that [the mother's] sabotaging actions have been knowing, wilful and deliberate. As a result of [her] behaviour, the children have little or no relationship with the father who loves them, who has tried to be a good father, and who has been a good provider throughout their lives."</blockquote> | ||
While evidence of alienation is necessary before a court can make a determination that it has occurred or make orders to ameliorate it, the impact of that behaviour or the allegation that it has occurred can give rise to situations where children become actively involved in the court action. | |||
In a case called [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc495/2017bcsc495.html?autocompleteStr=j.e.s.d&autocompletePos=2 ''J.E.S.D v. Y.E.P''], a 16 year old asked the court to have a lawyer appointed for her when she did not agree with the evidence of an expert witness who found that she was alienated from her father. The court in the circumstances did not find that it was appropriate for the child to have her own lawyer, or to be named a party to the action. However, because the Supreme Court of British Columbia has authority under the concept of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae ''parens patriae''] to make an order to protect someone who cannot protect himself or herself, the court ordered that an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae ''amicus''] be appointed. The court referred to the Honourable Madam Justice Martinson's decision in [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1999/1999canlii5928/1999canlii5928.html?autocompleteStr=dormer%20v.%2F&autocompletePos=1 ''Dormer v. Thomas'']. While the court directed that an ''amicus'' be appointed, who that person was, or how he or she would be paid, was not considered. | |||
===Alienated parents=== | ===Alienated parents=== | ||