Children Who Resist Seeing a Parent: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
updated the link to JESD v. YEP-- additional reasons were released and the AG for BC is to pay for the amicus for the chlild
Sam Rapoport (talk | contribs) (re-read and updated with JESD v. YEP BCSC 2017) |
Sam Rapoport (talk | contribs) m (updated the link to JESD v. YEP-- additional reasons were released and the AG for BC is to pay for the amicus for the chlild) |
||
| Line 291: | Line 291: | ||
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. | 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 [ | 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 [httpsWhile the court directed that an ''amicus'' be appointed, who that person was, or how he or she would be paid, was not considered. | ||
://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'']. In later [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc666/2017bcsc666.html?resultIndex=1 reasons], the court ordered that the Attorney General for British Columbia pay for the amicus for the child. | |||
===Alienated parents=== | ===Alienated parents=== | ||