Thread: How to proceed
View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2006, 09:18 PM
logicalvelocity logicalvelocity is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity


Read this jurisprudence interim motion

D.D. V. A.S.S.

2004 BCPC 0056

before the honorable JUDGE VALMOND ROMILLY

Paragraphs 20, 21, 26 and 27


[20] D.D. in my opinion seems to be proceeding on the assumption that she has exclusive proprietary interests in her son, definitely to the exclusion of the father, and for him to have access to that child he must qualify by meeting her standards and conditions for access. In other words she seems to feel that she is the only one entitled to make decisions regarding her son, and certainly not the father.

[21] I certainly understand the father of the child taking offence to this misguided attitude taken by the mother that she is the only one competent enough to set standards for access to her child, and that the father must be supervised during any access allowed, because of subjective and irrelevant concerns of the mother, which have nothing whatsoever to do with what is in the best interests of the child.

[26] Counsel for A.S.S. has provided me with the decision of A.M. v. C.G., Vancouver Registry 94-6555, a decision of Judge White which states in paragraph 8 as follows:

Counsel for the applicant referred me to Mr. Justice McQuaid's 1993 decision of Sherry v. Sherry, D.R.S. 94-05914 where Mr. Justice McQuaid referred to a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision of Young v. Young, quoting from Mr. Justice Sopinka's judgment as follows:

The long term value to a child of a meaningful relationship with both parents is a policy that is affirmed in the Divorce Act. This means allowing each to engage in those activities which contribute to identify the parent for what he or she really is. The access parent is not expected to act out a part or assume a phony lifestyle during access periods. The policy favoring activities that promote a meaningful relationship is not displaced unless there is a substantial risk of harm to the child.

[27] I find that D.D. will be well advised to heed Mr. Justice Sopinka's words and if she is really interested in the best interests of the child, not try to encumber the father's access by forcing him "to act out a part or assume a phony lifestyle" just to meet her subjective standards and conditions of access, so that "a meaningful relationship with both parents" could be achieved. I feel that she should instead use her best efforts to facilitate the father's access to the child. I also find that A.S.S. is entitled to further access to his child if he is to have a meaningful relationship with his child, and that D.D. has failed to demonstrate any reason whatsoever why such access should be supervised, and I decline to order that A.S.S.'s access be supervised.