H.J. v. P.J.

H.J. v. P.J.

Children are severely and entrenchedly alienated from father; coercive court orders compelling therapy or enforced participation would likely fail and be counterproductive given delay and adolescence; therefore court will not order compulsory reunification therapy but urges voluntary engagement; mother is granted practical sole custody and will exercise parental responsibilities, father remains legal guardian with limited joint responsibility for obtaining third-party information and will have day-to-day responsibilities only during any parenting time; court declines to order mother to pay or reimburse therapy costs.

Citation
2020 BCSC 179
Parties
Claimant (mother): H.J.; Respondent (father): P.J.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Law Divorce, Custody and Property / Trial Concluded; Oral Reasons Delivered for Parenting Issues; Financial Issues Reserved for Later Written Decision
Outcome
Oral judgment on parenting: practical sole custody to mother; father retains legal guardianship and limited joint parental responsibility for requesting/receiving third-party information; no court order compelling reunification therapy; financial and property issues reserved for later decision.
Legal Topics
Custody and Access, Parental Alienation, Reunification Therapy, Best Interests of the Child, Parental Responsibilities (fla Ss.41 42), Judicial Interview of Children, Supervised Access
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Parental Responsibility Custody and Access Parental Alienation Reunification Therapy Best Interests of the Child Parental Responsibilities (fla Ss.41 42) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H.J.

Claimant (mother)

P.J.

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Divorce, Custody and Property / Trial Concluded; Oral Reasons Delivered for Parenting Issues; Financial Issues Reserved for Later Written Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reunification/reintegrative therapy should be ordered or compelled
  2. 2 Whether coercive orders compelling children's participation would be effective or counterproductive
  3. 3 Allocation of custody and parental responsibilities pending or instead of enforced therapy

Ratio Decidendi

Children are severely and entrenchedly alienated from father; coercive court orders compelling therapy or enforced participation would likely fail and be counterproductive given delay and adolescence; therefore court will not order compulsory reunification therapy but urges voluntary engagement; mother is granted practical sole custody and will exercise parental responsibilities, father remains legal guardian with limited joint responsibility for obtaining third-party information and will have day-to-day responsibilities only during any parenting time; court declines to order mother to pay or reimburse therapy costs.

Court Disposition

Oral judgment on parenting: practical sole custody to mother; father retains legal guardianship and limited joint parental responsibility for requesting/receiving third-party information; no court order compelling reunification therapy; financial and property issues reserved for later decision.

Orders

  • Mother (H.J.) to have sole custody and to solely exercise parental responsibilities under FLA s.41 except as varied below
  • Father (P.J.) retained joint parental responsibility under FLA s.41(j) solely for requesting and receiving from third parties health, education or other information respecting the children