E.J.P. v. E.A.K.

E.J.P. v. E.A.K.

The father's persistent misconduct, lack of credibility, failure to demonstrate change, and the real risk of psychological harm to the child meant that increasing access or ordering shared custody would be contrary to the child's best interests; accordingly the father's motion to vary was dismissed, the limited supervised access was terminated, and restraining provisions including a peace officer arrest clause and a requirement for leave for further applications were granted.

Citation
2004 BCSC 1681
Parties
Plaintiff: E.J.P.; Defendant: E.A.K.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Family Law Custody and Access / Motion to Vary Prior Custody/access Order and Respondent's Cross Motion for Termination of Access and Restraining Order
Outcome
Father's motion to vary dismissed; plaintiff's motion partly granted: defendant's access terminated, restraining and arrest provisions granted, requirement for leave for future applications granted, costs awarded to plaintiff; judge declared himself no longer seized.
Legal Topics
Variation of Custody Order, Supervised Access, Termination of Access, Restraining Order, Leave to Bring Further Applications, Seizure of Matter
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody and Access Domestic Relations Public Safety/restraints Variation of Custody Order Supervised Access Termination of Access Restraining Order +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E.J.P.

Plaintiff

E.A.K.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Custody and Access / Motion to Vary Prior Custody/access Order and Respondent's Cross Motion for Termination of Access and Restraining Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father's motion to vary the March 10, 2003 order to obtain joint/shared custody should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the father's supervised access should be terminated
  3. 3 Whether restraining provisions and a peace officer arrest clause should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The father's persistent misconduct, lack of credibility, failure to demonstrate change, and the real risk of psychological harm to the child meant that increasing access or ordering shared custody would be contrary to the child's best interests; accordingly the father's motion to vary was dismissed, the limited supervised access was terminated, and restraining provisions including a peace officer arrest clause and a requirement for leave for further applications were granted.

Court Disposition

Father's motion to vary dismissed; plaintiff's motion partly granted: defendant's access terminated, restraining and arrest provisions granted, requirement for leave for future applications granted, costs awarded to plaintiff; judge declared himself no longer seized.

Orders

  • No further applications by the defendant may be brought without leave of the Court
  • The defendant's limited supervised access to the child is terminated