Ireland v. Ireland

2026 BCSC 211 Ireland v. Ireland IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Ireland v. Ireland, 2026 BCSC 211 Date: 20260204 Docket: E220374 Registry: Vancouver Between: Wesley Curtis Ireland Claimant And Sahiry Hinndira Ireland also known as Sahiry Hinndira Rivero-Anderson Respondent Before: The Honourable Justice Jones Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers The Claimant, appearing in person: W.C. Ireland The Respondent, appearing in person: S.H. Ireland Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. February 4, 2026 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. February 4, 2026 [1] This is an application by the claimant, Wesley Ireland, brought on short leave following an appearance last week in the Court of Appeal whereby Mr. Ireland had sought an appeal of the reasons for judgment of Justice Weatherill in this court dated December 8, 2025, in which Justice Weatherill's decision indicates that: [1] This is a high‑conflict family dispute involving two children currently aged twelve and nine. [2] The claimant, Mr. Ireland, seeks by way of his most recent notice of application, filed November 26, 2025, a series of orders: (a) the appointment of a child advocate for the eldest of the children, E.I.; and various other orders with respect to travel, a passport, and seeking sole decision‑making authority regarding the children's healthcare, and varying parenting time. [2] The parties appeared before me in Chambers near the end of the day with the matter set for one hour. Although Weatherill J. is case managing this matter, I am told he was unavailable this week. [3] Justice Weatherill's decision provides some of the background to the matter, including, at para. 4, that Weatherill J. has been case managing the matter with the parties since July 30, 2024, at which time, after a lengthy hearing, the parties entered into a consent order in respect of which they agreed, among other things, for no spousal or child support, and a mechanism for how to divide the family property and family debt. [4] Justice Weatherill declined to make an order appointing a child advocate for the eldest of the two children (who I will refer to as "E.I.")., he referred the parties to trial, and ordered that the parties not discuss this litigation or anything related to it with the children, and that neither party make disparaging remarks of the other parent in front of the children, and that there be no video recordings of any of the exchanges between the parties. On that basis he did not make an order appointing a child advocate. [5] If I understand it correctly, Mr. Ireland then appealed that judgment of Weatherill J. dated December 8, 2025 to the Court of Appeal, and the parties made an appearance in the Court of Appeal last week at a case management conference before Justice Fenlon on Friday, January 30, 2026. [6] Mr. Ireland states that Fenlon J.A. suggested that he could either proceed with the appeal, or return to the Supreme Court on an urgent basis to seek a variation of, or reconsideration of Weatherill J.A.'s order with respect to the child advocate issue based upon a change in circumstances. [7] I understand the urgency of the application is based on Mr. Ireland reporting that the child, E.I., had a crisis and was taken to the emergency department of Children's Hospital on January 15, 2026, where he received a psychiatry consult with Dr. Trudy Adams on January 15, 2026. [8] Dr. Adams' clinical consult notes are included in one of three large binders provided on this application. Dr. Adams' consult notes provide information about E.I.'s present situation, including her diagnosis as follows at page 6 of the notes: E.I. is a 12-year-old with a prior diagnosis of autism, presenting with acute distress, and impulsive, unsafe behaviour in the context of a high‑conflict parental separation and custody dispute. His mental health symptoms, including emotional dysregulation and past suicidal ideation, appear to be a direct result of psychosocial stressors rather than a primary psychiatric disorder. He is articulate about his distress and its source. Autism may contribute to this situational crisis in that E.I. may have more challenge than other youth his age in negotiating the complex social territory of parental separation and conflict. [9] The focus of Dr. Adams' diagnosis appears to be parental conflict and other issues associated with this litigation, including child care arrangements, ongoing court proceedings, and E.I.'s conflict with his brother, and his desire to attend mini-school. [10] Dr. Adams clinical notes also refer to a suggested plan, which I understand to be her recommendations arising from her assessment of E.I., portions of the plan are as follows: 1. E.I. is calm and self directed. He is appropriate for discharge home with parent. His presentation does not meet criteria for certification under the Mental Health Act. 2. E.I. was recently referred to START and he has completed intake. He reports that he is scheduled to begin therapeutic crisis support there in a few days. E.I. may benefit from longer term counselling support, particularly with respect to navigating the ongoing matter of his parents' separation. E.I. has excellent insight into his situation but is struggling to cope with it just the same. He desires his voice be heard by a caring but uninvolved other who can support him to make his voice heard at Family Court. 3. E.I. and his father were not interested in a medication trial today. We did briefly discuss the potential use of clonidine as need for distress management. Neither was particularly keen on trying this, as it would not be available at Mother's home, and also would not particularly help with the situation. [11] That is just a couple of extracts from the consult notes. Dr. Adams does also refer to a child advocate, as follows: 5. E.I. may benefit from connection with the Child and Youth Legal Centre [...]; and 6. A comprehensive plan needs to be in place for managing the transitions between households to mitigate risk. Together we discussed creating a structured predictable routine for Wednesdays when E.I. transitions between homes to help regulate his emotions; and she gives a number of different suggestions on that account. [12] Dr. Adams also notes that: E.I. has a referral in place for the AIMS program at B.C. Children's Hospital for autism-centred therapies. Encouraged E.I. to continue writing letters to the Court to express his wishes. Father willing to support same. [13] I was not referred to any letters from E.I. today. [14] As a result of Mr. Ireland attending with E.I. at the emergency room of Children's Hospital on January 15, 2026, while that visit and Dr. Adams' notes provide some evidence of the rationale for Mr. Ireland's increased concern regarding E.I.'s circumstances since Weatherill J's decision on December 8, 2025, I have not been able to review any of the voluminous material in these binders other than Weatherill J's decision and Dr. Adam's clinical notes, which do not appear to express urgency for the appointment of a child advocate, and Dr. Adams makes a number of other recommendations for E.I. [15] I am advised by Mr. Ireland that Weatherill J., who has case management of this matter, and has a greater appreciation for the history and details of the relationship between the parties and the issues with the family, may be available as early as the end of next week. [16] I encourage the parties to attempt to appear before Weatherill J. in order to allow Weatherill J. to consider the issue of a child advocate with any additional information that Mr. Ireland has put forward or may wish to put forward on that issue, and for Ms. Ireland to provide any responding materials, but today I am not in a position to make an order for a child advocate to be appointed for E.I. [17] If the parties are not able to appear before Weatherill J. within the next two weeks, then as an alternative the parties may appear before me again, if sufficient time can be scheduled to consider the matter in a more fulsome way with the benefit of any materials Ms. Ireland may wish to provide to the Court. "Jones J."