|ChapterEditors = [[Gayle RaphanelTodd Bell]] and [[Rhaea Bailey]]

In a very recent case here in British Columbia ''[http://canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc744/2016bcsc744] K. (N.) v H.(A.) '', 2016 BCSC 744, the larger dispute centered around the parents’ disagreement over gender transition therapy involving their 11 year old child. The mother supported the transition whereas the father did not. At issue before Justice Skolrood in that proceeding was whether or not the child was entitled to an independent voice in the litigation. The court held that this was appropriate, saying:

<blockquote> 39      I am satisfied that J.K. should be permitted to participate directly in this proceeding. To my mind, this case is different from the many family law cases that come before the courts in which the views of the child are sought on issues relating to guardianship and parenting time, and where those views are typically presented through third party reports.</blockquote>

<blockquote>40      I agree with Ms. findlay's characterization that this case is really about J.K. and his role in determining his own future. In my view, these issues cannot be properly considered without J.K.’s direct participation, nor would it be fair to J.K. for the court to attempt to do so.</blockquote>

{{REVIEWED | reviewer = [[Gayle RaphanelRhaea Bailey]], July 8March 20, 20142017}}