5,310
edits
Changes
→Changing orders and agreements about guardianship and parental responsibilities
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(b) the remainder of the agreement remains effective.</tt></blockquote></blockquote>
==Changing guardianship== The ''[[Family Law Act]]'' has rules about who is presumed to be a guardian. When someone is presumed to be a guardian, that person ''is'' a guardian, without the need for an order. The only people who must have an order making them a guardian are the people who don't fit into those presumptions, including parents, relatives, and other people who have established a caring relationship with a child. Under section 51(1) of the ''Family Law Act'', the court may make an order ''appointing'' someone as a guardian of a child or make an order ''terminating'' someone's guardianship of a child. This section doesn't say what the court should consider when deciding whether to terminate someone's guardianship. However, section 37 (1) says that: <blockquote><tt>In making an agreement or order under this Part respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with a child, the parties and the court must consider the best interests of the child only.</tt></blockquote> Section 215 provides a general test to change orders that applies when that act doesn't provide a specific test to change orders and agreements about guardianship specific subjects: <blockquote><tt>... a court on application by a party may change, suspend or terminate an order, if there has been a change in circumstances since the order was made.</tt></blockquote> In other words, to vary an order appointing a person as guardian, the applicant will have to show that there has been a change in circumstances and parental responsibilities==explain why it is in the best interests of the child that the person be removed as guardian. XXXX
People who are guardians, whether by a court order or as a result of the presumptions of guardianship, manage the care and raising of a child by exercising ''parental responsibilities''. Under section 40(2) of the act, parental responsibilities are presumed to be shared by all guardians until an order or an agreement says otherwise, and section 40(3) says:
===Guardianship===
===Parental responsibilities===
Under both tests, the court must also consider why the proposed result would or wouldn't be in the best interests of the child.
XXX old custody
A 1996 case of the Supreme Court of Canada called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1fr99 Gordon v. Goertz]'', [1996] 2 SCR 27, sets out the factors a court must consider when hearing an application to vary orders for custody or access made under the ''[[Divorce Act]]'':
*The parent applying for a change in the custody or access order must first prove that there has been a material change in the circumstances affecting the child.
*If this threshold is met, the judge on the application must make a fresh assessment about what is in the best interests of the child, considering all of the relevant facts relating to the child's needs and the ability of each parent to satisfy the child's needs.
*This assessment is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order, as well as the new circumstances.
*The assessment does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the parent with whom the child mostly lives, although that parent's views are entitled to great respect.
*The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests, rights, and entitlements of the parents.
In other words, the applicant must show that there has been a serious change in circumstances that affects the child's best interests before a court will even consider the application. Once this hurdle is crossed, the court will look at all of the circumstances before making a decision, as if the case was being heard for the first time. Most importantly, this means that there is no automatic presumption in favour of the status quo.
Cases where an order for custody has been varied include circumstances such as where:
*The change is in the best interests of the children in the long run.
*The parent with the children's primary residence has attempted to alienate the children from the other parent.
*The parent with the children's primary residence has repeatedly frustrated the other parent's access to the children.
*The child has been apprehended by child protection workers.
*The child has been abused by the parent whom the child primarily lives with.
*A mature child has expressed a wish to live with the other parent.
The courts are unlikely to change custody where the children are happy in an existing stable and secure setting.
==Changing orders and agreements about access, parenting time and contact==