Money and property issues in family law cases are often very complex. It is typically a mix of property issues, spousal support claims, and figuring out how to apply the Child Support Guidelines to the facts. The result of financial disputes isn’t always a clear win or loss. More often it is simply a matter of preserving a good bottom line when it is over. . If your issue is one of preserving family assets, or saving on spousal support, or determining a fair amount for child support, ask us about our experience and success in such cases.
On the other hand, cases fighting the attempt of a parent to remove the other parent from the life of their child are more capable of being seen as a success or failure.
Here are some of our older cases involving children.
March 27 2017: Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia says in court: “Mr. Linde, one of your great qualities is you are a passionate advocate.”
A mother’s allegations of sexual abuse by a father against his daughter was emphatically dismissed in a Chambers application by a Supreme Court Judge.
In August 2004 a Supreme Court trial Judge ordered a 5-year-old child be parented week on / week off. The child’s mother had attempted to cut off the child from the father and his family.
We helped a father whose former wife had denied him any contact whatsoever with their young daughter for over 200 days by falsely accusing him of acting sexually inappropriately toward the child. Numerous other bizarre allegations were made. At trial in the spring the mother sought sole custody and very limited time for the father. The trial commenced for a couple of weeks, ran out of time, and the trial judge ordered the child to be parented over the summer on equal four-day rotations between the parents. That stayed in place late into the fall. When the trial recommenced the mother, perhaps reading the writing on the wall, agreed to equal time shared parenting. Joint custody was ordered as well.
The trial judge commented on the mother’s negative view of Carey Linde’s representation of his client:
“ It is necessary to comment upon her view of Mr. Linde’s involvement. It is true that he has taken an aggressive approach on behalf of his client. However, I conclude that he did so to ensure that his client’s role as the child’s parent was not undermined. Many of the steps that he took were taken in the face of a situation where his client was being denied the ability to see his child, and in which a medical practitioner was making important decisions about his daughter without his input. It cannot be said that Mr. Linde had an improper motive. Therefore, P.W.’s views about an improper motive, either on the part of Mr. Linde or K.W., were unreasonably held.”
Two boys, 8 and 6, were ordered after a trial to be parented week on /week off with joint custody.
A particularly difficult case – getting two young daughters ordered returned from their mother’s new home in Grand Forks back to their father in Ladner. We persuaded the judge that the mother’s allegations of sexual abuse by the father on one daughter was false and got the judge to reject completely a Section 15 custody report by a psychologist that had recommended sole custody to the mother with the father to have supervised access of his daughters in Grand Forks.
Two earlier cases – one an interim application in Chambers, and one after a nine-day trial – and in both got a shared parenting order for week on / week off and joint custody for our father clients, both with two daughters where the mothers sought sole custody with “access” to the father every other weekend.