The court emphasized the child's best interests in evaluating the requested increase
The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled in favour of a sperm donor seeking increased parenting time under a multi-parent agreement.
The claimant, who entered into a multi-parent agreement with the respondents, a married couple, sought more time with the child born in 2022. The agreement, signed before the child's conception, stated that all parties would be legal parents, share guardianship, and divide parenting time equally. However, after the relationship between the parties deteriorated in 2022, the respondents restricted the claimant's contact with the child, citing concerns about his mental health and parenting abilities.
The Supreme Court rejected the respondents' request for a s. 211 Family Law Act (FLA) report to assess the claimant's parenting suitability, finding their concerns about his mental health unfounded. Evidence from the claimant's counsellor indicated that he had effectively addressed past depression and demonstrated emotional stability. The court also dismissed allegations of family violence, concluding that they were insufficient to limit parenting time.
In evaluating the claimant's request for increased parenting time, the court emphasized the child's best interests under s. 37 of the FLA. In its decision, the court wrote, "The multi-parent agreement provides that all three parties are the legal parents of the child and intend to share parenting time equally between them. Unless there is evidence upon which I can conclude otherwise, I am compelled to find that the child's health and emotional well-being will be enhanced by increasing his time with the child."
The court noted that a parenting time supervisor's report praised the claimant's growing parenting skills, noting his openness to feedback and improving confidence. The court found no evidence of risk to the child in the claimant's care.
The court ordered a gradual increase in the claimant's parenting time to allow the child to adjust to a new schedule. Starting in January, the claimant will have parenting time twice weekly, with arrangements transitioning to overnight visits by July.
The court also dismissed the respondents' request for compensation, rejecting their claim that the claimant failed to mediate disputes under the multi-parent agreement. The court found that the parties had attempted counselling and mediation without resolution and that the issues concerned the child's best interests rather than contractual terms.
