It is rare for me to find that the information provided by children is not helpful. My experience has been that the discussion with children generates not only useful information, but is frequently a powerful tool in the continuing dialogue with the parents and social workers.
The IICRD team was deeply saddened by the recent passing of the Honourable Chief Judge Hugh Stansfield on May 7, 2009 from cancer.
The Chief Judge of the British Columbia Provincial Court was strongly committed to children in the justice system, and a friend and advisor to IICRD.
With a desire to improve the family court system for children and families, Chief Judge Stansfield generously volunteered from 2002 - 2009 as an advisor to IICRD's Hear the Child project advisory team. He strongly supported children and their rights including the right to have their views heard in judicial decision-making. "It is rare for me to find that the information provided by children is not helpful" he said. In 2005 he was appointed to the position of Chief Judge of the Provincial Court and continued his commitment to the project work up until his death.
The late Chief Judge also participated in IICRD conferences including Children as Partners in 2002 and Child Rights in Practice: Tools for Social Change in 2007 where he delivered a key note address on children's rights and the justice system. A special sitting of the Court was held in Chief Judge Stansfield's Honour in Vancouver on June 4, 2009 and attended by IICRD's Legal Director.
To read his obituary visit http://www.cba.org/BC/home/pdf/chief_judge_stansfield_obit.pdf
To read his biography visit http://www.cba.org/lawweek/media/2009/stansfield.aspx
Below is a letter Chief Judge Stansfield wrote for inclusion in Through the Eyes of Young People: Meaningful Child Participation in Family Justice Processes that outlined his experience in hearing from children.
July 20, 2006
Re: Contribution to the Views of the Child Project
I have been Chief Judge of the Provincial Court for just over a year, but have served as a judge of the court for over 13 years, regularly sitting throughout the province in all aspects of the court’s work. Over the years, but particularly since we instituted mediation-styled case conferences for child protection and family disputes in 1996 and 1998, I have fairly frequently interviewed children, whether because a) I sensed the dispute was such that the child might benefit from knowing someone in the process cared enough to talk to them, or b) I believed the child might have information which would contextualize or explain information I was receiving from the adversarial parents or the state, or c) I thought that discerning the interests and concerns of the child might become a useful tool in my continuing dialogue with the parents. On rare occasions, I have interviewed children in the context of trials, but there are considerable procedural challenges associated with that practice.
It is rare for me to find that the information provided by children is not helpful. My experience has been that the discussion with children generates not only useful information, but frequently a powerful tool in the continuing dialogue with the parents or social workers. So, for example, one can return to the parents after meeting privately with their daughter and the court clerk to say something along the lines, “You have a wonderful daughter and you both should be very proud of her. She is a credit to both of you. It is obvious to me that she loves you both very much. But as I talked to her and she told me about (various interests associated with school or recreational activities or extended family or whatever might be the issue), it made sense to imagine that for her right now, it would be best to have her home base with (mom or dad as the case may be.)” This creates an opportunity for the parent who may be the proposed secondary care giver to take the approach that the most loving response, and the way for that person to be the best parent she or he can be - quite independently of the conflict between mother and father - is to be respectful about these sensible considerations that have been identified by the child. In other cases I have found simply that children, and often relatively young children, have a degree of insight into the dynamics of the family unit that is far beyond what we might be inclined to imagine is their capacity. In my experience, hearing the views of children is almost always worthwhile.
At the same time, I have concluded that for a number of very good reasons the majority of judges do not wish to speak directly to children. It is important, therefore, that we develop not just other processes, but legislation or court rules to support such processes, through which the views of children are required to be secured in a much higher percentage of cases than happens today.
Yours sincerely,
Hugh C. Stansfield
Chief Judge, Provincial Court of British Columbia