An arrangement doesn’t hold up because it’s fair to one parent — it holds up because it serves the child. Parenting time and decision-making responsibility, along with guardianship where it applies, are decided under a single legal standard: the best interests of the child. No arrangement, including an even split of time, is presumed correct from the outset.
What the Best-Interests Test Weighs
Under the federal Divorce Act, section 16(1) makes best interests the only consideration a court may take into account when making a parenting order — not one factor among several, the sole one. Section 16(2) goes further, directing the court to give primary consideration specifically to the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being, ahead of every other factor.
Section 16(3) then sets out the non-exhaustive list courts and negotiating parents alike must consider, including:
The child’s needs, given their age and stage of development, including their need for stability The nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, siblings, grandparents, and any other significant person in the child’s life Each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent The history of who has actually cared for the child day to day The child’s own views and preferences, given appropriate weight for their age and maturity The child’s cultural, linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing and heritage Each parent’s ability and willingness to care for and meet the child’s needs Any history of family violence and its impact on the child’s safety
No factor automatically outweighs the others — the weight given to each depends entirely on your family’s specific facts. Section 16(6) also codifies what’s sometimes called the maximum contact principle: a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with their best interests — but this is a guiding principle, not a presumption of equal time, and courts have been clear it doesn’t create any entitlement to a 50/50 split.
Two Legal Frameworks, One Standard
Married parents going through a divorce have their parenting time and decision-making responsibility governed by the Divorce Act — specifically, parenting orders under section 16.1, and the allocation of decision-making responsibility (education, religion, major non-emergency health care, and major extracurricular decisions) under section 16.3.
BC’s Family Law Act governs guardianship and parenting arrangements for every parent in the province, married or not. Under section 39, a child’s parents are generally the child’s guardians while they live together and remain so after separation, unless a court orders otherwise. Section 40 sets out how parental responsibilities are allocated between guardians, and section 41 enumerates what those parental responsibilities actually include — day-to-day decisions, education and extracurricular decisions, health care decisions, and more. Section 37 sets out BC’s own best-interests test, closely mirroring the federal factors above.
Both frameworks apply the same best-interests standard — the difference is procedural (which statute and which court process applies), not a difference in what the decision-maker is actually looking for.
Where Arrangements Break Down Later
Parenting plans that look complete on paper often fail in practice for reasons that have little to do with the legal drafting:
The schedule wasn’t actually discussed with both parents before it was written Decision-making responsibility was left vague, leading to repeated disputes over school, medical, or religious decisions The plan didn’t account for how the child’s needs will change as they grow One parent never genuinely understood or agreed to the terms they signed
Why the Process Matters as Much as the Paperwork
A legally compliant plan and a workable plan aren’t automatically the same thing — an arrangement built only to satisfy legal minimums can still fall apart the first time real life tests it. Even the statutory factors above make this explicit: section 16(3)(g) of Divorce Act directs the court to consider each parent’s plans for the child’s care, not just a proposed schedule in isolation.
How Katrina Berube Law Handles Your Arrangement
Katrina Berube Law starts with the relationship between the parents, not a template schedule.
Communication before drafting — we facilitate honest discussion between both parents before a single term is written down, so the plan reflects real agreement, not just legal compliance.
Built for your child specifically — factors like school stability, developmental needs, and each parent’s actual role are weighed against your family’s circumstances under Divorce Act sections 16(3) and FLA section 37, not a standard checklist.
Compliant with both frameworks — whether your matter falls under the Divorce Act, the Family Law Act, or both, the arrangement is drafted to hold up under either, including the specific allocation of parental responsibilities required under FLA sections 40 and 41.
Built to be followed — a plan both parents helped shape is a plan both parents are more likely to actually live by, not just sign and set aside.
Serving Vancouver and clients across all of BC, Katrina Berube Law negotiates parenting arrangements grounded in your child’s best interests and built to last.