Parenting Arrangements During COVID-19 (2020 BC Archive)

Author: SiLaw Group Family Lawyers
Date: Mar 27, 2020
Reading Time: 4 min read

Archival note (updated August 2026): This article describes the situation as of 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Court operations have long since returned to normal. It is preserved for reference; for current procedures, see our recent articles or contact us.

---

What Dr. Elterman Recommended in March 2020

On March 26, 2020, Dr. Michael F. Elterman, a British Columbia psychologist with 30 years of practice focused on court reports for family cases and serving as a consultant to the Attorney-General of BC, released recommendations on conducting parenting time during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These were recommendations from a psychologist, not law, and they were written for the conditions of that spring. The emergency court measures of the same period have since ended — the Provincial Court's COVID-19 notice, NP 19 (issued March 19, 2020 and effective March 25, 2020, and later retitled Court Operations During COVID-19), was last amended effective April 11, 2022 and expired on July 18, 2022. For how parenting schedules are set and shared in BC today, see our guide to shared parenting arrangements in British Columbia.

Key Guiding Principles

Dr. Elterman outlined three priority criteria:

1. The child's best interest including their health and safety and the health and safety of their caregivers
2. The potential to increase community transmission of the virus
3. The rights of the parents for parenting time (fairness is less important than the first two given the circumstances)

He emphasized that "the child's best interest including their health and safety" must be paramount, and that arrangements are not static and can be re-evaluated based on virus transmission changes and Medical Health Officer orders.

Risk Factors That Called for Disclosure or Suspension

The recommendations identified specific situations that, in March 2020, were treated as increasing transmission risk. None of them reflect current public health guidance:

(1) Contact with infected parties: If a parent had had contact with an infected person, they were to disclose this immediately to the other parent.

(2) Parental illness: If a parent was infected, had symptoms, or needed testing for COVID-19, they were not to take the child.

(3) Vulnerable household members: If a parent's home included older family members or immunocompromised individuals, the child was not to be in that home.

(4) Social gatherings: There were to be no playdates, and the child was not to attend family or social gatherings.

(5) Public venues: If parenting time took place in public places such as community centres, malls, or restaurants, it was to be suspended.

(6) Third-party supervision: If a supervisor was required who was not the parent's spouse living in the home, parenting time was to be suspended.

(7) Essential service workers: If either parent or anyone in the household worked in essential services or with the public (doctors, nurses, supermarket workers, pharmacy staff, flight attendants, and the like), that was treated as an increased risk to the child.

Alternative Communication Methods

When parenting time was not possible due to risk or distance, Dr. Elterman recommended generous use of video communication tools including FaceTime, Skype, or WhatsApp, allowing parents to read stories, chat, or watch television with children remotely.

Restructuring Parenting Schedules

For longer parenting arrangements, he suggested considering:

• Physical capacity: Who could better accommodate the child in isolation if not in school or daycare, including indoor space and entertainment
• Reducing transitions: Converting schedules like "2-2-3" (alternating two days with one parent, two days with the other, alternating weekends) to "week-on and week-off" arrangements to minimize travel and transitions

Legal Documentation Considerations

Dr. Elterman advised that decisions should be documented with legitimate reasons demonstrating they serve the child's best interests and align with Provincial Medical Health Officer guidelines to limit transmission risk, while remaining consistent with existing court orders and agreements.

He concluded: "This is not a time for emotional reasoning or considerations of fairness to either parent."

That last point is the part that outlasted the pandemic. Under section 62 of BC's Family Law Act, a denial of parenting time is not wrongful only in the circumstances that section lists — one of which is that the child was suffering from an illness when the parenting time was to be exercised and the guardian has a written statement from a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner indicating that it was not appropriate that the parenting time be exercised. The list also ends with a residual category: "other circumstances the court considers to be sufficient justification for the denial." A general worry about illness, without that documentation, does not meet the illness exception.

---

What a Section 211 Report Is

Dr. Elterman's family law work included preparing reports under section 211 of the Family Law Act, headed "Orders respecting reports." Under that section, for the purposes of a proceeding under Part 4 (Care of and Time with Children), a court may appoint a person to assess one or more of the needs of a child, the views of a child, and the ability and willingness of a party to satisfy the needs of the child. The person appointed must be a family justice counsellor, a social worker, or another person approved by the court.

---

Talk to a Surrey Family Lawyer

If you are dealing with a parenting arrangement now — rather than the 2020 rules described above — the lawyers at SiLaw Group Family Lawyers & Mediators can review your order or agreement and explain the options open to you. Call (778) 381-9977 or book a free 30-minute consultation with a Surrey family lawyer, by phone, by video, or in person at our Surrey office.