Some days in family law remind lawyers exactly why they chose this path.
In February 2026, Mr. Hansra had the pleasure of representing his client in the Supreme Court of British Columbia as they fought to restore his relationship with his two daughters, ages 11 and 8, whom he had not seen since October. The parties had been living separate and apart since January 2019, with the children primarily residing with their mother in Penticton and seeing their father in the Lower Mainland every long weekend of the month.
Mr. Hansra’s client is a parent who never gave up. When he was offered the erasure of his $1,200 monthly child support obligation in exchange for consenting to his daughters’ adoption by their mother’s new partner, he refused. His children were not for sale. His role in their lives was not negotiable.
The mother had brought her own application seeking to suspend parenting time, citing historical allegations of substance abuse. However, Associate Judge Nielsen noted that these allegations dated back years, with no official notation of any concerns since 2019. Multiple MCFD investigations had concluded there were no safety concerns with respect to the father’s parenting time.
The evidence before the court painted a troubling picture. Handwritten letters from years past showed the daughters reaching out to their father, voicing concern that their mother might not approve of them doing so. More recent, typed messages, purportedly from the children explaining why they no longer wanted to see their father, raised serious red flags. The court was sceptical, noting that one message referenced the adoption issue, something an 11 and 8-year-old should never have been drawn into. Associate Judge Nielsen found this to be evidence of the mother enlisting the children into the dispute between the parties.
Associate Judge Nielsen did not mince words:
“In my view, there has been a concerted effort to thwart the claimant’s, parenting time and there is evidence here that smells of attempted alienation.”
Parental alienation is one of the most insidious dynamics in family law, where children are enlisted into a dispute that should remain between adults, and where a loving parent is slowly erased from their lives.
The court granted Mr. Hansra’s application on behalf of his client. The parenting time order was declared to remain in full force. Reunification counselling was ordered so that the children could discuss their feelings with a neutral third party, and both parents could work toward meaningful behaviour modification. The mother was ordered to attend specialized independent counselling session. A $2,000 fine was imposed for non-compliance, though it can be set aside if the mother participates in the counselling process. The mother’s applications for a Hear the Child Report and appointment of counsel for the children were dismissed. Costs were awarded to Mr. Hansra’s client.
Family law can be emotionally draining. Family law lawyers carry their clients’ pain, witness relationships fracture, and see children caught in the middle of adult conflict. There are days when the weight of it is heavy. But then there are days like this one, when a parent learns he will see his daughters again. For Mr. Hansra, this is what makes it worth it.