Young v. Young

Young versus young is a 1993 court case in family law between two parents involving their child. The issue based religious practices in the families causing a rift between the parents and concerning custody agreements when it came to practicing religious beliefs. The specific disagreement was based around, converting their daughter to Jehovah's Witness belief systems. There are several topics of discussion around this court case including the results of the people involved and why it is significant.The reasoning behind it being discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada was that the child's freedom to religion was under question in these particular divorce proceedings. The case started in British Columbia but then was taken to the Canadian Supreme Court .

The case involved Joan and Dave Young and their children. The case was made on the basis that Dave Young the child's father wanted their children to be converted to Jehovah's Witnesses. Joan Young(Mother) did not believe that it was in the best interest of the children and took the father to court. The reason that this court case was important was because it would determine the religious values that the child is allowed to grow up with; “A custody award is a matter of whose decisions to prefer, as opposed to which decisions to prefer. Courts cannot make the necessary day‑to‑day decisions which affect the best interests of the child. Once a court has determined who is the appropriate custodial parent, it must presume that that parent will act in the best interests of the child.”( Paragraph 2 Section best interest of the child, Supreme Court judgments Document). Ultimately the best interests of the child were determined by age psychology and whether or not the child was abused; “The best interests of the child cannot be equated with the mere absence of harm: it encompasses a myriad of considerations. Courts must attempt to balance such considerations as the age, physical and emotional constitution and psychology of both the child and his or her parents and the particular milieu in which the child will live.”( Section 2 best interests of the child Supreme Court Document paragraph 7). I ultimately believe that the father was in the right throughout this proceedings and that you should have been allowed to introduce his religion to his offspring. The court trial ultimately took six and a half years.

The conclusion of the court trial ultimately was that the father was allowed to discuss his religion with his children even though he did not have custody of them. This also contributed to the child's right to choose which allowed the children to be able to make decisions.Ultimately the wife was not awarded a lump sum and no massive changes were made in their custody.This court case brought into question the rights and freedoms of religion when it came to divorce and the practice of religion with children. This court case changed some of the rights that children had around custody agreements. Ultimately, the rights to associate with their father allowed them to have the right to religion which is an essential part of the Charter of Rights and freedom.

In conclusion this has significant importance in family law because it shows the overlap between parental rights and the rights that children possess in Canada. This result of more freedom for the child is extremely important because it fits with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This holds much significance to me as I am a child and being alone. Having my rights to associate with whatever parental figure I feel like is extremely important.