FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Any time! I have drawn on my years of experience in assessment, report writing, and service provision to develop a model and workflow that advances services in a reasonable timeframe while also doing so in a clinically-appropriate way.

Using technology to our advantage, intakes can be completed at any time (see more below). The parties must also agree to terms such as having their appointments/sessions and timeline assigned to them (with reasonable advance notice, of course!). This holds everyone accountable, and eases up scheduling constraints (pauses, cessation, urgency, etc…) to ensure that these services can now be provided at any time and are not subject to volume restrictions.

Estimated timelines are provided on the individual service pages accessible from the “Services” page. These estimates are provided for planning purposes only, and assume timely completion of intake requirements, receipt of required documentation, reasonable cooperation from all involved, and adherence to the terms of the Client Engagement Framework & Expectations (available on the “Resources” page).

Estimated timelines are not guarantees and may be adjusted where clinical judgment, ethical obligations, scheduling constraints, or case complexity require. Services proceed at a pace that supports accuracy, fairness, and professional standards rather than externally-imposed deadlines, though the timelines provided should in most instances be fairly accurate with scheduling and programming requirements imposed upon the participants.

Regardless of the type of service being requested, intakes can be completed at any time. You can request an Estimate (or multiple Estimates) using the Request an Estimate form available on each Service page. Simply navigate to the “Services” page, and select the type of service you are looking for. You will need to submit one (1) form per Estimate request. Multiple Estimates are helpful if you are unsure exactly what service you are seeking, would like to explore or compare options, or require them for a court appearance, mediation, arbitration, negotiation, or consultation with family, co-parents, other parties, or counsel. You will receive a formal Estimate(s) by e-mail only if you are approved for service, though you will be notified either way. If approved, the e-mail will contain a link to complete an intake form, sign the Professional Services Agreement & Non-Disclosure Agreement, and remit the necessary deposit.

 Once you have completed this portion, and the opposing party(ies) have as well, you will be assigned an appointment date/time to complete your intake session, typically at least two (2) weeks in advance. Additional appointments and timelines are set after the intake process is completed. This is done to ensure timely completion, maintain procedural momentum, and avoid delay.

The client-directed intake process itself is essentially on-demand. The entire intake process should take no more than two (2) weeks. During holiday periods, school breaks, statutory observances, or other seasonal closures, additional time may be required.

The services provided by this office are not urgent or drop-in. We are not a crisis centre and we do not operate as one. Many people message expecting immediate service (i.e. “I can bring my children tomorrow”), however legally, ethically, and procedurally this is simply not possible, nor would it be clinically-appropriate. For more information on timelines, please review each service type from the “Services” page.

Yes! In the proper order. A report or assessment can be completed first, and in many cases this is the preferred approach. Completing a report or assessment before any clinical work begins allows the clinician (or future clinicians) to remain neutral and independent, and provides a clear snapshot of the unique circumstances of the individual(s) or family(ies) from the outset, without having to start from scratch prior to moving in to direct service(s).

Once reunification, co-parenting, or child/family/individual services begin, the clinician moves into a clinically-supportive role rather than an assessor or a reporter. At that point, writing a report could create real or perceived bias (unfairness), and a conflict of roles. For these reasons, reports or assessments should not be not written after clinical services have been provided, except under unique circumstances (such as providing updates or recommendations to legal counsel, the court, other experts, etc…).

Completing the report first often strengthens any services that follow by clarifying issues early on, setting appropriate expectations, and reducing later disputes or concerns about bias or credibility. Further, reports completed before clinical involvement/intervention are far less likely to be challenged for bias or dual-role concerns.

Leanne Toews has over 30 years of experience working with children, youth, and families in complex, court-involved, and high-conflict matters.

Over these decades of practice, she has observed the full spectrum of dynamics that commonly arise in these situations. Parents, parties (and sometimes lawyers) often arrive with strong emotions, competing narratives, and a belief that their circumstances are entirely unique. To be clear: these patterns are familiar, expected, and do not influence professional judgment.

Attempts to influence the process (whether through reassurance-seeking, alignment, persuasion, minimization, exaggeration, victim positioning, or appeals to exceptionalism), are neither unusual, nor are they effective. These services are not shaped by who paid for them, who is more agreeable, who is more distressed, who is more resistant, or who is more convincing.

Professional conclusions are formed independently, based on the information gathered, clinical judgment and experience, and applicable standards, not on advocacy, pressure, or personal identification. This experience matters precisely because it allows the process to remain consistent, neutral, and resistant to manipulation, and protects the integrity of the work, the child(ren) involved, and the reliability of the outcome(s).

Many families are navigating significant financial pressure(s). Clinical and reporting services, legal advice, and court involvement are costly, and these realities can create genuine barriers to access. I am mindful of this and do not approach payment discussions without consideration of the broader economic context.

Clients are welcome to propose a payment arrangement that they believe they can reasonably manage. There is no single prescribed structure. However, any proposed arrangement must meet the following requirements:

• The client must propose an arrangement including specific dates and amounts;

• The arrangement must be reasonable and time-limited, and generally should not extend beyond two to three months;

• The arrangement must not be intended to delay, stall, or indefinitely defer services or proceedings (it will not be accepted); and,

• All payments must be made on time and in the agreed amounts, unless advance notice is provided explaining:

  • why a payment cannot be made as scheduled,

  • what alternative amount (if any) will be paid, and

  • when regular payments will resume.

It is the client’s responsibility to keep my office informed of any payment issues. I have no desire to take on the role of pursuing or chasing overdue payments, and payment arrangements that rely on follow-up, reminders, or enforcement are not appropriate. Failure to adhere to an agreed payment arrangement, or failure to communicate proactively, may result in services being paused, declined, or terminated, consistent with the Professional Services Agreement.

Possibly. Coverage depends entirely on the specific terms of your extended health benefits plan, and clients are responsible for confirming coverage directly with their insurer before proceeding.

As a starting point, you should confirm whether your plan includes coverage for services from a Registered Clinical Counsellor (RCC). Direct clinical counselling provided by an RCC is often covered, at least in part, under many extended health plans, subject to annual limits, per-session caps, or reimbursement percentages.

It is also important to review what types of services are covered. While some plans reimburse direct clinical counselling, most extended health plans do not cover report writing, assessments, court-related services, or other non-therapeutic professional services. Coverage for these types of services is uncommon. A description of the various services offered can be found on the “Services” page and should be reviewed carefully when confirming benefits.

Where coverage is available, reimbursement is typically handled by the insurer after payment, although direct billing may be available in some circumstances, depending on the provider and the structure of the plan.

For reference, extended health plans commonly eligible for direct billing include (but are not limited to) providers such as:

• Pacific Blue Cross

• Canada Life (including PSHCP)

• Manulife Financial

• Desjardins Insurance

• Equitable

• Sun Life / TELUS Adjudicare

• Green Shield (GMS)

• Chambers of Commerce Group Insurance

• ClaimSecure

• Simply Benefits

• Beneva

• Cowan

• GroupHEALTH / GroupSource

• Union and trade-based benefit plans (where applicable)

This list is not exhaustive, and eligibility for direct billing or reimbursement varies by plan, employer, and policy details.

If you are unsure, it is recommended you contact your insurer/plan administrator directly to ask:

• whether services provided by a Registered Clinical Counsellor (RCC) are covered;

• what service types are eligible for reimbursement;

• whether reports or assessments are included/excluded; and,

• whether direct billing is supported under your plan.

To be clear from the outset: parental alienation is not a formal mental-health diagnosis in any regular or clinical form, and there is no “gold-standard” assessment that, on its own, can determine whether parental alienation is present. The concept remains clinically- and legally-contested, with varying definitions and thresholds across jurisdictions, disciplines, and the Courts. Requesting a specific report or assessment pertaining to parental alienation is ill-advised.

That all said, with a reputable and clinically-experienced report writer or author, it becomes quite apparent in standardized reporting and assessments whether or not there is influence on a child or children, and in what way. Please refer to the question regarding using a psychologist or lawyer to prepare a report or provide services for futher details.

NO! Children cannot be provided with services without a court order or the informed consent of both parents or legal guardians. Claims to the contrary (or a clinician not asking for consent) are inconsistent with professional and legal standards and warrant further scrutiny.

This is common, and anticipated. Participation in services is voluntary unless ordered by the Court. Even then, the reality of our current legal system is such that someone cannot be compelled to attend sessions, participate in service, or provide contributions to a deposit or other payment without extreme measures being put in place. Where one parent is unwilling, resistant, or slow to engage, services proceed only to the extent that it is appropriate and permissible to do so.

Attempts to delay, avoid, or control the process are recognized and documented, but they do not result in shortcuts, assumptions, or pressure being applied to the child(ren) involved, where applicable. The pace and direction of the work remain guided by professional judgment, not by one parent’s cooperation (or lack thereof).

Where non-participation materially affects what can be completed, this is addressed transparently to all involved. In some cases, services may pause, conclude, or be redirected, with implications clearly outlined/documented. In most cases, stalling does not create an advantage to either party and is often a detriment to the party creating delay, as the process does not reward delay, nor does it compensate for it by accelerating elsewhere.

This is a very common concern, and you are not expected to determine on your own what type of service or report is most appropriate.

When parents feel that a child’s voice should be heard (but are unsure how, or in what forum), early, child-focused intervention is often the most appropriate starting point. In many cases, this can help clarify needs, reduce escalation, and support children before matters become more entrenched or court-driven. Despite the legal requirement to consider children’s views, they are often overlooked or difficult to access early in proceedings. 

In British Columbia, the Early Intervention Program offered by the Society for Children and Youth of BC (SCY) is a free, accessible service designed to bring the child’s voice into the family law process at an early stage.

In the program, a lawyer from SCY’s Child and Youth Legal Centre, acting as “children’s duty counsel,” meets with the child to provide legal information about their right to be heard; explain the different options for participation (which may include any of the services I offer such as a Hear the Child Report, Views of the Child Report, a Section 211 Parenting Assessment, and so on), and then advise the parents and/or the Court on the child’s preferred method of participation (if any).

If you are uncertain about next steps, please review my website further, and visit the “Resources” page for direct links to explanations of the Early Intervention Program tailored to both Parents and the General Public.

Yes, in most circumstances, but not in all cases.

Remote (virtual, by video) interviews may be appropriate depending on the child’s age, developmental-stage, attention span, communication style, and emotional readiness, as well as the purpose of the interview(s). While many children and youth are comfortable with technology, that does not automatically mean they are able to engage meaningfully or reliably in a remote interview.

Where remote interviews are considered, steps are taken to ensure the child can participate freely, privately, and without influence. This includes assessing the environment, confirming who is present (with the child’s confirmation), and determining whether the format supports accurate understanding rather than convenience. These can take place in a neutral and secure location such as a private room at a library, a counsellor’s office, a lawyer’s office, or the like, with agreement from the party(ies).

For some children, particularly younger children, highly-distressed children, or those with attention, sensory, or regulatory challenges, in-person interviews are clinically preferable. In other cases, a combination of remote and in-person contact may be utilized.

Parents sometimes attempt to determine in advance that a child is unable to participate or requires “special handling”. While these concerns are noted, determinations about interview format and suitability rest with the clinician, not the parties. This ensures that decisions are based on the child’s actual presentation and needs, rather than assumptions, advocacy, or protective positioning.

The decision to interview remotely is based on what best supports the child’s ability to be heard clearly and safely, not on adult preference or logistical ease, and are not guided by parental characterizations or narratives.

Yes! Services may be declined (or discontinued) in situations where proceeding would be clinically-inappropriate, ethically-impermissible, legally-restricted, or operationally-unworkable. This includes, but is not limited to, circumstances where:

• there is no court order or required consent to proceed;

• the request falls outside the scope of services offered;

• the matter is being pursued for strategic, tactical, or litigation-driven purposes rather than child- or relationship-centred or therapeutic ones;

• the level of conflict, safety concerns, or boundary issues make the work clinically untenable;

• there has been misrepresentation, non-disclosure, or misuse of services;

• required administrative steps (i.e. intakes, agreements, deposits, scheduling, etc…) are not completed; and/or

• professional independence or neutrality cannot be reasonably maintained.

A decision to decline or discontinue services is not punitive. It reflects professional judgment, ethical obligations, and the responsibility to ensure services are appropriate, defensible, and in the best interests of those involved, primarily children.

Children vary significantly in how they communicate, process information, and feel comfortable sharing their views.

Time is allotted in a standardized format to reasonably complete interviews; however, some children/youth are more talkative, require additional rapport-building, need breaks, and/or may benefit from returning on a different day to reflect and organize their thoughts. In other cases, review or clarification sessions may take longer than initially anticipated to ensure the child/youth’s views are accurately understood and responsibly documented.

Where additional time is clinically indicated, services may extend beyond the initial estimate. This is not inefficiency – it reflects a child-centred, developmentally-appropriate approach that prioritizes accuracy, emotional safety, and professional integrity over rigid time constraints. Considerations also include neurodivergence, developmental differences, anxiety, learning differences, or other cognitive or emotional factors that may affect pacing, structure, and the number of sessions or interviews required.

Rest assured, with over 30 years of experience working with children and families, appropriate accommodations are routinely made, and parental involvement in sessions or interviews is rarely required.

It is critical to recognize from the outset that there is no fixed timeline, and no family is the same – anyone who promises one should be approached with caution.

Following separation or divorce, children and youth process loss, loyalty conflicts, fear, and anger in age-and stage-specific (and circumstantial) ways. Reunification work moves at the child’s pace, not the adult’s urgency or their desire(s). Rushing to “just meet” or forcing contact before a child is emotionally prepared is rarely successful and often sets the process back significantly or irreparably.

Early stages of reunification typically focus on assessment, preparation, and stabilization – not immediate contact. This may feel slow or frustrating, particularly for a disconnected parent(s), but patience is essential. Pressuring the process, involving lawyers in clinical decision-making, or seeking court intervention to accelerate timelines often increases resistance and undermines trust rather than improving outcomes. It is often helpful to picture yourself as a young person being told they “have” to do something – how would you have reacted? Exactly.

Reunification is most effective when it is carefully-paced, developmentally-appropriate, and responsive to the child’s readiness. The goal is not quick contact, but safe, sustainable, and meaningful reconnection.

Reunification is a process, not a guarantee. When progress stalls or reunification is not clinically achievable within a reasonable timeframe (keeping in mind this may take 2-3 years!), the focus shifts to understanding why and preventing further harm. This may include reassessing readiness, identifying barriers, and determining whether continued efforts are in the child’s best interest(s) at that particular time. This may also mean exploring options about sion to determine what distance-based contact methods could or should be developed (i.e. letter-writing and other non-intrusive communication, among other strategies to remain “visible” or “findable” without having to resort to other potentially harmful or regressive methods).

Not all separations can or should be repaired through reunification services. In some cases, pausing or concluding services is the most responsible clinical decision, particularly where continued attempts increase distress, resistance, or emotional harm to the child(ren).

Where appropriate, findings may be documented, recommendations clarified, and next steps identified. This may include guidance for future reassessment, alternative supports, or conditions under which reunification could be revisited. To be clear: ending or pausing reunification is not a failure. It reflects professional judgment, respect for the child(ren)’s experience(s), and a commitment to doing no further harm.

Materials may be reviewed where they are relevant, verifiable, and agreed-upon in advance.

Text messages and written records are generally reviewable, as they can be authenticated and organized for disclosure. Video and audio recordings are not reviewed or accepted for review, as their authenticity, completeness, and context cannot be reliably verified.

Legal and other documents (including affidavits, pleadings, court orders, assessments, prior reports, etc…) should be identified and agreed upon at the outset, ideally with input from legal counsel and all parties, to ensure the scope of review is clear and appropriate. Parties and legal counsel are encouraged to request input prior to sending documents/materials unsolicited.

Clients are expected to be selective and organized. Large or unfocused disclosure packages significantly increase review time, may extend timelines, and are subject to the applicable fees and rates outlined in the Fee Schedule (available on the “Resources” page).

Unmanaged or excessive disclosure is unhelpful and will not accelerate the process. Clear agreement on what will be reviewed supports efficiency, fairness, and defensible outcomes. Providing unsolicited documents, materials, and/or statements prior to your matter being accepted may result in a denial of service.

Children are met with in a manner that is age-and stage-appropriate, respectful, and paced to their individual needs. Time is taken to explain the process in plain language, establish rapport, and ensure the child understands why they are there and what will happen next. I have been doing this for a long time, don’t worry!

Interviews are structured to support emotional safety without pressure to perform, please, or choose sides. Breaks are offered as needed, questions are adjusted based on the child’s communication style, and the environment (whether it is in person or remote), is assessed to ensure privacy and freedom from influence.

Comfort does not mean avoidance of difficult topics, nor does it mean adults managing the interaction. It means creating conditions in which the child can speak freely, be heard accurately, and disengage from adult conflict. Sometimes, there is no response, and that’s okay – they are only asked for their opinion and sometimes they don’t have one! No one is forced to come up with a response that is not genuine.

Professional judgment (not parental direction) guides how interviews are conducted, how long they last, and whether additional time is required.

Influence and coaching are assessed as part of a generalized clinical process, however they are not determined by any single statement or behaviour.

Children communicate in many ways, and factors such as loyalty conflicts, anxiety, repetition of adult language, inconsistencies, or rigidity of narratives are considered in context, alongside the child’s age, development, emotional state, and overall presentation.

Where indicators of possible influence are observed, this is approached cautiously and responsibly. Conclusions are not rushed, simplified, or framed in accusatory terms. The goal is to understand how a child is experiencing and expressing their views, not to label, interrogate, or assign blame.

It is also important to understand that influence exists on a spectrum and is not always intentional. For this reason, findings are based on patterns, consistency, and clinical judgment over time, rather than on isolated comments or parental concerns.

Determinations about influence are made independently and are not shaped by a parent’s suspicions, reassurance-seeking, or expectations about what should be found.

Specialized family law clinical and reporting services I offer sit at the intersection of child development, family systems, court processes, and real-world implementation. Different professionals bring different expertise, and the most appropriate choice depends on the purpose of the service(s) being sought.

Lawyers are trained to advocate, advise on legal strategy, interpret legislation, and represent clients in court. While some lawyers pursue additional professional development related to child-inclusive practice, such as seminars or training focused on interviewing children, these programs are supplementary in nature. Such training can (and often does) enhance legal practice, but it does not replace the depth of skill, judgment, and clinical fluency developed through years of direct work with children and families. Lawyers do not receive clinical training in child development, trauma, attachment, or therapeutic intervention, nor do they provide ongoing clinical services to children.

Psychologists are highly trained in psychological testing, diagnosis, and formal assessment, and their expertise is essential in matters requiring standardized testing or diagnostic clarification. Their work is often time-limited and evaluative, rather than rooted in sustained, hands-on involvement with families navigating high-conflict separation, court processes, and evolving family dynamics.

Family services professionals with extensive clinical experience bring a different (and often more directly applicable/relevant) perspective to this work:

• A deep understanding of child development across ages and stages;

• Extensive experience working within high-conflict and court-involved family systems;

• Ongoing, applied experience interviewing and working with children in context, not in isolation;

• Clinical judgment informed by patterns observed over time, rather than single-point assessments; and,

• Practical insight into how recommendations actually function in families’ day-to-day lives.

This work is less about assigning diagnoses or advancing legal positions, and more about understanding children’s lived experiences, assessing relational dynamics as they operate in reality, and providing developmentally informed, clinically grounded input that can be meaningfully applied for parents and children in support of informed decision-making in family law proceedings. It is not intended to fuel them.

For families and courts seeking child-centred, practical, and clinically informed services, a seasoned family services professional offers a depth of perspective that cannot be replicated through legal advocacy or short-form training alone.

Possibly. Whether a new partner/spouse is interviewed depends on their role in the child’s day-to-day life, not their relationship status with a parent.

If a new partner/spouse lives in the home, acts in a parenting or caregiving capacity, or spends significant and regular time with the child(ren), it may be clinically appropriate to include them as part of the information-gathering process.

The rationale is straightforward: children experience their family systems as they actually function, not as they are defined on paper. Adults who are consistently present in a child’s life can influence routines, boundaries, emotional climate, and relational dynamics (positively, neutrally, or negatively) whether or not they are a legal parent.

Including such individuals can help to:

• Clarify household structure and caregiving roles;

• Understand the child’s lived environment across homes;

• Assess consistency, transitions, and relational patterns;

• Reduce reliance on second-hand or assumption-based information; and,

• Ensure conclusions are grounded in direct, balanced input, rather than speculation or allegation.

An interview with a new partner/spouse is not an evaluation of their character, nor does it confer parental status or legal standing. It is a limited, purpose-specific inquiry aimed at understanding the child(ren)’s broader relational context.

In high-conflict matters, requests to include or exclude new partners/spouses are sometimes driven by adult dynamics rather than child-centred considerations. For clarity, individuals are not interviewed simply because a party wishes to scrutinize, validate, or challenge another adult’s relationship. Inclusion is based on clinical relevance to the child(ren)’s experience, not on parental disagreement, suspicion, or litigation strategy.

Where a new partner/spouse has minimal or incidental contact with the child(ren), involvement is typically unnecessary. As with all aspects of this work, decisions about who is included are guided by clinical judgment, the child(ren)’s developmental stage, and the specific questions being addressed, rather than by adult preference, pressure, or objection.

Possibly, but participation is not automatic and is not determined by adult preference or objection.

Whether a new partner/spouse participates in services depends on clinical relevance to the child(ren)’s experience and the purpose of the service(s) being provided. In some cases, limited involvement may be appropriate where a new partner/spouse lives in the home, functions in a parenting capacity or caregiving role, or has substantial and ongoing involvement in the child(ren)’s day-to-day life.

In other cases, participation by a new partner/spouse may not be clinically necessary and may risk shifting the focus away from the child or introducing adult dynamics that do not meaningfully assist the work.

The clinician retains discretion to decline or limit interviews or services with other participants that are not clinically necessary or that risk diverting the process from its child-focused purpose.

Participation, where it occurs, is purpose-specific and limited. As in the case with interivews, it does not confer parental status, legal standing, or a broader role in the process, nor is it intended to validate or scrutinize adult relationships.

As with all aspects of service delivery, decisions regarding participation are guided by clinical judgment, the child(ren)’s developmental stage, and the specific questions being addressed, rather than by conflict between adults or litigation strategy.