Abusive Parents

In my practice of acting for disinherited people, I frequently encounter adult children who have been raised by abusive, even toxic parents. It comes with the territory.

I have frequently told clients that it takes absolutely no skill to become a parent, but takes a combination of lots of skill, love, dedication, and some luck to become a good parent and raise a functional family.

Probably most parents are not evil, they simply are people with the wrong set of tools to adequately raise a loving family.

Ironically, I have seen many cases where a mommy dearest for example, disinherits her children and leaves her estate to charities involving care for children.
Many of the parents in fact will state that they have no idea what they’ve done wrong, that they did everything for their children, and that they in fact are the victims. These are typically the parents that states “ I did everything for you, I brought you into this world and could take you out of it so fast her head would spin.”

I find this hard to believe in that many of these parents do in fact know what they did wrong, they were there, and they were the ones who acted abusively to their children.
The fact is that abusers are manipulative and manipulate their victims and the people around them.
Children do not want to break off the relationships with their parents, no matter what their age, but sometimes for their own medical well-being, they must.

 

                    Signs of Abusive Parental Behavior

 

1. Favouring One Child Over Another

Needless to say, this can lead to unfavoured children growing up with the distorted, negative view of themselves, and the favored child, the exact opposite.

2. Teasing and Humiliation

this can be as simple as teasing your child that they are overweight, ugly and other harsh statements that can seriously damage a child’s self-esteem. This is particularly the case if the child is put down in front of an audience.

3. Threatening Physical Violence

even if no physical harm is actually done, this kind of fear tactic is emotionally abusive and is very damaging in terms of inflicting emotional scars on the child.

 

4. Making Siblings Compete For Love and Approval

This abusive behavior actually encourages the pitting of one sibling against the other, and reinforces the lie that parental love should be earned. Instead of freely and unconditionally given

5. Being Absent

Ignoring a child emotionally and being absent from their lives can be extremely damaging to the child. Some children are in effect simply ignored.

6. Guilt Tripping

Some parents make their child feel guilty over the smallest things. It’s abuse when it occurs. For years, and possibly their entire life as the child will grow up fearing that he or she will disappoint their parent. This can lead to anxiety and depression and the constant fear of getting into trouble.

7. Perfectionism
some parents demand perfectionism in all aspects, whether it be school, behavior, extracurricular activities, and so forth. This can cause children to become excessively self-critical and undermine their confidence and self belief. This parent will typically never give praise even though well-deserved.

8. Invalidation

Invalidation is essentially ignoring the concerns of the child and telling them such things as back in my day we had it so much worse. It basically is a complete failure of the parent to be concerned and involved in their child’s development and growing pains.

9. Failure to Allow the Child to Communicate His/Her Needs

Similar to invalidation, this is the parental curbing of a child’s ability to speak for him or herself and express their needs and emotions.

10. Withholding or Making a Child Earn Basic Necessities

some parents deprive their children of basic needs, such as food, clothing, shelter and make the children feel guilty for receiving these things that a parent is in fact obligated to provide. These parents typically emphasize things like I feed you, I clothe the do, I don’t beat you, I put a roof over your head.

11. Lack of Privacy

Children need their own space in order to grow, and parental invasion of privacy, such as reading the child’s diary, searching through their cell phone, searching their room, and such can certainly cause friction between the parent and the child, let alone the child to become defensive, protective and secretive, even to the point of paranoia.

12. Using Religion for Shaming

The negative aspects of a strict shaming type religious upbringing are well known .

13. Conditional Love

When parent show love unconditionally. Children learn they are loved and wanted even when they make mistakes. However, when parents give love conditionally, children are taught the opposite and may struggle with perfectionism and trying to earn love.

14. Getting Back at the Other Parent

A well-known phenomena is when separated/divorced parents use children as pawns to inflict pain on the other parent. This may be as simple as using the children to get information about the other party, and denial of access, bad mouthing, and other abusive behaviors. In extreme examples. One parent may turn the children completely against the other, causing permanent estrangement.

15. Too Close For Comfort.

Some parents are simply too emotionally and even physically close to their children. Incest, of course, would be an extreme example, but this is rare. However, a relationship can be too close without it being sexual, and still have an abusive effect upon the child. `
16. Making the Child Who the Parent Wants Them to Be vs Who They Want to Be

While every parent will state that they want the best for their child, some deluded parents in their quest to have their children realize their potential. Try and mold their children and to who they think they should be, rather than who the child wants to be. I have had adults tell me that their parent picked their spouse, and demanded that they enter a certain profession, despite the unwillingness of the child to do so. Problems can arise when the child deviates from the parents. Ideal, and can result in rejection of the child. Many parents seem to have the view that a child lives to” make the parents proud” rather than the child simply be happy.

17. Verbal Abuse as Discipline

Although we all know the adage “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me”and, the reality is this is simply not true and that words do hurt. This is particularly the case when the person inflicting harm for words is a parent or adult in charge of protecting the child.

Executor Remuneration In Large Estates

There are surprisingly few decisions in British Columbia relating to the appropriate amount of remuneration for an executor of a large estate.

Re Chau estate 2016 BCJ No. 2843 dealt with a $16 million estate which was comprised primarily of half an interest in a house, and liquid investments.

While the estate was somewhat complex, the administrator had the assistance of lawyers and accountants, making in effect the administrator’s job relatively straightforward.

The executor claimed remuneration of $400,000 on an interim passing of accounts, consisting of a capital fee of $289,500, being 1.8% of $16 million, and the care and management fee of $111,000.

The opposing party submitted that $60,000 would be generous and this was calculated on the basis of 176 hours of work at $340 an hour.

The court reviewed the case law and awarded $150,000 raised on a quantum meruit basis.

Thus it could be said that just because the estate is large does not entitle an executor to an automatic “lottery win”.

 

THE LAW

 

 

The criteria to be considered in determining the appropriate amount of remuneration has been well settled law for over 100 years as per the leading case of return Toronto General Trust Corp. v. Central Ontario Railway Company (1905) 6 OWR 350 at 354

The criteria are:-

1) the magnitude of the estate

2) the care and responsibility involved

3) the time occupied in administering the trust of the estate

4) the skill and ability displayed

5) the success achieved in the final result

 

Re McColl estate (1967) 65 WWR 110 is another leading case on executor remuneration, and held that when assessing interim accounts, it would be inappropriate to award the full 5% to an executor, as adequate allowance has to be made for work yet to be done in a continuing estate, or by a successor administrator.

 

Remuneration does not need to be fixed as a percentage of the gross aggregate value of the estate, it may be calculated on a lump sum, provided it does not exceed 5% of the total value of the estate- Re Turley Estate (1955) 16 WWR 72 ( BCSC)

 

S. 88 of the Trustee Act is the prevailing statute in this regard:

88.(1) states:

“ A trustee under a deed, settlement or will, an executor or administrator, a guardian appointed by any court, a testamentary guardian, or any other trustee, however the trust is created, is entitled to, and it is lawful for the Supreme Court, or registrar of that court if so, directed by the court, to allow him or her a fair and reasonable allowance, not exceeding 5% of the gross aggregate value, including capital and income, of all the assets of the estate, by way of remuneration for his or her care, pains in trouble and his or her time spent in and about the trusteeship, executorship, guardianship or administration of the estate and effects of vested in him or her under any will or grant of administration, and administering, disposing of an arranging and settling the same, and generally and arranging in settling the affairs of the estate as the court, or registrar of the court if so, directed by the court thinks proper.

88. (3)

“ A person entitled to an allowance under subsection 1 may apply annually to the Supreme Court for a care and management fee and the court may allow a fee not exceeding 0.4% of the average market value of the assets.”

Occupation Rent Claims Need Ouster

Fritz v Paton 2020 BCSC 1541 reviewed the law relating to claims for occupation rent, which is usually brought as part of the claim for partition and sale.

The claim was dismissed as there was no evidence that the plaintiff demanded access to or possession of the property and was refused by the occupying co-owner. In fact, the evidence was that the plaintiff left on her own volition.

I have seen several such claims brought without having firstly considered whether or not there has been “ouster”-a demand for use and occupancy of premises by one joint owner and the refusal of same by another co owner in possession.

At para. 28 of Bernard v. Bernard (1987), 12 B.C.L.R. (2d) 75 (S.C.), the court stated:

“unless there is ouster, an occupying owner will not be charged for his or her occupation unless he or she claims an allowance for his or her expenses. There is an obvious logic to this. It would be unfair to advance a claim for contributions towards the cost of maintaining lands whilst having the benefit of remaining on the lands for free. In such a case, a claim for occupation rent would have more validity”.

Occupation rent is a discretionary remedy which may be utilized to obtain justice and equity in appropriate circumstances. It is an exceptional remedy which should be used cautiously: Ross v. Ross, 2013 BCSC 1716at para. 47, Piderman v. Piderman, 2015 BCSC 475at para. 53.

As was stated by Madam Justice Humphries in Dacyshyn v. Semeniuk, 2007 BCSC 71at para. 36 a “claim for occupation rent is brought in equity. It is trite law that a person seeking equitable relief must come to the court with clean hands.”

In Donovan v. Donovan (1986), 7 B.C.L.R. (2d) 221 (S.C.), at para. 13, Justice Paris summarized the requirements for occupation rent as follows:

. . . (1) In the first instance, a co-tenant out of possession could not claim occupation rent because he normally had the right to go back into possession;

(2) However, such a claim would be considered by the court if he had been required to vacate or was ousted from the property.

(3) Furthermore, if the occupying tenant put forward a claim for expenditures made to the benefit of the property, . . . he was required as a condition of that equitable relief to submit to a claim for occupation rent…regardless of whether or not the non-resident tenant had vacated the property voluntarily.

The evidence establishes that Ms. Paton left the Property of her own volition in December 2013. There is also no evidence that Ms. Paton demanded access to or possession of the Property after February 2017 which was refused by Ms. Stilinovic or the Fritzes: see Bankruptcy of Kostiuk, Re, 2002 BCCA 410at para. 43.