Parenting Issues

BC Court Recognizes Foreign Parenting Order in International Custody Dispute

Written on behalf of Meridian Law Group on September 8, 2025
Aerial view of Brazil's Christ the Redeemer, representing international parenting orders and disputes from BC family courts

International parenting disputes can raise complex jurisdictional questions, particularly when parents and children have connections to multiple countries. Courts must determine which jurisdiction has the authority to make decisions about parenting arrangements and whether orders made in foreign courts should be recognized in British Columbia.

In Lukas v. Lemos, the Supreme Court of British Columbia addressed these issues in the context of a dispute involving parents from different countries, a child with multiple citizenships, and a prior parenting order from the Cayman Islands.

The Court ultimately concluded that British Columbia did not have jurisdiction over the dispute and recognized the foreign court’s order. The decision provides important guidance on how BC courts approach international parenting disputes, including the concept of habitual residence and the recognition of foreign custody orders.

Parenting Dispute Arose Between Two International Citizens

In Lukas v. Lemos, the mother is a French citizen, and the father is a Brazilian citizen. The parties met in British Columbia in 2023 while both were living in Canada on temporary work permits. They married later that year and had a child in June 2024. The child holds Canadian and French citizenship, and the father asserted that the child may also be a Brazilian citizen.

In November 2024, the family relocated to the Cayman Islands after the father obtained employment there under a temporary work permit. The mother and the child accompanied him as dependents.

The parties separated in February 2025 while living in the Cayman Islands. Shortly after the separation, the father initiated proceedings in the Cayman Islands court system and obtained an order preventing the child from being removed from the jurisdiction. Over the following months, the parties participated in court proceedings in the Cayman Islands while represented by legal counsel.

The Cayman Court Order

In May 2025, the Cayman court issued a consent order governing the child’s relocation and parenting arrangements.

The order included several significant provisions:

  • The parents would share residence of the child;
  • The parties were permitted to travel temporarily to Canada for approximately 30 days;
  • After that temporary visit, the parties were required to relocate to Brazil with the child unless they agreed otherwise; and
  • The order contemplated shared parenting time both during the temporary visit and after relocation.

The Cayman court order expressly stated that the child’s habitual residence remained in the Cayman Islands and that the court would retain jurisdiction over the matter. Shortly after the order was made, the parties travelled with the child to Vancouver for the temporary visit contemplated by the order.

Proceedings in British Columbia

After arriving in Vancouver, the dispute escalated. The mother indicated that she intended to remain in Canada with the child. The father responded by initiating proceedings in the Provincial Court of British Columbia seeking enforcement of the Cayman court order.

The Provincial Court declined to make the requested orders, expressing doubt about whether it had jurisdiction over the matter. The parties were advised that the Supreme Court of British Columbia might be the appropriate forum.

The mother subsequently commenced proceedings in the BC Supreme Court seeking parenting orders and support. In response, the father applied for orders including:

  • Recognition of the Cayman Islands parenting order;
  • Authorization for him to relocate to Brazil with the child; and
  • Dismissal or stay of the BC proceedings.

The central issue before the Court was whether British Columbia had jurisdiction to hear the parenting dispute.

Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Parenting Disputes

The Court’s analysis focused on the Family Law Act (FLA) provisions governing international parenting matters. Under the FLA, a BC court may only make parenting orders if one of several jurisdictional grounds is established. These include:

  • The child being habitually resident in British Columbia;
  • The child being present in BC and meeting certain additional conditions;
  • The child being at risk of serious harm if returned to another jurisdiction; or
  • Exceptional circumstances justifying the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently addressed these jurisdictional principles in Dunmore v. Mehralian, which guided the Court’s analysis in this case.

Determining the Child’s Habitual Residence

The first question was whether the child was habitually resident in British Columbia when the application was filed. Under the Family Law Act, habitual residence generally refers to the place where the child most recently lived with their parents before any wrongful removal or withholding.

The Court concluded that the child was not habitually resident in British Columbia. Several factors supported this finding:

  • The family had relocated to the Cayman Islands for employment reasons;
  • The father had a work permit there and had signed a one-year residential lease;
  • The family had moved substantial personal belongings to the Cayman Islands; and
  • The child’s presence in Canada in May 2025 was only intended to be a temporary visit under the Cayman court order.

Although the mother expressed an intention to remain in Canada, the Court emphasized that parental intention alone cannot determine a child’s residence. The Court also noted that the child’s presence in British Columbia after May 2025 occurred contrary to the terms of the Cayman court order. Under the Family Law Act, a child’s habitual residence cannot be changed through wrongful removal or retention.

For these reasons, the Court determined that the child’s habitual residence remained outside British Columbia.

Whether BC Should Exercise Jurisdiction

Even if a child is not habitually resident in BC, a court may still exercise jurisdiction if certain conditions are met. In particular, the court must consider whether the child has a real and substantial connection to BC, and the balance of convenience supports the BC court hearing the dispute.

The Court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour BC assuming jurisdiction. First, the parties had already participated in proceedings in the Cayman Islands, where both were represented by counsel and had an opportunity to present their arguments.

Further, allowing the dispute to proceed in BC would create duplicative litigation and conflicting decisions across jurisdictions. Finally, the Court emphasized that Canadian courts should respect the authority of foreign courts that have already addressed the dispute.

Permitting the matter to be relitigated in BC would undermine the finality of the Cayman court’s proceedings.

Allegations of Serious Harm

The mother also argued that the Court should exercise jurisdiction because the child would suffer serious harm if returned to the father or relocated to Brazil. 

Under the Family Law Act, courts may intervene if a child physically present in BC would face serious harm if returned to another jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the mother had not met the required legal threshold.

Her concerns included uncertainty about the enforcement of parenting time in Brazil and the possibility that she might not be able to reside there. She also raised the issue of the child entering an unfamiliar environment and the potential impacts on her own mental health.

The Court held that these concerns were largely speculative and not supported by sufficient evidence. As a result, the serious harm exception did not apply.

Recognition of the Cayman Islands Order

Having determined that BC should not assume jurisdiction, the Court turned to whether the Cayman Islands order should be recognized. Under the Family Law Act, British Columbia courts must recognize foreign parenting orders if several conditions are met, including:

  • The foreign court had jurisdiction;
  • Both parties had notice and an opportunity to be heard;
  • The foreign court was required to consider the child’s best interests; and
  • Recognition would not be contrary to public policy.

The Court concluded that all of these requirements were satisfied. The Cayman proceedings took place over two months, both parties were represented by counsel, and the court was legally required to consider the best interests of the child.

Accordingly, the BC Supreme Court formally recognized several provisions of the Cayman court order, including the shared residence arrangement and the relocation plan involving Brazil.

The BC family law case was stayed, meaning the dispute must proceed in the appropriate foreign jurisdiction.

Contact Meridian Law Group in Vancouver for Experienced Advice in International Parenting Disputes

International parenting disputes can quickly become legally complex when multiple jurisdictions are involved. Questions of habitual residence, foreign court orders, and relocation rights require careful legal analysis.

The family lawyers at Meridian Law Group assist clients with international parenting and custody issues, relocation and mobility applications, and jurisdictional challenges in cross-border family disputes.

If you are involved in a cross-border family law dispute or need assistance enforcing a foreign parenting order in British Columbia, Meridian Law Group can help. The firm supports clients across B.C., Canada, and internationally. To book a consultation on your family law matter, please contact us online or call (604) 687-2277.