42
edits
Changes
no edit summary
==Relocating with or without a child==
*There is an employment opportunity.
*There is a unique medical or therapeutic opportunity for either the parent or the children.
Normally, the other parent on the other end of the stick doesn't want the children to move since any a move out of the local area will could hamper that parent's ability to see the children as frequently, and the lessening of contact may could harm the child's relationship with that parent. This is especially true when a parent seeks to move to another province or another country. Even within British Columbia, a relatively short move from Richmond to Chilliwack, for example, can impair a parent's schedule and relationship with the their child.
These problems, which used to be called ''mobility issues'', are handled under the ''[[Divorce Act]]'' and the ''[[Family Law Act]]'' in different ways.
It is always very difficult to say whether the court will allow a parent to move with the children or not. The case law following ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1fr99 Gordon v. Goertz]'' is quite contradictory and the best than can usually be said, apart from pointing out some general principles, is that a parent with the children's primary residence has almost a 60% chance of being allowed to do so. In 2011, Professor Rollie Thompson of the law school at Dalhousie University gave a presentation to local lawyers updating the case law on mobility issues in this province, and what he learned was this:
*The parent with primary care is able to move about 50% of the time in Canadian cases these days, down from 60%, but moves . Moves are permitted about 57% of the time in BC.
*Moves are allowed about half the time at trial, but are allowed about three-quarters of the time when the application is brought as a variation of a trial decision.
*Moves were refused in eight of nine cases where the parents had shared custody of the children, but were allowed in 17 of 18 cases (after counting appeals) where the parent wishing to move was primarily responsible for the care of the children. Where there wasn't a parent who was clearly responsible, the move was allowed in 54% of cases.
===The rules under the ''Family Law Act''===
The situation is much different under the ''[[Family Law Act]]''. One of the most important changes this law has introduced are new legal obligations for guardians who are planning on relocating and a two new test tests to determine whether a guardian should will be permitted to relocate if another guardian objects.
Here's how it works.
Second, under s. 68, a ''guardian'' who objects to the proposed move must file an application in court to stop the move within 30 days of getting written notice of the move. The parties are required to try to resolve any disagreement about the move on their own, but this doesn't prevent a guardian from applying to stop the move. Only guardians can object; people with contact cannot.
Third, if the parties can't resolve their differences about the move, then either guardian can apply to court for orders allowing or preventing the proposed move. There are different tests that the court will apply depending on whether the guardians have "substantially equal parenting time". The ''moving guardian'' must prove, under s. 69(4) that:
#he or she has proposed to move "in good faith," and