7,374
edits
m (→Links) |
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 218: | Line 218: | ||
*The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests, rights, and entitlements of the parents. | *The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests, rights, and entitlements of the parents. | ||
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 that 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 BC | 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 that 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 BC. His findings were also [https://perma.cc/7DPT-6P5V published]. 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%. Moves are permitted about 57% of the time in BC. | *The parent with primary care is able to move about 50% of the time in Canadian cases these days, down from 60%. Moves are permitted about 57% of the time in BC. |