1,399
edits
Difference between revisions of "Changing Family Law Orders and Agreements Involving Children"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Changing Family Law Orders and Agreements Involving Children (view source)
Revision as of 21:30, 25 June 2019
, 21:30, 25 June 2019→Relocating with or without a child
| Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
*the parent is in a new relationship with someone from out of town, | *the parent is in a new relationship with someone from out of town, | ||
*the parent wants to be closer to family, | *the parent wants to be closer to family, | ||
*there is a unique educational opportunity for either the parent or the children, | *there is a unique educational opportunity for either the parent or the children, or | ||
*there is a unique medical or therapeutic opportunity for either the parent or the children. | *there is a unique medical or therapeutic opportunity for either the parent or the children. | ||
| Line 216: | Line 216: | ||
*This assessment is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order and the new circumstances. | *This assessment is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order and the new circumstances. | ||
*The assessment does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the parent with whom the child mostly lives, although that parent's views are entitled to great respect. | *The assessment does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the parent with whom the child mostly lives, although that parent's views are entitled to great respect. | ||
*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, and what he learned was this: | 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, and what he learned was this: | ||