Difference between revisions of "Changing Family Law Orders and Agreements Involving Children"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
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, 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. 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.

Navigation menu