Vancouver BC child mobility child relocation lawyers deal with cases involving one parent wanting to move away with the parents’ children against the wishes of the other parent. Moves within Vancouver or Calgary or other parts of BC are difficult enough.
However, international child mobility and relocation cases require skilled Vancouver BC child mobility child relocation lawyers. The award winning Vancouver BC child mobility child relocation lawyers at MacLean Law can help you negotiate, mediate or litigate these difficult child custody cases.
Our skilled Vancouver BC Child mobility child Relocation Lawyers will assess the planned move for strengths and weaknesses and help guard you against unexpected results. We have 6 offices across BC and in downtown CALGARY. Call us toll free at 1-877-602-9900.
Vancouver BC Child Mobility Child Relocation Lawyers Know Shared Parenting Impacts Relocation
What happens under the current law when one parent with the best of intentions decides a relationship is over and wants to return to their home country on the other side of the World? In cases where departing parties don’t share the caregiving for a child there is no problem. But when they do there is very little room for a compromise. One parents moves away or without the child, birth parents end of staying put with the child and sometimes both parents even move to the new location with the child.
Shared parenting and active involvement by both parents before and after separation is associated with a good result for the child. BC child mobility child relocation lawyers know it is also likely to decrease the chances of success for moving away in disputed child mobility case.
BC Child Mobility Child Relocation Lawyers See a Trend to Fewer Successful Child Relocations
A recent BC case of C.L.P. v. D.R.P involved the wish of a mother from Australia to return there with the parties child ended up with her not being permitted to relocate with the child even though she was always the primary caregiver and her losing primary residence of the child to a shared parenting regime.
While there is a presumption in favour of a primary caregiver than a move is in good faith with the other parent does not have substantially equal time in this case the judge found the presumption was provided because the Trial Judge was concerned about changing the status quo when the child is doing well in Vancouver to a new untested plan coupled with the fact that the mother wanted to move back to Adelaide Australia some 20 hours away by air from Vancouver.
The trial judge reviewed the relevant presumptions under our new BC Family Law Act and how they differ if one parent is the primary parent versus substantially equal parenting arrangement:
[49] Under s. 69(2), the Court must consider whether the “proposed relocation is made in good faith” and whether:
the relocating guardian has proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the relationship between the child and the child’s other guardians, persons who are entitled to contact with the child, and other persons who have a significant role in the child’s life.
BC child mobility child relocation lawyers Explain TheTwo Tests For Child Relocation Depending On Involvement of Both Parents
[50] Where the guardians do not have “substantially equal parenting time with the child”, relocation is presumptively in the best interests of the child if the relocating parenting satisfies the Court of the criteria set out in s. 69(4)((a)(i) and (ii). Where parenting time is “substantially equal”, the relocating parent does not receive the benefit of this presumption and must establish the criteria in subsection 4(a)(i) and (ii), as well as show that the proposed relocation is in the best interests of the child (s. 69(5)).
[51] The manner in which ss. 69(4) and (5) are to be applied was explained in C.M.B. v. B.D.G., 2014 BCSC 780:
[78] To summarize … the correct approach under s. 69(4) and (5) is for the court to consider whether the proposed relocation is made in good faith and whether reasonable and workable arrangements have been proposed. If one or both of these criteria are not met, the court must still go on to consider whether the proposed relocation is in the child’s best interests. Satisfaction of good faith and reasonable workable arrangements is necessary in order for a relocating guardian to benefit from the presumption under s. 69(4)(b) that the move is in the best interests of the child.
[52] I am satisfied that the claimant has been the primary caregiver for R.P. since his birth, with a substantially greater amount of parenting time overall than the respondent.
[53] In light of this practical reality, if the claimant satisfies the Court that the proposed relocation to Australia is made in good faith and includes reasonable and workable arrangements within the meaning of ss. 69(4)(a)(i) and (ii) of the FLA, the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the presumption under s. 69(4)(b). I note, however, that this is a presumption only and subject to rebuttal.
The judge reviewed the mother’s reason to return to her home, with her family and with a plan for a better financial standing there and was satisfied her plan to move was in good faith.
Vancouver BC Child mobility child Relocation Lawyers Know Maintaining A Relationship With Left Behind Parent Plays Key Role
But her plan for maintaining the father son bond was not found to be acceptable by the trial judge:
[82] In my view, the plans she has for ensuring that the respondent remains actively engaged with R.P. are not solidly-grounded, in light of the physical distance between Mission and Adelaide; the time zone differences; the difference in school systems and related holiday times; the respondent’s inability to control when he will be allotted vacation time at his current employment (vacation time is assigned based on seniority); and, the affordability of travel back and forth to Australia over many years.
[89] Removing R.P. from his current environment and introducing significant change to his life, including change that drastically reduces the involvement of D.P. as a parent, carries the realistic potential of significant impact on R.P. This is a matter of common sense. Everything will be different for him: his residence; his school; the children he spends time with; the neighbourhood in which he resides; the culture; his routine; the people around him; and, most importantly, a number of the persons he is very connected to in Canada will no longer be physically present and accessible.
[90] Although I accept from the claimant that returning to Australia will improve her emotional and psychological well-being, and, ultimately, be better for R.P. in his relationship with her and her ability to provide for him, there are no assurances that, overall, this will enhance R.P.’s well-being or effectively counterbalance the losses he will experience from moving away.
[91] The degree of connectedness between R.P. and his father, his father’s extended family and others with whom R.P. currently interacts as a young child is a significant factor for me in determining what is in his best interests.
Upheaval Matters Too Say Vancouver BC Child Mobility Child Relocation Lawyers- If Child Is Doing Well Why Risk Changing It?
The judge also felt uprooting the child who was doing well and substituting the mother’s untested plan of Australia where the wife had no guarantees of herself and her child thriving was unacceptable:
[98] I am also concerned about the interruption to R.P.’s current stability that would result from a move to Australia. The broader structure, routine and connections that are currently in place for R.P. are “knowns”. And, they appear to be working. Although the claimant is confident that if she returns to Adelaide she will find employment, get on her feet financially and be able to provide R.P. with a better standard of living, these propositions are as of yet untested.
[100] In light of the number of years for which R.P. will require accompaniment for the purpose of travel, can the claimant afford the travel costs associated with bringing R.P. to Canada for parenting time and, given the time zone and seasonal differences, to what extent will D.P.’s continued involvement in R.P.’s life be achievable? As noted in Merriman v. Merriman, 2016 BCSC 1505, maintaining stability in the life of a young child is important to the relocation analysis (at para. 55). See also L.J.R. v. S.W.R., 2013 BCSC 1344, at para. 99.
In the end the judge not only disallowed the child from moving away while letting the mother make the decision to move away alone if she wished to AND he ordered a change to increase the father’s time with the child to equal parenting time and equal parenting responsibilities with the mother to have the final say if she did not move away to Australia without her child.
Our skilled Vancouver BC child mobility child relocation lawyers will meet with you to assess the reasonableness of any plan to move away.
We will develop strategies to ensure you are actively involved with your child.
We will go over the risks and rewards of an application to move away and we will go over all of your options and provided you with a cogent “bite of reality sandwich.”
Hiring Western Canada’s largest and Vancouver’s Best family law firm as chosen by Top Choice Awards* allows you to rest easy knowing you are in good hands. Call Lorne N MacLean, QC today at 1-877-602-9900.
