Preventing Child Relocation Child Mobility Lawyers work tirelessly to maintain critical maximum contact between both parents and their children. In Canada’s ever more mobile society people move all the time. In intact families this change isn’t that heart wrenching. But contrast that to when the parents are separated and one parent wants to move away with the child leaving the other parent behind and with limited access or contact. In today’s blog, senior winning family counsel Tal Wolf shares his latest Preventing Child Relocation Child Mobility Lawyers victory for his very happy client. Tal’s winning strategy may well help you and your child maintain maximum contact too. Don’t delay in getting legal advice or it can cost you big time. We have 6 offices across BC and in Calgary Alberta. Click her to read Tal’s success for a father in Bailey v Bailey.
Preventing Child Relocation Child Mobility Lawyers 1-877-602-9900
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: A couple separates; a father who has been the breadwinner ends up seeing his young children mostly when the mother, now the de facto “primary caregiver” decides that he can; this often ends up being a clear minority of the time, and mostly on weekends. Not wanting to enter into expensive litigation or rock the boat, the father reluctantly lives under this arrangement, often subject to the whims of them mother in terms of adjusting the parenting schedule, cancellations, obtaining permission to travel internationally with the kids, and special accommodations for family occasions, late returns due to special activities and the like. Then suddenly, father learns that mother plans to relocate out of town or out of province – which because of the current parenting status means she presumes, of course, that the children will be going with her. Now his status as “access parent” appears doomed to be cemented by a new regimen of long-distance drives or plane tickets, seeing your kids maybe a few times per month for short periods, and otherwise on extended holidays. The “access Dad” soon becomes a “suitcase Dad,” and gone are the days of experiencing the joys and rituals of daily routine with the children so important to bonding in their earlier years.
The Test – Preventing Child Relocation Child Mobility Lawyers
Courts have demonstrated little sympathy, citing decisions such as MacPhail v. Karasek, 2006 ABCA 238, where the trial judge rejected the notion that a primary caregiver can move away with the children only if it is calculated to further the children’s best interests (as opposed to the parent’s). “Custodial parents cannot be held hostage to the place the access parent lives. Certainly access parents are not. Moreover, it is not an option to conclude that a child’s best interests are best served by both parties living in the same place any more than it is an option to consider that it is in a child’s best interest that their parents remain together.”
Further headwinds for the “access-Dad” are that courts have looked closely at which parent has dealt with the mundane but necessary arrangements of their lives — clothing, haircuts, extracurricular activities, gifts for friends, doctors’ and dentists’ appointments, contact with their extended family; and which parent best perceived of the emotional needs of the children. The access parent also will have had less opportunity to organize the children’s more mundane affairs, or to develop the same sensitivity to their emotional needs. The “access” label, consequently, is self-perpetuated even more.
Don’t Give Up Says Tal Wolf – Preventing Child Relocation Child Mobility Lawyers
Do not give up. The stop-relocation lawyers at MacLean Family Law in Vancouver have continued to advocate successfully for access parents at risk of losing their children to long-distance relocation.
The Supreme Court’s trial decision in Bailey v. Bailey, 2018 BCSC 1419 (Chilliwack), handed down last week, is our most recent client success:
Father is a gas plant operator. He runs and maintains process plants in northern BC. His work requires him to be in the north 16 days of the month, and he comes to the Lower Mainland where mother and his children live for the remainder of each month. Taking into account two travel days, father is in the Lower Mainland 13 days out of every month. Mother was a stay-at-home mother when their children were very young. She has held various part-time jobs since her children were born, but none of these have resulted in full-time work. She is qualified as a licensed practical nurse, and testified that she was hoping to take additional training to qualify as a registered nurse.
Mother sought an order permitting her to move the children to Lake Country in the Okanagan. Her proposal for ordinary access by father was that for two weekends of each month, he would pick up the children on Friday evening in Merritt, and then return them to Merritt to be picked up by mother on Sunday evening. Mother proposed sharing holidays and special days on a close to equal time basis.
Preventing Child Relocation Child Mobility Lawyers – Win For Our Client
The Court blocked the relocation concluding:
- There is no question that the children are well loved by both of their parents. I saw no evidence to suggest that the children have anything less than a loving relationship with both of their parents, and that both of their parents were devoted to them. While there is friction between Mr. and Ms. Bailey, both parents acknowledged the other’s significant role in their children’s lives
- Similarly, the two grandmothers testified and showed me that they were both very loving grandparents with important roles in their grandchildren’s lives. Both parents agreed that it was important to maintain good relationships between the children and their grandparents.
- There are many advantages for the children in the Okanagan. However, I am not satisfied that it is in their best interests to allow the relocation. I find that the disruption in their relationship with their father will be severe and this outweighs the other benefits to them arising from the Lake Country residence.
- I am not satisfied that Ms. Bailey’s work will be materially different in the Okanagan than in the Lower Mainland. If anything, the hourly rate for her work in the Okanagan is less than in Abbotsford. Ms. Bailey can enter into a bridging program to obtain her RN certificate at schools in the Lower Mainland – this is not an option available to her only in the Okanagan. While she said there was a two year waitlist in Chilliwack, she did not testify to waitlists at other locations in the Lower Mainland, and cannot enter the Okanagan program until 2019 in any event.
- I am not satisfied that the health care Braden and Isabella are receiving in the Lower Mainland is inadequate. They appear to progressing very well, and have a very positive relationship with their current psychologist.
- The school the children are attending in Abbotsford is excellent, and I am not satisfied the school in the Okanagan will be any better than what they have now.
- At present the Lake Country property is not subdivided, and there is only a small one bedroom house available for Ms. Bailey and the children to live in. The plans for the Grant family compound are aspirational, and not yet realized.
- If Ms. Bailey’s parents move to Lake Country as they plan, they will not have the same kind of in person access to their grandchildren that they have now. However, they can visit the children in the Lower Mainland as often as they like, and Ms. Bailey can take the children to Lake Country as often as she likes, during the times she has the children. They can go on weekends and holidays and enjoy the rural lifestyle afforded by the property. Mrs. Grant and Ms. Bailey testified about the strong relationship between Mrs. Grant and Braden. They both testified that many of their conversations happen over FaceTime or the telephone and, as such, will not be interrupted by the distance between them.
- I find that in all of the circumstances of this case, it is in the children’s best interests to have as close to equal time with their father as with their mother. While Ms. Bailey’s proposal will not negatively affect the children’s relationship with her, I find that their relationship with their father will be negatively impacted. I find that the children will benefit from the different parenting styles of each parent, and benefit from spending the maximum time they can with each parent.
- To require these two young children to spend their Friday night and Sunday afternoon travelling in a car for 5-6 hours each way, with only one full day with their father on the Saturday in between these two long trips, every two weeks, will not allow them to fully benefit from his parenting.
Win For Our Delighted Client -Preventing Child Relocation Child Mobility Lawyers
In sum, we showed that the potential benefits to mother in moving to Lake Country were not sufficient to justify a fundamental disruption in the relationship between the children and their father, particularly where access to schooling and work wasn’t necessarily better in the Okanagan than in the Lower Mainland. Even lower housing costs in Lake County were not sufficient to justify a move away from the children’s father.
