Child Mobility Relocation Move Away Lawyers handle difficult child custody and parenting time disputes. There is little room to compromise when someone wants to move across the country or somewhere else in the world. Options include both parents staying put, one parent alone, or, the parent and the child moving away and even BOTH parents moving to the new location. MacLean Law’s, Child Mobility Relocation Move Away Lawyers, handle these high stakes cases and help parents focus on the child’s best interests. We act across BC and in Calgary for parents who wish to move or oppose allowing a child to move away from them.
Child Mobility Relocation Move Away Lawyers – Different Tests
Different rules apply depending on whether the issue of child custody and parenting time has been decided by court order or agreement or whether the application is being made before a final order or agreement has been reached.
The test for relocation is more onerous under Division 6 (after an Order or agreement) than it is under Division 2. (no Order or agreement)
The BC Government Publication on relocation explains:
- When one parent wants to move, and that move will have a significant impact on the child’s relationship with the other parent or other important people in the child’s life, it is called “relocation”.
- Generally, a parent who wants to relocate must give 60 days written notice to the other guardians and to people who have contact with the children under an agreement or court order.
- This relocation notice needs to be given whether you plan to move with the child or not. Only a court can make an exception to the relocation notice:
- Where providing notice could create a risk of family violence, or
- If there is no ongoing relationship between the child and the other guardian or person who has an agreement or court order for contact with the child
- It may be that everyone can agree to the move and the parenting time and contact arrangements can be adjusted to accommodate the move.
- If a guardian objects to the move, they may file an objection with the court. When deciding whether to allow the move, a judge will consider a number of factors including whether the move is made in “good faith” and whether there are reasonable and workable arrangements that would preserve the relationship between the child and the other guardian.
Child Mobility Relocation Move Away Lawyers – Psychology
Ed Kruk in Psychology Today states:
- Braver et al (2003) studied 500 college students who grew up with divorced parents. The students were divided into two groups based on the moving history of their families: In the first, neither parent moved more than one hour away from the original family home, while in the second, one parent did move more than one hour away. Children’s psychological and emotional adjustment, health status, and other factors were measured. Results showed those whose parents had been separated by more than an hour’s drive were “significantly disadvantaged,” scoring poorly on numerous measures, including hostility, distress over their parents’ divorce, and generally poor physical heath and life satisfaction.
- In a review of the theoretical and empirical research literature on the effects of relocation on children, Kelly and Lamb (2003) conclude that relocation stresses and often disrupts psychologically important parent-child relationships, and this in turn has adverse consequences for children. Younger children are particularly vulnerable to disruptions in attachment formation and consolidation, and therefore are likely to suffer the most when relocation occurs, with long-term consequences.
New Case For Child Mobility Relocation Move Away Lawyers
In KH. v LH 2018 BCCA 2014 the BC Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and made an order that both parents would move to Nova Scotia. The Appeal court decided that interim orders do not act to increase the onus on the move away parent:
[14] The appeal was heard on March 19, 2018. On appeal, K.W. argued that Justice Affleck erred by applying Division 6 of the FLA rather than Division 2 to her relocation application and contended that, but for this error, the application would have been granted. She also contested certain factual findings and challenged the judge’s approach to the parties’ income. On the issue of whether Division 2 or Division 6 applied to the application, writing for the Court, Justice Goepel stated:
[78] In short, Division 2 applies to relocation applications when there is no order or agreement in place and Division 6 governs when there is. Division 6 assumes that an existing agreement or order respecting parenting arrangements has been made in the best interests of the child and in those circumstances, deference should be given to that pre-established arrangement. When there is no order or agreement, there is no rationale for the same deference. Regrettably, these divisions do not explicitly address what happens when the parties obtain an interim order respecting parenting arrangements. The difficulty which has arisen in the trial court is whether an interim order made in the course of the proceeding takes the application out of Division 2 and into Division 6.
[15] In reaching his decision, Justice Goepel adopted the reasoning of Justice Punnett in S.J.F. v. R.M.N., 2013 BCSC 1812:
[92] I agree with Justice Punnett and adopt his analysis set out at paras. 54–60 of S.J.F. reproduced above. Absent an existing agreement between the parties, when an initial application is brought for an order respecting parenting arrangements under s. 45 and a guardian indicates in his or her pleadings or by notice in writing of an intention to change the child’s residence, s. 46 applies notwithstanding that an interim order is made in the course of the proceedings. To the extent that L.J.R., A.J.D., Pepin, and Wong suggest otherwise, those cases were wrongly decided and should not be followed.
[93] Whether an interim order made in advance of any claim or notice of intention to relocate would transfer the matter from Division 2 to Division 6 raises somewhat different policy considerations. Arguably, such an order may create legitimate expectations about existing arrangements, particularly if the order has remained in effect for an extended period of time. This issue however does not arise on this appeal and I will say no more about it.
[94] In the result therefore I find the trial judge erred in law in deciding the relocation application pursuant to Division 6.
