This truly is what makes family court so complex. While there are many variables to ecah families circumstances, defining laws which facilitate a threshhold is not absolute either, but what this does do is put a limitaion on families in court. The ultimate ket here is keeping families and especially kids out of Court, as defined by Gordon v. Goertz at paragraphs 134 and 135
Paragraph 134:
At the outset, it must be stressed that I do not suggest that such a principled approach overrides or replaces the best interests of the child as the ultimate test. It is rather a reinforcement of the best interests test and not a contradiction to it. It may well be that, in some circumstances, the custodial parent’s decision to
relocate may not accord with the best interests of the child and, upon review of the impact of that decision on the child, a court may conclude that a variation of custody or access or, exceptionally, a restriction on the child’s mobility is in order.
Quite the opposite from shifting the focus from the best interests of children, a principled approach, in adopting the best interests test as the guiding principle,provides much needed clarity and certainty in this difficult area of the law and minimizes the need to resort to protracted acrimonious negotiations or, even worse,traumatic and costly litigation which, ultimately, cannot but injuriously affect the children. In passing, it is interesting to note that similar rules which recognize the custodial parent’s prima facie right to move with the child have been judged consistent with the best interests of the child otherjurisdictions, such as the United States (see Bruch and Bowermaster, supra) and Australia (Eades, supra),1996 CanLII 191 (S.C.C where, like in Canada, all decisions affecting children are to be governed solely by their best interests.
Paragraph 134:
At the outset, it must be stressed that I do not suggest that such a principled approach overrides or replaces the best interests of the child as the ultimate test. It is rather a reinforcement of the best interests test and not a contradiction to it. It may well be that, in some circumstances, the custodial parent’s decision to
relocate may not accord with the best interests of the child and, upon review of the impact of that decision on the child, a court may conclude that a variation of custody or access or, exceptionally, a restriction on the child’s mobility is in order.
Quite the opposite from shifting the focus from the best interests of children, a principled approach, in adopting the best interests test as the guiding principle,provides much needed clarity and certainty in this difficult area of the law and minimizes the need to resort to protracted acrimonious negotiations or, even worse,traumatic and costly litigation which, ultimately, cannot but injuriously affect the children. In passing, it is interesting to note that similar rules which recognize the custodial parent’s prima facie right to move with the child have been judged consistent with the best interests of the child otherjurisdictions, such as the United States (see Bruch and Bowermaster, supra) and Australia (Eades, supra),1996 CanLII 191 (S.C.C where, like in Canada, all decisions affecting children are to be governed solely by their best interests.
Comment