Motion to relocate

[cpartener]

"in recognition of the children's bond with their maternal grandparents, we propose that Mom have access from Friday after school until Tuesday morning so that they can maximize their time with Mom's parents".

That sounds like what we're trying to go for, thanks!

[standing on the sidelines]

This may be a case where wording is important. You may wish to say something like "in recognition of the children's bond with their maternal grandparents, we propose that Mom have access from Friday after school until Tuesday morning so that they can maximize their time with Mom's parents". This sounds better than saying you would allow Grandma to pick up and drop off the kids on Mom's weekends. The end result is probably the same, but one phrasing sounds more co-operative and child-centred than the other.

I would change access to "parenting time"

[OrleansLawyer]

I would change access to "parenting time"

The phrase "parenting time" means as much as "bubbles time".

Access is the word used in the legislation. If you mean time with the children then access is the correct word to use.

[arabian]

Alberta and BC have replaced "access time" with "parenting time"

Attached case from Ontario is but one example of the use of "parenting time"

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...&resultIndex=1

[YoungDad23]

I made sure the word "access" didn't appear anywhere in the draft final order submitted in my case last month. We settled and agreed to joint custody with a 25/75 split for parenting time, with S2 residing primarily with my ex.

I just got the official Final Order and it reads "parenting time" and "parenting schedule" throughout after being reviewed by our case management judge and the court clerk's office in an Ontario court.

I am not the "access" parent, I am my son's "parent".

[OrleansLawyer]

I am not the "access" parent, I am my son's "parent".

If both parents see the child(ren) then both parents are access parents.

If everyone follows the Order - excellent. In that case, the wording does not matter. However, if issues arise in future it is possible for inaccurate language to cause problems.

[cpartener]

Thanks, we'll talk with our lawyer about wording. We're trying very carefully to word everything in a way that can be favourable if flipped back on us, but not exceedingly favourable as to bite us in the well-intentioned butt.

I mentioned a very recent case we'd found that was so incredibly similar to our our...
The mother had primary residence with the kids and a little more time than the father. She wanted to move 90min (minimum) away to be with her boyfriend and also cited a new job opportunity (which our EX does not have lined up). Both of their families were in the originating town, as was the child's life. The father won the case as, among other things status quo for the child was her life in that town, and was awarded primary custody with liberal access granted to the mother and her family who still live in the originating town.

The only difference between our cases is that, as the father refused to allow to child to be relocate while awaiting trial, child started living primarily with the father for a few months as the mother had to move for her new job.

How much can presenting such a case like this help us?

As mentioned, the judge ruled that status quo for the child was her lifestyle and not necessarily the specific parental home - ie school, before/after school care, extracurriculars, family, friends,etc.

I know it all depends on the judge, but what tends to hold more weight?
We know EX will say that status quo is being with her. She argues having the children between 60-65% but she'll be removing the children from their whole lives, family and friends.
We argue that we have the children 42% minimum, and more importantly the children already live with a status quo of 80% of their lives/time in this area and alternating weekends (20%) in the relocation area. With liberal access for EX, she/her mother can maintain 35-45% time with them.

What's a better representation of status quo?

[cpartener]

DH wasn't in court when his lawyer asked for the adjournment. Lawyer tells him that BM's lawyer literally said that if she can't get full custody, she's not going to move.

When DH and I talked about her offer to settle we realized she was virtually trying to extort us. I don't know how her lawyer even let her go ahead with her offer. To preface - there is an access and support dispute which is why we where already back in court. BM offered A) we pay her full amount and she'd stay here with the kids and pay her legal bills or B) she takes the kids "in their best interest". So pay me or I'll steal your kids.

How does someone even live with themselves?

[Links17]

lawyer literally said that if she can't get full custody, she's not going to move.

Next time she says this, you object in court or have it stricken from the record.

The Alberta Court of Appeal expressed concern about the "double bind" faced by custodial parents who acknowledge (as the mother did in this case) that they would abandon their relocation plans if the children were unable to accompany them. If a custodial mother, in response to an inquiry, states that she is unwilling to remain behind with the children, her answer raises the prospect of her being regarded as selfish in placing her own interests ahead of the best interests of the children. If, on the other hand, she is willing to forgo the relocation, her willingness to stay behind "for the sake of the children" renders the status quo an attractive option for the presiding judge to favour because it avoids the difficult decision that the application otherwise presents.

CanLII - 2009 QCCA 1068 (CanLII)

Don't get tied up in semantics about access/visit/parent/criminal etc....

The key thing is the dad is involved in their lives on a day-day basis and so is the mom. They might throw the "mother is the dominant figure" but that should be disputed and the environment + a parent is better than parent + unknown environment (Fear Uncertainty Doubt)

[arabian]

This Alberta Court of Queens' Bench case as well as the Alberta Court of Appeal of the case might be of relevance to this thread.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...&resultIndex=2

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/do...&resultIndex=1

[cpartener]

Thanks! I'll look at those today.
Forgive my lack of legal knowledge, will Alberta cases stand up in Ontario?

[arabian]

Absolutely. Particularly any cases from court of Appeals across the country as well as Supreme Court cases. I find that British Columbia often has the most published cases. What you have to pay attention to is which Act the caselaw is relative to (divorce act, FLA, etc.), particularly when cited case law regarding divorce or separation.

Under the divorce act, the leading authority for mobility is Gordon v. Goertz.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc...&resultIndex=5


Here is another recent case which might be of interest to you. It nicely explains the relevance of "the test" from Gordon v. Goertz.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/do...&resultIndex=8


Here is a case from Ontario which you may or may not have come across yet.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...resultIndex=10

[cpartener]

Wharton/Prieur is actually the one I reference above. It's so similar to ours even down to the toileting and cleanliness BS.