At 16 your son is able to live where he wants. Not that it is right, just that a judge would allow it and it isn’t worth fighting over. You could request the two of you attend therapy/counseling to repair the relationship but if he doesn’t want to go, that would be useless as well.
I’m not sure what you want to change in the agreement. She cannot force you to pay expenses you don’t agree with and that are not legit section 7. The only change I can see is child support but that is the result of her unilaterally changing the parenting schedule. You may want to leave it be and simply wait for her to file a change.
Hi
@rockscan,
While you raise several valid points—especially about shared decision-making and Section 7 expenses—your claim that
“At 16 your son is able to live where he wants” is a
common misconception and unfortunately
not supported by the law or case precedent in Canada.
Let’s unpack that in detail, because it matters quite a lot in a case like
@Jocko's, where
unilateral decisions by one parent and potential alienation are central concerns.
Myth: "A 16-year-old can just choose where to live."
This idea—while intuitively appealing—has
no legal basis as a blanket rule in Canadian law.
What the law actually says:
In custody and access matters under the
Divorce Act or
provincial family law statutes, a
child’s views and preferences are
one of several factors considered by the court in determining the best interests of the child. The older the child, the more weight a court
may give to their wishes—but it is
never determinative.
Section 16(3) of the Divorce Act (Canada):
"In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including the child’s needs, age and stage of development, the nature of the child’s relationship with each spouse... and the views and preferences of the child, giving due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity."
In other words:
A child
doesn’t have the legal power to
decide where to live.
A judge decides—guided by all relevant factors,
not just the child’s wishes.
Why This Matters for @Jocko
Jocko's son may be 16, but:
- He did not independently initiate the move to his mother’s home.
- His father is a joint custodial parent with legally recognized rights.
- The son’s move appears to have occurred unilaterally and possibly through coercion or alienation.
This makes it
absolutely appropriate—and potentially necessary—for Jocko to:
- Challenge the current parenting arrangement via a motion to vary custody or parenting time,
- Seek therapeutic interventions (e.g., reunification counselling),
- Present evidence of parental interference or alienation, and
- Clarify that his existing legal rights under the order are being ignored.
What Judges Actually Do with Teenagers
- Courts will often consider Voice of the Child reports, Section 30 assessments, or OCL involvement to assess preferences and mental health context.
- A 16-year-old’s views will be respected when consistent with their best interests and free from manipulation.
- But courts do not surrender their decision-making authority to minors.
What Jocko Should Do
- Do not accept that your son’s move makes your parenting rights irrelevant.
- Consider seeking a motion to vary based on material change in circumstances.
- Gather evidence of lack of communication, interference, and unilateral decision-making.
- If alienation is a concern, ask the court to consider therapeutic support or a custody and access assessment to assess the family dynamics.
In Summary:
A 16-year-old in Canada cannot legally choose where to live without court involvement. Their wishes matter—but they don’t override existing orders, and they certainly don’t cancel a parent’s rights or responsibilities.
Saying “a judge will allow it and it’s not worth fighting over” may sound practical, but it oversimplifies a serious legal issue—and could discourage a parent from standing up for their child’s long-term well-being.
This is not about controlling a teenager. It’s about ensuring
judicial oversight,
preserving parental involvement, and
protecting the child’s best interests from being quietly undermined.
