When will a court consider a custodial parent’s reason for moving?

It is clear that the custodial parent’s reason for moving is not to be considered, unless it relates to the parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child. For example, a custodial parent seeking to move to disrupt access might demonstrate a lack of consideration for the child’s best interests, which would weigh against the custodial parent: see Gordon v. Goertz at ¶ 23; Nunweiler at ¶ 33.

Also of note, in cases where a custodial parent says that they will not move if the child is not permitted to move with them, a court has the option of maintaining the status quo rather than permitting the custodial parent to move with the child or changing custody: see Karpodinis v. Kantas (2006), 55 B.C.L.R. (4th) 90, 2006 BCCA 272 at ¶ 20 (although stating that the status quo must not be overemphasized).

Burnyeat J. in One v. One (2000), 81 B.C.L.R. (3d) 315, 2000 BCSC 1584, set out a list of twelve factors that courts in British Columbia have considered since Gordon v. Goertz in deciding whether the custodial parent should be permitted to move. These are (at ¶ 24): 1. Parenting capabilities of and children’s relationship with parents and new partners; 2. Employment security and prospects of each spouse and, where appropriate, their partner; 3. Access to and support of extended family; 4. Difficulty of exercising proposed access and quality of proposed access if move is allowed; 5. Effect upon children’s academic situation; 6. Psychological and emotional well-being of children; 7. Disruption of children’s existing social and community support and routines; 8. Desirability of proposed new family unit for children; 9. Relative parenting capabilities of either parent and respective ability to discharge their parenting responsibilities; 10. Child’s relationship with both parents; 11. Separation of siblings; and 12. Retraining or educational opportunities for the moving parent. [Authorities omitted]