~ Wednesday, August 19, 1998 — North Shore News

Child's

DO you have the right
to move if you have
custody of your kids?

Even if it makes it diffi-
cult or impossible for your
ex to see the kids? This
tough question has been
tackled by the Supreme
Court of Canada.

The court considered the
case of Robin Goertz and
Janet Gordon. They were
divorced in 1993. Ms.
Gordon got custody of their
seven-year-old daughter, and
Mr. Goertz was given access
to her. A year later, Ms.
Gordon wanted to move to
Australia to study orthodon-
tics.

When Mr. Goertz heard
about this, he asked the
lower court for custody or
an order barring his ex-wife
from taking their daughter
with her instead.

The lower court refused.
It aliowed the mother to -
take her daugliter to
Australia. Mr. Goertz was
given “liberal and gencrous
‘access”- to see the girl in

_ Australia, if he gave one
‘month’s notice.

Mr. Goertz considered

this to be a pretty harsh
- result. ‘Australia is so far
‘away that he could only

‘> infrequently visic his daugh-

ter. On the other hand, Ms.
Gordon felt she shouldn’t be
denied the chance to study
for a promising career, and
she wanted to provide a

For now, it appears
there are no hard
and fast rules
determining who
gets custody when
one parent moves.

The Vancouver Waldorf School's

Summer Fair & Open House

22 AUGUST 1998

12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Everyone Welcome!

Vancouver Waldorf School

(ESTABLISHED 1971)

2725 St. Christophers Road

good future for herself and
her child.

When the Supreme Court
of Canada reviewed the
lower court’s decision, it
made a very important new
statement: a custodial parent
doesn't have the automatic
right to move with the kids.

When circumstances
change (for example, Ms.
Gordon's desire to move),
custody must be reassessed
to sce what would be in the
best interests of the child.
Would it be best for the girl
to move with her mother to
Australia?

Or would it be best for
her to stay with her father in
Canada?

In coming to a decision,
the Supreme Court said
some important factors that
need to be considered
include the disruption to the
child by changing custody,

) 183 Pemberton hve. TALKING

985-7195 eee.

“985=7435.

the disruption to the child
by removing the child from
familiar surroundings
(school, friends, communi-
ty), and the child’s wishes.
But in the end, it agreed
with the lower court and
allowed the mother to keep
her daughter with her in
Australia.

After this case, wo more
important cases on moving
with children were decided,
this time by the Ontario
Court of Appeal, which also
influences how our B.C.
courts make decisions.

They refused Ms.
Woodhouse permission to

take her two boys to
Glasgow w here her new
Scottish husband, a carpen-
ter, had a better chance of
finding work. But on the
other hand, they allowed
Ms. Luckhurst, who had
joint custody with her ex, to
move her children from
London, Ontario to
Cobourg, 350 kilometres
away.

For now, it appears there
are no hard aad fast rules
determining who gets cus-
tody when one parent
moves. What’s in the child’s
best interests will ultimately
rule.

Still, if you're going
through a divorce, you can
take comfort in knowing
that the custodial parent
cannot just up and leave
with the kids whenever he or
she wants.

And it’s likely that such
unilateral moves won’t be
tolerated lightly. .

— This column is written
with the assistance of the
North Vancouver law firm of
Ratcliff & Company, Suite .
500, 221 West Esplanade,
988-5201. The column pro--
vides information only and is
not to be relied on for legal,
advice.

“Rides 8 & games all 1 day.

provided by F Fraser Amusements

wina Summer Festival T- ‘Shirt. Pick upa music “Passport” and set a chee towi

et TPS BC
urchase: