King v. King

King v. King

The court found it was in the best interests of the children to allow relocation to the lower mainland and to continue joint custody and joint guardianship with shared parenting in the lower mainland because the mother's employment prospects and family support were superior, the move would not unduly disrupt the children, and ongoing contact with the father could be preserved; alternatively, if the father does not relocate the mother will have primary residence with generous access for the father. Child support arrears were not ordered and ongoing support was adjourned pending establishment of the children in the lower mainland and determination of whether the father will relocate.

Citation
2011 BCSC 781
Parties
Applicant / Mother: Lesley Anne King; Respondent / Father: Douglas Wayne King
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Divorce Custody and Relocation / Reasons for Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Relocation permitted; joint custody and joint guardianship to continue with shared parenting to occur in the lower mainland; alternatively, if father does not relocate mother to have primary residence with specified access for father; no order for arrears; ongoing child support claim adjourned.
Legal Topics
Relocation, Shared Parenting, Best Interests of the Child, Variation of Custody, Arrears of Support
Source Language
English
Family Law Divorce Child Custody Mobility/relocation Child Support Relocation Shared Parenting Best Interests of the Child +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesley Anne King

Applicant / Mother

Douglas Wayne King

Respondent / Father

Procedural Posture

Divorce Custody and Relocation / Reasons for Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mother should be permitted to relocate children to Cloverdale (mobility)
  2. 2 Whether joint custody should be maintained or altered to sole custody/primary residence
  3. 3 Whether there is a material change in circumstances under s.17 to vary custody

Ratio Decidendi

The court found it was in the best interests of the children to allow relocation to the lower mainland and to continue joint custody and joint guardianship with shared parenting in the lower mainland because the mother's employment prospects and family support were superior, the move would not unduly disrupt the children, and ongoing contact with the father could be preserved; alternatively, if the father does not relocate the mother will have primary residence with generous access for the father. Child support arrears were not ordered and ongoing support was adjourned pending establishment of the children in the lower mainland and determination of whether the father will relocate.

Court Disposition

Relocation permitted; joint custody and joint guardianship to continue with shared parenting to occur in the lower mainland; alternatively, if father does not relocate mother to have primary residence with specified access for father; no order for arrears; ongoing child support claim adjourned.

Orders

  • Mother permitted to relocate the children to Cloverdale, British Columbia
  • Parents to continue joint custody and joint guardianship with shared parenting in the lower mainland if father relocates