G.M. v. S.S.

G.M. v. S.S.

On an initial custody application the best interests of the child govern. The respondent's move to Victoria, while secretive and unusual in arrangements, did not evidence intent to thwart the father or inability to parent; disruption to the child from removing primary caregiver would be significant. Therefore primary custody (day-to-day care and control) and primary residence remain with the mother in Victoria; guardianship is joint with a mandated parenting coordinator; due to claimant's demonstrated superior evidence-based approach to medical decisions and the respondent's failure to inform and consult about medical care, the claimant is granted ultimate decision-making authority on...

Citation
2012 BCSC 1491
Parties
Claimant (father): G.M.; Respondent (mother): S.S.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Family Law Custody and Child Support / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Respondent (mother) granted sole custody (primary care and control) and primary residence with child in Victoria; parties granted joint guardianship; claimant (father) awarded final decision-making authority on significant health decisions including vaccinations; generous, phased access for father including trial...
Legal Topics
Custody, Guardianship, Primary Residence, Access/visitation, Vaccinations/medical Decision Making, Parenting Coordinator, Income Determination
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Child Support Parental Mobility Health Care Decision Making Custody Guardianship Primary Residence +4 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 7 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G.M.

Claimant (father)

S.S.

Respondent (mother)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Custody and Child Support / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which parent should have primary care/custody and the child's primary residence
  2. 2 Whether respondent's move to Victoria was improper or undermined father's access (parental mobility)
  3. 3 Appropriate access schedule, including timing of overnight visits

Ratio Decidendi

On an initial custody application the best interests of the child govern. The respondent's move to Victoria, while secretive and unusual in arrangements, did not evidence intent to thwart the father or inability to parent; disruption to the child from removing primary caregiver would be significant. Therefore primary custody (day-to-day care and control) and primary residence remain with the mother in Victoria; guardianship is joint with a mandated parenting coordinator; due to claimant's demonstrated superior evidence-based approach to medical decisions and the respondent's failure to inform and consult about medical care, the claimant is granted ultimate decision-making authority on...

Court Disposition

Respondent (mother) granted sole custody (primary care and control) and primary residence with child in Victoria; parties granted joint guardianship; claimant (father) awarded final decision-making authority on significant health decisions including vaccinations; generous, phased access for father including trial...

Orders

  • Respondent shall have primary care and control of the child and primary residence in Victoria
  • Parties shall be joint guardians; a parenting coordinator appointed for minimum 12 months with mandate to assist decision-making and report/recommend to court when parties cannot agree