W.M.A.L. v. G.F.L.

W.M.A.L. v. G.F.L.

The proposed permanent move was refused because the mother had not demonstrated concrete plans or employment in the new location, removal would disrupt the children’s schooling, community and extended family ties and would significantly impede the father’s meaningful contact (critical for addressing C.'s behavioural needs); accordingly joint custody remains and a condition was imposed preventing either parent from permanently removing the children from S. County.

Citation
2002 NSFC 8
Parties
Applicant/respondent (mother): W.M.A.L.; Respondent/applicant (father): G.F.L.
Court
Nova Scotia Family Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Family Court Custody Variation / Application to Vary Custody Order Decision
Outcome
Application to relocate children permanently to K. denied; joint custody maintained with mobility restriction
Legal Topics
Custody Variation, Mobility Restriction, Best Interests of the Child, Access/visitation, Shared Custody
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Mobility Rights Custody Variation Mobility Restriction Best Interests of the Child Access/visitation Shared Custody

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W.M.A.L.

Applicant/respondent (mother)

G.F.L.

Respondent/applicant (father)

Procedural Posture

Family Court Custody Variation / Application to Vary Custody Order Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mother may permanently remove the children from S. County within the jurisdiction of the Court
  2. 2 Whether the custody/access order should be varied to increase father's access or to a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement
  3. 3 Whether conditions can be imposed on custody orders under the Maintenance and Custody Act

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed permanent move was refused because the mother had not demonstrated concrete plans or employment in the new location, removal would disrupt the children’s schooling, community and extended family ties and would significantly impede the father’s meaningful contact (critical for addressing C.'s behavioural needs); accordingly joint custody remains and a condition was imposed preventing either parent from permanently removing the children from S. County.

Court Disposition

Application to relocate children permanently to K. denied; joint custody maintained with mobility restriction

Orders

  • Joint custody order to remain in force
  • Neither parent shall permanently remove the children from S. County area