F.K.L. v. D.M.A.T.

F.K.L. v. D.M.A.T.

Although the mother established good faith and proposed a reasonable, workable schedule, she failed to prove relocation to Comox is in the child's best interests; weighing Family Law Act factors and deference to the prior order, the child should reside with the father in Gold River for the school year; retroactive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 BCSC 2368
Parties
Claimant: F.K.L.; Respondent: D.M.A.T.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Relocation and Related Parenting Order Matters / Summary Trial / Application for Relocation and Related Applications
Outcome
Relocation denied; child to reside with respondent in Gold River while school is in session; retroactive child support ordered; parenting coordinator appointed with specified cost sharing; costs awarded as set out below.
Legal Topics
Relocation, Best Interests of the Child, Parenting Time, Retroactive Child Support, Parenting Coordinator, Costs
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Relocation Child Support Parenting Orders Relocation Best Interests of the Child Parenting Time Retroactive Child Support +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F.K.L.

Claimant

D.M.A.T.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Relocation and Related Parenting Order Matters / Summary Trial / Application for Relocation and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relocating parent acted in good faith
  2. 2 Whether proposed arrangement is reasonable and workable to preserve relationship
  3. 3 Whether relocation is in the best interests of the child

Ratio Decidendi

Although the mother established good faith and proposed a reasonable, workable schedule, she failed to prove relocation to Comox is in the child's best interests; weighing Family Law Act factors and deference to the prior order, the child should reside with the father in Gold River for the school year; retroactive child support was ordered based on imputed income and a parenting coordinator was appointed with a 25%/75% fee split (claimant/respondent); costs allocated to reflect success on principal issues.

Court Disposition

Relocation denied; child to reside with respondent in Gold River while school is in session; retroactive child support ordered; parenting coordinator appointed with specified cost sharing; costs awarded as set out below.

Orders

  • Within 30 days parties to retain Joan Cotie or agree on another parenting coordinator
  • Parenting coordinator fees to be shared 25% payable by the claimant and 75% payable by the respondent