C.L.P. v. D.R.P.

C.L.P. v. D.R.P.

Although the claimant was the primary caregiver and acted in good faith, she failed to propose reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the child's relationship with the respondent and the respondent's extended family given the significant logistical, temporal and financial barriers; therefore the presumption under s.69(4)(b) does not apply and relocation is not in the child's best interests under s.37, so relocation is denied.

Citation
2017 BCSC 432
Parties
Claimant: C.L.P.; Respondent: D.R.P.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law Relocation and Parenting / Trial Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's relocation application denied; parties declared joint guardians; shared parenting responsibilities ordered; child support, spousal support and property division determined with specific amounts and contingencies.
Legal Topics
Relocation Under S.69 FLA, Guardianship, Parenting Time and Responsibilities, Best Interests of the Child, Family Law Act Interpretation, Support Calculations, Division of Family Property
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Relocation Spousal Support Child Support Property Division Relocation Under S.69 FLA Guardianship +5 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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.L.P.

Claimant

D.R.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Relocation and Parenting / Trial Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties are guardians of the child
  2. 2 Whether the claimant may relocate the child to Australia
  3. 3 What parenting responsibilities and parenting time are appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant was the primary caregiver and acted in good faith, she failed to propose reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the child's relationship with the respondent and the respondent's extended family given the significant logistical, temporal and financial barriers; therefore the presumption under s.69(4)(b) does not apply and relocation is not in the child's best interests under s.37, so relocation is denied.

Court Disposition

Claimant's relocation application denied; parties declared joint guardians; shared parenting responsibilities ordered; child support, spousal support and property division determined with specific amounts and contingencies.

Orders

  • Parties declared joint guardians of the child R.P.
  • Claimant's application to relocate R.P. to Adelaide, Australia is denied