L.R.A.C. v. S.M.L-C.

L.R.A.C. v. S.M.L-C.

On balancing the best‑interests factors the court found the children were thriving in Kimberley with their father and grandparents, the children's expressed desire to relocate to the mother in Edmonton was genuine but not dispositive given their ages and some misperceptions, and significant uncertainties existed regarding the mother's work hours, living arrangements and third‑party influence; accordingly primary care remains with the father with joint custody/guardianship and a mandatory review after the 2012‑2013 school year (June 30, 2013).

Citation
2012 BCSC 1341
Parties
Claimant: L.R.A.C.; Respondent: S.M.L-C.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Child Custody / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Primary parental care awarded to the father (Claimant). The parties have joint custody and joint guardianship on the Joyce model. Primary care to be reviewed after the 2012-2013 school year (review date June 30, 2013).
Legal Topics
Primary Care Determination, Views of the Child Report, Joint Custody and Guardianship, Section 7 Extraordinary Expenses, Interim Orders, Review of Custody, Mobility Principles
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Division of Family Property Child Support Relocation/mobility Primary Care Determination Views of the Child Report Joint Custody and Guardianship +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L.R.A.C.

Claimant

S.M.L-C.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Child Custody / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which parent should have primary care of the three children
  2. 2 Whether the children should relocate to Edmonton with the mother
  3. 3 Child support and allocation of special expenses under s.7

Ratio Decidendi

On balancing the best‑interests factors the court found the children were thriving in Kimberley with their father and grandparents, the children's expressed desire to relocate to the mother in Edmonton was genuine but not dispositive given their ages and some misperceptions, and significant uncertainties existed regarding the mother's work hours, living arrangements and third‑party influence; accordingly primary care remains with the father with joint custody/guardianship and a mandatory review after the 2012‑2013 school year (June 30, 2013).

Court Disposition

Primary parental care awarded to the father (Claimant). The parties have joint custody and joint guardianship on the Joyce model. Primary care to be reviewed after the 2012-2013 school year (review date June 30, 2013).

Orders

  • Primary care of the children to remain with the Claimant (father); joint custody and joint guardianship on the Joyce model.
  • Mandatory review of primary care after conclusion of the 2012-2013 school year (by June 30, 2013); court seised to hear any application.