T.M.P. v. T.M.L.

T.M.P. v. T.M.L.

Applying s.46 and the s.37 factors in a blended analysis informed by Barendregt, the court found that despite the claimant's breach of an interim order, MAL's best interests are served by residing primarily in Abbotsford where the claimant (the established primary caregiver) and the household offer stability, access to services and supports suited to MAL's developmental needs; credibility issues and the breach reduced but did not outweigh the benefits to the child's welfare, so relocation was permitted and a detailed parenting time, guardianship and support regime was ordered.

Citation
2022 BCSC 1092
Parties
Claimant: T.M.P.; Respondent: T.M.L.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Family Law Relocation/parenting Under Family Law Act / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Relocation allowed: MAL to reside primarily in Abbotsford; parties remain joint guardians with shared parental responsibilities; detailed parenting time and contact schedule ordered; child support ordered; certain family asset distributions ordered; costs each party to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Relocation Under FLA S.46, Best Interests of the Child S.37, Assessment of Family Violence S.37(2)(g), (h) and S.38, Compliance With Interim Court Orders, Status Quo Weight After Breach, Barendregt Framework Application, Division of ICBC Proceeds and Family Property
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody and Parenting Relocation Child Support Family Violence Property Division Relocation Under FLA S.46 Best Interests of the Child S.37 +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T.M.P.

Claimant

T.M.L.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Relocation/parenting Under Family Law Act / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether MAL's primary residence should be in Hope or Abbotsford
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's relocation of MAL should be permitted under FLA s.46 despite an interim order
  3. 3 Assessment of credibility of family violence allegations and their impact on parenting arrangements

Ratio Decidendi

Applying s.46 and the s.37 factors in a blended analysis informed by Barendregt, the court found that despite the claimant's breach of an interim order, MAL's best interests are served by residing primarily in Abbotsford where the claimant (the established primary caregiver) and the household offer stability, access to services and supports suited to MAL's developmental needs; credibility issues and the breach reduced but did not outweigh the benefits to the child's welfare, so relocation was permitted and a detailed parenting time, guardianship and support regime was ordered.

Court Disposition

Relocation allowed: MAL to reside primarily in Abbotsford; parties remain joint guardians with shared parental responsibilities; detailed parenting time and contact schedule ordered; child support ordered; certain family asset distributions ordered; costs each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Both parties are joint guardians of MAL under s.39(1) of the FLA.
  • Each guardian must advise and consult the other on significant matters and they shall share equally all s.41 parental responsibilities under s.40(2).