Breaking away
Can a custodial parent move out of the jurisdiction and take the child along, against the wishes of the access parent? Gordon v. Goertz was supposed to answer that question, but the application of the Supreme Court decision varies widely. With legislative reform on hold, nobody’s sure how the issue of child mobility will evolve.
By Pablo Fuchs
Alison and Jim (not their real names) of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, got divorced several years ago, and haven’t always been on the friendliest terms since. But they maintained a working relationship for one major reason: they were both good parents to their son "Danny" and wanted to ensure he received love and attention from both his parents.
|
“This is one of the few situations in law where lawyers can make a big difference.”
Julia Cornish, Sealy Cornish, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia |
Alison was Danny’s custodial parent and primary caregiver, but Jim also maintained a strong relationship with his son. Jim had remarried, and he took steps to make sure that Danny maintained regular contact with Jim’s new wife and family, as well as with Jim’s own parents and siblings.
But Alison wanted a change. All her friends, her family and her support network — as well as much better job opportunities — were back in her hometown across the country, so she began the process of moving back home. Jim resisted, not wanting to give up his access rights and contact with his son. The whole thing ended up in court, as Jim brought proceedings to prevent Alison from taking Danny home with her.
"It was a difficult trial, because both parents were very involved in the child’s life and both had really good reasons for their case," says Julia Cornish, a partner with Dartmouth’s Sealy Cornish who represented Jim at trial. "But like every situation of this nature, a decision is made with the best interests of the child in mind, no matter how it will affect the [other] parent’s life."
There are hundreds of cases like Jim and Alison’s every year across Canada, each with its own unique circumstances and custodial issues. High divorce rates among couples with children, combined with greater opportunities for relocation across provincial and national boundaries, have created a problem virtually unknown a generation ago: what to do when custody-and-access rights collide with mobility rights?
It’s a tough situation. On the one hand, society wants to encourage children of divorce to maintain frequent and continuing contact with both parents. At the same time, we’re unwilling (and constitutionally unable) to forbid Canadians from moving to a new city or province to take a better job, find better child-care arrangements, and make a better life. How can the courts resolve this dilemma?
Little predictability
It will come as no surprise to family law lawyers that the main factor courts use in deciding whether a child is allowed to move with its custodial parent is whether the move is in the child’s best interests.
But because each case, each jurisdiction, and each judge are unique, family practitioners report that it’s almost impossible to determine how a given case will be decided. Even two cases with very similar facts can result in completely opposite rulings, since each judge gauges the child’s best interests in a different way.
"Studies have shown that when looking at similar cases, on a province-by-province basis, stable, traditional communities would be harder-pressed to allow the child to move with the parent," says Cornish, who’s also Past Chair of the CBA’s National Family Law Section. "Whereas in larger urban centres, where people move around more liberally, the same type of case would get a different ruling."
This makes a family lawyer’s tough job that much harder. "It’s very difficult to determine how things will transpire in a [mobility] case," says Jeffrey Behrendt, a partner with Ottawa’s Behrendt Law Chambers. "I usually cannot advise a client how the trial will be decided unless the situation is very stereotypical."
Max Blitt, a family practitioner with Calgary’s Spier Harben, puts it even more succinctly: "You have the same chance of predicting the outcome as you would throwing dice in Las Vegas."
Nonetheless, there are certain recurring factors that can sway the decision of the court and therefore give a lawyer help in predicting for clients which way things will go. "If you’ve got a case where you have a stay-at-home custodial mom, she will most likely be allowed to move with the child," says Behrendt. "Meanwhile, the more active the other parent is, the harder it will be for the court to allow the move."
Another common factor lawyers can rely on is that judges will pay little attention to the separation agreement. No matter if parents are required to share custody, or if the non-custodial parent has rights to scheduled visitations, the original contract has no weight in child mobility cases.
"No matter what the separation agreement says, the court ignores it on a consistent basis," says Behrendt. "In reality, it is the best interests of the child at that moment and in the future that has true sway."
For her part, Cornish thinks that lawyers themselves can play a significant role in the outcome. "This is one of the few situations in law where lawyers can make a big difference," she says.
"If you’re representing stay-behind parents, encourage them to make a maximum contribution to the child’s life and make sure the child spends a significant amount of time in the community and with family," she advises. "If you’re representing parents who want to move, focus on the child’s relationship with the custodial parent and all the beneficial factors for moving. All these things can make a difference."
Of course, no lawyer can turn a case from a loser to a winner at trial, but her input can make a real difference in those close, tough-to-call cases. For this reason, lawyers who have handled a client’s divorce might want to advise them to anticipate possible mobility issues ahead of time and plan their child-related activities accordingly.
Judicial guidance
Mobility decisions turn on the child’s best interests because of the 1996 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Gordon v. Goertz. Janet Gordon of Saskatoon wanted to take her young daughter Samantha to Australia, where Janet was to study orthodontics. Her ex-husband, Robin Goertz, wanted either an order restraining her from taking Samantha or full custody of their daughter.
|
Crossing the line
The darker side of child mobility: parental abductions
In a world of increasing mobility and marriages between people of different nationalities, parental abductions are becoming more common. One parent, perhaps frustrated with the state of the relationship, simply leaves the country and takes the kids with him or her. Over the past decade, there has been an annual average of 400 parental abductions in Canada alone.
Many countries have signed and adopted The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. When the treaty was drawn up in late 1980 (under Canada’s leadership), 29 member states had signed on; today, that total has increased to 64.
The Hague Convention functions as an extradition treaty; its main purpose is securing the rapid return of an abducted child to his or her place of origin, without examining the merits of custody. All Convention countries must have a central authority whose main function is to expedite the process of return. In Canada, the federal authority helps locate the child, while each provincial authority follows the process through.
"With immigration and divorce becoming more prominent in our society, there is greater risk for cross-border child abductions, making the Hague Convention an absolute necessity," says Max Blitt, an expert on the subject and a lawyer with Calgary’s Spier Harben. "Back in 1979, we had no clear rules on how to proceed with such cases, so we followed the traditional child relocation process."
But since the Convention’s ratification in the 1980s, a clear process has been in place to deal with parental abductions. "We tend to have the best success with Hague cases when the other country’s legal system is similar to ours," says Blitt. "There is an exceptional success rate when dealing with the U.S., the U.K., Australia and most other first-world countries."
"The success of the Hague depends on the assistance one gets from the central authorities in the requested countries," adds Hanna Bendtsen of the B.C. Ministry of Attorney General. "In countries where the central authorities do not have the support and co-operation of other public and government agencies such as search agencies, the police and immigration officials, it is very difficult to get the applications for return of children before the courts."
How to proceed
Hague cases are rare, even for family lawyers who deal with child mobility issues on a regular basis. So the first step is to educate yourself on the Convention, its applications and its support systems. "There is a huge learning curve when dealing with Hague cases," warns Blitt. "My suggestion to lawyers: get help from colleagues if you’re unfamiliar with the topic."
Blitt says it is absolutely essential that lawyers be able to detect possible cross-border child abduction scenarios, and to inform their clients how to prepare for the unlikely event of abduction. Advising clients to gather all the child’s personal information, as well as that of the potential abductor, is an essential part in preventing abductions.
"The first thing lawyers should do is know that the Hague Convention exists," says Joan MacPhail, Director of the Family Law Branch of Manitoba Justice and of the province’s Central Authority. "Then use that knowledge to inform anyone in a situation where an abduction can happen of the legalities involved. They should also count on their respective central authorities, as we are here to help with proceedings."
Hanna Bendtsen agrees: "Family lawyers can help their clients by assisting them to complete the application for return of a child. The application must establish that the child has been removed from his or her habitual residence in breach of a right of custody in the left-behind parent. If the left-behind parent does not have a lawyer, I will help them, but the process will take longer."
|
The Supreme Court ruled that the moving parent in such cases was effectively asking to change the original court-ordered custody or access arrangements. To do so, the parent had to first demonstrate a material change in the child’s needs or the parents’ ability to meet those needs, a change which materially affects the child and which wasn’t reasonably foreseeable when the original custody-and-access order was made.
If the moving parent could establish that material change, then the focus swung to a fresh consideration of the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court set out seven criteria in making this determination:
1. The existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent.
2. The existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent.
3. The desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents.
4. The views of the child.
5. The custodial parent’s reason for moving, only in the exceptional case where it is relevant to that parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child.
6. The disruption to the child of a change in custody.
7. The disruption to the child resulting from his or her removal from family, schools, and the community he or she has come to know.
In the case at bar, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Samantha’s best interests lay with maintaining her strong bond with her custodial parent, and therefore allowed Janet to take the child to Australia (travel costs for Robin’s visitation rights were to be split evenly by the two parties). Gordon created a system for determining child mobility decisions, but left it to the lower courts to make those decisions on the facts of each case.
And the lower courts have been actively doing just that. The 2002 Ontario Court of Appeal case Bjornson v. Creighton is particularly noteworthy. Charlotte Bjornson, the custodial mother, wanted to move with her six-year-old son Robert from Waterloo, Ontario back to her original home in Calgary. The father, Bill Creighton, opposed the move.
Although the trial court ruled against Charlotte, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Charlotte had greater family support and a full-time position with seniority back in Calgary, said the court; her financial, social and psychological well-being would improve upon relocation there. Significantly, the appeal court ruled that the well-being of the custodial parent is an important factor in determining the best interests of the child.
With this decision, some experts believe it is now very challenging to oppose a move by the custodial parent. In the past, courts have rejected many such proposed moves on
the grounds that it’s in the best interests of a child to have maximum contact with both parents. In Bjornson, that factor took a back seat to preserving the child’s primary care-giving environment.
"Opposing a custodial parent’s move has always been difficult," says Behrendt. "And this latest case has made it even more difficult and expensive than ever before."
This trend is not exclusive to Ontario. In Quebec, for example, permission to move is granted in most cases, provided that the move is not intended specifically to prevent the non-custodial parent from exercising access.
"From what I’ve seen recently," says Isabelle Guiral of Montreal’s Lavery De Billy, a member of the CBA-Quebec’s Family Law Section, "permission is usually granted for the move because people have become more mobile."
Legislative reform?
While the benchmark has been set and everything relates back to the child’s best interests —"where it should be," says Guiral — some still see room for improvement in the mobility regime.
In 1998, law professors Martha Bailey from Queen’s University and Michelle Giroux from the University of Ottawa released a report titled Relocation of Custodial Parents, which examined the precedent set in Gordon v. Goertz and offered some recommendations for making better decisions on issues of child mobility and relocation.
The report suggests a number of law reforms, including:
1. Custodial parents should be required by law to give notice of a proposed move to the other parent or to the court.
2. Non-removal orders should not be granted lightly, but should remain an option for the exceptional cases.
3. Education programs on the effects of divorce and separation should be more widely available, in order to promote responsible custody-and-access agreements.
And while the report supports the "best interests" test, it also suggests other factors that should be examined when considering relocation:
1. The wishes of the child, provided the child is old enough to express them.
2. The particular economic challenges faced by custodial parents and the advantages to the child of supporting the decisions of the custodial parent, as well as the negative impact on the child of restricting relocation.
3. A well-functioning custodial parent and the avoidance or absence of parental conflict (just as important, the authors say, as continuing contact with each parent).
4. The reasons behind the move, insofar as they affect the best interests of the child.
While none of these recommendations has yet been adopted, the last one — the reason for the move — is getting a lot of practical attention in courtrooms. Despite the Supreme Court’s direction that it should be given relevant consideration only in exceptional cases, trial judges are nevertheless giving it a lot of weight.
"The motivation for the move is being looked at more closely than it has been before, especially in cases where the move is to happen right after separation," says Behrendt. "If the custodial parent has a contract for work elsewhere, it must be investigated. If there are similar jobs in the current place of residence, then that must be considered as an alternative option to the move."
However, the most frequent request from lawyers is for more guidance from the Supreme Court on some of these issues. For instance, Guiral wants more clarity on where a relocation hearing should take place — is it in the child’s new location (if relocated already) or in the child’s place of origin?
And Cornish wants more guidance on the factors that decide the best interests of the child. "Bill C-22 did serve in clarifying a list of factors relating to the best interests of the child," she says.
That bill, which made it to Second Reading in February 2003 but stalled out when Parliament recessed, included (in s. 16.2) a lengthy list of factors to determine the child’s best interests. These included consideration of: the child’s physical, emotional and psychological needs; the benefit of maintaining contact with both parents; the history of care for the child; and the child’s views and preferences.
In the meantime, the best interests of the child remain the deciding factor in whether a parent should be allowed to move away with a child. Until and unless legislative reforms along the lines of Bailey and Giroux’s recommendations see the light of day, or more guidance issues forth from the Supreme Court, little will change in this area.
As for "Danny," he’s staying in Dartmouth. The judge in his case ruled that maintaining his connection with Jim, with his father’s family and with his community was far too critical to his best interests. The judge also ruled that Alison had not taken all possible efforts to establish herself in her current community. Therefore, he issued a non-removal order keeping Danny in Nova Scotia.
"The judge was very sympathetic to both arguments and made the decision he saw fit," says Cornish. "But it just goes to show how subjective these decisions can be. Other judges have looked at the exact same facts and expressed surprise at the decision to maintain Danny in his place of origin. It’s these types of trials that make me happy I’m an advocate and not a decision-maker."
Pablo Fuchs is a freelance writer based in Toronto. His previous article, "Keep your head above water," about the challenging job market for new lawyers, appeared in the March/April 2004 issue of National.
Photo: Marvin Moore
|
english
Partir, c’est mourir un peu
Lorsque le parent gardien choisit de refaire sa vie ailleurs, la cellule familiale réarrangée en prend pour son rhume
Alison et Jim (les noms sont fictifs) de Darmouth en Nouvelle-Écosse ne forment plus un couple depuis quelques années. Leur relation n’a pas toujours été des plus amicale mais ils se sont tout de même efforcés d’entretenir une saine communication. La raison est fort simple: ils souhaitaient que leur fils Danny bénéficie de tout l’amour dont il avait besoin de la part de ses deux parents.
Mais le vent a tourné depuis qu’Alison, qui a la garde de Danny, a manifesté son désir de retrouver amis, famille et meilleures possibilités d’emploi en retournant dans son patelin d’origine et en y amenant son fils. Jim, qui a toujours entretenu une relation parentale solide avec Danny, voit ainsi diminuer ses droits d’accès et contacts avec son fils. Voilà maintenant que toute la famille se trouve devant les tribunaux.
« Ce fut un procès très difficile », commente Julia Cornish, une associée du cabinet Sealy Cornish à Darmouth et qui représentait les intérêts de Jim dans cette affaire.
« Chaque parent était très impliqué dans la vie de Danny et disposait de très bons arguments en sa faveur. »
Tous les jours, au Canada, les tribunaux doivent intervenir dans des situations comme celle d’Alison, Jim et Danny. Un niveau élevé de divorces et une plus grande mobilité des individus ont mis en exergue un phénomène quasi inexistant il y a 20 ans. Que faire lorsque s’opposent droits d’accès et droit à la mobilité du parent gardien?
Repères décisifs
Comme toujours, le facteur décisif sera le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant. Pour en mesurer la portée dans le contexte des droits d’accès et de la mobilité du parent gardien, la Cour suprême dans l’arrêt Gordon c. Goetz a émis quelques repères :
1. L'entente de garde déjà conclue et la relation actuelle entre l'enfant et le parent gardien;
2. L'entente déjà conclue sur le droit d'accès et la relation actuelle entre l'enfant et le parent qui exerce ce droit;
3. L'avantage de maximiser les contacts entre l'enfant et les deux parents;
4. L'opinion de l'enfant;
5. La raison pour laquelle le parent gardien déménage, uniquement dans le cas exceptionnel où celle-ci a un rapport avec la capacité du parent de pourvoir aux besoins de l'enfant;
6. La perturbation que peut causer chez l'enfant une modification de la garde;
7. La perturbation que peut causer chez l'enfant l'éloignement de sa famille, des écoles et du milieu auxquels il s'est habitué.
Dans Gordon, le plus haut tribunal du pays a conclu que l’intérêt de l’enfant résidait dans le maintien d’un lien puissant avec son parent gardien qui souhaitait déménager en Australie afin d’y poursuivre des études en orthodontie. Malgré l’autorisation accordée à la mère de déménager avec son enfant, les experts ont vu dans cette l’affaire l’imposition d’un fardeau plutôt lourd pour le parent gardien désirant recommencer sa vie ailleurs.
Pourtant, d’autres décisions subséquentes semblent pencher nettement plus en faveur du parent gardien. En Ontario, la Cour d’appel dans Bjornson c. Creighton décidait en 2002 que le bien-être psychologique, financier et social du parent gardien (découlant de la perspective d’obtenir un meilleur emploi et du soutien de sa famille) constitue un facteur important dans la détermination de ce que constitue le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant. Ainsi, selon plusieurs, il deviendrait de plus en plus difficile de s’opposer au déménagement de l’enfant et de son parent gardien.
La situation n’est pas différente au Québec selon Isabelle Guiral, avocate à l’étude Lavery De Billy à Montréal et membre de la section de droit de la famille de l’ABC-Québec. « De ce que j’ai pu voir récemment, une permission de se déplacer est généralement accordée par les tribunaux en raison de la mobilité accrue des gens. »
Pour Cornish, il ne faut toutefois pas sous-estimer certaines variations régionales. « Des études ont démontré que lorsque l’on s’attarde à des dossiers similaires et qu’on les compare d’une province à l’autre, les communautés plus traditionnelles se feront davantage tirer l’oreille avant d’accepter le déménagement d’un enfant avec l’un de ses parents », estime celle qui est aussi présidente sortante de la Section nationale de droit de la famille de l’ABC. « Par opposition, dans les grands centres urbains où les gens sont plus familiers avec les déplacements, une même affaire mènerait à une conclusion différente. »
Réforme législative
Bien qu’en accord avec les critères d’évaluation énumérés par les tribunaux, certains juristes estiment qu’il y a toujours place pour amélioration. Ils devront toutefois faire preuve de patience. En 1998, Martha Bailey de l’Université Queen’s et Michelle Giroux de l’Université d’Ottawa proposaient une série de recommandations pour une réforme législative en la matière. Aucune n’a encore acquit force de loi et le projet de loi C-22 qui, selon Cornish, « devait aider à clarifier une liste de facteurs reliés au meilleur intérêt de l’enfant », est mort au feuilleton.
Quant à Danny, il demeurera à Darmouth puisque le juge a déterminé que le maintien d’une relation solide avec Jim, la famille de ce dernier ainsi que sa communauté serait dans son meilleur intérêt. « Le juge s’est montré très sympathique aux arguments de chacun et a rendu la décision qu’il estimait appropriée », commente Cornish. « D’autres juges ont analysé les même faits et se sont dit surpris d’un tel résultat. C’est ce type de procès qui me fait préférer mon rôle d’avocate à celui de décideur. » |
