| Gordon v Goertz | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Hearing: 1996 Judgment: | |
| Citations | [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 |
| Ruling | Appeal Dismissed |
| Court membership | |
| Reasons given | |
Gordon v Goertz is a 1996 Supreme Court of Canada decision dealing with issues surrounding parental relocation.
| Gordon v Goertz | |
|---|---|
| | |
| Hearing: 1996 Judgment: | |
| Citations | [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 |
| Ruling | Appeal Dismissed |
| Court membership | |
| Reasons given | |
Gordon v Goertz is a 1996 Supreme Court of Canada decision dealing with issues surrounding parental relocation.
Prior to the 1990 decision of Carter v Brooks, [1] the general view of Canadian courts was that a custodial parent could move with the child unless the access parent could show that the move was harmful to the child. [2] In Carter v Brooks, the Ontario Court of Appeal changed this approach. Instead of having a presumption in favour of the custodial parent, the court held that a move would only be allowed if it was in the best interests of the child. The court rejected putting an onus on either party because it thought that the best interests of the child would best be determined if there were no starting presumptions. The interests of the custodial parent would only be relevant as far as they impacted the interests of the child. Carter made it more difficult for custodial parents to move with their children. In Ontario, the result was that only 60% of moves were allowed. [3] This case was followed in British Columbia and the effect there was likely similar.
The law in Ontario was changed following the decision in MacGyver v Richards, [4] where the court did not reject the best interests of the child test in Carter, but in essence held that there was a presumption that the move was in the best interests of the child. The court recognized the difficulty courts faced in determining the best interests of the child and felt that the custodial parent was usually in a better position to do so. Further, the court found that the interests of the child and custodial parent were linked. The decision led to parents in Ontario being allowed to move with much more frequency. [5] But it caused confusion across Canada regarding the test to be applied in mobility cases. Some provinces followed MacGyver, [6] but British Columbia did not. [7]
In Gordon, the Supreme Court of Canada cleared up any confusion about whether there should be a presumption in favour of the moving parent. The court set out the law as follows: the party seeking to vary the custody agreement would first have to show that the move would cause a material change in the circumstances of the child. Once this had been established, the judge would embark on a fresh inquiry regarding the best interests of the child. There was to be no presumption in favour of the custodial parent, but his or her views would be entitled to great respect. In deciding the best interests of the child, the judge could consider all factors, but should specifically address the following seven: [8]
Child custody, conservatorship and guardianship describe the legal and practical relationship between a parent and the parent's child, such as the right of the parent to make decisions for the child, and the parent's duty to care for the child.
Child support is an ongoing, periodic payment made by a parent for the financial benefit of a child following the end of a marriage or other similar relationship. Child maintenance is paid directly or indirectly by an obligor to an obligee for the care and support of children of a relationship that has been terminated, or in some cases never existed. Often the obligor is a non-custodial parent. The obligee is typically a custodial parent, a caregiver, or a guardian.
Grandparent visitation is a legal right that grandparents in some jurisdictions may have to have court-ordered contact with their grandchildren. In no case is contact between grandparents and children considered an inalienable right.
Shared parenting, shared residence, joint residence, shared custody, joint physical custody, equal parenting time (EPT) is a child custody arrangement after divorce or separation, in which both parents share the responsibility of raising their child(ren), with equal or close to equal parenting time. A regime of shared parenting is based on the idea that children have the right to and benefit from a close relationship with both their parents, and that no child should be separated from a parent.
A parenting plan is a child custody plan that is negotiated by parents, and which may be included in a marital separation agreement or final decree of divorce. Especially when a separation is acrimonious to begin with, specific agreements about who will discharge these responsibilities and when and how they are to be discharged can reduce the need for litigation. Avoiding litigation spares parties not only the financial and emotional costs of litigation but the uncertainty of how favorable or unfavorable a court's after-the-fact decision will be. Moreover, the agreement itself can authorize the employment of dispute-resolution methods, such as arbitration and mediation, that may be less costly than litigation.
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty that provides an expeditious method to return a child who was wrongfully taken by a parent from one country to another country. In order for the Convention to apply, both countries must be “Contracting States”, i.e. both must have adopted the Convention.
Joint custody is a court order whereby custody of a child is awarded to both parties. In the United States, there are two forms of joint custody, joint physical custody and joint legal custody. In joint physical custody, the lodging and care of the child is shared according to a court-ordered parenting schedule with equal or close to equal parenting time. In joint legal custody, both parents share the ability to make decisions about the child, regarding e.g. education, medical care and religion, and both can access their children's educational and health records.
Child custody is a legal term regarding guardianship which is used to describe the legal and practical relationship between a parent or guardian and a child in that person's care. Child custody consists of legal custody, which is the right to make decisions about the child, and physical custody, which is the right and duty to house, provide and care for the child. Married parents normally have joint legal and physical custody of their children. Decisions about child custody typically arise in proceedings involving divorce, annulment, separation, adoption or parental death. In most jurisdictions child custody is determined in accordance with the best interests of the child standard.
In family law, contact, visitation and access are synonym terms that denotes the time that a child spends with the noncustodial parent, according to an agreed or court specified parenting schedule. The visitation term is not used in a shared parenting arrangement where both parents have joint physical custody.
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, citing a constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, struck down a Washington law that allowed any third party to petition state courts for child visitation rights over parental objections.
The tender years doctrine is a legal principle in family law since the late 19th century. In common law, it presumes that during a child's "tender" years, the mother should have custody of the child. The doctrine often arises in divorce proceedings.
The fathers' rights movement has simultaneously evolved in many countries, advocating for shared parenting after divorce or separation, and the right of children and fathers to have close and meaningful relationships. This article provides details about the fathers' rights movement in specific countries.
International child abduction in Japan refers to the illegal international abduction or removal of children from their country of habitual residence by an acquaintance or family member to Japan or their retention in Japan in contravention to the law of another country. Most cases involve a Japanese parent taking their children to Japan in defiance of visitation or joint custody orders issued by Western courts. The issue is a growing problem as the number of international marriages increases. Parental abduction often has a particularly devastating effect on parents who may never see their children again.
The fathers' rights movement in Australia focus on issues of erosion of the family unit, child custody, shared parenting, child access, child support, domestic violence against men, false allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, the reintroduction of fault into divorce proceedings, gender bias, the adversarial family court system and secrecy issues.
Family law in Canada concerns the body of Canadian law dealing with domestic partnerships, marriage, and divorce.
The Catholic Civil Rights League is a Canadian lay Catholic organization which makes statements in the media about Catholicism and which lobbies the government and takes part in court cases to advocate policies in line with its interpretation of Catholic teachings. The CCRL has played a prominent role in Canadian social debates surrounding abortion, same-sex marriage and prostitution, where it has argued from a social conservative standpoint, in line with Catholic social teaching. The organization works closely with other Catholic organizations on social issues that matter for the Church.
The term international child abduction is generally synonymous with international parental kidnapping,child snatching, and child stealing.
The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.
Gronow v Gronow, was a decision of the High Court of Australia.
Edward Kruk is a Canadian sociologist and social worker. He has conducted internationally recognized research on child custody, shared parenting, family mediation, divorced fathers, parental alienation, parental addiction, child protection, and grandparent access to their grandchildren. Kruk is an associate professor of social work at the University of British Columbia. He is the founding president of the International Council on Shared Parenting.