The moving party brought a motion to change seeking to vary a prior custody order so that the child could reside with him in a different community.
The court found that a material change in circumstances existed because the moving party had relocated and the teenage child had expressed a wish to live with him.
Applying the best interests analysis from Gordon v Goertz, the court considered the child’s wishes, stability of the current living environment, schooling, community ties, and the parents’ ability to meet the child’s needs.
The court determined that relocating the child would cause significant disruption and that the current custodial arrangement with the responding parent offered greater stability.
The motion to change was dismissed, with minor adjustments to the access provisions due to the parties’ geographic distance.
