In Creighton v. Creighton, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2081, Humphries J. says at paragraph 14, and in part: A healthy family unit, [whatever] it is, is clearly in the best interests of the children in it. . . . The well-being of the new family unit must reflect on the best interests of the children and if the petitioner [in the case in which Madam Justice Humphries was dealing] were forced to live apart from her new husband, the tensions would soon tell on the two girls. Interestingly enough, the facts in that case are remarkably similar to those in the case at bar. Namely, the mother had met and married a US serviceman and wanted to relocate to be with him in the United States. Madam Justice Humphries says in part, paragraph 19: The unfortunate fact is, things change, people move on to new phases of their lives, and the children's best interests must be accommodated within the new framework. Their best interests cannot be considered in isolation from the rest of the circumstances because at this stage of their lives, they are utterly dependant on their parents. Nor can their best interests be served by creating an artificial situation and forcing the parties to adhere to it. What it comes down to realistically is that . . . children must live with one parent while the other is a two and a half hour flight away.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.