1‐800‐Skype‐Me

• Date: 01 July 2016
• Author: Andrea Himel,Jessica Cohen,Hon. Debra Paulseth
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12231

RELOCATION

1-800-SKYPE-ME

Andrea Himel, Hon. Debra Paulseth, and Jessica Cohen

It is increasingly common that children of divorce are geographically separated from one of their parents. This article considers

the challenges that arise from that reality by exploring this problem from a variety of perspectives and by providing practical

tips to minimize the impact of the distance. A review of the Ontario caselaw and Arizona Guidelines reveal that certain factors

are important in the resolution of these disputes, including: the age of the child, mode of transportation between homes, dis-

tance, prior contact, and feasibility of virtual access. Court-ordered access may include remedies that, absent the distance issue,

may be considered extreme, including moving to overnight/extended access periods for young children, permitting children to

travel unaccompanied, favoring the nonresident parent for holidays and vacation time, allowing children to decrease contact

with the nonresident parent, and decreasing or terminating child support. Where distance dictates the in-person and virtual

access schedules, creative solutions are critical to the successful resolution of these cases. Forward thinking family law profes-

sionals can meaningfully help parents to achieve better outcomes for children.

Keypoints for the Family Court Community:

We review the factors considered and the access ordered by Ontario courts.

We explore options for in-person and virtual access with respect to frequency, duration, and location.

We describe steps to strengthen the relationship between the nonresident parent and the child.

We consider equitable sharing of access costs and the impact on child support.

Keywords: Access Costs; Distance Parenting; Long-Distance Cases; Relocation; Skype Access; Travel Costs; Virtual

Access; and Virtual Visitation.

I. INTRODUCTION

In today’s mobile society long-distance parenting has moved from the exception toward the norm.

Family law professionals increasingly face cases where: (1) the mobility issue is highly contested but

the resident parent moves with the child

1

and (2) an access parent moves away and an access dispute

arises. Long-distance parenting cases require creative solutions that consider the child’s attachment

and developmental needs. In the words of an adult child of divorce, raised in an era of global mobility:

I’ve flown across the Atlantic so many times that I’ve lost count, so often that the journey is second

nature, like my early morning stumble from the bedroom to the shower... No one wanted to examine our

bags, to bother us. They seemed to know, instinctively, that kids travelling such long distances alone are

shuffling from one parent to another. We’d get sympathetic stares and pity-filled nods from the flight

crew and fellow travelers alike. Every summer, and every other Christmas, we marched through one gate

after another, soldiers of separation, casualties of a difficult divorce.

1

The impact of a move by either parent has the potential to negatively affect the nonrelocating

parent’s relationship with the child.

2

Upon relocation, the nonresident parent will be unable to see

the child as frequently as he or she did before. Therefore, if such a move occurs parenting schedules

must recognize the new distance created by the move and provide some measure of contact between

the long-distance parent and child.

3

Correspondence: andrea.himel@rogers.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 3, July 2016 457–476

V

C2016 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

When distance is not an issue parenting time schedules typically take into account the parenting

history, child’s age, and other factors. For example, it is well recognized in the family law system

that infants and children need more consistency, stability, and predictability than older children.

4

Accordingly, in nonmobility cases family law professionals attribute considerable weight to the

child’s age and stage of development when developing parenting time schedules. However, as set

out in greater detail below, it is the distance between the child’s two homes (rather than the other fac-

tors listed above) that often defines the parenting time schedules in mobility cases.

This article aims to provide a better understanding of how family law professionals address in-

person and virtual parenting in long-distance access cases. In addition to a review of the social sci-

ence research and case law from one jurisdiction (Ontario, Canada),

5

the authors provide practical

strategies to address the limited time and added expenses related to the distance. The goal of this

research is to promote creative problem solving in response to one of the most challenging issues fac-

ing family law professionals today—mobility.

II. THE MOBILITY ISSUE AND ITS AFFECT ON PARENTING SCHEDULES

It is interesting to reflect on who is moving. In all but one of the Ontario cases described in this

paper, the parent relocating with the children is the mother, and the parent relocating alone is the

father. That finding is consistent with the social science literature:

The issue of relocation is inherently and inevitably gendered, because, for the most part, it is mothers

who are primary caregivers and want to move together with their children. Most will not move unless

they can take their children with them (Behrens, 1997; Young, 2011). There are human rights issues

involved concerning freedom of movement which impact more upon primary caregivers than nonresident

parents (Lamont, 2012; Parkinson, 2008b; Young, 2011). Realistically, little can be done to require non-

resident parents to stay in close proximity to their children, since court orders cannot require a parent to

spend time with his or her children in a way that benefits them (Parkinson, 2008b). Both mothers and

fathers are free to move without their children, and the jurisdiction of the courts is ordinarily limited to

making decisions about parenting arrangements.

6

A recent review of the relocation research provides a variety of reasons to explain why parents

move following separation and divorce. These include “the needs of both parents to secure or retain

employment, pursue educational or career opportunities, relocate with a new spouse, or seek support

of other family or friends.”

7

Additional reasons why resident parents plan to move may include the

stated or unstated goal of limiting contact with the nonrelocating parent in order to reduce conflict or

to protect the child from domestic violence.

Potential responses to address the limited time and added expenses include booking travel tickets

during off-peak hours and as early as possible, taking steps to prepare the child to travel alone and

utilizing virtual visitation as an alternate form of access.

The impact of a move by either parent has the potential to negatively affect the nonrelocating

parent’s relationship with the child.

8

Upon relocation, the nonresident parent will be unable to see

the child as frequently as he or she did before. Therefore, if such a move, occurs parenting schedules

must recognize the new distance created by the move and provide some measure of contact between

the long-distance parent and child.

9

The leading Canadian case dealing with relocation is Gordon v. Goertz.

10

In this case, the

Supreme Court of Canada developed a legal test that considers factors to determine if the relocation

is in the best interest of the child, having regard to the child’s needs and each parents’ abilities to sat-

isfy these needs. The decision requires that courts focus only on the best interests of the children and

not on the interests and rights of the parents.

11

With respect to the impact of mobility on children

postseparation, at present there is no consensus respecting same:

458 FAMILY COURT REVIEW