Shared parenting and a job in another city: Alberta

The short version: Dana gave the 60 days' notice the Divorce Act requires, proposing to move their daughter to Calgary. Chris objected within 30 days. Because the parenting time had been substantially equal, Dana would have carried the burden of proving the move was in the child's best interests. In mediation they agreed that Dana would move, their daughter would stay in Red Deer with Chris during the school year, and Dana would have most weekends and most of the summer.

The situation

Chris and Dana divorced two years ago. Their divorce order included a parenting plan with alternating weeks for their daughter, now 7, who attends school in Red Deer. Dana received a job offer in Calgary, about 150 kilometres away. That distance makes alternating weeks unworkable on school days, so any move would change how much time the child spends with each parent.

The rules that applied

Because they were married and divorced, the federal relocation rules in the Divorce Act applied.

1. Notice. A parent with parenting time or decision-making responsibility who plans to relocate must give written notice at least 60 days before the expected move, with the date, the new address and contact details, and a proposal for how parenting time would work afterwards. Dana used the federal notice of relocation form.
2. Objection. The other parent has 30 days from receiving the notice to object, using the objection form or by applying to court. If no objection arrives in time and no court order prohibits it, the move can go ahead. Chris objected on day 21.
3. Who has to prove what. Where the parents have been following an order or agreement giving the child substantially equal time with each, the parent who wants to move the child must prove the move is in the child's best interests. Where the child spends the vast majority of time with the moving parent, the burden flips to the objecting parent. In between, both share it. Here, with true alternating weeks, the burden was on Dana.
4. What a court looks at. The child's best interests, plus the reasons for the move, its impact on the child, how much time each parent spends with the child, whether notice was properly given, and whether the moving parent's proposal for new parenting arrangements is reasonable. A court is not supposed to weigh whether Dana would move without the child if the relocation were refused.

Their parenting plan also required mediation before any court step, so that is where they went next.

The options on the table

• Option A, the child moves with Dana. Chris would have had alternate weekends and part of the summer. Chris's case against it was strong: an established school, friends and an equally involved father in Red Deer.
• Option B, Dana turns down the job. Keeps the current plan intact but at a real cost to Dana's career and income, which also affects the child.
• Option C, Dana moves and the child stays. The child keeps her school and home base, and Dana's time is concentrated on weekends and holidays.

What they decided, and why

They chose Option C. With the burden on Dana and a 7-year-old settled in school, the mediator helped both see that Option A carried a real risk of failing in court, while Option B would leave Dana resentful of an arrangement she had to live with for years.

• School year: the child lives primarily with Chris in Red Deer. Dana has three of every four weekends, from Friday after school to Sunday at 5 p.m., plus a video call on Tuesday and Thursday evenings.
• Summer: Dana has six of the eight summer weeks, and the major holidays alternate.
• Travel: Dana does the Friday pickup. For Sunday returns they meet halfway.
• Child support: Dana's time now falls well under 40%, so the shared parenting set-off no longer applies. Dana pays Chris the Alberta table amount for one child at her new income, less a modest agreed reduction for the cost of the weekend driving. They wrote the reason into the agreement, because a court reviewing support that departs from the table amount looks at whether the arrangement is still reasonable for the child.
• Special expenses continue to be shared in proportion to income.

The trade-offs they accepted

• Dana gave up weekday parenting. School events, homework and the ordinary routine now happen mostly at Chris's house.
• Chris gave up most weekends and most of the summer. His time is now mainly school-week time.
• A review date. They agreed to revisit the plan before the child starts junior high, when her own views will carry more weight.

Cost and time

Three mediation sessions, about $2,400 shared equally. No contested court application. Because the parenting terms were in their divorce order, they filed a consent order with the Court of King's Bench to change it, so the new arrangement is enforceable. The amended parenting plan was signed within ten weeks of Dana's notice.

What would change the answer

• If the child lived mainly with Dana, Chris would have had to prove the move was not in her best interests, which is a much harder case to make.
• If they had never married, Alberta's Family Law Act, not the Divorce Act, would govern the move, and its rules are not identical. Check the Alberta hub.
• If Dana had moved without giving notice, that failure would count against her in any later court decision.

If this sounds like you

• Read moving with the kids after separation before you give or answer a notice.
• Put a relocation clause in your plan now with the Parenting Plan Builder.
• Prepare for the discussion with what separation mediation involves.