Two recent mobility rights cases, Inscho v. Inscho, 2010 MBQB 90 and Beech v. Pearce, 2010 MBQB 99, illustrate the difficult balancing act involved in assessing whether to permit a parent to relocate with the children away from the other parent. In both cases the mother intended to move with the children to Ontario, contrary to the fathers' wishes. In one case (Inscho) the mother was successful, in the other case not. As noted by Justice Yard in Inscho,

 

...mobility cases such as this are the most difficult variety of cases which judges and courts are called upon to address.  This is so because the outcome of the case will almost invariably shatter the hopes and dreams of one or other of the parents and perhaps others in the extended family as well. Yet these considerations must all be put aside in favour of an examination of the best interests of the children as opposed to the hopes, dreams, wishes and views of the adults. (para. 109)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bill 30, The Strengthened Enforcement of Family Support Payments and Miscellaneous Amendments Act (Various Acts Amended), introduced April 28, 2010, amends Part VI of The Family Maintenance Act and other related Acts to enhance enforcement of support payments and to allow for a new computer system. Among other things, the amendments would increase the maximum fine to $10,000 and boost jail time to up to 200 days for those wilfully in default; penalize those who are late with payments; and charge debtors with the cost of enforcement actions. In addition, the court would have the authority to order genetic testing to determine parentage and the child support service could recalculate a child support order on the basis of deemed financial information.