When there is shared parenting and joint custody and what factors will the court consider in determining the best interests of the parties?

The fact that this is a joint custody situation will however have a subtle effect on the analysis. In Gordon v. Goertz at para. 35 the court stated that generally “the custodial parent may take the child wherever he or she pleases.” This of course does not apply where there is a joint custody situation, especially where the parties have made an agreement on mobility. In Gordon v. Goertz the court stated the obvious at para. 46: The child’s best interest must be found within the practical context of the reality of the parents’ lives and circumstances, one aspect of which may involve relocation. The best interests of the children cannot be completely divorced from the interests of the parents. The court also held at para. 48: . . . the views of the custodial parent . . . are entitled to great respect and the most serious consideration. The decision of the custodial parent to live and work where he or she chooses is likewise entitled to respect, barring an improper motive reflecting adversely on the custodial parent’s parenting ability. Of course where joint custody is in issue, the views of both parties are entitled to “great respect and the most serious consideration”. Furthermore, when the parties have agreed to a shared parenting regime that implicitly limits mobility, that too is entitled to great respect. At paragraph 126 the court stated that: Generally, disrupting the relationship of the child with his or her primary caregiver will be more detrimental to the child than reduced contact with the non-custodial parent. Again, this comment has less force in a situation when there is shared parenting and joint custody. The personal decisions and commitments made by the parents can never be removed from the equation, and always give the background to the analysis of the best interests of the children.