When will the court rely on representations made by a custodial parent that they will not move without the children if an application to relocate is denied?

The court, at para. 28, referred to this as the “double bind” scenario recently described in Bourgeois v. Plante, 2009 PECA 12, where it was said: … Various courts have cautioned that it is problematic to rely on representations made by the custodial parent that he or she will not move without the children should an application to relocate be denied. This inquiry is commonly called the “classic double bind.” If a parent responds by stating they are not willing to remain behind with the children, this raises the prospect of the parent looking after their own interests and not having the interests of the children paramount. Then, on the other side of the equation, if a parent advises the court that they are willing to forego a move if unsuccessful, this suggests that such a move is not necessary for the well-being of the parent or the children. If a trial judge mistakenly relies on a parent’s willingness to stay behind “for the sake of the children”, the status quo becomes an attractive option for a judge to favour because it avoids the difficult decision the application presents. …