In sum, I find no error of fact or law, or misapprehension of the evidence, in the trial judge’s finding that the mother had no improper motive when she moved with the child to Victoria, which findings are entitled to deference. The mother’s reasons for the move were therefore not material to the issue of what parenting arrangement would best meet the child’s interests. Absent a challenge to some other aspect of the Gordon v. Goertz analysis, I find no basis for interfering with the trial judge’s conclusion that the child’s best interests were met by remaining in the sole custody of the mother where she resided. 3) Did the trial judge err in failing to adopt the recommendations in the psychological assessment as modified at trial?
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.