In this case, a case of joint custody, it follows that both parties have joint guardianship of Emily. In being joint guardians, they both had to agree on the residence of Emily, and one could not have removed her over the other’s objections. Levine J. (as she then was) in the recent case of Hewstan v. Hewstan, 2001 BCSC 368, made the same finding on the facts of that case, saying at para. 35: There is no contradictory evidence as to the law of the UK, and I accept the opinion of the solicitor. The UK law is similar to that of British Columbia. Under Section 27 of the Act, parents who live together are joint guardians of a child. As joint guardians of the person of the child, each of them has rights of custody. There can be no doubt that one parent, having joint guardianship over the person of the child, cannot remove a child from the jurisdiction without the consent of or over the objections of the other. Nor is there any basis to find that the father was not exercising his rights of custody at the time the mother left England. The parents were living together. There is no evidence that the arrangement for the care of the children had changed despite the deterioration of the marriage. I therefore find that the removal of the children from the UK was in breach of the father's rights of custody.
"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.