The difficulty of the majority opinion for me is that it recites the defendant`s complaints, which the majority considers to be in poor taste, immoral or even illegal, and says that this evidence supports factual findings that permit a change of guard. There is virtually no time for these acts of the accused to have affected the two children. The test should be the impact of the action on children and not on their support. I think the evidence simply shows that the accused is a practising homosexual without harming children. I do not think we should allow a change in custody to evidence that simply shows that the accused is a practising homosexual. Parents may be required to renegotiate part of their education contract every two and a half to three years. If parents accept the changes, they can amend their order by agreement. But if the parents can`t agree on the changes, one of the parents must file papers in court to request a change (a “change”) of your custody and access order. If you want to change your order, you and the other parent will probably need to meet with a mediator to discuss why you want to change the order before going to trial. As a general rule, the court will consider the move as a valid reason to change the child care system if one of the following factors applies: the first important consideration is the length of time elapsed since the introduction of the original custody contract. In general, it is considered best for the child to have as much consistency as possible.
For this reason, most courts, among others, will not make an amendment within a specified period of time after the creation of the original custody agreement. This “waiting time” varies by land, but between one and two years is common. There are, of course, exceptions to waiting times if the child is thought to be in imminent danger of injury if a change is not made quickly. In the 1973 Spence v. In Durham, the mother was able to regain custody of her daughters from her paternal grandparents, despite her alleged behaviour in the past, which the court described as “beyond the palest society”, including her so-called “homosexual tendencies”. The Court of Appeal found that the evidence showed that Darlene had intervened both in Edward`s visitation rights and that she had participated in conduct that, in the eyes of her child, was deliberately violated. The court had found that these acts were detrimental to the welfare of the child and the Court of Appeal found that interventions in the visitation that have a negative impact on a child`s well-being may constitute a change in circumstances justifying a change in custody. During the oral proceedings, both parents may present evidence that the judge is considering potential assessment reports.