On March 13, 2012, People.com confirmed that Jennie Garth and her husband
of 11 years, Peter Facinelli decided to end their marriage and obtain
a divorce. The couple have three daughters and while they have decided
to raise their daughters together, recent events make it seem that that
option is no longer possible.
Just days later, on March 16, 2012, People.com further reported that Jennie
Garth decided to relocate herself and her daughters from Los Angeles to
a simpler, country life in the Santa Ynes Valley, California. The main
motivation behind the move was for her reality TV show
Jennie Garth: Little Bit Country which will follow her and her daughters as they tackle country life.
Given the fact that the above relocation was for the purposes of filming
a reality television show, it is safe to assume that Peter Facinelli was
consulted with and consented to this prior to Jennie Garth uprooting the
children’s habitual residence and transferring it to Santa Ynes Valley.
What if the circumstances were a bit different and Jennie unilaterally
decided to move with the children without consulting with Peter and obtaining
his consent? What recourses would Peter have to stop her from leaving
with their children?
In Ontario, and when there is no formal court order dictating custody or
access arrangements, Peter could immediately apply to the court for an
order for custody pursuant to s. 16(1) of the
Divorce Act. In his Application to the court, he could ask for an order that the children
not be removed from the jurisdiction of the court without his
express consent. If granted, then the order would gain legal effect throughout
Canada and would become enforceable in each province provided that the
individual who obtained the order took the necessary steps to register
the order in each province.
If, on the other hand, Peter was agreeable to giving sole custody and primary
residence of the children to Jennie but maintaining the right to visit
them (i.e. he would become the “access” parent) then he could
include in his Application for access an order, pursuant to s. 16(7) of the
Divorce Act, which states that the “the court may include in an order under this
section a term requiring any person who has custody of a child of the
marriage and who intends to change the place of residence of that child
to notify, at least thirty days before the change or within such other
period before the change as the court may specify, any person who is granted
access to that child of the change, the time at which the change will
be made and the new place of residence of the child.”
In so doing, Jennie would be obligated to inform Peter of her intentions
at least one month before the move which would grant him enough time to
consider the move and potentially even dispute it by initiating court
proceedings to stop her from leaving with the children.
Lastly, if an order were obtained and regardless if Jennie still chose
to ignore it and moved away with the children without consulting with
or obtaining Peter’s consent, then he could also consider obtaining
a court order that would require police involvement in order to necessitate
the enforcement of the order. Essentially, he could contact the police
after he has obtained an Order and they could locate, apprehend and return
the children to the proper jurisdiction and in accordance with the court order.