RELATED CASES AND POSTS
 I am satisfied that the proposed relocation is made in good faith. [The mother] is not motivated by a desire to restrict or decrease [the father's] parenting time, or by any other inappropriate reasons. Her original primary motivation for the relocation was to support her husband's once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to play for [a team]. [The child's stepfather] believes that when his athletic career is over, his unique experience will assist him in obtaining employment...
 [The mother] current primary motivation to relocate is to obtain assistance for her son ... in overcoming his [speech impairment]. The specialized assistance he needs is not available to him in [the Cariboo], but is available to him in [the Lower Mainland].
 Another valid motivation for the move is [the mother's] desire to take a Medical Office Assistant program that is not available to her in [the Cariboo]. The program is 11 months and she believes it is flexible enough to allow her to study when [the stepfather] is home with the children.Second, the judge held that the mother had proposed a reasonable arrangement to preserve the child's relationship with the father:
 I am also satisfied that the mother's proposed parenting time schedule is a reasonable and workable arrangement to preserve the relationship between [the child] and [the father]. I'm also satisfied that given [the mother's] extended family live primarily in [the Cariboo], and given their clear recognition of the importance of maintaining contact between [the child] and her extended family, that [the child's] relationship with her extended family would be preserved.However, the judge found that the mother failed to meet the third element of the test, that the move is in the best interests of the child:
 Both parties are competent and loving parents and are honestly motivated by what they believe to be in [the child's] best interests. The parties' spouses are also competent and loving persons who have assumed a significant parenting role in [the child's] life while respecting what, in this case, is the primary role of the biological parents. It is a comfort to the court to know that [the child] will be loved and properly nurtured by both parties and their spouses no matter where she primarily resides.
 Consequently, many of the specifically enumerated and like factors set out in section 37 of the Family Law Act, that relate to the parties' abilities to exercise parental responsibilities, need not be analyzed given the parties are equally capable and motivated parents.
 However, I do find the mother has not established that relocating [the child] from [the Cariboo] to [the Lower Mainland] is in [the child's] best interests. The two considerations that lead to this conclusion are:1. the nature and strength of [the child's] relationships with her extended family, practically all of whom reside in [the Cariboo], where [the child] was born and primarily raised, and;
2. the specialized educational assistance she is receiving. Having found [the mother] to have met the 'preserving of significant relationships' threshold set out in s. 69 (4)(a)(ii), does not foreclose the closer examination required in a 'best interests' analysis.
 There was much evidence in regards to [the child's] close relationships with extended family, most of whom reside in [the Cariboo], and none of whom live in the lower mainland. I find the significantly reduced contact with her large extended family that [the child] would experience if moved from [the Cariboo] will be detrimental to [the child's] emotional well-being.
 I also find there is no evidence from which I can conclude the specialized educational assistance that [the child] requires and is receiving through a local team of educational professionals could be duplicated in [the Lower Mainland]...
 Another consideration regarding educational stability for [the child] is the uncertainty associated with [the stepfather's] athletic and career goals. ... The next step in his career is uncertain. He does not know what his job will be or where it will be.
 There is more stability for [the child] if she remains living in [the Cariboo] with her father. Given her young age and educational challenges, the importance of stability looms large.Even though both parents are "capable and loving parents," the court held that in light of the child's "particular educational challenges and the establishment of an effective educational team at her current school" and "the particular importance of stability" for the child, it is not in the child's best interests to move from the Cariboo to the Lower Mainland.