Lajoie v. Lajoie, 2011 ABQB 257

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Lajoie v. Lajoie, 2011 ABQB 257 Date: 20110413 Docket: 4803 150117 Registry: Edmonton Between: Tracy Lee Lajoie Plaintiff - and - Joseph Leo Alexander Lajoie Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Sterling Sanderman _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms. Lajoie and Mr. Lajoie married in April of 1995. They began to date when she was 14 and he was 18. Shortly after Mr. Lajoie finished high school, they began to cohabit. She was 16 years of age at that time.

Three children were born of this marriage. Samantha was born in December of 1997. Jose was born in April of 1999. Stephanie was born in August of 2001. The eldest will be 14 this December. [ 2 ] Mr. Lajoie left the matrimonial home in May of 2009. The breakdown of the marriage was tumultuous. Ms. Lajoie has suggested that assaultive behaviour was directed towards her by Mr. Lajoie. The manner in which the marriage ended does little for the ability of the parties to communicate in a rational fashion with one another. Mr. Lajoie agreed to be bound by a peace bond for a period of one year.

It expired in September of 2010.

[ 3 ] The relationship that began when they were young is over and Ms. Lajoie has formed a new relationship. She cohabits with a divorced individual who has children of his own. He does not have custody of those children but exercises his access to them on a regular basis. [ 4 ] The disintegration of her parent’s marriage has created difficulties for the eldest child. The appearance of a new partner has further exacerbated her difficulties. She left her mother’s home before she celebrated her 13 th birthday and has lived with her father since. Ms. Lajoie has not attempted to change this living arrangement.

She either feels that it is in Samantha’s best interest to live with her father or she is oblivious to the consternation felt by Samantha in relation to her parent’s separation and the arrival of a new partner. [ 5 ] On the material presented to the Court, it is apparent that Ms. Lajoie does not take issue with Mr. Lajoie’s ability to provide the day-to-day care for Samantha or any of his children.

He sees the other two on a regular basis and has exercised his access rights fully. [ 6 ] In fact, the youngest child, Stephanie, spent several weeks with her father this past summer because she missed her older sister. This appears to have been with the consent of Ms. Lajoie. [ 7 ] Mr. Lajoie would like to have the responsibility of caring for all of his children. He applies to have all three of them live with him. Ms. Lajoie does not think that it would be in the best interests of the children to move in with their father.

She expresses a concern that his desire to parent on a full-time basis is a recent development and that he has encouraged the children to come and live with him through subtle inducements. He denies this. [ 8 ] An open custody assessment was ordered in the fall of 2010 to address the ongoing residency of the three children. This process was begun in September of 2010 and completed in mid January of 2011. The assessor recommends that all three children move to their father’s residence. Ms. Lajoie disputes the findings of the assessment. [ 9 ] She cannot accept the conclusions arrived at by the assessor.

In addition to suggesting that Mr. Lajoie has purchased the affection of his children, she asserts that the assessor has been unduly influenced by the collateral contacts that Mr. Lajoie provided. [ 10 ] Ms. Lajoie makes valid criticisms in relation to the custody assessment. Indeed, it is superficial and deficient in certain areas. She sought the opinion of another assessor to critique the report. He was retained for this specific purpose.

His criticisms are meritorious. [ 11 ] In spite of these valid criticisms, the report does have value because the children of the marriage are given a voice through the assessor. This is never determinative of what is in their best interests, but it is an important factor that cannot be overlooked. [ 12 ] The criticism in relation to the collateral contacts is not valid. From a general perspective, Ms. Lajoie’s criticism that no collateral contacts were requested of her is sound. The information provided by Mr. Lajoie’s collateral contacts did not overly influence the opinion of the assessor.

One of the individuals only commented upon Mr. Lajoie’s parenting skills, which were not in dispute. The other, a woman employed by Mr. Lajoie in order to provide child care when he is not able to, factually set out her involvement and her undertaking that she was prepared to continue in this fashion. Neither one gave the assessor any information that he used in order to arrive at his conclusion. [ 13 ] What is striking in the assessor’s report is the forceful manner in which the two eldest children make their respective positions known.

They are both adamant that they do not want to live with their mother on a full-time basis. Although they care for her dearly and wish to maintain a relationship with her, the presence of her new partner in the house creates a level of discomfort for them that is intolerable. They want to be with their father. They are not rejecting their mother but have rejected her current personal situation. It appears as if Ms. Lajoie is oblivious to the stress and discomfort that she has brought into their lives by quickly establishing another significant relationship that has culminated in cohabitation.

She either does not recognize this or is prepared to ignore it in order to foster the new relationship.

[ 14 ] The youngest child has not expressed her feelings in such a fashion. Her feelings towards having Ms. Lajoie’s new partner in the home are ambivalent. She does not find his presence troubling, but she would prefer to live with her father as that allows her to have contact with her older sister. These are certainly understandable feelings for a nine-year-old child to have. [ 15 ] Ms. Lajoie’s approach is straightfoward. She asserts that the eldest child, who celebrated her 13 th birthday in December of last year, should not be able to control the situation.

By moving to her father’s residence, she has shown her brother that it is possible to do so with impunity. The close bond felt between the three children operates to create a desire in the other two to join her. That is the position that Ms. Lajoie takes. [ 16 ] This is an oversimplification of the dynamic that is at work. The elder children clearly indicate that they feel considerable discomfort and stress in their mother’s home. That motivates them to choose to live with their father. The problem created by the presence of the new partner has not been addressed by him or Ms. Lajoie.

That is what motivates them to make their choice. It is understandable that the youngest would want to be with her two older siblings. [ 17 ] Clearly, until more extensive reports can be prepared or this matter can be resolved through a trial, Mr. Lajoie should provide the day-to-day care for the children. The parents should enjoy joint custody. [ 18 ] Ms. Lajoie should have access to her children every second weekend from Thursday after school until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. If there is no school on the Monday of her access weekend, then the access should continue until Monday at 6:00 p.m. [ 19 ] As Ms.

Lajoie has started to have a girl’s night out with Stephanie, her youngest child, that should continue on a weekly basis. This would not be an overnight stay. It would give the two of them the opportunity to engage in some mutually attractive activity. Samantha, the eldest child, is encouraged to join her mother and sister in order to reestablish a damaged relationship. [ 20 ] In addition to this, it is directed that Samantha be enrolled in counselling so that the problems she has experienced as a result of her parent’s separation can be properly addressed. [ 21 ] Each party shall bear their own costs.

Heard on the 6 th day of April, 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 12 th day of April, 2011. Sterling Sanderman J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances:

Mr. Andrew Pearcey Skovberg Hinz for the Plaintiff Mr. Timothy J. Snyder Snyder & Associates for the Defendant