Walker v. Ginn, 2011 ABQB 364

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Walker v. Ginn, 2011 ABQB 364 Date: 20110607 Docket: FL03 20356 Registry: Edmonton Between: Garnet Brian Walker Applicant - and - Candice Irene Ginn Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________

Summary [ 1 ] The parties, who are the parents of a 2½ year old child, disagree about the father’s holiday access. Although they have essentially agreed on summer access, the father proposes sharing major holidays, such as Christmas, while the mother proposes alternating holiday access. The mother states that sharing access over holidays means that their daughter will constantly have her holidays disrupted and that neither nuclear family - each parent having other children - would be able to travel as a family on holidays.

The mother also proposes that the father only have access every second Father’s Day to allow the parties’ daughter to also celebrate Father’s Day with her mother’s husband, the man who parents her on a daily basis.

[ 2 ] The father’s proposal for sharing holidays other than Father’s Day is accepted: At this stage of the child’s development, because of the child’s relatively short memory span, sharing holidays will provide a more meaningful experience for the child. As the child grows older, changes will inevitably have to be made to the parenting

schedule set out herein, in part, at least, because the child will be attending school full time from Grade 1 onwards. At that stage of the child’s development, alternating holidays can be considered, perhaps in the context of having longer holiday access period. [ 3 ] The mother’s proposal for alternating Father’s Day celebrations is accepted: although there is no evidence before the court on this issue, it may well be that the mother’s husband does in fact relate as a father figure to the parties’ daughter.

Even though the daughter spends much more time with the mother’s husband than with her biological father, so that one extra day of access with the mother’s husband may not seem very important, the opportunity of celebrating the step-parent relationship is important. 1. Background [ 4 ] The parties are the parents of a 2½ year old child. Each of the parents has children from other relationships; in the mother’s case, she has children aged 15, 13, 10 and 7 while the father’s other children are 17 and 13. [ 5 ] There have been difficulties over the father’s access.

Approximately one year after the birth of their daughter, the father applied to court to be recognized as a guardian of his daughter and to obtain interlocutory access. A flurry of orders ensued. Some months later, in January, 2010, the parties agreed to a parenting order which included a term that the father would have “such further reasonable parenting time as can be arranged and agreed to between the parties”.

Since then, although the principle of joint parenting has been respected, there have continued to be parenting skirmishes between the parties which resulted in a March 16, 2011 variation of the January, 2010 order. As part of the March 16 order, the court told the parties that if they could not agree on summer 2011 access and future access, they should return to court for the court’s decision. [ 6 ] The parties agree on summer access: for 2011, the father’s access will be the 1 st week of July.

During this time, the father may travel with the child within Canada and will provide a detailed itinerary with destination and telephone numbers to the mother 2 weeks in advance. The mother will have telephone contact with the parties’ daughter every second day. For 2012 and following, the father will inform the mother by May 31 in each year of the week during which he intends to exercise his summer access. [ 7 ] The dispute between the parties relates to holiday access: the father proposes that the parents share access for a 2 or 3 day period over holidays such as Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving.

The mother proposes that the holidays be alternated. Also, the father proposes that he would have access each Father’s Day. 2. Should holidays be shared or alternated? [ 8 ] The court orders that, at this stage of the child’s development, sharing holidays, as opposed to alternating holidays, is in the child’s best interest. [ 9 ] No expert evidence was called by either parent on this application.

The court therefore relies on its understanding of expert evidence which has been called in other cases: as the court understands it, the younger the child, the shorter the child’s memory span. [ 10 ] As indicated above, there have been difficulties between the parents about parenting time. The father has only exercised regular monthly access since January, 2010. In order to further develop a normal parenting relationship with his daughter, it is, of course, appropriate that the father should begin to share cultural holidays with his daughter.

The mother urges that parenting during holiday periods should alternate, i.e. that because the parties’ daughter spent the Christmas holidays exclusively with her mother in 2010, in 2011, she should spend December 24, 25 and 26 with her father, and that in 2012, she should spend the Christmas period with her mother and that holiday access should alternate in that manner. The mother says that the sharing proposed by the father will disrupt the child’s

celebrations in both households and will prevent each of the households from travelling together as a family every year during the major holidays. [ 11 ] It is true that access of the type proposed by the father will prevent each of the families from travelling on 2 of the days during the Christmas holidays. However, there is typically much additional holiday time available for travel over the Christmas/New Year period; if a family wished to travel together at that time of the year, family travel would still be possible.

It is also true that access of the type proposed will break up the child’s Christmas Day; however, there is no evidence before the court that family traditions in either family are such that there would typically be ongoing events from Christmas Eve through to Boxing Day.

A break halfway through Christmas Day allows the child to maximize the event of Christmas with each of her parents. [ 12 ] The court concludes that, until further order of the court - each parent being at liberty to bring the issue of holiday access back to the court prior to their daughter entering Grade 1 - the short holiday access proposed by the father should be shared. In other words, for Christmas 2011, the father will have access from December 24 at 12:00 Noon to December 25, at 12:00 Noon. For Christmas 2012, the father will have access from December 25 at 12:00 Noon to December 26 at Noon.

Access of that type will continue with each of the parents alternating the portion of Christmas Day on which they parent their daughter. As their daughter gets older, she will be better able to hold family events in her memory, and an alternating Christmas access period, perhaps for a longer period to accommodate the mother’s concern about travel, could be contemplated. [ 13 ] In

summary, except for his proposal concerning Father’s Day, the father’s proposal for sharing holiday access is accepted and will apply not only to Christmas but also to Easter and Thanksgiving as well as the child’s birthday. The father’s proposal concerning Mother’s Day and the parents’ birthdays is also accepted. 3. Should Father’s Day always be with the child’s biological father? [ 14 ] The court orders that the father/applicant will have access to his daughter on Father’s Day in 2011, in 2013 and every second year thereafter.

In any year when Father’s Day does not fall on the applicant’s “usual” parenting schedule, the child will spend that Father’s Day with her father and this day will be made up on another day as agreed between the parties. [ 15 ] Although there is no evidence before the court on this issue, it may well be that the mother’s husband does in fact relate as a father figure to the parties’ daughter.

Even though the daughter spends much more time with the mother’s husband than with her biological father, so that one extra day of access with the mother’s husband may not seem very important, the opportunity of celebrating the step-parent relationship is important. Therefore, it is anticipated that, in 2012, and in alternating years thereafter, the parties’ daughter will have a special day with her step-father. Heard on the 2 nd day of June, 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 6 th day of June, 2011.

J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Garnet Brian Walker Appeared on his own behalf Candice Irene Ginn Appeared on her own behalf