IB v JAB, 2011 ABQB 674

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: IB v JAB, 2011 ABQB 674 Date: 20111103 Docket: 4803 155141 Registry: Edmonton Between: IB Plaintiff - and - JAB Defendant Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of Alberta identifying information has been removed from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment. _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Sterling Sanderman _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Bs were married on July 29, 2000. There is one child of this marriage.

She celebrated her 5 th birthday in July of this year. Ms. B. left the matrimonial home in A[...], Alberta in late August of 2010. She relocated to Edmonton, Alberta. She moved in with her parents. From her perspective, the marriage was over. She filed for divorce in November of 2010. [ 2 ] While this couple resided in A[...], Mr. B. worked in F[...], Alberta and returned to the matrimonial home on his days off. After Ms. B. moved with her daughter to Edmonton, he took steps to change his employment. He wanted to be closer to his daughter and to play a major role in her life.

He gave up his lucrative position in F[...] and obtained employment in Edmonton at a reduced salary. [ 3 ] Mr. B. would like to have a shared parenting arrangement with Ms. B. She resists this suggestion. She wants to maintain the

[ 3 ] Mr. B. would like to have a shared parenting arrangement with Ms. B. She resists this suggestion. She wants to maintain the court ordered access that has been in place since January of 2011. [ 4 ] On January 20, 2011 Justice Mandercheid granted an order that set the interim access for Mr. B. He was to have supervised access every Saturday from 12 p.m. to 7 p.m. and every Sunday from 12 p.m. to 7 p.m. The supervision was to be provided by Mr. B.’s mother. In addition to this, the interim order provided that the parties were to enter into a Practice Note 7 intervention.

This was ordered because of concerns raised by Ms. B. to the Court. [ 5 ] She provided evidence that their daughter was acting out in a sexually inappropriate manner. Ms. B. was concerned that the cause of the acting out was behaviour that Mr. B. was directing towards their daughter. It was apparent that the child of this marriage was experiencing some significant psychological problems. [ 6 ] On February 28, 2011 the parties enterered into a Practice Note 7 intervention consent order. The intervention was to focus on three specific areas.

The first subject to be canvassed was whether the daughter was being alienated from Mr. B. Secondly, Ms. B.’s concerns over Mr. B.’s behaviour towards their daughter was to be examined. Lastly, the psychologist charged with the responsibility of undertaking the intervention was to determine whether further counselling was needed to address any identified problems. [ 7 ] In May of 2011 Dr. Vandersteen provided her report. [ 8 ] The report clearly indicates that there is no reliable evidence upon which a reasonable person could base the concerns expressed by Ms.

B. in relation to her husband’s behaviour towards their daughter. The basis for supervised access appears to be non- existent. [ 9 ] Alienation does not appear to be occurring from any intentional behaviour arising from Ms. B. Dr. Vandersteen indicates that there is some basis for concern about alienation. The daughter is a bright and emotionally sensitive child who is aware that she is not able to be alone with her father and is not able to have overnight visits with him.

The child is aware that there is a huge problem between her parents and her mother exhibits a pattern of behaviour that indicates she is afraid of her husband. Some of the attitudes possessed by Ms. B. appear to have been adopted by her daughter quite innocently. It is apparent to Dr. Vandersteen that children exposed to this type of tension and conflict feel anxious and conflicted in relationships with their parents. [ 10 ] The anxiety they feel can be expressed in a variety of ways. It affects their behaviour and their emotional well being.

The trauma that is being visited upon the child because of the obvious conflict between the parents may be the root cause of her inappropriate acting out. [ 11 ] Because of the opinion expressed by Dr. Vandersteen, she recommends that this family would benefit from Family Restructuring Therapy. The scheme envisioned is that the parents would have one therapist working with them to develop communication skills and build trust as co-parents.

The child would be seen by a different therapist to provide support for her to explore issues and concerns identified by the parents’ therapist and to ensure that the child’s needs and interests are addressed. This recommendation makes eminent good sense. [ 12 ] Justice Mandercheid’s order was merely an interim order. It was put in place in order to address a specific concern. That concern is found to be unwarranted. It was contemplated by the interim order that if the concern vanished then there would be some other arrangement in the future. Supervised access is not warranted in this case.

The present interim order has worked a hardship upon Mr. B.’s family members who have been put in the position of having to supervise his visits. [ 13 ] The present order also works a hardship upon Ms. B. She is not able to engage in activities with her daughter on weekends as she is with her father. Changes are required in this order. [ 14 ] Ms. B. and Mr. B. will have joint custody of their daughter. The present order cannot remain. Mr. B.’s request for a shared parenting plan is premature. He has had limited contact with his daughter for the past 10 months.

There has to be a gradual change in relation to the access he enjoys to allow his daughter to become acclimatized to his presence. In addition to this, Mr. B. has not filed any

materials more recent than January of 2011 that outline his personal situation. It would be folly to consider a joint parenting plan without further information being provided by Mr. B. [ 15 ] In order to gradually reacquaint the child with her father, he will continue to have access to his daughter every Saturday and Sunday for the month of November without supervision. The hours of the access will be the same as Justice Mandercheid’s order. Beginning Saturday December 3, 2011 Mr. B. will be entitled to have overnight access with his daughter.

The access will be from noon on December 3, 2011 to 5 p.m. on December 4, 2011. Overnight access during these times will also be in effect during the weekend of December 10 and December 17. I expect that the parents of this child will be able to come to some accommodation in relation to Christmas access. Cooperation between the two of them in the future in relation to access to their daughter is critical.

It is in her best interest that she have a meaningful relationship with both parents and that both parents have the opportunity to play a significant role in her life. [ 16 ] The child of this marriage is fortunate that she has two loving parents. Both profess a commitment to ensure that their decision making is truly in her best interests. I take the statements in this regard at face value. [ 17 ] Although their marriage appears to be over, they still have a common obligation that will continue for a number of years.

Their common obligation is to create an environment in which their daughter can flourish and develop her talents and abilities to the greatest extent possible. Both parents should want her to be more successful then they have been in their lives and they should be making decisions that ensure her present and future happiness. They should not be behaving in a fashion that causes her stress and anxiety. [ 18 ] One would expect two committed and loving parents, who no longer live together and accept their common obligation to be able to consistently make decisions that are clearly in their daughter’s best interests.

They have to be selfless in their decision making process. They have to put their daughter’s interests above their own. They will have to engage in this type of decision making for a number of years. That is why I am entrusting to them the task of establishing a fair access regime for the Christmas holidays.

If they cannot agree upon this access, I will make the decision. [ 19 ] Once the Christmas season is over, the access regime that begins at the beginning of the month of December 2011 will continue into the month of January 2012. [ 20 ] Before I would contemplate moving towards a shared parenting arrangement, I would need to know much more about Mr. B.’s ability to care for his daughter on a regular basis. I know that he has relocated his employment to Edmonton and works a week on and a week off. There is not enough information provided by him to allow the court to make an informed decision.

More is required. [ 21 ] I also do not have enough financial information from either party in order to make a definitive order in relation to child support. Mr. B. concedes that his income from when he relocated to Edmonton to work should be set at $89,900.00 per year. The child support he should be paying for one child based upon this amount is $791. This amount of child support should have been paid by him upon his obtaining employment in Edmonton. I do not know if he has been paying any child support. If not, he will be in arrears.

There have been no orders granted by this court setting his child support obligations. [ 22 ] If he is in arrears, there will be no enforcement in relation to those arrears as long as he makes a contribution of $150.00 per month towards their retirement in addition to his regular monthly child support obligation of $791. [ 23 ] There may be child support arrears from the time period Mr. B. continued to reside in F[...] and live in A[...]. Further information is required from the parties in order to determine whether this is the case. [ 24 ] I am not in a position to set the

Section 7 costs at this time. I do not know what Ms. B. earns. She is seeking employment with the Edmonton Public School Board. She taught school in A[...] for a number of years. She has not been able to obtain similar employment in Edmonton. She has obtained employment outside of her field of expertise on a temporary basis. I would need to know what she has made during the course of this employment in order to properly set Mr. B.’s

Section 7 obligations. I would also need to have an accurate accounting of the

Section 7 expenses that have been incurred on behalf of the child of this marriage. I await this further information before I can properly set the financial obligations of the parents in relation to support for their daughter.

[ 25 ] Ms. B. has a claim for spousal support. Not enough information has been provided in order to properly assess this claim. [ 26 ] I direct that the recommendations of Dr. Vandersteen in relation to counselling for the child be adopted. It is obvious that the child is suffering some distress because of the breakdown of her parent’s marriage. Inappropriate acting out has been observed and needs to be addressed. If the parents cannot agree upon how this counselling is to be funded, I will make this decision. It appears as if the matrimonial home in A[...] has been sold and funds are being held in trust.

It would appears as if the needs of their child mandates accessing some of these funds in order to ensure that the counselling is obtained. [ 27 ] The parties will bear their own costs in relation to this application. Heard on the 27 th day of October, 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 3 rd day of November, 2011. Sterling Sanderman J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Christina E. Riddoch Family Law Office for the Plaintiff Timothy A. Verhaeghe Verhaeghe Law Office for the Defendant