Schoepp v Schoepp, 2012 ABQB 88

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Schoepp v Schoepp, 2012 ABQB 88 Date: 20120203 Docket: 4803 146782 Registry: Edmonton Between: Rena Joan Schoepp Plaintiff - and - James Jacob Schoepp Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Lee _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] These parties were married in 1989 and separated in May 2008. Minutes of Settlement were executed in March 2010, and the parties divorced in June 2010.

The parties have five children together presently between the ages of 12 and 21. [ 2 ] There are three minor children living with the mother as agreed upon in the Minutes of Settlement, and in accordance with the Divorce Judgment and Corollary Relief Order. The mother was apparently the primary caregiver for all the children throughout the marriage.

The father has had parenting time with the three minor children as specified in the Minutes of Settlement, and is also stated within the Divorce Judgment and Corollary Relief Order every second week from Wednesday 4:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m.; and on alternating weeks on Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. until Thursday morning.

[ 3 ] The Minutes of Settlement also stated that the parties agreed that the three minor children would remain in the primary care of the mother pending a material change in circumstances. The father has made no application to the Court regarding a “ material change in circumstances ” , nor does it appear that he intends to make such an application. [ 4 ] The mother now alleges that the good relationships that she enjoyed with all of her children have been steadily eroded through the father ’ s negative influence on the children.

The father allegedly exercises dominant control and custody of the 17 year old son, as well as the two older sons who apparently now reject their mother. This week the father allegedly had the 15 year old daughter removed from her home behind her back, without her consent, and has notified the mother and the school that the child is now living with him. The mother submits that the father ’ s most egregious breach of the terms of the Divorce Judgment and Corollary Relief Order consists of interfering with her parenting time with the children, and systematically undermining her relationship with them.

She believes that the father will attempt to isolate her from all of her children and extinguish her from the children ’ s lives. [ 5 ] The mother also alleges numerous incidents where she and the father repeatedly argued about financial matters, and about health care matters regarding the children. [ 6 ] For his part the father submits that the children have all voluntarily taken the steps that they have with respect to their mother independent of any interference or influence by him.

One of the older children appeared in the Court before me and provided in support of the father a lengthy set of written minutes purporting to represent what occurred at a recent meeting of all the children, at which the father was not in attendance. The Application [ 7 ] The mother now applies to have the 15 year old child returned to her home immediately, failing which there will be a police enforcement clause.

The mother also seeks an Order that any record of text messages by the father to and from any of the children in the family; amongst the children themselves; and between the two younger children and the partner of one of the older children for the time period August 1, 2010 through January 31, 2012 be made available by Rogers, Telus and any other service provider to counsel for both parties and to the Parenting Expert, who is proposed to be appointed herein pursuant to an intervention under Family Law Practice Note 7. [ 8 ] Given the bizarre and extreme circumstances in this matter the mother seeks an Order that the father have no parenting time with respect to the youngest two children until the Parenting Expert recommends whether and under what conditions, if any, his parenting time should be resumed.

The mother also seeks the exclusive right to make all medical, health and dental decisions for the youngest two children pending Court Order. [ 9 ] The mother seeks the appointment of Carole Chandler, Registered Psychologist as a Parenting Expert to carry out an intervention under Family Law Practice Note 7, with the parties bearing the costs of the Parenting Expert in proportion to their respective incomes namely two thirds of the cost shall be paid by the father and one third shall be paid by the mother. [ 10 ] The father objects to the appointment of any Parenting Expert in this matter submitting that there is no need shown for this Intervention.

He submits that if there should be any assessment ordered, it should be with respect to the psychiatric condition of the mother. Furthermore he cites provisions within the Minutes of Settlement which provide that the cost of any counselling for the children should be borne by the parent who ordered such counselling. The father objects to any further traumatization of the children by forcing them to return to the home from which they left voluntarily on their own accord.

Conclusion [ 11 ] While I appreciate the extensive costs involved in a assessment of this kind, I believe that it is necessary in order to ascertain

the situation with respect to the children. It is impossible on this Record to determine which parent and which parenting arrangement represents the bests interests for these minor children without the benefit of an Intervention. While the costs are significant, I am satisfied that this can be undertaken as a short term intervention taking no longer than 40 hours, at a cost of $13,000 for that 40 hours. The cost shall be shared equally by the parties, and the parties will provide their equal portion in the sum of $6,500 for these costs not later than 4:30 p.m. on February 15, 2012.

The intervention will not take longer than 40 hours, without leave of the Court. There will be no applications to the Court until the intervention is completed, without leave of the Court. There shall be no discussion of the Court proceedings with the minor children by any member of the family including the parents, the adult children, and the friends/partners of the adult children. [ 12 ] Given the present situation, I decline to order the immediate return of the 15 year old child to the mother ’ s house until the Report is completed, or until there has been a material change in the present circumstances.

There is no specific evidence before me that the child in question is in danger or peril, and given that a police enforcement clause would probably have to be invoked in order to effect this change in residence on the part of the 15 year old, I conclude that this is an unnecessary and traumatic event at this time especially for the child.

A recent example of the problems that led to such a drastic order can be found in my December 9, 2011 decision in Arcand v Szczepanski now reported at 2011 ABQB 788 . [ 13 ] I also decline to make any Order with respect to the disclosure of the text messages emanating from the father to any of the children in the family; amongst the children themselves; and between the two younger children and other third parties for the time period between August 1, 2010 through to January 31, 2012 because I believe that that represents too significant an invasion of privacy with respect to too many parties at this present time for no particular specific purpose. [ 14 ] I also decline to make any Order allowing the mother to have the exclusive right to make all medical, health, and dental decisions for the youngest two children given that once again there is nothing specifically before me that suggests any untoward or detrimental medical, health and dental complications or jeopardy that the children are now facing.

The only thing that is clear is that these parties have many difficulties making these types of decisions jointly, as well the fact that they also have many difficulties agreeing on many financial matters. This however does not give the Court the right to unilaterally chose or prefer one party ’ s decision making ability over the other at this time. [ 15 ] I would strongly urge that the father seek and retain legal counsel as soon as possible, and that legal counsel be considered for the children as well. [ 16 ] Costs for today ’ s application are awarded to the mother. Heard on the 1 st day of February, 2012.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 3 rd day of February, 2012. Donald Lee J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Karen D. Swartzenberger McCuaig Desrochers LLP for the Plaintiff James Jacob Schoepp Appeared on His Own Behalf