Serfas v. Serfas, 2013 ABQB 173

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Serfas v. Serfas, 2013 ABQB 173 Date: 20130319 Docket: 4803 161073 Registry: Edmonton Between: Jeffrey Wesley Serfas Applicant - and - Elizabeth Maryanne Serfas Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Serfas, who is a professional and therefore under considerable independent scrutiny, asks for specified interim access to his nearly two year old son. Ms.

Serfas, who is a professional in the same field and indeed was employed by her husband ’ s firm until the birth of their child, objects to the father ’ s application on the generic grounds that such access might not be in the child ’ s best interests, although her only expressed specific concern is that the father sometimes exercises his access in his workplace. [ 2 ] The mother ’ s unfounded fears for the safety of the parties ’ child is undoubtedly only the product of her great love for that child.

However, the best interests of a child are to have maximum contact with each parent; that is what Parliament has decreed and that is what the case law establishes. Indeed, with very young children, as is the case here, the weight of professional opinion appears to be that frequent contact between the child and both his parents is optimal. [ 3 ] Naturally, where maximum contact is not in a child ’ s best interests, that level of contact will not be endorsed by the court.

[ 4 ] Here, however, the mother has not advanced any objectively realistic concerns. She is worried about the father sometimes bringing his son to work; that is a somewhat strange worry for a professional who doubtless has had much contact with farming families where children just naturally inhabit the place where the parents work. Equally odd is her concern that her husband would not show the degree of care for his son as he presumably shows for animals.

No evidence is advanced to justify a reasonable concern that the father will not take appropriate measures to ensure his son ’ s safety on those occasions when he takes his son to work. [ 5 ] The mother also states that the father acted inappropriately towards her when the parties first separated. Even if her allegations about conduct at that time are well founded, the court will not assume that the shock and disorientation caused by an unexpected breakdown of a marriage will continue after one partner has had a reasonable opportunity to process the change in the relationship.

Such a cooling down period has now transpired.

It is time to put the parental-filial relationship on a solid basis that will serve the child ’ s best interests while allowing the parents to plan for the change in the family dynamic. [ 6 ] The father is entitled essentially to the interim access he seeks, i.e. a first phase of access being one weekend day per week and three weeknights from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; a second phase which will be to increase the one day weekend access to weekend overnight access on alternate weekends, while maintaining the weeknight access, commencing one month after the first phase of access has been completed; and a third phase of full alternate weekend access, i.e. from Friday night to Sunday night, together with the weeknight access, one month after the second phase has been completed.

Thereafter, the parenting regime can be reexamined by the court at the request of either parent. [ 7 ] If the parties are not agreed on costs, I can be spoken within 30 days after the release of this decision. Heard on the 7 th day of March, 2013. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 18 th day of March, 2013. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Yolanda Van Wachem, McLennan Ross LLP for the Applicant, Mr. Serfas

John P. Kudrinko, Ackroyd LLP for the Respondent, Ms. Serfas