Purtell v. Pattingale, 2013 ABQB 591

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Purtell v. Pattingale, 2013 ABQB 591 Date: 20131008 Docket: 4803 161208 Registry: Edmonton Between: Frederic Purtell Plaintiff - and - Laura Elisha Pattingale Defendant _ ________________________________________ ______________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Lee _________________________________________ ______________ [ 1 ] The one child of this relationship is presently almost 6 years of age.

The parents have joint custody of the child, with the primary residence of the child being with the mother pursuant to an Order issued in this Court on November 7, 2012. A number of contentious issues exist between these parties, and have existed for a considerable period of time. It is obvious that these parties have difficulties communicating with each other. The Parties’ personal circumstances have also changed since the November 7, 2012 Order, even though less than a year has transpired.

When the November 7, 2012 Order was granted, it was clear that the father did not have adequate accommodation for his son to live with him primarily or on a shared basis. This has now changed, such that the father now applies to have the child reside with him primarily, or on a shared basis. Since the November 2012 the Order the mother has also moved residences, which has caused some difficulty and changes with respect to the father’s access, particularly with respect to the child’s enrollment in school this term which began on September 1, 2013.

[ 2 ] With respect to the father’s application to have greater parenting responsibility and time for the child, notwithstanding less than a year has passed since the November 7, 2012 Order, I ruled that his present application can proceed, but only if a bilateral Assessment is done to assist the Court in determining whether the proposed arrangements would be in the best interests of the child.

While not every change in care and control of the child requires an Assessment, I conclude that a parenting expert appointed by the Court needs to be involved in this matter. [ 3 ] The mother has raised a number of concerns with respect to the father’s parenting ability, and his own personal well-being and fitness. The existing Court Order less than a year was that the parents have joint custody of the child and that the mother have the primary residence of the child.

As such the parenting expert will have access to the father’s personal medical file, and the Parties are ordered to cooperate with the parenting expert to carry out a parenting time/parenting responsibilities assessment under Practice Note 8.

Subject to the ultimate determination by the trial judge as to how the Parties shall bear the costs of the parenting expert, the mother shall pay the costs of the parenting expert in the interim given that she is the one who is requesting the intervention of the parenting expert. [ 4 ] As for the other matter that requires a ruling arising from the September 25, 2013 hearing, the mother requested that the child continue to attend her preferred school, Rio Terrace, which is a French Immersion school, in compliance with the November 2012 Order of this Court in this regard.

The school the child previously attended in Sherwood Park was also a French Immersion school as ordered by Justice Sanderman on November 7, 2012. The mother points out that the Alliance Francaise of Edmonton, a non-profit association providing French language lessons, believes that the child is a complete beginner, who cannot presently read or speak French, and has difficulty writing in French.

It is reported that the child only knows the alphabet so far, which is consistent I believe with a child that is barely 6 years of age entering his first formal year of education in the school system. [ 5 ] The father objects to the mother’s choice of schooling for their son, submitting that the child should be enrolled in a Francophone school that he has already secured entry into, and at the proposed day care facility that he has also arranged for.

In addition to objecting to the Francophone school, the mother submits that the father’s proposed childcare facility is an unlicensed day home with no regulatory oversight, and furthermore the facility is unsubsidized, as a result of being unlicensed. It was argued on September 25, 2013 by the father that he required the ability to pay the childcare provider directly, as opposed to paying through the mother, which the mother now submits will mean that his income has to be taken into account for subsidy purposes, and she will lose her subsidy.

I determined on September 25, 2013 that the father’s guideline income was $66,888 annually, and the mother’s Annual Guideline Income was $40,277. [ 6 ] The father responds that the daycare that he has arranged for is still a subsidized facility, and that the school the child attended last term was to accommodate the mother’s residence.

The father insists that he is entitled to have the child enrolled in a Francophone school, not a French Immersion school, and that his choice of daycare is simply an adjunct to that. [ 7 ] I conclude that it is in the best interest that the child learn as many languages as possible, and furthermore that a Francophone would be better for the child in terms of learning French than a French Immersion school.

I also conclude that the father was given this privilege in the previous November 7, 2012 Order, and now that he has chosen to exercise it, I conclude that the father can take the child and enroll the child immediately in the Francophone school and nearby daycare that he has selected. [ 8 ] I believe that these rulings conclude all of the outstanding issues still remaining at this time between the Parties. Heard on the 25 th day of September, 2013 Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 7 th day of October, 2013. Donald Lee J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Frederic Purtell Self-Represented Litigant

Marilyn Sheckter Legal Family Crisis Clinic for the Defendant