Laflamme v Mavrogiannakis, 2015 ABQB 785

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Laflamme v Mavrogiannakis, 2015 ABQB 785 Date: 20151209 Docket: FL03 45965 Registry: Edmonton Between: Bernard Laflamme Applicant - and - Maria Elizabeth Mavrogiannakis Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr.

Laflamme’s morning chambers application for access to his 1 ½ year old daughter in Vancouver from December 23 rd to 30 th , 2015 is denied: in the circumstances here, such a lengthy first overnight access period in a place where the child has no connections except to her father, is not in the child’s best interests. [ 2 ] The parties are the parents of a child who is now approximately 1 year and 9 months old. The father lives in Vancouver; the mother lives in Edmonton.

Although the mother lived with the father in Vancouver for two months during her pregnancy, the mother has no information about the father’s current living circumstances in Vancouver. Both parents report incomes in the $15,000.00 yearly range. Although the child eats solid food, the mother also breastfeeds her daughter, usually in the evening. [ 3 ] In June 2015, the father had his first contact in person with his daughter who was, by then, a little over one year old; he had

access with his daughter for several hours on June 20 and 21. In July, he saw his daughter on July 18 and 19. In August, 2015, the parties consented to an order pursuant to which the father had daytime access on August 26 and 27; on September 11, 12 and 13; on October 10, 11, and 12; and on November 20, 21, and 22. [ 4 ] The father himself states that on his first visits in June, 2015, his daughter basically did not eat unless her mother was there, and cried a lot.

On the second visit, in July, 2015 after spending some time with his daughter, the father “texted [the mother] and ask[ed] her to meet me in the parent room”, after which both parents played with their daughter. On the next day, the father took his daughter to a water park; he describes the visit in this way: I was not getting much response from [my daughter], so I thought she was bored. I decided to contact the mother so she can join us, hoping that the three of us could interact but by the time the mother got there [my daughter] and I had a nap in the sitting area of the waterpark. . . .

After [our daughter woke up . . . I again invited the mother to eat pasta with us. . . . Once we got to the restaurant, [our daughter] got very agitated, she was walking all over, sitting in her mother’s lap screaming, pulling the mother’s hair, knocking stuff over and throwing stuff on the ground.” [ 5 ] There is no specific evidence about the quality of the interaction between the father and his daughter during the August- November visits. [ 6 ] The parties mutually allege many parenting fitness concerns; it is not possible to resolve those contests in a morning chambers application.

The application is therefore dealt with on the basis that each of the parents is able to adequately parent their child. [ 7 ] It is unfortunate that the father lives such a great distance from his infant daughter; were he living close to her in Edmonton, the court may well have, by now, instituted at least limited overnight access. Even then, however, there are two factors which the court would have to consider on this application for one week of uninterrupted access in another province.

First, given the length of time which the father requests, and the inability of the mother and daughter to have effective communication during that period because of the daughter’s age, the proposed Christmas access would undermine the child’s need for stability. As can be seen from the father’s own evidence, he was a stranger to his one year old daughter when he first met her some months ago and the daughter basically only felt comfortable in the mother’s presence.

Second, given the child’s complete unfamiliarity with Vancouver, one might expect the same level of adjustment difficulty for the child in Vancouver if she could not “go home” every night as that reported when she first met her father in Edmonton. [ 8 ] Overall, it is not in the parties’ daughter’s best interests to grant the Christmas access requested. [ 9 ] The mother has indicated that the father is welcome to see his daughter for some hours every day between December 23 and December 30 in Edmonton.

That offer stands; however, the father should advise the mother, in writing or by text or email, by December 16, if he intends to exercise that access. Heard on the 3 rd day of December, 2015. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 9th th day of December, 2015. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Lawrence Hazlett, Nickerson Roberts for the Applicant, Mr. Laflamme

Magdalena Ganczak, Healey Law for the Respondent, Ms. Mavrogiannakis