Crawford v. Crawford, 2015 ABQB 821

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Crawford v. Crawford, 2015 ABQB 821 Date: 20151221 Docket: 4803 160090 Registry: Edmonton Between: Lee Daniel Crawford Plaintiff - and - Stacey Lynn Crawford Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice B.R. Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Stacey Crawford seeks an adjustment to the interim parenting arrangements which I ordered in August 2015 for the parties’ 6 year old child.

Lee Crawford opposes the proposed adjustment. [ 2 ] The parties’ circumstances are described in my August 26 decision, 2105 ABQB 534. There, in response to the Practice Note 8 Bilateral Assessment of Dr. Joanne Seitz, I granted Mr. Crawford’s application for a change to the shared parenting arrangements which had then been in place for several years. I ordered that Mr. Crawford would have primary care of and decision making authority for, the child. I ordered that Ms. Crawford would have supervised access twice a week. My order was responding to what I considered to be an urgent situation and was made despite Ms.

Crawford not having had opportunity to challenge Dr. Seitz’ assessments. I therefore directed that either parent might apply to me for a change to any of the parenting terms I ordered on five days’ notice to the other parent.

[ 3 ] Ms. Crawford’s present application is made in response to that direction, three and a half months after my order, and six weeks before the commencement, on February 1, 2016, of the scheduled 10 day trial of this matter. [ 4 ] Ms. Crawford has filed materials on this application which speak to and answer most of the points upon which Dr. Seitz’ recommendations were founded. In his submissions on this application, Mr. Crawford has, however, identified features of the evidence Ms. Crawford has filed which could affect the weight it will be given by the trial judge. Of course, Dr.

Seitz’ evidence and recommendations will also have to be carefully assessed by the trial judge. [ 5 ] At this point, just six weeks before trial, it would not be appropriate for me to attempt the kind of assessment of the circumstances and evidence which the trial judge will undertake after all the witnesses have testified and been cross-examined. I am satisfied the child is safe and secure in the existing arrangement, whether or not some other arrangement would serve her best interests better.

I also recognize that a few weeks from now, the trial decision could possibly result in a significant change of the parenting arrangements which are in place at the time of the trial and that multiple significant changes in a short period of time would be contrary to the child’s best interests. [ 6 ] Even so, I am satisfied that some minor adjustments to the order I made in August are appropriate. In my view, it is no longer necessary for Ms. Crawford’s access to be supervised. Dr.

Seitz recommended that visits should be “supervised initially to prevent Stacy from behaving or speaking inappropriately.” She contemplated that supervision might not be necessary after Ms. Crawford had a period to adjust and the decision about supervision might be made after review by a mental health professional. There has been supervision since August. There has also been a review of Ms. Crawford’s mental health. The reports that have resulted from both satisfy me that supervision is no longer required. [ 7 ] I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to increase Ms.

Crawford’s parenting time and that her parenting time should include some overnight visits. My order will cover the time between now and the end of the trial. Accordingly, I order, that Ms. Crawford have unsupervised parenting time with the child as follows: Wednesday, December 23 from noon to 7:00 p.m. Saturday, December 26 from noon to Sunday, December 27 at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, December 30 from noon to 7:00 p.m. Saturday, January 2 from noon to Sunday, January 3 at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 6 from after school to 7:00 p.m. Saturday, January 9 from noon to 7:00 p.m.

Wednesday, January 13 from after school to 7:00 p.m. Saturday, January 16 from noon to Sunday January 17 at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 20 from after school to 7:00 p.m. Saturday, January 23 from noon to 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 27 from after school to 7:00 p.m. Saturday, January 30 from noon to Sunday, January 31 at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 3 from after school to 7:00 p.m. Saturday, February 6 from noon to 7:00 p.m.

Wednesday, February 10 from after school to 7:00 p.m. [ 8 ] In all other respects, my August 2015 order will remain in effect until further order – which, presumably, will be the order of the trial judge. Heard on the 15 th day of December, 2015. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 21 st day of December, 2015.

B.R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Joanne Tymafichuk for the Plaintiff Lydia J. Bubel for the Defendant