KKB v RSB, 2021 ABQB 677

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: KKB v RSB, 2021 ABQB 677 Date: 20210824 Docket: 4801 181256 Registry: Calgary Between: KKB Applicant - and - RSB Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice B.E. Romaine _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The issues in this application are as follows:

a) Should the Practice Note 7 recommendations be incorporated into an order?

b) How should the child support arrears be calculated and paid out? [ 2 ] With respect to the PN7 recommendations, the father takes the position that some of the recommendations are already in existing orders, and that the assessor erred in making recommendations at all, given the limits set out under the PN7 Guidelines.

[ 3 ] However, the PN7 recommendations are a useful contribution to this litigious matter by a recognized psychologist, and an update on the current situation that is extremely useful in determining the wishes of these children, their opinions on parenting, and the pressures they are under. [ 4 ] A new parenting order is appropriate.

While the assessor may have exceeded his scope, there is sufficient information in the report to allow me to make decisions on parenting without his final recommendations. [ 5 ] With respect to J, given his age and the circumstances described in the report, custody of J will remain joint, but his day-to- day care will be with the father, with generous access to his mother on such terms as he and his mother may agree. [ 6 ] I direct that, prior to such access, J and his mother undergo family reconciliation therapy, separately, at first.

If after three sessions, the counsellor is of the view that joint sessions would be possible and helpful, the family reconciliation therapy will continue with the goal of determining an access plan that is in J's best interest. I understand that J may balk at this direction, but I direct that he attend at least three sessions with a family reconciliation counsellor before he makes a decision on whether to continue with counselling. As this is a direction in the best interests of J, and not just his mother, the cost of this therapy will be shared in the same way as other

section 7 expenses. [ 7 ] The father is directed to ensure that J attends such therapy. If J refuses or the father fails to facilitate therapy, the issue of who should have day-to-day care of J may be revisited after six months. [ 8 ] With respect to whether the father's June 30, 2021 affidavit should be struck, I note that it includes the valuable information that the father's assault trial has been adjourned.

I will disregard the balance of the affidavit, except for disclosure of one incident, which I refer to later. [ 9 ] Having regard to the information with respect to K in the PN7 report, and, despite her advice that she would like to spend equal time with both parents, I find that joint care is inappropriate in this case, given the level of conflict between the father and mother. It is clear that K's preference is based on her unrealistic wish that the family be reunited.

She may need counselling if the reality of the situation causes her undue stress, but currently that does not appear to be the case, as she is described as a happy, friendly child with strong social skills and maturity beyond her age. [ 10 ] My decision with respect to K is also influenced by the father's response to a question about his need to change or improve his parenting ability, (he said "I need complete care and control") as well as his elevated parent-child relationship scores, and borderline score in his sense of competence in parenting K. [ 11 ] I also note the father's unilateral decision to have K's hair cut, apparently without notice to or consent of the mother.

This kind of decision should be made by the parent having day-to-day care and control, preferable after notice to or discussion with the other parent. It illustrates that the father is not willing to accept joint parenting or capable of cooperation with the mother at this time. [ 12 ] The father should have the same access regime to K as he has presently, subject to two conditions:

a) K must have her own bed, and not share with the father; and

b) K must not be left alone with the grandfather during the father's parenting time. [ 13 ] There appear to be legitimate concerns in this area.

While there is conflicting evidence from the mother and the grandfather that cannot be resolved without a full credibility assessment, it is noteworthy that both parents agreed with this condition in the original consent parenting order. [ 14 ] With respect to arrears of support, both parties acknowledge that they are outstanding, but there is nothing in the mother's brief to address this. [ 15 ] I direct that counsel prepare a revised statement of arrears based on actual day-to-day care of the children and actual yearly guideline income. [ 16 ] The father is directed to pay arrears at a rate of $150 per month until the parties are able to agree on the amount of arrears and a plan for repayment.

If they are unable to agree, this issue may be brought back to chambers. The order will include a yearly recalculation clause. [ 17 ] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, they may make written submissions limited to five pages on that issue. Heard on the 15 th day of July, 2021. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 24 th day of August, 2021.

B.E. Romaine J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Rabie Ahmed for the Applicant Madan Gakhar for the Respondent