Demong v. Demong, 2014 SKQB 170

• Judge: Turcotte, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 06, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2014 SKQB 170;(2014), 447 Sask.R. 294 (FD)

Demong v. Demong (2014), 447 Sask.R. 294 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.014

Nada Cora Demong (petitioner) v. Claude Lawrence Demong (respondent)

(2012 Div. No. 742; 2014 SKQB 170)

Indexed As: Demong v. Demong

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Turcotte, J.

June 6, 2014.

Summary:

Married parents separated. They had two children, Paige (age 14) and Kendra (age 11). The parties shared parenting on an equal, but unstructured, basis until the mother moved into her new partner's home. Paige indicated that she did not want to live with the mother's new partner. Since then, Paige had been in the mother's care on a sporadic and infrequent basis. Kendra continued to alternate between the homes equally. The mother applied for an order for joint custody with shared (equal) parenting. The father cross-applied for joint custody with Paige primarily in his care and equal parenting of Kendra. Child support and the determination of the parties' incomes were also at issue.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, adjourned the parties' applications for joint custody sine die, returnable on the parties' entering counselling as directed by the court. In the interim, the court ordered joint custody with Paige primarily in the father's care and specified access for the mother. Kendra was to be parented equally. The court determined the parties' incomes for child support purposes. The ChildView program calculated a net monthly Federal Child Support Guideline payment of $848, owing from the mother to the father.

Family Law - Topic 1890

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Child's preference - Married parents separated - They had two children, Paige (age 14) and Kendra (age 11) - The parties shared parenting on an equal, but unstructured, basis until the mother moved into her new partner's home - Paige indicated that she did not want to live with the mother's new partner - Since then, Paige had been in the mother's care on a sporadic and infrequent basis - Kendra continued to alternate between the homes equally - The mother applied for an order for joint custody with shared (equal) parenting - The father cross-applied for joint custody with Paige primarily in his care and equal parenting of Kendra - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, rejected the father's position that it was sufficient for him to foster Paige's relationship with her mother based on "whatever Paige wishes" - While the child's wishes were an important consideration, they were rarely determinative - The father had a duty and obligation to foster a meaningful relationship between the mother and the children and to maximize contact between them, consistently with the children's best interests - However, the mother had a parental role as well and had to address Paige's concerns - There was no evidence that she had done so - The parties' applications were adjourned sine die, returnable on the parties' entering counselling as directed by the court - In the interim, the court ordered joint custody with Paige primarily in the father's care and specified access for the mother - Kendra was to be parented equally - See paragraphs 6 to 21.

Family Law - Topic 2051

Custody and access - Interim custody - Considerations - [See Family Law - Topic 1890 ].

Family Law - Topic 2076

Custody and access - Joint custody - Principal home - [See Family Law - Topic 1890 ].

Family Law - Topic 2195.1

Custody and access - Practice - Order for family therapy - [See Family Law - Topic 1890 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Child support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Calculation or attribution of income - The parties shared interim joint custody of their two children, Paige (age 14) and Kendra (age 11) - Paige lived primarily with the father, while Kendra was parented equally - At issue was child support - The mother's income was determined to be $91,523 - The father's 2013 income on his tax return was $43,891 - The mother asserted that the father was understating his income as a truck driver by claiming expenses greater than actually incurred and that his claim for capital cost allowance was exaggerated - She asserted that income should be imputed to the father to at least the level of his personal expenses claimed on his 2012 financial statement, $71,921 - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, was not prepared to impute income to the father at the interim stage - At this stage, none of the trucking expenses had been proven and the capital cost allowance claim appeared to be reasonable - There was no evidence that the father was intentionally underemployed - In addition to his trucking income, the father received rental income from farmland - In those circumstance, his income for child support purposes on an interim basis was $50,000 - The ChildView program calculated a net monthly Federal Child Support Guideline payment of $848, owing from the mother to the father - See paragraphs 22 to 37.

Family Law - Topic 4045.7

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Child support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Shared custody (at least 40% of time with each parent) - [See Family Law - Topic 4045.5 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.13

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Use of computer programs - [See Family Law - Topic 4045.5 ].

Family Law - Topic 4059

Divorce - Corollary relief - Custody of children - Interim custody - [See Family Law - Topic 1890 ].

Family Law - Topic 4084

Divorce - Corollary relief - Interim maintenance - Awards - [See Family Law - Topic 4045.5 ].

Cases Noticed:

McGinn v. McGinn, [2006] Sask.R. Uned. 17; 2006 SKQB 105 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 8].

Rhoades v. Goodine, [2009] Sask.R. Uned. 131; 2009 SKQB 310 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 8].

L.M. v. V.M. (2006), 286 Sask.R. 10; 2006 SKQB 381 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 8].

Mercer v. Mercer - see L.M. v. V.M.

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 16].

Rudachyk v. Rudachyk, [1999] 10 W.W.R. 321; 180 Sask.R. 73; 205 W.A.C. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Sjogren v. Pipchuk, [1997] Sask.R. Uned. 208; 34 R.F.L.(4th) 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Huber v. Yaroshko (2000), 194 Sask.R. 48; 2000 SKQB 114 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 28].

Algner v. Algner, [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 63; [2008] 10 W.W.R. 509; 2008 SKQB 132 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 30].

Wouters v. Wouters (2001), 205 Sask.R. 215; 16 R.F.L.(5th) 438; 2001 SKQB 142 (Fam. Div.), appld. [para. 34].

Wilkie v. Wilkie, [2009] 8 W.W.R. 515; 333 Sask.R. 48; 2009 SKQB 119 (Fam. Div.), appld. [para. 34].

Graham v. Tomlinson (2010), 359 Sask.R. 251; 494 W.A.C. 251; 2010 SKCA 101, refd to. [para. 36].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Chan, Evan K., and Gardiner, Barry R., ChildView, Version 2014.2.0 [para. 35].

Counsel:

Karina L. Jackson, for the petitioner;

Valerie G. Watson, for the respondent.

These applications were heard by Turcotte, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on June 6, 2014.