Digest: B.A.B.-E. v K.N.C., 2018 SKQB 135

Date:May 02, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 135

Docket Number: QB17521 , FLD 259/15 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-05-02


  • McCreary


  • Family Law � Custody and Access � Supervised Access

Digest: The petitioner and respondent were parents of a seven-year-old child. After separating, they shared parenting until 2015. At that time, Social Services required that the child live exclusively with the petitioner and the respondent was to exercise access only on a supervised basis. The court confirmed this arrangement pursuant to a number of interim orders until the matter came to trial. The petitioner sought a final order for sole custody of the child. He argued that the respondent should either not have access or should have only supervised access because of her conduct. After the separation, the respondent began dating an individual. The parties were notified by Social Services that there were allegations that this individual had sexually assaulted their child and in addition was facing child pornography charges for which he was eventually convicted. The respondent did not believe the allegations and as a result, the court granted an order in 2015 giving the petitioner interim sole custody and only supervised access to the respondent. The court ordered that her boyfriend was not to have any contact with her child and the respondent�s decision to continue her relationship with him made it difficult for her to have parenting time. The respondent initially participated in the supervised access arrangement, but was warned about her behaviour towards the program supervisors and then stopped participating in the program. She did not take steps to arrange for other supervised parenting time and had not seen her child for more than eight months, which was not in his best interests. The respondent had also created a high-conflict situation with the petitioner that made it impossible for them to communicate about necessary decisions for their child. After her first inappropriate relationship had ended, the respondent and her second partner had harassed and demeaned both the petitioner...

To continue reading