Digest: Gudmundson v Fisher, 2018 SKQB 264

Date:October 18, 2019
 
FREE EXCERPT

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 264

Docket Number: FLD 303/18 JCS , QB18255

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-10-18

Judges:

  • Goebel

Subjects:

  • Family Law � Custody and Access � Interim

Digest: The parties separated in 2017 after having two children during their three-year relationship. The children were now three and one year old respectively. The petitioner mother was the children�s primary caregiver during the relationship and took the children with her when she left the family home. The parties arranged that the respondent should have parenting time, but because the youngest child was only seven months old, the petitioner would not permit her to be away from her care for long periods. The respondent claimed that the arrangement was thrust upon him but there was no evidence that he had expressed any concerns about his access. In 2018, the respondent refused to return the oldest child to the petitioner for four months. He contended that the child had developed behavioural problems because of the petitioner and her new boyfriend. The petitioner then refused to allow the respondent to see the youngest child unless she was present. In August 2018, they agreed to implement a shared parenting schedule but in the months that followed, both parties, in particular the respondent, developed concerns that the children were receiving substandard care, although these beliefs were not confirmed. The respondent retained the children while they were visiting him and the petitioner applied for an order that she have primary care of the children with the respondent�s parenting time to be specified.
HELD: The court granted the petitioner�s application. It granted an interim order that the parties would have joint custody of the children with the petitioner having their primary care. The respondent would have access for two overnights each week. The court ordered both parties to attend the high conflict parenting after separation course offered by Family Justice Service and to file proof of their attendance. The court found that the petitioner had demonstrated the greater willingness to facilitate contact with the other parent and the respondent�s behaviour had shown that he had not considered the children�s best interests.

Statutes Considered:

  • Children�s Law Act, 1997, SS 1997, c C-8.2, s 6(5)

Cases...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP