Digest: Hanslip v Whitequill, 2018 SKQB 352

Date:December 20, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 352

Docket Number: FLD 13/08 JCR , QB18340

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-12-20

Judges:

  • McIntyre

Subjects:

  • Family Law � Custody and Access � Best Interests of Child
  • Family Law � Custody and Access � Children�s Law Act
  • Family Law � Custody and Access � Grandparents � Persons of Sufficient Interest
  • Family Law � Custody and Access � Shared Parenting
  • Family Law � Custody and Access � Voices of the Children Report

Digest: The petitioner and respondent had one child, who was 13 in December 2018. After a pre-trial conference in 2008, the petitioner and respondent had shared parenting of their child. After 2011, the respondent�s parents, the third parties, became the child�s primary caregivers. They were determined to be persons of significant interest in 2011. An order was made that the third parties have custody and primary residence of the child until further order. Th petitioner and respondent had reasonable access on reasonable notice. By 2014, the petitioner was having regular weekend access with the child. The respondent cared for the child during July of each year and for a week over Christmas. The third parties applied to vary the 2008 order and sought custody of the child. The petitioner opposed the application and sought primary residence of the child. A Voice of the Child Report was ordered. The petitioner lived in a different town from the third parties. She worked at numerous jobs in the past few years, primarily in the service industry. She lives with her partner. Her partner has a shared parenting arrangement with his son, who is ten. The child had attended the same school since 2011. The Voices of the Child Report outlined that the child struggled with how to split his time between his parents and grandparents. He did not want to hurt anyone�s feelings. The child also said that he truly did not know where he wanted to live. His preference would be to spend one week at the petitioner�s house and then one week at his grandparent�s house. The respondent lived in Manitoba so did not seek a change to his parenting time.
HELD: The court confirmed that the third parties continued to be persons of significant interest and were granted status to seek custody of the child. The court considered the factors outlined in s. 8 of The Children�s Law Act, 1997; a) the quality of the child�s relationship with the petitioner and his grandparents. The child was bonded to both; b) the
...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP