Digest: L.V. v N.Z., 2018 SKQB 331

• Date: November 29, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 331

Docket Number: FLD 325/18 JCR , QB18327

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-11-29

Judges:

• Tochor

Subjects:

• Family Law � Child Support � Interim
• Family Law � Custody and Access � Best Interests of Child
• Family Law � Custody and Access � Interim
• Family Law � Custody and Access � Primary Residence
• Family Law � Custody and Access � Wishes of the Child

Digest: The petitioner applied for an order respecting her four children. The respondent did not take serious issue with most of the application, but did object to the child, C.�s, primary residence being with the petitioner. C. was born in 2004. The oldest child was the petitioner�s child from a previous relationship. The two youngest were born in 2008 and 2010. The parties began cohabitating in 2003 and separated in 2017. The petitioner was the primary caregiver of the children. The respondent was often required to be away from home for his employment. At separation, the children resided with the petitioner in the family home and the respondent had parenting time with the three younger children every second weekend. In August 2018, C. moved in with the respondent to make it easier to get to his summer job. The petitioner was under the understanding that C. would return to her residence at the end of summer. C. did not return to live with the petitioner. He has refused any contact with her. In October 2018, there was an interim order made requiring that C. spend five days, including overnights, with the petitioner. C. only spent one weekend with the petitioner. The three primary issues were: 1) the primary residence of C.; 2) parenting arrangements; and 3) ss. 3 and 7 expenses.
HELD: The issues were determined as follows: 1) a factor weighing heavily in favour of C. returning to the petitioner�s residence was the fact that he lived with her for nearly a year after the separation. C. would not be at risk at her residence. C.�s wishes also had to be considered, but they were not decisive. The willingness of the respondent to encourage access was also a factor. There was no evidence that the respondent made any efforts to encourage C. to have contact with the petitioner. Also, the respondent did not follow the October 2018 court order. The respondent�s unwillingness to follow the order and to facilitate access was found to weigh heavily in favour of C.�s primary access with the petitioner. C.�s learning challenges since September 2018...