Digest: P.E.M.A. v S.L.A., 2018 SKQB 145

Date:May 08, 2018
 
FREE EXCERPT

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 145

Docket Number: DIV 53/15 JCR , QB17533

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-05-08

Judges:

  • Dufour

Subjects:

  • Family Law � Custody and Access
  • Family Law � Child Support

Digest: The parties separated in 2014 and shared the parenting of their three children. In early 2015, the oldest son, now 18, and his father had a disagreement and they have been estranged since. The son lived solely with his mother and attended university. In September 2015, the oldest daughter (now 15) decided that she would not return to her mother�s home after they had a violent confrontation. Despite three court orders issued during the fall of 2015, the oldest daughter did not return to shared parenting until January 2017 when her father forced her to do so. However, during her periods of residence at her mother�s house, the oldest daughter would not communicate with her. The youngest daughter, now 13, refused to return to her father�s home after there was a confrontation and as a result, the father had not seen the youngest daughter for two years. They had recently been talking to each other through Facetime. The parties originally agreed before trial to resume shared parenting with their two daughters, although by the end of it, the mother asserted that she should have sole custody of them both immediately. The mother also requested that the court order enrollment in an intervention program, the Family Bridges program, at cost of $30,000 to $40,000. She asserted that the father had alienated their eldest daughter against her and that could only be rectified through participation in the program. The father denied that he had alienated their daughter and that the program was not warranted. The other issues were that each party claimed retroactive and ongoing child support for each of the children. The mother argued that the father�s income was higher than he reported. Another issue related to the cost of the son�s attendance at university. The parties agreed that they should contribute and had done so in the past. The parties had set up an RESP fund to help all of their children to pay for post-secondary education and they asked the court to determine how to distribute it to the son at this time.
HELD: The court ordered that the parties should continue to share parenting of the eldest daughter on a week-on, week-off basis
...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP