G.A.L. v. A.L.W., 2014 NBQB 202

Judge:DeWare, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
Case Date:August 27, 2014
Jurisdiction:New Brunswick
Citations:2014 NBQB 202;(2014), 424 N.B.R.(2d) 371 (FD)
 
FREE EXCERPT

G.A.L. v. A.L.W. (2014), 424 N.B.R.(2d) 371 (FD);

    424 R.N.-B.(2e) 371; 1104 A.P.R. 371

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.017

Renvoi temp.: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.017

G.A.L. (applicant) v. A.L.W. (respondent)

A.L.W. (applicant) v. J.R.M. (respondent)

(FDW/94/14; 2014 NBQB 202; 2014 NBBR 202)

Indexed As: G.A.L. v. A.L.W.

Répertorié: G.A.L. v. A.L.W.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Judicial District of Woodstock

DeWare, J.

August 27, 2014.

Summary:

Résumé:

There were two matters before the court, both under the Family Services Act. A mother planned to move from New Brunswick to Brantford, Ontario, with her two youngest children, girls aged five and three. The youngest girl's father filed an application requesting joint custody of his daughter, with the child's primary residence to remain with the mother. He sought access, including every other weekend, and asked that the mother remain in the province. The mother filed a motion against the older daughter's father, requesting that an existing court order be varied to allow her to relocate to Ontario and alter the existing access arrangements. Child support was also in issue.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, granted sole custody of both girls to the mother and allowed her to relocate to Ontario with them. The court ordered extended access to the girls' respective fathers for seven weeks every summer, 10 days every Christmas, every March break, and no less than four nights around and including the 2014 Thanksgiving weekend. The court awarded child support based on the respective father's incomes but ordered that the special expenses support payments including daycare for July and August would be suspended each year.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Family Law - Topic 1865

Custody and access - Duties and rights of custodian - To remove child from jurisdiction - A mother planned to move from New Brunswick to Brantford, Ontario, with her new partner (TB), an armed forces member who had been posted there - The mother wished to take her two youngest children, girls aged five and three, with them - She had obtained employment there - The youngest girl's father filed an application requesting joint custody of his daughter, with the child's primary residence to remain with the mother - He sought specified access, including every other weekend, and asked that the mother remain in the province - The mother filed a motion against the older daughter's father, requesting that an existing court order be varied to allow her to relocate to Ontario and alter the existing access arrangements - Both girls had large extended families in New Brunswick with whom they were close - The mother indicated that she would not move to Ontario without the girls - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, granted sole custody of both girls to the mother and allowed her to relocate to Ontario with them - She had been solely responsible for their everyday needs since their respective births - If she were to stay in New Brunswick, in all likelihood she would be required to relocate to either Bathurst or Nova Scotia where she would again be essentially on her own with the girls, who would need to travel for weekend visits with their father - Such an arrangement did not appear to be in the children's best interests - The mother's motive for requesting the relocation was not improper and the relocation would not impact her ability to parent the children - The court ordered extended access to the girls' respective fathers for seven weeks every summer, 10 days every Christmas, every March break, and no less than four nights around and including the 2014 Thanksgiving weekend - See paragraphs 1 to 74.

Family Law - Topic 1881

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Welfare or best interest of child paramount - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Family Law - Topic 1895

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Changing child's residence - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Family Law - Topic 1898

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Custodial parent moving from jurisdiction - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Family Law - Topic 1948

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Change of residence of child - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Family Law - Topic 2012

Custody and access - Access - Access awards - Where mother and father reside in different cities or countries - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Family Law - Topic 2020

Custody and access - Access - Access order - Access awards - Costs of exercising - Liability for - [See Family Law - Topic 4045.4 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Child support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Special or extraordinary expenses - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, granted sole custody of two girls, aged three and five, to their mother (A.L.W.) and allowed her to relocate to Ontario with them - The court awarded extended access to their fathers, who both resided in New Brunswick - Regarding child support, the court stated that "During the summer months the children will be essentially residing with their fathers. Therefore, I will order that the special expenses support payments including daycare for July and August shall be suspended each year. I will not suspend the child support payments during the months of July and August as A.L.W. will be solely responsible for the transportation costs to accommodate the access visits. Given the extended access period during the summer months, A.L.W. will likely be required to make two trips to New Brunswick to drop off and pick up the children. In order to ensure A.L.W. can appropriately fund the various access visits it is appropriate to maintain the child support payments year round. Otherwise, I would apportion some of the transportation costs to the father." - See paragraph 75.

Droit de la famille - Cote 1865

Garde et accès - Droits et obligations du gardien - Déménager l'enfant hors du ressort - [Voir Family Law - Topic 1865 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 1881

Garde et accès - Facteurs considérés lors de l'attribution de la garde - Primauté du bien-être ou du meilleur intérêt de l'enfant - [Voir Family Law - Topic 1881 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 1895

Garde et accès - Facteurs considérés lors de l'attribution de la garde - Changement de la résidence de l'enfant - [Voir Family Law - Topic 1895 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 1898

Garde et accès - Facteurs considérés lors de l'attribution de la garde - Déménagement du parent gardien hors du ressort - [Voir Family Law - Topic 1898 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 1948

Garde et accès - Modification des droits de garde et d'accès - Changement de la résidence de l'enfant - [Voir Family Law - Topic 1948 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 2012

Garde et accès - Accès - Ordonnances d'accès - La mère et le père n'habitent pas dans la même ville ou le même pays - [Voir Family Law - Topic 2012 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 2020

Garde et accès - Accès - Ordonnances d'accès - Frais d'exercice de l'accès - Responsabilité pour les frais - [Voir Family Law - Topic 2020 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4045.4

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Lignes directrices sur les pensions alimentaires pour enfants (y compris les cas hors-divorce) - Dépenses spéciales ou extraordinaires (y compris le calcul du montant) - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4045.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, folld. [para. 27].

L.D.D. v. J.A.D. (2010), 364 N.B.R.(2d) 200; 937 A.P.R. 200; 2010 NBCA 69, refd to. [para. 27].

Mann v. Savoie (2014), 423 N.B.R.(2d) 274; 1103 A.P.R. 274 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 75].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Marie-Claude Deschênes-Barton, Q.C., for A.L.W.;

Elizabeth Watters-Gray, for J.R.M.;

James H. McCue, for G.A.L.

This case was heard on August 21 and 22, 2014, by DeWare, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Woodstock, who delivered the following decision on August 27, 2014.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP