J.M.T. v. J.E.B., 2012 SKQB 373

• Judge: Dufour, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: September 12, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKQB 373;(2012), 404 Sask.R. 304 (FD)

J.M.T. v. J.E.B. (2012), 404 Sask.R. 304 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.078

J.M.T. ("Jane") (petitioner) v. J.E.B. ("Jerrod") (respondent)

(2003 F.L.D. No. 79; 2012 SKQB 373)

Indexed As: J.M.T. v. J.E.B.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Dufour, J.

September 12, 2012.

Summary:

The parties had a brief dating relationship. Their child was born in 2002. The child lived with the mother and the father had access. In 2011, the mother was diagnosed with factitious disorder by proxy (previously known as Münchausen by proxy). Primary residence was changed to the father's home. The mother had supervised access. At issue was whether the child (now aged nine) could be returned to the mother's care.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, ordered that the parties were to share joint custody with the child's primary residence being the father's home. The mother's access was to be supervised.

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 1889

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Capacity or conditions of parents - The parties had a brief dating relationship - Their child was born in 2002 - The child lived with the mother and the father had access - In 2011, the mother was diagnosed with factitious disorder by proxy (previously known as Münchausen by proxy) - Primary residence was changed to the father's home - The mother had supervised access - At issue was whether the child (now aged nine) could be returned to the mother's care - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, ordered that the parties were to share joint custody with the child's primary residence being the father's home - The father was to have final decision-making authority - The mother's access was to be supervised - The "matrix of objectively verifiable facts" led to the "inescapable conclusion" that the mother's illness had detrimentally affected the child - The mother's refusal to acknowledge that she had acted inappropriately meant that it was unlikely that she could change her actions in the future - While the mother was the child's psychological parent, the child's primary residence had to be with the father if further damage was to be avoided - The child was strongly attached to the father and had flourished over the past year while living with him - See paragraphs 1 to 33 and 40 to 43.

Family Law - Topic 1901

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Risk of future harm - [See Family Law - Topic 1889 ].

Family Law - Topic 2023

Custody and access - Access - Access awards - Supervised access - [See Family Law - Topic 1889 ].

Family Law - Topic 2076

Custody and access - Joint custody - Principal home - [See Family Law - Topic 1889 ].

Family Law - Topic 2079

Custody and access - Joint custody - Final decision-making authority - [See Family Law - Topic 1889 ].

Family Law - Topic 2096

Custody and access - The hearing - Adjournment - The parties' child was born in 2002 - The child lived with the mother and the father had access - In 2011, the mother was diagnosed with factitious disorder by proxy (previously known as Münchausen by proxy) - During a trial to determine custody and access issues, the mother sought an adjournment to adduce evidence from the child's family doctor - The mother asserted that there could not be a diagnosis of factitious disorder by proxy unless a medical doctor concluded that the medical treatment that the mother sought for the child was unnecessary - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, refused the request for an adjournment - As the court had accepted the expert witness's opinion that his diagnosis did not depend on the determination of whether the many visits to the doctor were necessary, the family doctor's testimony was not relevant - Further, the mother's counsel had conceded that she had not spoken to the family doctor and did not know what his testimony would be - See paragraphs 34 to 39.

Practice - Topic 5066

Conduct of trial - Adjournments - Adjournment to prepare evidence for trial - [See Family Law - Topic 2096 ].

Practice - Topic 5067

Conduct of trial - Adjournments - Circumstances when request for adjournment refused - [See Family Law - Topic 2096 ].

Cases Noticed:

Lindquist et al. v. Riendeau et al. (1987), 60 Sask.R. 60 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Pearson v. Pearson, [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 82; 2000 SKQB 161 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

Anne Hardy, for the petitioner;

Gregory Kuse and Curtis Kendall, for the respondent.

This petition was heard by Dufour, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on September 12, 2012.