L.L.W. v. C.B.-R.W. et al., 2015 NBQB 29

Judge:Wooder, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
Case Date:January 28, 2015
Jurisdiction:New Brunswick
Citations:2015 NBQB 29;(2015), 431 N.B.R.(2d) 206 (FD)
 
FREE EXCERPT

L.L.W. v. C.B.-R.W. (2015), 431 N.B.R.(2d) 206 (FD);

    431 R.N.-B.(2e) 206; 1124 A.P.R. 206

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

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

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.015

Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.015

In The Matter Of an Application For the Return of Children under Article 12 of the Hague Convention on The Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

The Attorney General as Central Authority for the Province of New Brunswick at the Request of the United States Central Authority for L.L.W. (applicant) v. C.B.-R.W. and C.B.-R.L.-R. (respondent)

(FDF-520-2014; 2015 NBQB 29; 2015 NBBR 29)

Indexed As: L.L.W. v. C.B.-R.W. et al.

Répertorié: L.L.W. v. C.B.-R.W. et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Judicial District of Fredericton

Wooder, J.

January 28, 2015.

Summary:

Résumé:

This application was filed by the Attorney General of New Brunswick at the request of the United States Central Authority for the father in which the mother was the respondent. The application was filed pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the parties' two children to Missouri, U.S.A.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, allowed the application and directed the return of the children to the father in Missouri.

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 1961.1

Custody and access - Child abduction legislation - Habitual residence - The parties married in Missouri and lived their entire married lives there - They had two children - They separated and the mother moved to Canada to live and study - She now resided in New Brunswick - The father remained in Missouri with the children - A divorce and corollary relief order provided for joint custody of the children with the father having sole physical custody - The mother was granted frequent and liberal parenting time - The parties made arrangements for the children to spend the summer of 2014 with the mother in New Brunswick - The children were not returned to the father by the end of August 2014 as per the arrangement - The mother applied in New Brunswick for custody of the children - She took steps to establish the children's "habitual residence" in New Brunswick by obtaining medicare cards for them, registering them in school and activities and making applications for their Canadian citizenship - She claimed the children wanted to stay with her - This application was filed by the Attorney General of New Brunswick at the request of the United States Central Authority for the father in which the mother was the respondent - The application was filed pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the children - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, allowed the application and directed the return of the children to the father in Missouri - There was not an iota of evidence to suggest that the children were habitually resident anywhere but in Missouri - They were born there and had spent their entire lives there - They attended school in Missouri - Their social and recreational lives were in Missouri - They had visited their mother in New Brunswick during school holiday periods after their parents separated but their habitual residence remained in Missouri - The retention of the children by the mother was unlawful - Finally, the children's preference (as expressed by the mother), did not permit an order refusing their return to Missouri.

Family Law - Topic 1963

Custody and access - Child abduction legislation - Wrongful removal or retention - [See Family Law - Topic 1961.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 1965

Custody and access - Child abduction legislation - Return order (incl. stay of) - [See Family Law - Topic 1961.1 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 1961.1

Garde et accès - Lois sur l'enlèvement d'enfants - Résidence habituelle - [Voir Family Law - Topic 1961.1 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 1963

Garde et accès - Lois sur l'enlèvement d'enfants - Déplacement ou non-retour illicites - [Voir Family Law - Topic 1963 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 1965

Garde et accès - Lois sur l'enlèvement d'enfants - Ordonnance de retour (y compris suspension) - [Voir Family Law - Topic 1965 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Attorney General) v. M. (A.P.) - see/voir J.M.N. v. A.P.M.

J.M.N. v. A.P.M. (2010), 366 N.B.R.(2d) 77; 942 A.P.R. 77; 2010 CarswellNB 556 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 28].

Thomson v. Thomson (1994), 173 N.R. 83; 92 Man.R.(2d) 161; 61 W.A.C. 161; 1994 CarswellMan 91 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

M.C.S. v. H.V.L. (2011), 369 Sask.R. 159; 2011 CarswellSask 108 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].

Maharaj v. Maharaj, 2011 CarswellOnt 279 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Wentzell-Ellis v. Ellis (2010), 262 O.A.C. 136; 2010 CarswellOnt 2981 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

J.M.H. v. A.S. (2010), 367 N.B.R.(2d) 200; 946 A.P.R. 200; 2010 CarswellNB 416 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

Bromm v. Bromm (2010), 362 Sask.R. 190; 500 W.A.C. 190; 2010 CarswellSask 800 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

S.S. v. S.L., 2011 CarswellOnt 18039 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 50].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Karen LeBlanc, for the Attorney General as Central Authority for the Province of New Brunswick;

L.L.W. did not appear;

Gerald R. Pugh, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 5 and 12, 2015, by Wooder, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Fredericton, who delivered the following oral decision on January 28, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP