M.R. v. J.B., 2015 NBQB 134
|Court:||Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick|
|Case Date:||June 26, 2015|
|Citations:||2015 NBQB 134;(2015), 437 N.B.R.(2d) 356 (FD)|
M.R. v. J.B. (2015), 437 N.B.R.(2d) 356 (FD);
437 R.N.-B.(2e) 356; 1140 A.P.R. 356
MLB headnote and full text
Sommaire et texte intégral
[English language version only]
[Version en langue anglaise seulement]
Temp. Cite:  N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.014
Renvoi temp.:  N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.014
M.R. (applicant) v. J.B. (respondent)
(FDN-32-2015; 2015 NBQB 134; 2015 NBBR 134)
Indexed As: M.R. v. J.B.
Répertorié: M.R. v. J.B.
New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial District of Miramichi
June 26, 2015.
The parties had two children, a son age nine and daughter age six. The relationship dissolved shortly after the daughter was born in January 2009. The mother applied for sole custody of the children. She wanted to move with the children to Ontario so that she could start a new life with a new partner whom she intended to marry.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, granted the mother sole custody and permission to move to Ontario. The parties were to present an access order or a series of access orders to the court. In the event that the parties could not agree, the court would reconvene to hear submissions and make the orders necessary to allow reasonable access for the father.
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 - The parties had two children, a son age nine and daughter age six - The relationship dissolved shortly after the daughter was born in January 2009 - The mother applied for sole custody - She wanted to move with the children to Ontario to start a new life with a new partner whom she intended to marry - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that it was beyond dispute that between 2009 and 2014 the children were in a de facto sole custody environment with the mother as the prime custodial parent and the father as the access parent - After that, the parties disputed whether the arrangement became one of shared custody - This was a critical determination as the disruption of a shared custody relationship was a much more difficult endeavour on the part of the parent applying to move - The court concluded that the mother had remained the prime custodial parent after 2014 - While the Family Services Act had a maximum contact principle embedded in it to protect parental rights to custody and access, the guiding and only principle remained the children's best interests - The children enjoyed a healthy relationship with both parents, but the mother was much more attentive to their overall needs from a mental, emotional and physical health standpoint - The father was a loving parent, but he had been unable or unwilling to establish himself as a stable income earner to provide support for the children - Although moving would cause some disruption in the children's lives, the father was not the prime custodial parent and the paternal grandparents, unlike the maternal grandparents, had not taken an important and central role in the children's lives - The maternal grandparents supported the move and intended to visit Ontario regularly - The children had been wholly financially dependent on the mother since 2009 - Forming a new partnership with a man who had a stable income in a stable work environment together with a plan for the mother to complete her education and become a teacher promoted stability in the medium and long term - The mother's current job security was tenuous - It was in the children's best interest to grant the mother sole custody and to permit them to move to Ontario.
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 1900
Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Maximum contact with each parent - [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 1951
Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Welfare of child - [See Family Law - Topic 1865 ].
Brown v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 46].
J.N. v. D.G. (2015), 437 N.B.R.(2d) 128; 1140 A.P.R. 128; 2015 NBQB 115, dist. [para. 48].
Gordon v. Goertz,  2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 51].
P.R.H. v. M.E.L. (2009), 343 N.B.R.(2d) 100; 881 A.P.R. 100; 2009 NBCA 18, refd to. [para. 53].
T.L. v. A.C.,  N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 131 (T.D.), affd. (2013), 402 N.B.R.(2d) 373; 1044 A.P.R. 373 (C.A.), dist. [para. 56].
F.H. v. McDougall (2008), 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 58].
Young v. Young et al.,  4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 70].
K.C.W.V. v. K.L.P. (2010), 363 N.B.R.(2d) 351; 936 A.P.R. 351; 2010 NBCA 70, refd to. [para. 70].
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. 72].
S.J.R.C. v. C.A.L. (2014), 419 N.B.R.(2d) 337; 1090 A.P.R. 337 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 73].
Thomas Prince, for the applicant;
Kevin Haché, for the respondent.
This application was heard on June 12 and 16, 2015, by Ferguson, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Miramichi, who delivered the following judgment on June 26, 2015.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP