Mullen v. Mullen, (1979) 24 A.R. 154 (QB)

• Judge: Kirby, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 30, 1979
• Citations: (1979), 24 A.R. 154 (QB)

Mullen v. Mullen (1979), 24 A.R. 154 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Mullen v. Mullen

(No. 4801-24491)

Indexed As: Mullen v. Mullen

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Kirby, J.

November 30, 1979.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Family Law - Topic 1881

Custody and access to children - Considerations in awarding custody - Welfare of child - Paramount - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that, because the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in awarding custody, it takes precedence over the feelings of the parents - See paragraph 3.

Family Law - Topic 1888

Custody and access to children - Considerations in awarding custody - Separation of siblings - A father and mother were willing and able to have custody of their children, aged 10 and 13 - The 13 year old expressed a preference for the father, but the 10 year old was indifferent - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded custody to the father after considering the thirteen year old's preference and that siblings should not be separated - See paragraph 18.

Family Law - Topic 1890

Custody and access to children - Considerations in awarding custody - Child's preference - A mother and father were willing and able to have custody of their children, aged 10 and 13 - The thirteen year old expressed a preference for the father, indicating that he would run away if his mother was granted custody - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded custody of both children to the father after considering the thirteen year old's preference and that siblings should not be separated - See paragraphs 17 and 18.

Cases Noticed:

Barber v. Barber, [1978] 4 W.W.R. 411, folld. [para. 3].

Counsel:

R.A. Mackie, for the petitioner;

J.D. Miles, for the respondent.

This case was heard by KIRBY, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

On November 30, 1979, KIRBY, J., delivered the following oral judgment.