Young v. Stephens, 2015 NSCA 86

Judge:Bourgeois, J.A.
Court:Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Case Date:September 17, 2015
Jurisdiction:Nova Scotia
Citations:2015 NSCA 86;(2015), 365 N.S.R.(2d) 192 (CA)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Young v. Stephens (2015), 365 N.S.R.(2d) 192 (CA);

    1151 A.P.R. 192

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.043

Shelley Anne Young (appellant) v. Michael Stephens (respondent)

(CA 441193; 2015 NSCA 86)

Indexed As: Young v. Stephens

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Bourgeois, J.A.

September 29, 2015.

Summary:

Parents of a now five year old child had for most of the child's life alternated custody on a weekly basis. The child was now starting school. The parents did not live close enough to each other to permit alternating custody to continue. A custody order provided that it was in the best interests of the child that the father be the primary care-giver, with access to the mother. The mother appealed and moved to stay the custody order pending disposition of the appeal.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Bourgeois, J.A., dismissed the motion.

Family Law - Topic 1918

Custody and access - Appeals - Stay pending appeal (incl. when stay may be lifted) - Parents of a now five year old child had for most of the child's life alternated custody on a weekly basis - The child was now starting school - The parents did not live close enough to each other to permit alternating custody to continue - A custody order provided that it was in the best interests of the child that the father be the primary care-giver, with access to the mother - The mother appealed and moved to stay the custody order pending disposition of the appeal - She argued that the child would be physically harmed in the father's care, that the child would lose the benefit of being immersed in her cultural heritage (Mi'kmaq), and that the child's mental and psychological well-being could be irreparably harmed if a stay were not granted - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Bourgeois, J.A., dismissed the motion - The mother's fear of physical, mental or psychological harm were not supported by the evidence and the father was actively supporting the child's exposure to the Mi'kmaq language and culture - The evidence did not give rise to special and persuasive circumstances justifying a stay.

Cases Noticed:

Chiasson v. Sautiere, [2012] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 211; 2012 NSCA 91, refd to. [para. 6].

Counsel:

Daphne Williamson, for the appellant;

Kim Johnson, for the respondent.

This motion was heard on September 17, 2015, at Halifax, N.S., in Chambers before Bourgeois, J.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on September 29, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP