SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE: 48248-13
DATE: 2013-12-17

RE: Christopher Frederick Suckert, Applicant

AND:

Wendy Lynn Suckert, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice J. W. Sloan

COUNSEL:
Barry T. Paquette, for the Applicant
Daniel Gloade, for the Respondent

HEARD: December 16, 2013

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The parties were married on April 7, 2007 and separated on August 21, 2013.

[2] The parties have two children Alexandra Lynn Suckert born June 16, 2009 and Olivia Marie Suckert born February 14, 2012. In addition, the respondent is pregnant with a due date of January 15, 2014.

[3] Because of differences between the parties, the respondent on August 21, 2013 left with the children for Wiarton Ontario where her family resides. She left without notice to the applicant.

[4] By order of Justice Campbell dated October 10, 2013, the children were to be returned to the matrimonial home in Cambridge where they currently reside.

[5] The respondent would enjoy the support of her extended family if she were to reside in the large an area and the applicant would enjoy the support of his extended family if the children were to reside in the Cambridge area.

[6] The children have either resided in Guelph or Cambridge Ontario until August of this year when the respondent moved them to Wiarton.

[7] This case presents with more problems on what I might call a mobility case than is usual.

[8] They are as follows:

A. There are two young children one and four.

B. Both parties have a good relationship with the children, and took part in their parenting when they were living together.

C. On January 15, or thereabouts there will be a third infant born.

D. I am told that the respondents pregnancy is a high risk pregnancy.

E. The respondent’s doula, who is one of her sisters lives in Wiarton.

F. It is obvious that the matrimonial home should be sold as soon as possible and there is no equity in the home.

G. Because the applicant earns approximately $46,000 year and the respondent does not work, there is very little if any money left over for child or spousal support because the applicant is currently servicing the debt associated with the matrimonial home. In fact he is currently encroaching on his RRSP’s in an effort to make ends meet.

H. In addition to servicing the debt associated with the matrimonial home the applicant also purchases food for the respondent and the children. He estimates the cost at about $100 per week.

I. There is no written evidence before me about what accommodations and particularly accommodations with a rent geared to income are available for the respondent in Waterloo region. There is however some oral evidence that the waiting list in the Waterloo region for such accommodation is somewhere between two and three years.

J. There is evidence before me that appropriate accommodation is available to the respondent and the children in Wiarton and based on her current circumstances the rent would be $85 per month. This of course would increase if her income increased which I assume would include any child or spousal support which would be payable.

K. Unfortunately for the parties, the respondent’s large extended family reside in Wiarton an area which is approximately hundred 190 km from Cambridge. That would mean on a good weather and traffic day it would be approximately, a two and a half hour drive one way. Since the highway between Cambridge and Wiarton goes through a snow belt, the drive may be longer in winter and on certain days may simply not be drivable from a safety perspective.

L. In addition, there is the issue of access to the one and four-year-old who would be able to travel versus the soon-to-be new arrival who particularly if he/she is being breast-fed would not be an appropriate candidate for something like alternate weekend access. In addition, at such a young age it would be more appropriate for more frequent but dramatically shorter access periods.

[9] I am cognizant of the fact that the court must take into consideration only the best interests of the child and in my opinion that would include the unborn child whose arrival is imminent.

[10] I am also cognizant of the fact that each child of the marriage should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

[11] There is no doubt on the evidence before me that would it would be in the best interests of all the children to have as much contact with each parent is possible.

[12] If the respondent wasn't pregnant, and the birth of the child imminent this court would not consider allowing her to relocate in Wiarton at this stage of the proceedings.

[13] However based on the practical considerations set out above I do not see any reasonable alternative but to allow the respondent and the children on an interim interim basis to relocate in Wiarton.

[14] Therefore I make the following order on consent:

i. The matrimonial home shall be listed on MLS basis as soon as practicable.

ii. The children Alexandra Lynn Suckert born June 16, 2009 and Olivia Marie Suckert born February 14, 2012 shall be in the care of the applicant father from December 19, 2013 at 8 PM until December 26, 2013 at 10 AM.

iii. The said children shall be in the care of the respondent mother from December 26, 2013 at 10 AM until January 6, 2014.

[15] I make the following interim interim order based on the evidence before me as follows:

i. The respondent mother and said children shall be allowed to reside in Wiarton from January 1, 2014 until June 30, 2014 subject to further order of this court.

ii. The respondent mother shall forthwith make inquiries with respect to her acquiring subsidized accommodation and other social funding within the Region of Waterloo.

iii. All inquiries by her and information received from the appropriate agencies shall be forth with disclosed to the applicant.

iv. The applicant shall have care of the children on at least an alternate weekend basis, which access shall takes into account his employment schedule.

v. In the event that the winter driving conditions make it impossible for the respondent or those people assisting her to make the trip to the drop off location she shall do everything in her power to make up the time that the applicant might miss with his children. Because the applicant lives with his parents this would include such things as bringing the children down a day or two early or picking them up a day or two later so that a forecasted winter storm could be avoided.

vi. The respondent shall be responsible for the drop-off and pickup transportation of the said children to Cambridge to facilitate the time when the children will be in the care of the applicant.

vii. The applicant and/or the paternal grandparents shall have care of the said children and the soon to arrive child on reasonable notice in addition to respondent’s alternate weekend access if he/they attends in the Wiarton and area.

viii. The applicant shall have brief care of the soon to arrive child at a drop-off location part way between Cambridge and Wiarton and if the parties agree to such a drop-off and pickup location.

ix. The applicant shall pay child support in the amount of $500 per month commencing January 1, 2014. I acknowledge that on his earnings of $45,994 child support for three children should be $878 per month.

x. Once both, the matrimonial home is sold, and the closing has taken place and the third child has arrived safely, the child support shall be increased to comply with the child support guidelines based on the applicant's 2013 income.

xi. Under the financial circumstances of this case and make no order as to spousal support at this time.

xii. On the facts of this case and make no order as to costs for the motion before me.

James W. Sloan

Date: December 17, 2013