Chartier+c.+Chartier


 * Chartier v. Chartier**

Eventually, the mother requested a declaration that it be legally recognized that the husband had stood “in the place of a parent” in relation to the child of the previous marriage and support. The husband declared his desire to sever his relationship with the child.
 * Facts:** The respondent had played “an active role in caring for and was a father figure for his wife’s daughter from a previous marriage”. Though it was discussed, he never formally adopted the daughter, but they did falsely add him to the birth certificate as the child’s natural father. The couple also together had another child while married. When the couple split, as part of consent proceedings, the child was acknowledged as a “child of the marriage”, and though no finding on support was issued the husband was granted access.

The court of appeal similarly allowed a part of the appeal having to do with support of the bio-child of the marriage, but found no obligation to require support for Jeena. The judge (Philip J.A.) also wondered, in this day of “fragile and time-limited relationships”, how many obligations the parties must be forced to carry with them from relationship to relationship. Ultimately, the CofA finds that given the delicate policy considerations, they are unwilling to break with the existing case law, and are more comfortable leaving this to the legislator.
 * History:** The court of Queen’s Bench in Manitoba held that it was “abundantly clear” that someone, having voluntarily assumed the role, could similarly voluntarily/unilaterally withdraw from such a position.


 * Issue:** Can a person who has stood in the place of a parent relative to a child unilaterally withdraw from that place?


 * Held:** No, they cannot. Appeal is allowed.


 * Ratio:** A person cannot unilaterally withdraw from a relationship in which he/she has stood in the place of a parent. In order to determine if they have, we must look to the nature of the relationship.

First, the Court evinces a policy argument: it is not in the best interests of any children that step-parents be allowed to abandon their parental obligations. Next, the court finds that the key question is the interpretation of the phrase “at the material time.” In evaluating the relationship, the gaze must be objective, and while the goal of the court is to determine the best needs of the children at the time of the hearing, the breakdown of the marital relationship should not cloud the evaluation of whether a step-parent has filled the shoes of a parent during the time of the relationship. Thus, the determination of the relationship must not be solely based on the perspective of the child, but be assessed objectively. Also, the Divorce Act places no emphasis of the formality of such assumption of relationship; instead it must be places on the volutariness of the assumption of that role. The court outlines a list of factors to consider in assessing the relationships: · The actual fact of forming a new family is a key factor in drawing the inference that the step-parent treated the child as a child of the marriage. Other factors include: · Whether the child participates in the extended family in the same way as would a bio child. · Whether the person provides financially for the child (depending on ability to pay) · Whether the person disciplines the child as a parent. · Whether the person represents to the child, the family, the world either explicitly or implicitly that s/he is responsible for the child. · The nature of existence of the child’s relationship with the absent bio parent. NOTE: these requirements cannot be qualified as to duration or be otherwise made conditional or qualified.
 * Reasoning:** The courts consider two lines of case law, exemplified in //Carignan// and //Theriault//. //Carignan// allows that persons must be allowed to unilaterally withdraw from relations //in loco parentis//, whereas //Theriault// finds the opposite. First, the court divorces the term //in loco parentis// from the case at hand arguing that the Latin term carries with it a history of development that is not meant to be imported into this context. Instead, the question is only: what is contemplated in the words “in the place of a parent” in the Divorce Act?

ALSO NOTE: the court makes an effort to recognize that the parent not only incurs the obligations of child support duties, but also would then be eligible to exercise rights acquired as a parent, such as access, etc.

ALSO DOUBLE NOTE: The issue of children collecting support from multiple payers is also dealt with. Recall that the calculation is based on the assessed needs of the child, and that does not change regardless of the number of payers.