Ed Kent has spent the last two years fighting to change the Family Law Act and get custody of his five-year-old grandson, by lobbying the provincial government to change the act so that he can represent his grandson.
But his efforts came to a standstill when the government announced that it had no plans to review the law.
ìWe thank Mr. Kent for sharing his concerns and providing thoughtful input on the existing legislation,î said Minister of Justice and Solicitor General Kathleen Ganley. ìWhile we are not formally reviewing Albertaís Family Law Act right now, our government is always open to listening to Albertans. Mr. Kentís proposals have been retained and will be considered in any future review of the legislation.î
Minister Ganleyís press secretary Veronica Jubinville explained that the ministry just didnít have the resources to take on the job.
ìWe have close to a hundred acts under us, so it would be impossible to review every single act,î she said. ìThatís not to say weíll never open it, itís just that right now itís not under review.
ìWe just would never have the resources to open up a hundred acts at once. In the Family Law Act, thereís something like 130 sections. It takes people to go through all of those sections.î
Grandson ìLî
Kent said his ordeal began on Feb. 9, 2013, when his 20-year-old son died and left behind a young son, ìL,î from a common-law relationship.
According to Kent, L spent much of his time with his grandparents, so much so that Kent moved a few blocks away from where the boy was living in Athabasca. But a year later, Lís mother voluntarily awarded guardianship to her mother ñ the other grandmother.
Since then, Kentís been fighting to have his say.
Under current legislation, the court must take into consideration Section 18 of the Family Law Act, the Best Interests of the Child.
But because the couple wasnít married, Kentís family was not informed about the custody change until it was too late.
ìBy not having a law in there that required them to notify us, we didnít get to present the truth about the best interest,î he said. ìMore importantly, the court could not have reached a decision on the best interest, because it didnít have the information.î
ìThis law literally means no one knew about it. During the darkest hour of my life, we find out we canít even represent my grandson, who I can prove physically has been with me 60 per cent of his life, that Iíve provided food, clothing ñ even at his own residence.î
The grandmother, L, and Lís half-brother eventually moved to Hinton last fall.
Kent said that on Nov. 29, 2015, Lís mother died and the other grandmother become Lís sole guardian.
Family Law Act
The Family Law Act is a piece of provincial legislation that was enacted in 2003. The act consolidated four other pieces of family legislation into an 80-page document with 130 sections.
ìWhen parties are or arenít married, they can go to the Family Law Act,î explained family lawyer Tim Verhaeghe. ìThey can make an application for anything to deal with the children, child support, partner support, guardianship, that kind of thing.î
The act also includes a section for grandparents and their rights for seeing a grandchild.
Verhaeghe explained that guardianship allows a person to make decisions regarding the general welfare of a child, including those regarding education, religion, healthcare decisions and who a child can associate with. Parenting rights, he said, gives the person day-to-day control of the child.
Lobbying government
Around the time when guardianship was voluntarily handed to Lís grandmother, Kent went to then-MLA of Athabasca-Sturgeon-Redwater Jeff Johnson about getting him to bring the Family Law Act to the legislature and open up a review.
Movement on the issue was slow, so when Johnson was voted out in Mayís provincial election, Kent brought the issue to current MLA Colin Piquette in July.
ìThey seemed alarmed when I brought it to their attention that grandparents couldnít represent their grandchild when a parent died,î Kent recalled.
ì(Piquette) told me that it was alarming and that they didnít know what to do with it, that heíd been in insurance sales before this, but something should be done. If I drafted it, theyíd pitch it to the powers that be.î
Kent drafted a proposal and gave it to Piquetteís office, but became frustrated over the lack of visible progress on the issue.
ìThey kept telling me that theyíd get back to me when they heard something (and) after eight weeks of not getting any information from them, I got pissed off. I sent an email to (Premier Rachel) Notley herself.î
Eventually, Minister Ganley replied to Kent in November, via email.
In it, she said his proposal was forwarded to officials responsible for legislative reform and that it will certainly be taken into consideration in any future review of the Family Law Act.
Kent contacted Piquetteís office in January about a date for the review and if he could sit on the panel. He said he was told no review has been scheduled.
Piquetteís constituency manager James Good said Kentís version of how the proposal was drafted was not quite accurate, but the office did receive the proposal that was sent to the Minister Ganley.
However, Good said he could not speak further because of the issues involving a court case, minors and privacy regulations.
ìWeíve sort have been working with him (and) dealing with a number of different issues over lengthy period of time, and theyíre all fairly complex things.î
Piquetteís office issued a statement saying his office did receive a proposal and it was forwarded to the minister.
Piquette writes: ìMy staff members and I work hard to address all constituentsí concerns and direct people to appropriate channels to address their specific concerns.î
He noted that because of the personal nature of the case, he could not give any more detail.
Trial
At the end of March, Kent is going full force for parenting, guardian and contact rights at a three-day trial in Athabasca Provincial Court.
ìWhatever happens in this case ñ win, lose, draw, dismissed, doesnít matter ñ legislation prevents me from revisiting this,î he said.
ìThis legislation was put in place to protect the guardian from being dragged back into court repeatedly during bitter custody battles, which makes sense if both parents are alive. In the event of both parents being dead, it makes absolutely no sense. In the event that both parents are unwed and theyíre young and thereís no will, thereís no proviso for the deceasedís family at all.î
