Justice Excludes PN8 Counsellor Recommendations & Relies On Parties Best Interests Analysis

In JFR v MAB, 2026 ABKB 342, Justice Magnan expressed significant misgivings about the PN8 assessment prepared by the parties’ parenting expert and declined to rely on it. Instead, she preferred the direct testimony of the mother and father to decide what parenting schedule would most effectively serve the best interests of their almost 13-year-old son.

The parents had been living separately for over a decade. Shortly after the split, the father moved to Winnipeg for work, while the mother assumed primary custody and decision-making authority. In 2020, the father returned to Calgary. A 2022 Interim Without Prejudice Parenting Order maintained the mother’s role as the child’s primary caregiver and granted the father eight hours of parenting time each weekend.

The father alleged that the mother had obstructed his efforts to become more involved in their son’s life, including by denying him overnight stays. He sought a week-on, week-off parenting arrangement. The mother countered that their son suffered from heightened sensitivity and anxiety and that a fifty-fifty division of time would undermine his stability and routine.

Although the parenting expert’s PN8 report largely supported the mother’s concerns, a subsequent Work Product Review—ordered by consent and conducted by another expert—raised questions about the report’s reliability and the soundness of its recommendations.

Justice Magnan cited authorities underscoring that, “despite the admitted necessity of expert psychological opinion evidence in parenting matters, determining the best interests of the child remains a non-delegable duty of the judge.” A judge must “critically evaluate the Assessment and, if useful, weigh it in the balance.” The report is not binding but “a tool that judges may or may not accept.”

She further observed that the PN8 assessment, completed when the child was ten, had diminished relevance three years later. She also criticized aspects of its methodology and noted that it appeared at least partly one-sided. Accordingly, she concluded that the most pertinent and persuasive evidence about the child’s welfare came from the parents themselves rather than from the dated PN8 report.

Ultimately, Justice Magnan determined that preserving the child’s stability meant he should continue to live primarily with his mother. At the same time, it was in his best interests to increase his father’s parenting time, including overnight visits, introduced gradually. She ordered a structured schedule—rather than leaving it up to the child—to spare him the anxiety or sense of obligation that might arise from having to choose how much time to spend with each parent.

If you need help setting up a PN8, or defending against a PN8 consider setting up a free consultation with one of our lawyers. Call us at 587-602-3302 or reception@mintlegal.ca