IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           This is the second time in less than two years these parties have had a multi-day trial to resolve primary residence and their parenting rights and responsibilities regarding their children, K.M.F., born [omitted for posting] and N.J.F., born [omitted for posting].  On this occasion, M.A.F. is seeking to change the order made after a five day trial in 2013.  She seeks primary residence of both children.  She is also seeking compensatory parenting time for the time she has missed with her son, N.J.F.; and the imposition of a penalty under s. 61 of the Family Law Act.  

[2]           N.R.F. wants to return to the week on-week off parenting arrangement that the children had with each parent, division of parenting responsibilities, an order for the children to attend counselling, adjustments to child support and enforcement of the order made in 2013.  One of the orders made was for the appointment of a parenting coordinator. N.R.F. seeks to terminate that parenting coordinator order.

[3]           Needless to say, this is a high acrimony case.  Parenting coordinators are typically appointed so that the parties are not continuously coming back to court for lengthy hearings in such high conflict situations.  It is evident from the volume of material filed that the parenting coordinator has been very much engaged with these parties yet they have now had 11 days of trial in less than two years and a parenting coordinator has had almost no success, other than setting one set of holidays and resolving a sports issue.  More importantly, the dysfunction of the parents is beginning to severely impact the two boys involved.

[4]           It is unnecessary to enumerate every issue the parties have between themselves in order to render a decision in this matter.  I use some of those issues to exemplify the ongoing conflict.  I am satisfied that there has been a material change in circumstances since Judge Harrison’s order was made in 2013 in that each boy has picked a parent with whom he wishes to reside for his own reasons and refuses to return to the home of the other parent.  I have, on agreement of the parties, conducted an interview of each of the boys, although there is a Views of the Child Report on the file.

[5]           Since Judge Harrison’s order was made, K.M.F. has come into repeated conflict with his new step-brother, J.H., who is the 12 year old son of N.R.F.’s partner, A.H. Apparently K.M.F. and J.H. fight a considerable amount which makes K.M.F. unhappy.  As a result of the conflict between J.H. and K.M.F., there is conflict between K.M.F. and A.H. Because of the conflict with A.H., there is conflict between K.M.F. and his father. As a result, K.M.F. prefers to be in his mother’s care claiming that he is bullied and treated poorly in his father’s home.

[6]           N.J.F. also does not get along with K.M.F.  He gets along well with J.H. and prefers to live in his father’s home.  He perceives his mother to prefer K.M.F. and claims that M.A.F. physically and verbally abuses N.J.F. when he is in her home.  After an altercation with K.M.F., N.J.F. ran away from M.A.F.’s home ultimately deciding to live only with this father.

[7]           There are a number of issues that were raised, as I have said, but I will highlight the following to exemplify the unending conflict in this case: appointment of a parenting coordinator; family counselling; inappropriate communications; lying; pornography; medical care; educational issues; extra-curricular activities; disparaging remarks; sports; sibling rivalry; views of the children; and child support.

[8]           Judge Harrison sat on a full trial of these matters and has made findings of fact which I will not be revisiting in these Reasons.  My Reasons are based upon the evidence and circumstances that have followed the making of that order.  I do repeat the following passages from Judge Harrison’s Reasons for Judgement because it equally highlights how little effort, if any, the parents have made to improve the circumstances for their sons since those Reasons were issued in March, 2013:

[9]           As I say, little has changed and the burden of this acrimony has now created greater anxiety and disruption for the boys.

[10]        It has been recognized by the legislators, courts and legal profession that there needs to be a less adversarial avenue for parents to resolve their conflicts.  By instituting parenting coordination within the Family Law Act, it was the intention that the parents resolve their conflicts in a forum other than the courts.  It is supposed to be child focussed and is supposed to assist high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan, whether it is of their making or devised by the court.  The idea is not for the parenting coordinator to formulate the parenting agreement with the parents but to help the parents carry out their parenting arrangements.  Ultimately, a parenting coordinator’s role is supposed to end when the parents become able to resolve disagreements on their own.  It is not intended to be a permanent arrangement.

[11]        Parenting coordinators have been empowered to obtain information respecting a child or a party from a person who is not a party to the proceedings.  The Act also empowers parenting coordinators to make determinations on a limited number of topics. These determinations can be filed in court and become as binding as a court order. There is no requirement that a parenting coordinator must make a determination or that any determinations must be filed in court.  There are only limited ways in which such a determination can be reviewed by the court. Despite this important and determinative role, there is nothing in the Act or Regulations which permits the parenting coordinator to communicate directly with the court or to achieve any particular status in a proceeding other than as a witness.

[12]        Parenting coordinators are created under s. 6 of the Family Law Act Regulation and ss. 17 and 18 of the Family Law Act.  Under s. 17(b), a parenting coordinator may assist the parties by making determinations respecting prescribed matters under s. 18. Section 18 is not particularly clear on what may be a prescribed matter.  It more specifically sets out what is not a prescribed matter or when a parenting coordinator may not make a determination.  Section 18 requires that a parenting coordinator reduce the determination to writing and sign it as soon as practicable after an oral determination is made and the determination is binding upon the parties.  The parties may expand the authority of a parenting coordinator beyond the prescribed matters but that must be done by agreement.  This section does not require a parenting coordinator to make a determination on every issue that arises so long as the parenting coordinator is satisfied that he or she can assist the parties in mediating a resolution.

[13]        Judge Harrison ordered that Carrie McNeely be appointed as the parenting coordinator in this case.  Ms. McNeely met with the parties and commenced her duties. It soon devolved to a high conflict situation that Ms. McNeely was ultimately never able to resolve.  At this point, she either needs her parenting coordinator appointment terminated or she requires direction from the court to N.R.F. that he is to respond to her directions, requests and demands in a timely way.

[14]        The relevant sections of the regulation governing parenting coordinators is found in the Family Law Act Regulation s. 6(2) to (4) as follows:

[15]        In addition and pursuant to the Act, Ms. McNeely also has a contract with her clients. That contract has certain provisions binding upon the parties.  Of course, the appointment of the parenting coordinator by court order is paramount to those terms, which cannot be in conflict with the order.

[16]        After a short time, N.R.F. determined that Ms. McNeely was biased against him. Ms. McNeely certainly expressed frustrations with N.R.F. because of his inability to directly address any issue at hand.  Her complaint was that if she asked a question directed to a specific issue, N.R.F. would reply without a real response but would raise all sorts of other issues which ought to have been raised either in separate e-mails or only after fully and properly responding to the issue at hand.  His evidence in court was delivered in a similar manner.  He was often scattered and unfocused, wandering off on tangents of importance to him, rather than directing himself to responding to the questions.

[17]        M.A.F. argued that N.R.F.’s objection to Ms. McNeely was typical of his response to all outside counsellors.  M.A.F. was not exemplary either.  She tended to ignore issues she did not wish to address and adopted a passive aggressive course of action of complaining ex-parte to Ms. McNeely.  Ostensibly M.A.F. was seeking guidance from Ms. McNeely but it is clear on the evidence that not only was M.A.F. not intending to cooperate with N.R.F. but she was using this ex-parte communication to cast N.R.F. in a negative and blameworthy light.

[18]        Ms. McNeely did not seem in her evidence to favour one party or the other.  She tried to be as objective as she could in expressing her frustrations with N.R.F.  She did not overlook the challenges she also had with M.A.F.  In the end, she was unable to overcome the division between the parties.  They are at an impasse.  Unfortunately, Ms. McNeely’s correspondence also began to reflect - likely as a product of her increasing frustration with N.R.F. - an appearance of bias against N.R.F.

[19]        Unfortunately, because Ms. McNeely was specifically appointed by court order, she cannot rely upon the term of her contract that allows for termination.  Termination of her appointment must be done by court order.  Termination should not be a simple process of giving notice.  That would defeat the purpose of appointing a parenting coordinator if a party could terminate the agreement on the first sign of disagreement with the parenting coordinator as would almost certainly have happened in this case.

[20]        When I review the various e-mails between N.R.F. and Ms. McNeely, or amongst Ms. McNeely and the parties, I can see that N.R.F. failed in many respects to respond to direct inquiries.  He also took a scattered approach to raising issues with Ms. McNeely, which would have been difficult for anyone to sort through.  Despite her request for the parties to identify those matters which were still outstanding, she was unable to receive a lucid response from either parent.

[21]        N.R.F. also failed to grasp the concept of parenting coordinating and coaching that Ms. McNeely was trying to undertake.  While he seemed to understand that his conflict with M.A.F. is largely due to their hostile communications, he cannot seem to grasp that Ms. McNeely was trying to provide coaching to M.A.F. to avoid those conflicts.  Sometimes that means that a party has an ex-parte communication with the parenting coordinator to seek guidance.  It does not mean that the parenting coordinator is biased against the other party.

[22]        The only area of Ms. McNeely’s retainer which caused me concern was when she agreed to counsel K.M.F. Ms. McNeely is a qualified counsellor but she has undertaken the role of parenting coordinator. In my view, there must not be a blurring of those lines.  Her obligation under contract and court order is to coordinate a resolution of disputes between the parents in the best interests of the children.  The primary focus is supposed to be to help the parents implement their parenting arrangement.  Counselling is supposed to be centred on the patient. If Ms McNeely were to start counselling one of the children who is in conflict with a parent, it would co-mingle her two roles: counsellor and parenting coordinator.  In the end, she did not counsel K.M.F. or N.J.F.

[23]        Once a parenting coordinator has been engaged, the court should be loathe to hear applications to terminate that parenting coordinator.  The whole point of the parenting coordinator is to keep the conflicts out of court, not add additional ones to the court lists.  The appointment is supposed to give the parties a neutral person to approach about issues of conflict.  I understand from Ms. McNeely that the standard process is to meet with the clients initially and then conduct discussions by e-mail.

[24]        If a party is unsatisfied either with the outcomes of the mediation, the lack of outcomes of mediation or the determinations, it does not mean that the parenting coordinator is biased in favour of one party or another.

[25]        A parenting coordinator agreement should not be terminated merely because a party does not agree with the determinations or the course of conduct of the parenting coordinator.  I refer to the decision of M.J.H. v. C.D.S., a decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Butler of the Supreme Court of British Columbia made October 18, 2013.

[26]        Butler, J. had the benefit of hearing from Craig Neville on behalf of the BC Parenting Coordinator’s Roster Society at his hearing.  Mr. Neville also presented his paper, titled Parenting Coordinator: Making it Work For Your clients Under The New Family Law Act.  With the benefit of those submissions, Butler, J. observed that it is difficult for a coordinator to be asked to assist the parties in the creation of a parenting plan, but that the process would be more effective if the coordinator’s role is limited to assisting the parties in the implementation of that plan.  That is the clear intention of the legislation.

[27]        Butler, J. also observed that there was no process in place for the removal of a parenting coordinator since the parenting coordination process itself is so new.  Butler, J. said this at paragraph 41:

[28]        Butler, J. acknowledged that it was possible to remove a parenting coordinator who failed to implement any regular parenting time in a timely manner.  That the parties do not reach a consensus on these issues in a timely manner is not a reason to discharge the parenting coordinator.  So long as reasonable efforts are being made, grounds for termination will not exist.

[29]        I note that it is a clear objective of the parenting coordination legislation that the parties have an alternative to court that is less costly in which to resolve contentious disputes. It is not intended that the parties merely move their hostile adversity from the courtroom to the parenting coordinator’s e-mail system. It is expected that the parties will recognize they must mediate a resolution to these disputes or face the costly consequences of coming to court and missing work for lengthy hearings and having resolutions imposed upon them rather than having them mediated.

[30]        In M.H. v. C.S., Butler, J. was faced with a parenting coordinator who was of the view that success was impossible once the respondent took the position that the parenting coordinator was acting beyond her authority.  In that case, the court held that it was not a basis for terminating the agreement.  Nor is the mere perception of bias as in this case.  The issue has to be more significant such as the coordinator’s inability to effectively manage the case in a meaningful way.  Even so, that inability cannot be the product of one party sabotaging that process.

[31]        Ms. McNeely forwarded a letter to me without copying the parties after her evidence was concluded.  Upon receiving Ms. McNeely’s ex-parte communication, I sent it to the parties and asked them for their submissions with respect to the appropriateness of that communication and whether I should consider it.  Instead, M.A.F. focussed entirely upon why she does not want the parenting coordinator order terminated.  These submissions were made after I had made it clear that I was terminating the parenting coordinator order as one of the terms of my decision.  M.A.F. focussed on the lack of communication between the parties arguing that it is N.R.F. wanting control and intimidating her.  I have not made that observation. M.A.F. also said that she did not believe the website in Ms. McNeely’s submissions, www.coparently.com would work.

[32]        Counsel for N.R.F. declined to comment on Ms. McNeely’s perspective on events transpiring after Ms. McNeely gave her evidence.  I agree with the position counsel has taken. Ms. Oliver takes the position that if there is an issue the parenting coordinator wants to bring up with the judge, it should be done by Notice of Motion served on all parties.  She cites the substantial power a parenting coordinator has and argued that issues surrounding the exercise of that power should be openly addressed in a fashion which allows all interested parties to respond.  Ms Oliver noted that a letter does not afford the opportunity to the parties for cross-examination or even to provide responsive evidence.  It also lends an air of secretive process when it is designed to be an open one.  Ms. Oliver argued that it is especially problematic in a case where there have been concerns from N.R.F. regarding the neutrality of the parenting coordinator and concerns that information affecting him and the children is not being shared with him.

[33]        I find that there is nothing in the legislation that makes it appropriate for the parenting coordinator to raise issues directly and ex-parte with the court.  The legislation sets out how parties may have a parenting coordinator’s determinations reviewed by the court and it sets out provisions for terminating the parenting coordinator’s function in due course.  It does not permit the parenting coordinator to make her own applications ex parte or on notice, or to unilaterally raise issues with the judge hearing the trial.

[34]        With respect to Ms. McNeely’s submissions regarding breach of the parenting coordination agreement, Ms. Oliver again argued that there is no opportunity for N.R.F. to respond to this allegation.  She explained that N.R.F. was confused about the role the parenting coordinator was to have under the interim order.

[35]        Ms. McNeely also cited N.R.F. for breaching the parenting coordinator agreement by not allowing her to meet with N.J.F.  Ms. Oliver argued that again there was a lack of clarity on this issue.  He was not clear that a parenting coordinator should use their power to meet with children in order to discuss whether or not a parenting coordinator should be continuing the role.  N.R.F.’s view is that this overly involves the children in the issues properly kept between the parents.  I agree entirely.  However, Ms. McNeely has the power to meet with the children as part of her function as a parenting coordinator.  Her discussions with them must be limited to her jurisdiction.

[36]        One of the ambiguities Ms. Oliver cited was that the parenting coordinator role was to resolve ambiguities, not to change an order.  She cited by way of example that a parenting coordinator under the order of March, 2013 could decide how holidays were to be equally divided, since it was not set out in the order, but the parenting coordinator could not make the division of holidays unequal.

[37]        Ms. Oliver also argued that if parenting coordination is not being followed, the recourse is found under ss. 228 or 230 of the Family Law Act.  Those sections provide for penalties and security for compliance.

[38]        N.R.F.’s complaint is that the purpose of the parenting coordinator was to avoid further court proceedings.  Instead, he has a parenting coordinator, a lawyer, and court proceedings ongoing for the majority of the time that the parenting coordination process was being used.  He complained that the process cannot work where the parenting coordinator is consistently a witness for the other party.  He also argued that it is difficult to maintain the spirit of collaboration when constantly dealing with court proceedings.

[39]        One would hope that a parenting coordinator would never be a witness at the proceedings.  Parenting coordinators should not be put in a position of having to justify their determinations to the court or harming their relationship with either party by appearing to take sides.  These issues are properly addressed on an appeal of the determination or an application for enforcement based on the record before the parenting coordinator.  The parties should otherwise be assured that in the course of resolving their conflict, the parties are free to propose resolutions as though they were made without prejudice in a family case conference.  In this case, Ms. McNeely became merely another weapon in the arsenal of M.A.F.  It undermines her ability to reach consensus with the parties and defeats the purpose of having a parenting coordinator appointed.  Once a parenting coordinator has been appointed, the parties must not bring applications before the court on topics which are clearly within that parenting coordinator’s domain.  That appears to be the spirit and intent of the legislation.

[40]        Ms. McNeely requested a term be included in the order that neither party make an application to the court for concerns falling within the scope of the parenting coordination agreement. N.R.F. argued that it is redundant because the issues which have been brought before the court are not within the parenting coordinator’s power to resolve.  Neither party has made applications to the court on matters that fall within the scope of the parenting coordinator agreement.  Instead, Ms. Oliver argued that there should be a term in the order that restricts the parties’ abilities to make applications. N.R.F. had sought this in response to M.A.F.’s applications filed in May, 2013 and prior to the parenting coordinator being appointed in the hope of avoiding further court proceedings.

[41]        With respect to coparently.com, Ms. Oliver argued that it would be appropriate, if another parenting coordinator is appointed, for that coordinator to determine whether or not coparently.com is a useful site.  N.R.F. does not presently have enough information about the site to make an informed decision.

[42]        I have reviewed this website only very superficially.  It appears to allow for basic communications and calendar scheduling between parents.  It seems to permit access for the children as well.  This service is $99 per year per parent.  If the parents review this website and decide it would work for them, they should make that recommendation to each other and each bear their own cost for the site subscription.

[43]        With respect to Ms. McNeely’s request that the court order N.R.F. to withdraw his complaint to the BC College of Social Work, Ms. Oliver argued that it would not be appropriate.  The basis of the complaint does not relate to what was said in court in September, 2014, but to the allegations made in May 2014.  Ms. Oliver cited the scope of the regulatory body to whom the complaint was made.  She argued that only the Supreme Court may stay a complaint should it proceed to a discipline committee.  I do not need to delve into this argument further.  Whether the complaint is made about Ms. McNeely arising from her conduct in court or outside of court, it is not within the jurisdiction of this court to order N.R.F. to withdraw that complaint.  It would be undesirable for any court to prohibit someone from filing a complaint to a regulatory body absent some very compelling circumstances.  It is for the regulatory body in the first instance to determine whether the complaint ought to proceed, whether it has any merit and then to pursue it in accordance with its jurisdiction.

[44]        Although I reject N.R.F.’s suspicion that Ms. McNeely has become biased against him, I do see that her continued role as a parenting coordinator will not be effective in part because of his suspicions.  Furthermore, with one child living in each household, it is no longer effective to have the division of responsibilities as set out by Judge Harrison.  I indicated to the parties that I was terminating the parenting coordinator appointment because it was no longer appropriate to their case.  Their level of dysfunction is so great that this form of alternative dispute resolution is not a viable option for them.  They make no real attempt to use the service as it was intended, but use it as another weapon in their respective arsenals.

[45]        While parenting coordinators are intended for high conflict parents, there is a point where the conflict and dysfunction are too great.  The Fs. have reached that point.

[46]        It is clear that the high conflict in this family makes it desirable that there be some counselling put in place.  The order made by Judge Harrison March 12, 2013 required that the parties attend for counselling.  This was attempted in a few different ways.  On one occasion, the parties arranged for counselling through Lii Michif Otipemisiwak.  There was an initial meeting with Jana Stewart which occurred before the last trial.  Ms. Stewart said that meeting went well.  There was a review scheduled for April 13, 2013. The parties and Elders were to attend. N.R.F. left within 10 minutes. Ms. Stewart said N.R.F. was visibly upset when he came in. When he was asked to scale his ability to communicate at that time, he scored himself a -0. He blamed M.A.F. for this. M.A.F. only scaled herself at 2 or 3. She immediately went into defensive mode with N.R.F. N.R.F. became angrier and did not cooperate in the spirit of the meeting.  The meeting ended when N.R.F., raising his voice, accused M.A.F. of causing him to have neck surgery.

[47]        Although Ms. Stewart and the Elders considered a further meeting where a male Elder would be present in order to balance the room, they determined that they would not make any progress.  If both parties are open to it, they are prepared to revisit that decision.  I suspect this will have no greater success until N.R.F. receives counselling for his communication skills.

[48]        N.R.F. is not the only one to storm out of meetings.  Ms. McNeely related an incident where M.A.F. also became very angry, left a meeting and slammed the door behind her.  It is evident that both parties have issues controlling their tempers when in conflict with each other.  They are also both lacking communication skills.

[49]        There were also counselling sessions set up with Bruce Stevens to assist N.R.F. and K.M.F. in their relationship.  Initially, K.M.F. and N.R.F. were to attend separate sessions and then ultimately they were to meet.  However, Mr. Stevens’ fees for the degree of services he felt was required in the circumstances would have been too exorbitant for this family. M.A.F. is not prepared to contribute to any of these costs, saying that she does not earn enough income.  It is clear that she believes this is N.R.F.’s problem to solve.  She could not be more wrong.

[50]        Both M.A.F. and N.R.F. have been seeing separate counsellors although it is unclear what they are seeking the counselling about. It has not assisted either of them in improving their relationship for co-parenting purposes and nor has it improved their relationship with their respective estranged sons.  They appear to have learned nothing about anger management, parenting or communication.

[51]        M.A.F. is prepared to have both of the boys attend counselling so long as the counselling is free to her. N.R.F. has been prepared to go to a counsellor and has been prepared to pay.  However, he does not have an extraordinary income either.  His plan pays for him to see the counsellor he is presently seeing but, for some reason, does not provide for counselling services for his sons.  He confirmed that his extended health plan was “not great”.  This requires further investigation.  These boys require some objective guidance about how to deal with the dysfunctional relationship of their parents. They are not receiving any guidance from their parents and it is essential for their well-being that they receive it from someone.

[52]        M.A.F. has not been particularly cooperative on the counselling issue.  She has insisted that N.J.F. only needs to see a counsellor to ensure that he is alright, not for repairing the damaged relationship she has with him.  She is firm in her belief that there is no damage in her relationship with N.J.F.  N.J.F. does not agree.

[53]        M.A.F. also takes issue with the amount of time it took for N.R.F. to set up counselling with Mr. Stevens. N.R.F. explained this was because of scheduling with Mr. Stevens around K.M.F.’s availability, N.R.F.’s availability and Mr. Stevens own holidays. Since it was all being arranged through his counsel, N.R.F. was unable to answer any further.  In any event, N.R.F. has made efforts to arrange for counselling.  M.A.F. has not.

[54]        N.R.F. did take N.J.F. to a counsellor, Terry Ann Smiley, in Chase at the urging of the family doctor.  However, Ms Smiley moved to Kamloops.  He then took N.J.F. to Kamloops Therapy for an intake.  After that, N.J.F. was placed on a wait list to see someone in Chase.

[55]        N.J.F. now meets with Shelane Woodcock.  She is with Child and Youth Mental Health.  This is a start.  M.A.F. also needs to get K.M.F. in for similar counselling.

[56]        It is evident that both of these boys will benefit from counselling.  It is equally evident that neither family, absent provision in the extended health plan that will cover these costs, is in any position to be paying for extensive counselling.  N.R.F. needs to get a better handle on what the plan pays for.

[57]        The e-mails exchanged between the parties exhibit hostile, aggressive, passive aggressive and inappropriate communications.  The e-mails between N.R.F. and K.M.F. are also inappropriate in that they are laden with guilt inducing comments which will not serve to repair relations between K.M.F. and his father.

[58]        Similarly, K.M.F.’s e-mails to his father are disrespectful and blunt.  It is the responsibility of both parents to ensure that the children are conducting themselves in a manner that is respectful and responsive.  Upon becoming aware that K.M.F. was communicating with his father in this manner, M.A.F. ought to have encouraged and guided him to a more mature response.  Instead, she supports and encourages K.M.F.’s poor behaviour.

[59]        N.R.F.’s e-mails with Ms. McNeely are stunningly inappropriate, scattered and emotionally loaded.  His e-mails are, as Ms. McNeely accurately described them, derogatory, threatening and rude.  Indeed, during court, N.R.F. mouthed a rude comment to Ms. McNeely during the break.  All of this reflects an alarming degree of immaturity, lack of insight and tantrums.

[60]        N.R.F. is apparently intelligent and thoughtful in his more focused moments.  However, his testimony in court and his e-mails to Ms. McNeely exhibit somebody who is simply unable to control his emotions, focus on the issue at hand, and resolve those issues.

[61]        The outrageous communications are not limited to N.R.F.  M.A.F. has equally disrespectful communications by not responding to communication if she chooses not to do so.  She also makes comments to N.R.F. designed to provoke him.

[62]        There are also the public displays which are disturbing and obviously embarrassing for the boys.  S.L. worked at the bowling centre in Chase.  She has two children, C.L. and N.L., who are [omitted for posting].  She knew the Fs. through sports, coaching baseball and coaching bowling.  S.L. knew A.H. and N.R.F. first through baseball and soccer.  She met M.A.F. through baseball.  S.L. reported that on her first meeting with M.A.F., S.L. introduced herself.  M.A.F. said, “I do not get along with those two people”, while pointing at A.H. and N.R.F.  It is an immensely socially inappropriate introduction.  This was done for no proper purpose.  It was calculated to manipulate new acquaintances to take sides in a dispute they should know nothing about.

[63]        On another occasion, the boys were at the bowling alley.  K.M.F. had new glasses which he was not wearing on this particular day.  A.H. asked him where his glasses were and M.A.F. yelled at A.H. that she was not his mother.  This incident occurred in front of 25 children.  S.L. “could tell” that A.H. was going to respond to M.A.F.  She told Ms. A.H. to leave and cool down.  S.L. told M.A.F. that such incidents could not happen anymore.  There can be no justification for such outrageous behaviour.  It defies explanation.

[64]        The lack of communication between the parents and the lack of support for each other’s parenting decisions is no more evident than in the incident involving K.M.F. viewing pornography on the internet.  This was not an accidental encounter.  K.M.F. signed up for pornography sites and put false information in about his age in order to gain access to those sites.  N.R.F. discovered this while reviewing K.M.F.’s usage. Rather than communicating the issue properly to M.A.F., he merely suggested she review his tablet for usage based on concerns that had been raised at school.  M.A.F., rather than reviewing K.M.F.’s usage or following up with N.R.F., chose to ignore the issue.  Furthermore, when confronted with the prospect that K.M.F. had indeed viewed pornography, she alternated between nonsensical definitions of pornography and suggesting that it was probably someone else who had gained access to the sites.  In fact, K.M.F. admitted he had been on the sites to Cpl. Butler who investigated the complaint.

[65]        There are several observations to be made.  N.R.F. ought to have been forthcoming to M.A.F. about K.M.F. accessing pornography sites.  Both parents ought to have reviewed the usage to determine if there was in fact a criminal issue.  None of the sites purported to be child pornography; and the police ought not to have been involved.

[66]        Constable Butler said that K.M.F. readily admitted he looked at the pornography but Cpl. Butler found no offence had been committed.  He pointed out the obvious; that 13 year old boys were going to look at naked girls whether this was on television, in National Geographic magazines or on the internet.  Where the police become concerned is when parents have children watch the sexual acts or if the viewing involves child pornography.  Neither was evident in Cpl. Butler’s investigation.

[67]        The complaint had reached Cpl. Butler because M.A.F. reported that her ex-husband had shown her son pornography.  This was entirely untrue.  Either K.M.F. lied to his mother about this or she used the police to manipulate the upper hand in these proceedings.  So rather than this matter being resolved in a sensible fashion with both parents engaging in a respectful discussion and reaching a joint resolution, the matter escalated to a police investigation.

[68]        Even faced with the admission and the evidence of Cpl. Butler, M.A.F. persisted in her nonsensical position that the pornography was not pornography but merely naked people.  To be clear, the definition of pornography is:

[69]        Hopefully this will assist M.A.F. should future incidents arise so that she can address the issue rather than playing semantic games with N.R.F. and pouncing on an opportunity to involve the police.  It would have been more constructive if the parents had been able to jointly approach K.M.F. about a healthier way to view women and girls, rather than objectifying them.  

[70]        Ms. McNeely had met K.M.F. and had assessed him as a “really good young man”.  She felt that the pornography issue was out of the ordinary for him and he absolutely denied accessing it.  We now know that is not true.  Ms. McNeely had viewed the screenshots N.R.F. sent to her which she found upsetting because she felt K.M.F. had been dishonest with her.  It was because of this that she asked K.M.F. for the password to his e-mail.  When she reviewed the sites, she saw the junk mail which K.M.F. told her had starting coming in the months prior.  He said he moved them to the junk folder without opening them. Ms. McNeely had him open a new account and give the password only to his mother.  Understandably, N.R.F. demanded the password to that account but Ms. McNeely refused to give it to him.  This effectively stopped all responsible parental supervision of K.M.F.’s internet use.

[71]        We now know that K.M.F. was lying about accessing the pornography; that his father was not the person showing it to him; and that there was no merit to blocking N.R.F. from the account.  However, N.R.F. is a master of his own destruction because he is so confrontational that Ms. McNeely was left with little choice other than to take the course of action she pursued.

[72]        M.A.F.’s denial was obstructive from the start.  She believed K.M.F. when he denied showing his friends the pornography yet this was how it came to the attention of A.H. and N.R.F.  She played semantic games about whether or not the sites were pornography.  She even believed that it was the boys showing K.M.F. pornography and not the other way around.

[73]        The end result was that N.R.F. put parental blocks on the tablet K.M.F. had in his home.  He was not permitted on the internet without someone else nearby.  There were no disciplinary measures taken in M.A.F.’s home with respect to this issue.

[74]        Neither parent has addressed the unfortunate fallout that K.M.F. is now no longer friends with one of the boys, N.L., who revealed the tablet to A.H.  His mother reported that they stopped being friends after N.L. told Ms. H. what was going on.  This friendship ended not because K.M.F. was angry with N.L. for disclosing the site, but because N.L. was upset with K.M.F. for denying it.  N.L. felt that he was being blamed and was upset that anyone believed he was lying.  The consequences of K.M.F.’s actions have not been brought to bear on him. It is unlikely that K.M.F. has had any insight to the fact that he has lost a friend - not because of improper conduct but because of his lying.

[75]        Lying is a recurring theme where K.M.F. is concerned.  N.R.F. believes K.M.F. has done it on a number of occasions, has tried to mete out consequences and has been met with denial and obstruction from M.A.F.  M.A.F.’s only response to these allegations is that she believes K.M.F. is telling her the truth and that it is N.J.F. who lies.  There is no substantiation to her belief that N.J.F. lies more than one would expect from a child of his age.  What neither parent seems to appreciate is that this lying appears to be a behaviour these boys have learned as a coping mechanism for the hostile relationships between their parents.  Lying gets them out of trouble, deflects anger to a parent, and gets the boy what he wants.  The rewards for lying are instant and satisfying, particularly for K.M.F.

[76]        In a poignant moment with his grandfather, S.F., K.M.F. was outside playing hockey with the other boys.  At one point, K.M.F. dropped his stick and went to his room.  He began crying.  His grandfather knocked on the door and asked him what was going on.  He replied that he had caused “all this” and claimed that he had been lying.  His grandfather told him that lying did not fix anything; he should tell the truth so that they can fix things.  K.M.F. gave his grandfather a hug and that was the end of that matter.  What the parents ought to have learned from this exchange was that K.M.F. was reaching out for a way to resolve this problem that had begun in part as a result of his lying.  Unfortunately, it did not last.

[77]        K.M.F. also claimed that his father had wrongfully taken money from his account.  This was entirely untrue and it is difficult to understand why he would even lie about this.

[78]        In another instance, K.M.F. was sent to the grocery store two blocks away to purchase some sour cream.  He had asked to go.  While there, K.M.F. saw his mother but never said anything to A.H. or N.R.F.  That was not the issue.  They received an e-mail later from M.A.F. but K.M.F. lied about seeing her there.  He was already serving punishment for lying at that time.

[79]        On another occasion, A.H. checked on K.M.F. when he said he was going to be at Youth Group.  On a previous occasion, he had said he was going to be there but did not go.  So she checked on him on this occasion.  This resulted in another family fracas.

[80]        Unfortunately, N.R.F. believes that everyone is lying to him and therefore it is not difficult to understand why others are sceptical of his view that K.M.F. is lying.  This extends to Ms. McNeely whom he also believed was lying about her role, her credentials and how she dealt with matters.

[81]        During the meeting with the Lii Michif counselling group, N.R.F. felt that they had lied to him about cancelling a meeting that had proceeded.  He became angry with them and declared that he was not going to deal with dishonest people.  Again, rather than trying to objectively assess what had transpired, he devolved immediately to assuming the people were lying to him and being biased.

[82]        Lying was a significant enough problem that it became one of the rules in N.R.F.’s household.  The three boys made up offences and punishments that were placed on a discipline board.  One rule was that people were not to lie.  The punishment was picked by the three boys: lose privileges for three days.

[83]        Lying persisted as a problem with respect to K.M.F., but not so much with the other two boys.  N.R.F. observed that J.H. is a “tattle taler”.  N.J.F. has lied, but not without consequence. In one incident the principal called N.R.F. about a problem over a water bottle.  N.J.F. denied it had happened and then he said he was not allowed to tell his dad.  As a consequence, he was sent to his room without electronics or visitors. He was only allowed to engage in his sports.

[84]        K.M.F. on the other hand was disciplined for lying about a number of incidents. He told his father he did not know anything about a band trip; he lied about where he was going on another occasion time; and he lied about his preferred sport as between hockey and curling.  Each one of these incidents resulted in an overblown dispute between his parents.  The lying does not assist in the relationship between his parents, but it is they who choose to respond to the issue in a negative and unconstructive fashion.  K.M.F. was ultimately rewarded for his part in it because his mother sided with him and refused to send him home.

[85]        A number of issues have arisen with respect to the various medical issues of these boys.  Everything from whether or not N.J.F. should drink milk through to orthotics for N.J.F. and dental work for K.M.F. has arisen.

[86]        For instance, M.A.F. wrote an e-mail to Ms. McNeely copied to N.R.F. on November 15, 2013 reminding everyone that N.J.F. goes on soy milk when he has a cold or a cough.  In that e-mail, she outlined the nutritional values of the soy milk. N.R.F. responded by denying that N.J.F. goes on soy milk and saying that it is a choice that M.A.F. made on her own.  He maintained that the doctor had indicated numerous times soy milk was not necessary and that N.J.F.’s cough was due to seasonal allergies.  He pointed out correctly that the three of them, being M.A.F., A.H. and N.R.F. needed to work together to improve N.J.F.’s eating habits.  N.R.F. concluded that the decision to switch to soy milk was a medical one over which M.A.F. did not have authority.  That was silly and inflammatory.  He had the moral high ground; he should have stayed on it.

[87]        An issue such as this does not require angry e-mail exchanges, involvement of the parenting coordinator, or conflict between the parties.  It ought to have been a simple matter of both parents discussing with the doctor whether it was necessary to put N.J.F. on soy milk, then confirming with N.J.F. whether he was prepared to drink soy milk.  By N.R.F.’s report, N.J.F. did not like soy milk.  Instead, Ms. McNeely wrote the parties saying that because of the degree of conflict and misunderstanding amongst the three of them in their communications, she would like to see a letter from the physician as per M.A.F.’s suggestion.  This then resulted in M.A.F. taking the position that it was N.R.F.’s responsibility to obtain that letter.  Quite the contrary.  It was her issue; she ought to have obtained the letter.

[88]        On another occasion, N.J.F. injured his tooth at school.  He was on parenting time with his mother.  He was in a lot of pain and crying to his mother.  M.A.F. had N.J.F. call his father to see if N.R.F. could take him into the dentist.  N.R.F. was unable to on that occasion so he suggested that M.A.F. take him into a local dentist.  Having N.J.F. make that call while in so much pain was a highly inappropriate way in which to proceed.  M.A.F. stood on the principle that communications were supposed to be by e-mail and she was trying to avoid a conflict.  This is nonsense.  Clearly when the child is in pain it is a medical issue requiring direct contact.  N.J.F. should have not have been left to make that call on his own.

[89]        Understandably, M.A.F. was not prepared to take N.J.F. to the dentist on her own.  There had been disputes in the past about whether or not the dentist had the appropriate medical care number and whether or not M.A.F. ought to have taken the child to have a sore tooth looked at.  While the parents are having these petty arguments about who should be taking the child to the dentist and which dentist has the proper numbers, the children are suffering. 

[90]        There is also the matter of orthotics for N.J.F.  N.J.F. required the orthotics and both parents knew this.  However, M.A.F. claimed that she and N.R.F. had both agreed that they would each pay for and purchase a set of orthotics for their own home, so that N.J.F. would have them wherever he went.  She based this on N.R.F.’s agreement that they should each buy their own or split the cost for one set.  He asked her to let him know how she wished to proceed but she did not respond.  M.A.F. said it was because she was out of cell range when he was making the inquiry, yet she often fails to respond in a timely manner or at all.  She ultimately agreed that it was appropriate they each buy their own.

[91]        Now there are orthotics ordered for N.J.F. but M.A.F. will not release them to N.R.F. because it is not in accordance with the agreement.  N.R.F. is prepared to pay his half for those orthotics but feels since N.J.F. is living only with him, there should only be one pair.  As a result, N.J.F. goes without the orthotics while M.A.F. stands on principle.  In fact, she is standing so firmly on principle that she advised the doctor’s office not to release the orthotics to N.R.F. Once again, while the parents are pretty and confrontational, a child suffers.

[92]        Ultimately, the argument revolved around whether or not N.R.F. was prepared to pay for the orthotics through his medical coverage.  He cited the strike as a reason for not consulting anyone on medical coverage.  It is completely unclear to me how a strike would have anything to with whether or not an entirely necessary medical expense would be incurred.  It turns out that the extended coverage information was available on line.  What should have been a fairly simple inquiry by N.R.F. of his medical coverage devolved to yet another dispute between the parties.

[93]        There has also been an issue about K.M.F. and antibiotics.  Apparently he had a reaction in 2012 when he had some work done at the dentist.  N.R.F. said his file reflects now as of 2014 that he is allergic to penicillin and antibiotics.  Yet M.A.F. relies on a letter from K.M.F.’s file that says it is alright for him to have penicillin.  That letter is dated from June, 2010.  It begs the question whether M.A.F. would not want to err on the side of caution where there may be an allergy to penicillin rather than win another fight with N.R.F.

[94]        There was a completely unnecessary issue about whether certain prescriptions would be covered for the children.  It seemed that M.A.F. apparently could not purchase prescriptions for them because her name was not on the medical card.  That makes no sense.  So long as the boys are covered, she should be able to purchase prescriptions for them in their names using that card.  In any event, it seems that they are registered at the Shoppers Drug Mart in both Sahali and in Chase which should permit her to purchase the prescriptions for the boys.

[95]        A similar unnecessary event surrounded A.H. making an eye appointment for each of K.M.F. and N.J.F.  There was all sorts of confusion about who had made the appointments and who would take them.  This is entirely unnecessary and petty.

[96]        The most basic communications about appointments devolve to completely unnecessary squabbling.  For instance, M.A.F. asked N.R.F. to keep her informed about N.J.F.’s foot appointments and requested a written report from the specialist.  M.A.F. ought to obtain that report from the specialist herself or arrange to meet with him.  This sort of nonsense does not occur when parents are properly acting as responsible guardians.

[97]        Similarly, education has also had its share of disputes.  M.A.F. takes credit for N.J.F.’s grades improving because she was spending more time at the school.  N.R.F. said that he spends time with the children making sure they get their homework done.  The reality is if the parents are involved in encouraging the children to study and do their homework, then their grades are bound to improve.

[98]        N.J.F.’s teacher felt that N.J.F. would benefit from extra work in his reading.  He had joined the homework club and M.A.F. was going to the school to help him.  However, N.R.F. also suggested N.J.F. have a tutor. M.A.F. responded by saying that he should find one locally to avoid driving into Kamloops.  However, she set parameters on what kind of tutor would be hired, while expecting that N.R.F. would pay the tab for that tutor.  N.R.F. took issue with the fact that she did not even respond to his proposal for a tutor because she said she had to think about it for a day or two.  The courtesy of a reply to say that she was considering what he was proposing and that she would get back to him does not seem to have occurred to her.  N.R.F. even offered to pay for the tutor but ultimately one was never found.  M.A.F. conceded that she never did answer directly.

[99]        M.A.F., when pressed on this issue, said that she wanted a professional, not a friend of the family or another child. Yes, she felt a tutor was not even necessary.  Her position makes no sense.  She is being obstructionist because it was N.R.F.’s idea.  N.J.F. suffers while they fight.

[100]     Ms. McNeely had difficulty getting the parties to resolve the issue because rather than addressing discrete issues, they would raise others.  When she would ask them what issues were resolved and which remained outstanding, she would not get replies.

[101]     Whether N.J.F. requires a tutor is a very simple matter.  If he is struggling in school, it makes sense for the parents to meet with the teacher to see if there is additional support he can receive at home.  If that is inadequate to bring up his grades or to assist him in achieving the best result he can, then they should look at obtaining a tutor.  M.A.F. cannot afford anything extravagant.  However, she expects N.R.F. to incur extra expenses for tutoring and places unreasonable parameters on what she will agree to.  Rather than responding to N.R.F. that she wishes the tutoring to be obtained in Chase, she ignored his e-mail.  If N.R.F. is prepared to hire a tutor in Chase and that tutor is able to assist N.J.F., then M.A.F. should be prepared to discuss with N.R.F. what she can contribute toward those costs and cooperate fully with him in that process.

[102]     N.R.F. also complained that M.A.F.’s communication about the education is very poor.  He said he would receive a note that N.J.F. had reading to do or had a science project that he failed.  He would receive word that K.M.F. was ahead in school when he was in fact far behind.  He found himself scrambling to help one or the other of the boys with a school project because it was already two weeks late.  M.A.F. seems to be stubbornly uncommunicative about the educational needs of the boys.

[103]     Extra-curricular activities also appear to be a point of constant dispute between the parties.  They have complained that the other party does not discuss what the children will be signed up for yet they both agree that the costs of the extra-ordinary expenses have been shared relatively equally between the parties.  It seems the parents are able to recognize that the extra-curricular activities are important to the children, yet they use these activities as a point of contention.

[104]     For instance, K.M.F. was to attend a band trip in March of 2014. M.A.F. said all the parents knew the band trip was coming up and N.R.F. does not dispute this.  However, the information forms came home complete with the list of items the children needed for that trip while K.M.F. was on parenting time with his mother.  Rather than contacting N.R.F. immediately to tell him what was going to be needed for the trip and to sort out which household was able to provide which items, M.A.F. withheld the information until K.M.F. went home on the Sunday evening.  The band trip was the next day.  N.R.F. was unable to obtain the items for K.M.F.

[105]     Rather than calling up M.A.F. and saying that he did not have all the items that K.M.F. would need and could they put their heads together to come up with something, N.R.F. chose to deny K.M.F. the opportunity to go.  For instance, N.R.F. said he did not have a sleeping bag for K.M.F. to use but one was required.  Rain gear was required but K.M.F. had left it at his mother’s. K.M.F. had also left the suit at his mother’s that he was supposed to have and the wind instrument that he was supposed to take.  In cross-examination, N.R.F. said that K.M.F. did not need to go on the trip anyway because it did not count for grades because he was being punished for lying, and it was also too late at night when N.R.F. learned of the trip.

[106]     M.A.F. said that she had provided N.R.F. with the permission form and told him she would let him know when she heard more.  She did not.  She said N.R.F. could have got the information from the school like she did.  She has no valid explanation for not contacting N.R.F. in advance in what would have been a reasonable amount of time for the two of them to put together all of the items K.M.F. would need for that trip.  She testified that she believed N.R.F. was punishing K.M.F. by not letting him go on the field trip.  It is true that K.M.F. was being punished for one of his incidents of lying but he was permitted to go on all sporting and school activities.  He should have been allowed to go and it is predominantly M.A.F.’s responsibility that he was unable to do so.  So despite it being clearly within M.A.F.’s parental responsibility to manage the educational and education-related events and to keep N.R.F. informed of them, she took the stubborn position that he should have found out on his own.

[107]     N.R.F. said this is only one example of the number of times that he would not hear about educational or education-related events.  He did not know about pajama day.  N.R.F. tries to arrange to be on as many field trips as he can.  He does not find out in advance for him to be able to go on these field trips.  When N.R.F. approached the school to get information directly, he discovered that he was not even on the contact list.  M.A.F. was not cross-examined on this so it is unfair to lay any responsibility on her for this failing. N.R.F. also complained that he missed fairs three times for N.J.F. and once for K.M.F.  He missed a field trip to the museum and some field trips for plays.  He missed the field trips to the salmon runs.  He found out about the field trip for making dream catchers after the fact.  This is not acceptable.  The parents should be guiding the boys to be responsible planners while each parent keeps the other fully informed.

[108]     It should be clear that regardless of who registers these children for school, both parents must be listed as primary contacts regardless of whose parenting responsibility it may be to attend to the education.  Both parents should be provided with the information in a timely manner from the schools.  It is unfair for the parents to expect that because their communications are so poor their children should suffer the consequences.

[109]     C.B. is friends with M.A.F. She met M.A.F. in Ms. B.’s capacity as a customer service representative at the bank.  They have spent time with the children at Ms. B.’s home on a couple of occasions.  She had met N.R.F. before Mr. and M.A.F. had ended their relationship.  However, at the beginning of the family proceedings, she heard from M.A.F. that N.R.F. “was not nice”.  She heard from M.A.F. about the fighting and police reports.  She heard that N.R.F. was abusive and yelled a lot when he was angry; that A.H. was not nice and that J.H. was mean.  She said M.A.F. told her these things on more than one occasion and that the children were in and out, but sometimes present during these conversations.  Ms. B. subsequently came to know J.H. because her son became a friend of his.  Since then, Ms. B. has spent a good deal of time with A.H. and N.R.F.  They have gone to birthday parties, camping, to the park, beach, and dinners in each other’s homes.  On those occasions, if they have any in depth discussions about these proceedings, the children are sent away.

[110]     N.J.F., who refuses to return to his mother’s home, claims that his mother makes disparaging remarks to him that are belittling and insulting.  She denies this occurs, but N.J.F. reported it not only to his father but to me.  It is clear that either M.A.F. is not considering how she presents to N.J.F., is lying to me, or is incapable of self-reflection.

[111]     Both parents deny that they make disparaging remarks about one another in the absence of the other parent. N.J.F. and K.M.F. report otherwise.  There have also been witnesses who have testified that M.A.F. makes disparaging remarks about N.R.F.  Some of these have been made in the presence of the children and others in inappropriate social settings.  In his meeting with me, K.M.F. disclosed that his mother has said negative things about his father to K.M.F.  His own descriptions of his father sound very much like he has either heard these negative remarks about his father from his mother or has been coached by her to say them.

[112]     It is clear that the parents have very much involved their children in these proceedings in a most negative way.  N.J.F.’s reflections on the nature of the relationship between his parents is indicative that he has at least witnessed their fighting if not heard them making disparaging remarks about one another.

[113]     There have been a number of disputes surrounding the extra-curricular activities of the boys, specifically sports.  Starting with the choice that K.M.F. had to make between hockey and curling, he seems to have told each parent what that parent wanted to hear or what he believed that parent wanted to hear.  As a result, he told his father he wanted to play hockey and his mother he wanted to do curling.  The end result was that the parents ended up in conflict yet again.  Each parent maintains that they would not have minded which sport K.M.F. picked, but given the ongoing conflict between these parents, this did not have the ring of truth from either one of them.  This was one of the issues that Ms. McNeely was to resolve for them. Ms. McNeely said that from her perspective K.M.F. was aware his father wanted him to play hockey.  She said he gave child-centred reasons for wanting to curl instead, so she decided that curling was the appropriate choice.  K.M.F. admitted to her that he told both parents different stories but explained that his father would say negative things if K.M.F. did not agree with him, so he would agree with his father to avoid him getting mad.

[114]     There is a theme of favouritism that also arises in the conflict between the parents where it concerns the boys and their sporting events.

[115]     K.M.F. is refereeing.  N.R.F. complained that M.A.F. did not report the scheduling changes to N.R.F.  M.A.F. responded that K.M.F. had never missed any refereeing except for one occasion when he forgot his gear and was late.  If the parents used a site like coparently.com these issues would not arise.

[116]     M.A.F. complained that N.R.F. was interfering with K.M.F.’s cheques while he was refereeing.  N.R.F. said that the manager dropped one cheque off at their house because he did not know where M.A.F. lived.  K.M.F. had asked N.R.F. to pick up and deposit his cheque.

[117]     There was an incident with the bowling.  Birth certificates were required but M.A.F. refused to send the originals with the boys.  She said that she had checked with the bowling alley that it was okay to send photocopies, which she provided to the coaches.  Rather than M.A.F. contacting N.R.F. and explaining that she was out of town and unable to get the birth certificates to him, or doing some forward planning to ensure that N.R.F. had the birth certificates, she took the non-sensical position that she was not prepared to leave a birth certificate with a non-guardian.

[118]     These are entirely unnecessary disputes which serve no purpose other than to insert more dysfunction into the relationships these boys suffer with their parents.

[119]     M.A.F. has complained that N.R.F. has never attended a curling bonspiel with K.M.F. or gone to any practice or baseball game of K.M.F.’s.  N.R.F. said he was not informed of K.M.F.’s baseball games yet M.A.F. was able to direct him to an e-mail where she sent him the schedule.  He admitted that was his mistake.  It seems to me that he could have made the effort to contact M.A.F. if he did not have the schedule.  It is important for children to know that their parents are supportive of their sports.  It would have taken very little effort on N.R.F.’s part to find out what was going on.

[120]     S.L. said that both of the Fs. were supportive of N.J.F. in baseball.  N.R.F. made sure that N.J.F. had his equipment and was on time to the games.  She was not so certain about whether M.A.F. did the same.  However, when N.J.F. was with M.A.F., S.L. noted that there would be times where N.J.F. would not have water or snacks.  She cited an incident in Kamloops when N.J.F. had no water.  N.J.F. asked his mother for water and she told him he had to come and get it himself.  Apparently, K.M.F.’s field was on the other side of the grounds entirely opposite to where N.J.F. was playing.

[121]     S.L. said she had also strongly suggested to the parents that they bring snacks for their children.  She said N.J.F. had them when he came with N.R.F. and A.H. M.A.F. seemed to be under the impression snacks were not permitted. S.L. testified it was quite the contrary.

[122]     On another occasion, S.L. said that N.J.F. asked his mother for something to eat.  She had a bagel but told N.J.F. he had to go find something somewhere else because the bagel was for K.M.F.

[123]     To the extent that S.L. was present during K.M.F.’s baseball games, she said that both M.A.F. and N.R.F. watched those games.  She acknowledged that sometimes the games would be at the same time for both boys but noted that N.R.F. would go back and forth between the fields, alternating innings as much as possible.  She noted that M.A.F. mostly kept score for K.M.F.’s games.

[124]     There are probably entirely logical adult reasons why M.A.F. would not have the appropriate water or snacks for N.J.F. and would not be watching his games.  However, those explanations may not be entirely adequate to a child.  Further, if this less than positive impression is left upon a coach parent, then it can be expected that an equally negative impression would be left upon N.J.F.

[125]     One of the reasons K.M.F. has left his father’s home is that he does not get along with either his own brother or J.H., A.H.’s son.

[126]     N.R.F. said that the issues between K.M.F. and J.H. would start with typical fighting like brothers.  K.M.F. would poke J.H. and J.H. would poke K.M.F. back.  He feels they are too much alike which would often cause problems.  He said they made fun of each other and had a lot of problems over the video games.  As soon as the altercations would escalate, he or A.H. would stop them.  He said they were not really physical fights with fists but just poking at each other.  N.R.F. conceded that J.H. has a temper although he is not violent.  He also has anxiety issues for which he receives professional help.  He said J.H. and N.J.F. are good buddies and believes K.M.F. felt left out.  N.R.F. and Ms. H. need to teach both of these boys about personal boundaries, sharing, anger management and other age appropriate behaviour.  They need to intervene and correct behaviour before it escalates, not once it escalates.

[127]     N.R.F. said that on the larger scale, everyone got along and was happy.  He felt that the fighting was largely because they were boys and that it was natural.  He felt they had no trouble living together but K.M.F. often excluded himself spending a lot of time in his bedroom.  It behoves a parent to investigate why a child choses to isolate himself from his siblings particularly when they otherwise seem to share interests.

[128]     M.A.F. recounted that there have been times when K.M.F. has returned to her care distraught over issues with J.H. hitting K.M.F. and throwing controllers for their game machine.  He complained that A.H. would ground him to his room except for meals and to use the washroom.  She felt that N.R.F. and A.H. were both taking J.H.’s side.  Both N.R.F. and A.H. felt that the discipline was meted out fairly and, when appropriate, equally.  Unfortunately, the parents did not discuss any of this in a constructive manner.

[129]     M.A.F. has not done anything to encourage an improved relationship between K.M.F. and J.H.  In fact, she has made disparaging remarks about J.H. to at least one other witness.  M.A.F. denies this but I accept that it is true.  She was not credible.

[130]     The impetus for N.J.F. leaving M.A.F.’s home was a dispute between him and K.M.F.  According to N.J.F., the altercation became physical.  According to K.M.F., it was strictly verbal.  M.A.F. has taken K.M.F.’s side in the recounting.  N.J.F. felt unsupported.  He ran away.

[131]     This became an event involving the police and various other parties.  M.A.F. let N.R.F. know that the boys had a verbal altercation and N.J.F. had left.  N.R.F.’s response was that he was not at home and he did not know where N.J.F. was.  M.A.F. did not believe him.  She went to N.R.F.’s home and saw that the car in the yard had an open door and that the family dog was outside.  Her belief was that N.R.F. had taken N.J.F. and gone somewhere with him.  With this belief in mind, she went to the police to report that her son was missing.  It would be understandable if she went to the police because she believed her son was truly missing.  Considering that she believed her son was with N.R.F., her actions were entirely inexplicable and inappropriate. 

[132]     It was entirely appropriate for M.A.F. to be concerned that N.J.F. was upset.  It was highly inappropriate that she jump to the unreasonable conclusion she reached. She had no valid concern for N.J.F.’s safety or circumstances because she believed N.R.F. was lying to her.  As a result, it was highly inappropriate of her to contact the police.  If she had genuinely believed N.J.F. had run away from home and could not be located, and if she had accepted that N.R.F. was out of town and unable to assist immediately, then it would have been appropriate for her to contact the police.

[133]     I cannot leave this subject without also pointing out that N.R.F. behaved entirely inappropriately once N.J.F. was found.  Both he and A.H. should have allayed M.A.F.’s concerns immediately by contacting her.  There was no valid explanation for not doing so other than to punish M.A.F.

[134]     Similarly, M.A.F. spirited K.M.F. away when he was to return to his father.  She called the police on this occasion as well on an entirely incredible premise.  On review of Judge Harrison’s Reasons for Judgment, it is evident that the parents have consistently used the police and the Ministry of Child and Family Development in the ongoing war they have been waging against each other.

[135]     The parents have both been under the misconception that a child once 13 years old can decide where he wishes to live.  That is not the law.  However, the views of the children must be taken into consideration.  There is no age restriction on this other than the children needing to be old enough to communicate their views.

[136]     M.A.F. is firmly of the view that N.J.F. is being manipulated by his father to say he wants to stay at his father’s home.  She said until she hears it from N.J.F., she will not accept that he does not want to come home.

[137]     K.M.F. has expressed to both his mother and his father that he does not wish to return to his father’s home.  N.R.F. is of the view that M.A.F. is manipulating K.M.F. and pandering to K.M.F.’s discontent because N.R.F. and A.H. do not permit him to break the rules or to lie without repercussions.  There is a certain amount of truth to this but N.R.F. is over-simplifying the problem and laying all the blame on M.A.F.

[138]     N.R.F. reported that when he went for coffee with K.M.F. he said he wanted to come back to his dad’s place.  N.R.F. told him that they could not in the interim because of the order.

[139]     Ms. McNeely believes that K.M.F. really loves his father but is very hurt by what has transpired in his father’s home.  She observed that N.R.F. is also hurt by the things that K.M.F. has said and done.

[140]     C.B. observed that N.J.F. is a happy child who does not like conflict.  On one occasion when C.B. was driving into town, she took N.J.F. with her.  She asked him how he likes his new home that he and N.R.F. and family had just moved into.  He observed that it was good.  He volunteered that his mother was mad at him and that she did not want to see him.  That is a reflection of how N.J.F. feels about his dispute with his mother and his brother.

[141]     N.R.F. also observed that when the boys were going back and forth, they both complained that they did not want to do it.  They wanted longer stays and N.J.F. particularly did not care for it. N.R.F. told the children they had to follow the court order, give it a chance and see how it works.

[142]     A.H. similarly observed that neither of the boys like the week on - week off procedure.  It was mostly N.J.F. who did not want to return to his mother’s home. N.J.F. also objected to the two weeks at his mother’s and wanted to return to only one week there.

[143]     When N.J.F. would return from visits with his mother, he would complain that he needed to vent to his father.  Both boys observed that they were being pressured by their mother to stay with her.

[144]     N.J.F. also said that he did not want to go for two weeks with his grandparents when he was on his mother’s summertime access.  He complained that when he went to his mother’s place he would be shipped off to the grandparents.  He said he wanted to be with his mother and talk to her.  This was one of the areas of contention between N.R.F. and Ms. McNeely.  N.R.F. offered for N.J.F. to call Ms. McNeely about his preferences.  He told N.J.F. to leave a message. Ms. McNeely objected to this procedure although N.R.F. believed it was what she had said to do.  It sends mixed messages to encourage one child to contact her at M.A.F.’s behest but to discourage contact from the other child at N.R.F.’s behest.

[145]     The parents consented to me interviewing both of the boys.  I interviewed them separately.  K.M.F. reported that his mother told him his father was not the greatest person in the world.  K.M.F. thinks his father is immature and just likes to have fun.  He reported that his father does crazy things like drinking.  He modified this during our interview to say that his father drank on special occasions and maybe “got buzzed”.  He also reported that he saw his father smoke marijuana.  During the interview, he modified this to say that it was a couple of years ago.  He has also seen his father smoke cigarettes.  All of this seemed entirely contrived and superficial.  He had a litany of complaints to list but could not sustain them once they were explored.  They sounded very much like he had either been coached about what to say or that he had heard it so often over the years he could repeat it like a mantra.

[146]     Both boys observed that A.H. smokes marijuana.  K.M.F. criticized her for it but N.J.F. explained that she smoked marijuana for medication.

[147]     K.M.F. said he is prepared to return to his father’s home provided A.H. is not there.  He said she calls him names.  He said they kicked him out of the house but now say they want him back.  He said it is hard to live with J.H. who “goes on a spaz attack and hits people”.  He wants it to be just N.J.F., his dad and himself or his grandparents.  As mature as K.M.F. seems in some respects, this struck me more as the wishful thinking of a much less mature child.

[148]     K.M.F. reported that in the short visits he has had with his father, his father says maybe two or four word sentences.  K.M.F.’s coffee with his grandfather was much better and he enjoyed some good communication.  K.M.F. said his father thinks he is a liar and told him to “pack my crap up and leave”.  This sounded much less contrived and was entirely credible.  If N.R.F. is speaking to K.M.F. in this manner, it is entirely inappropriate and will only further damage their relationship.  N.R.F. is the adult in the mix.  He needs to keep that in mind no matter the frustration he may feel.

[149]     K.M.F. reported that his mother’s place is lonely and boring and that he misses his brother.  At present, he is prepared to have two hours with his father on Sundays; between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. is best.

[150]     N.J.F. does not want to go to his mother’s home.  He said she hits him when she is angry and she gets angry a lot.  He said this is even if she has just had a bad day at work.  He believes he gets into more trouble than K.M.F. does and she does not hit K.M.F.  M.A.F. denied that she hits N.J.F.  However, I found N.J.F. to be a compelling and truthful young boy who is prone to exaggeration; has not been provided enough guidance to have proper insight into why he might be in trouble; and who is deeply and easily hurt.  If anyone strikes these children in temper, they need to know it is assault.  Children this age can be disciplined without hitting them.  There are very limited legal parameters for corporal punishment.  Good parenting should not have to resort to it.

[151]     N.J.F. also complained that his mother and brother called him dumb and stupid.  M.A.F. protested that she does not do this.  She may want to consider the tone in which she speaks to N.J.F., observe the comments that K.M.F. is making to him, and be mindful that N.J.F. is sensitive to this kind of criticism.  While the words themselves may not be spoken, the message has been delivered clearly to N.J.F. that she and K.M.F. think he is stupid.

[152]     N.J.F. has expectations of his mother.  He said she lies to him about when she is going to telephone.  He would like her to telephone once a week.  He would like that call to come after school on Fridays.

[153]     N.J.F. also said that he would like to have K.M.F. come to see him at his father’s sometimes.  He would like to have just the three of them together or including the grandparents.

[154]     Unlike K.M.F., N.J.F. gets along very well with A.H. and J.H.  N.J.F. wants K.M.F. to stop bossing J.H. around.  In all the time that he has been friends with J.H., N.J.F. has never seen J.H. have a meltdown.  Given the evidence from the adults about J.H.’s behaviour, I did not put much stock in this statement.

[155]     N.J.F. would like A.H. to be happy. He said she is usually sad.

[156]     N.J.F. wants his mother to stop fighting with his father and to e-mail him more.  He is prepared to have one overnight at his mother’s per month.

[157]     Both of these parents have successfully managed to alienate their children from themselves.  In saying this, I am not talking about N.R.F. alienating N.J.F. from M.A.F. or M.A.F. alienating K.M.F. from N.R.F.  I refer to ordinary, reasonable person observations that M.A.F. has alienated N.J.F. from herself and N.R.F. has alienated K.M.F. from himself.  In doing so, neither parent has been cooperative with the other in mending these damaged relationships.  They prefer to continue their overt warfare and their passive aggressive battles rather than try to achieve anything vaguely resembling cooperation and communication.  They have dragged family members and family friends into their disputes and rendered their relationship with their sons dysfunctional.

[158]     It is going to take some time and some counselling before these boys are able to cope with their distress caused by the family situation.  It is going to take considerable effort on the part of each parent to repair their damaged relationship with the son in the other parent’s care.  Both of these boys have extended the olive branch to their parents. It should be clear now to both parents what it is about their actions that distress these boys.  They must now rise above their squabbling and address those concerns.  Until then, it is appropriate that each boy stay with the parent he has elected to live with.  Parenting time will have to be in accordance with what is best for each boy in his own circumstances.

[159]     M.A.F. has filed a financial statement that indicates she earns $17,841.28 per annum.  She also listed the child support she receives and the spousal support she receives of $350 per month.  It is not clear to me when that spousal support is supposed to end but, at present, she states her annual income from all sources is $22,511.28.  M.A.F.’s 2013 Income Tax Notice of Assessment identifies her total income at $18,191.  This was for 2013 when she was not working full time.  She is now working 35 to 40 hours per week.  In her cross examination, she disclosed that she works 35 to 40 hours per week at $12 per hour plus $3 per day in tips.  That amounts to $24,960 per annum. With $3 per day in tips, that is an additional $750 per annum.  This is a more accurate reflection of her income.  I set Ms F.’s income at $25,710 per annum.

[160]     N.R.F. disclosed in his financial statement that his income for child support is $38,135.09.  This is based in part on the income loss he suffered as a result of the school strike which lasted from June until September, 2014.  His income for 2011 was $44,088.42; for 2012 was $43,527.55; and for 2013 was $43,491.46.  While all parties presumably hope to avoid a strike, it is often a natural part of an employment history.  These are the kinds of occasional temporary dips in income that the court should not take into consideration when determining the appropriate child support.  Based on N.R.F.’s income in 2013, I set his annual income at $43,491.96.

[161]     I dismiss M.A.F.’s application for primary residence of both children.  I order that K.M.F. shall reside primarily with his mother.

[162]     I dismiss M.A.F.’s application for compensatory parenting time with N.J.F.  The missed parenting time is a product of her own making.  I dismiss her application for a penalty under s. 61 of the Family Law Act.

[163]     I dismiss N.R.F.’s application to return to the week on - week off schedule. N.J.F. shall reside primarily with N.R.F.

[164]     Under s. 40(3)(a), N.R.F. shall have all of the parental responsibilities for the child, N.J.F., born [omitted for posting].

[165]     Under s. 40(3)(a), M.A.F. shall have all of the parental responsibilities for the child, K.M.F., born [omitted for posting].

[166]     Each parent shall have the responsibility of fully informing the other parent of all educational, medical, dental and extra-curricular activities the child is engaged in, including providing schedules and coach contact names, dates of field trips, school concerts, parent-teacher interviews, report cards, appointments and otherwise, as soon as the parent receives that information.

[167]     Each parent shall have the right to contact any third party with respect to educational, health or extra-curricular matters with respect to either child.

[168]     N.R.F. shall have parenting time with K.M.F. on Sundays between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.  N.R.F. may have N.J.F. or N.R.F.’s parents with him during any of those parenting time visits, but he shall not bring anyone else without K.M.F.’s prior request.

[169]     N.R.F. is further at liberty to attend any extra-curricular, educational or health-related appointments, games, trips or events for K.M.F.

[170]     N.R.F. shall have such further and other parenting time with K.M.F. as may be arranged between N.R.F. and K.M.F.

[171]     M.A.F. shall ensure that K.M.F. attends all parenting time visits at such times and at such places as agreed by N.R.F. and K.M.F.

[172]     M.A.F. shall have parenting time by telephone with N.J.F. on Fridays at 3:30 p.m. or at such other time as agreed between N.J.F. and M.A.F.  N.R.F. shall ensure that N.J.F. has access to a telephone in private for the purposes of those telephone calls.

[173]     M.A.F. shall have parenting time with N.J.F. two hours per week on such a day and at such a time as agreed between N.J.F. and M.A.F.  Further, M.A.F. shall have parenting time with N.J.F. overnight for one Saturday per month as agreed between M.A.F. and N.J.F.

[174]     M.A.F. shall have such further and other parenting time as agreed between M.A.F. and N.J.F. but M.A.F. shall not pressure N.J.F. to spend additional time with her.

[175]     M.A.F. is further at liberty to attend any extra-curricular, educational or health-related appointments, games, trips or events for N.J.F.

[176]     Each parent shall provide to the other parent at the commencement of each month a plan for any statutory holidays, non-instructional days, professional development days or school breaks.  Failing agreement between the parents with respect to how that parenting time will be spent, the parenting time shall be as otherwise set out in this order.

[177]     N.R.F. is found to be a resident of British Columbia and is found to have a gross annual income of $43,491.96. The child support for one child on an income of $43,400 is $396 per month.

[178]     M.A.F. is found to be a resident of British Columbia and is found to have a gross annual income of $25,710.The child support for one child on an income of $25,700 is $222 per month.

[179]     N.R.F. shall pay to M.A.F. the sum of $174 per month for the support of the child, K.M.F., commencing on September 1, 2014 and continuing on the 1st day of each and every month thereafter, for as long as the child is eligible for support under the Family Law Act or until further court order.  I have selected September 1, 2014 because that is the month in which this hearing commenced.

[180]     I make no order with respect to extraordinary expenses for extra-curricular activities as the parents have been otherwise able to resolve these issues.  In the event that a dispute should arise about other special or extra-ordinary expenses, the split is 60% from N.R.F. and 40% from M.A.F.

[181]     For as long as the children are eligible to receive child support, the parties shall exchange: (a) copies of their respective income tax returns for the previous year, including all attachments, not later than June 1 each year; and (b) copies of any Notice of Assessment or Reassessment provided to them by Canada Revenue Agency, immediately upon receipt.  Child support shall be adjusted accordingly on July 1 of each year.

[182]     N.R.F. shall not change the residence of the child, N.J.F., from Chase, British Columbia without first obtaining the written approval of all guardians and persons who have contact, unless he has provided all guardians and persons having contact with 60 days’ written notice, and no one receiving such notice has filed an application under ss. 59, 60 or 69 to maintain contact or prohibit relocation within 30 days of receiving the notice.

[183]     M.A.F. shall not change the residence of the child, K.M.F., from Chase, British Columbia without first obtaining the written approval of all guardians and persons who have contact, unless she has provided all guardians and persons having contact with 60 days’ written notice, and no one receiving such notice has filed an application under ss. 59, 60 or 69 to maintain contact or prohibit relocation within 30 days of receiving the notice.

[184]     No guardian shall apply for a passport for the children without the consent of any other guardian.

[185]     Each guardian shall cooperate with the other guardian in the provision of passports, consents to travel, and other necessary documents as may be required to allow the children to travel.

[186]     The parties shall (a) put the best interests of the children before their own interests; (b) encourage the children to have a good relationship with the other parent and speak to the children about the other parent the other child and that parent’s partner or that partner’s children in a positive and respectful manner; and (c) make a real effort to maintain polite, respectful communications with each other, refraining from any negative or hostile criticism, communication or argument in front of the children.

[187]     The parties shall not (a) question either child about the other parent or other child or time spent with the other parent beyond simple conversational questions; (b) discuss with the children any inappropriate adult, court or legal matters; (c) blame, criticize or disparage the other parent or other child to the children.

[188]     The parties shall encourage their respective families to refrain from any negative comments about the other parent and his or her extended family, or the other child, and from discussions in front of the children concerning family issues or litigation.

[189]     Under s. 224(1)(b) M.A.F. shall enrol K.M.F. in personal counselling, and provide confirmation of enrolment to N.R.F. by July 1, 2015.  M.A.F. shall pay any expenses related to this counselling.

[190]     Under s. 224(1)(b) N.R.F. shall enrol N.J.F. in personal counselling, and provide confirmation of enrolment to M.A.F. by July 1, 2015.  N.R.F. shall pay any expenses related to this counselling.

[191]     N.R.F. shall review his extended benefits coverage and confirm to M.A.F. in writing what counselling coverage is available to the children or the family.

[192]     M.A.F. shall provide the orthotics made for N.J.F. to N.R.F. forthwith.

[193]     Neither party shall make any further applications in these proceedings without leave of the court.  I am seized of all applications relating to clarification or enforcement of these terms.

[194]     Neither parent shall contact the Ministry of Child and Family Development or the Director of Child and Family Services unless there is objective evidence of a child protection concern.

[195]     Neither parent shall contact the police about the other parent or the children unless there is objective evidence of a crime or unless there is a real concern about the safety or location of the child.