This website uses cookies to various ends, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. You may accept all these cookies or choose only those categories of cookies that are acceptable to you.

Loading paragraph markers

E.L.G. v. J.R.G., 2018 BCPC 215 (CanLII)

Date:
2018-08-24
File number:
23065
Citation:
E.L.G. v. J.R.G., 2018 BCPC 215 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/htqdc>, retrieved on 2024-03-28

Citation:

E.L.G. v. J.R.G.

 

2018 BCPC 215

Date:

20180824

File No:

23065

Registry:

Fort St. John

 

 

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

THE FAMILY LAW ACT, S.B.C. 2011 c. 25

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN:

E.L.G.

APPLICANT

 

AND:

J.R.G.

RESPONDENT

 

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE

HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M.J. BRECKNELL



Re: Parental Responsibilities and Parenting Time

 

 

Appearing on their own behalf:

E.G.

Appearing on their own behalf:

J.G.

Place of Hearing:

Fort St. John, B.C.

Dates of Hearing:

June 26, 27, 28, and 29, 2018

Dates of Written Submissions:

July 9, August 1 and 3, 2018

Date of Oral Submissions:

August 14, 2018

Date of Judgment:

August 24, 2018

INTRODUCTION

[1]           J.R.G. comes from a large, extended and long residing farming family in the [omitted for publication] area near Fort St. John, British Columbia.  In the course of this proceeding many people with the last name of G. have been referred to or provided evidence to the Court.  In order to separate those persons from the main proponents in this litigation the Court will refer to E.L.G. as E., and J.R.G. as J., since that is the way they are described in various affidavits and other documents, and to both of them as the Parties.  The Court means no disrespect to the Parties by referring to them by their first name.  It is done to easily identify them from other members of the extended G. family.

[2]           J.E.M.G. born [omitted for publication] (J.G.) and K.H.G. born [omitted for publication] (K.G.) (collectively the Children) are the focus of protracted legal proceedings both in the Provincial Court of British Columbia and the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which have been ongoing for over two years.

[3]           Since the beginning of the litigation the Parties advise that they have spent over $200,000.00 litigating on practically every issue that can arise from a marital relationship.  The money spent on these expensive court battles would have greatly benefited the Children for such things as their further education, extracurricular activities or educational and recreational vacations had it been utilized for those purposes as opposed to the course chosen by the Parties up to this point.

[4]           The latest round in this litigation marathon occupied this Court’s time for four days in late June 2018.  At the beginning of the trial, the Parties were told that in all matters concerning the Children, the Court, in making any orders, would consider only the best interests of the Children as described in Section 37 of the Family Law Act (FLA) and by applying the relevant considerations set out in that section and the case law.

[5]           Despite the Court’s direction it became clear as the trial progressed that E. and J. each seemed bent on “winning” and on “defeating” the other with seemingly only passing regard to the provisions of Section 37 of the FLA and in the face of many admonishments by the Court.

[6]           E. advised that she believed the issues to be decided included:

a)            Parental responsibilities for the Children as described in Section 41 of the FLA which should be mostly shared equally between the Parties;

b)            Parenting time with the Children as described in Section 42 of the FLA which should be approximately equal but with the Children residing with her and attending school in [omitted for publication], British Columbia, or Fort St. John, British Columbia;

c)            her parenting time to include some weekends and an equitable allocation of the various vacation times throughout the year;

d)            Conduct Orders directed to J.’s behaviour as described in Sections 222 through 228 of the FLA.

[7]           J. advised the Court that he believed the issues to be decided included:

a)            Parental responsibilities for the Children as described in Section 41 of the FLA which should primarily be his responsibility with a few responsibilities being shared with E.;

b)            Parenting time with the Children as described in Section 42 of the FLA which should be fully with him with supervised contact between the Children and E., until she addresses her alcoholism issues to his satisfaction and the satisfaction of the Court.  After that, a more equal division of parenting time could be considered, including various vacation times, but with the Children residing with him in [omitted for publication], British Columbia and attending the nearby [omitted for publication] School ([omitted for publication] School).

[8]           Both of the Parties agreed that they were not seeking any orders with regard to any issues other than what they described to the Court.  Those other issues are being addressed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.  They also agreed that they are not seeking any orders with regard to E.’s son from a previous relationship, F.L.T. born [omitted for publication] (F.), as he is now an adult.

GEOGRAPHIC ISSUES

[9]           The Parties reside in two communities relatively close to, but in different directions from, Fort St. John and some driving distance from each other.  They were unable to agree on what the driving distance and time would be from their residence to the other Party’s residence, from their residence or the other Party’s residence to important locations in Fort St. John, or from their residence or the other Party’s residence to various school bus stops that might serve the Children’s busing needs from each Party’s residence to each of the schools they propose the Children attend.

[10]        During the course of the trial each of the Parties resorted to various mapping software applications to convince the Court that their estimates of distance and time were the correct ones.

[11]        The Court has considered various documents in arriving at a distance and time estimates for the issues to be determined relevant to the Children’s transportation needs and their best interests.

[12]        J. resides on a farm located at [omitted for publication], British Columbia.  The home on the farm was the family residence of the Parties until separation.  [Omitted for publication] is a farming hamlet which has some [omitted for publication] related businesses and a general store in the immediate area.

[13]        Prior to the separation the Children attended [omitted for publication] School located at [omitted for publication], British Columbia.  It is described on the School District. [omitted for publication] website as having approximately [omitted for publication] students between the grades of [omitted for publication].

[14]        E. resides at [omitted for publication], British Columbia.  The District of [omitted for publication] is a small town located outside of the City of Fort St. John on the [omitted for publication].  Although it is a small community it has a large industrial base including oil and gas refining facilities, a power plant and logging enterprises.  It also has some small businesses but largely serves as a bedroom community for nearby Fort St. John.

[15]        Since the separation the Children have attended [omitted for publication] Elementary School ([omitted for publication] School) located at [omitted for publication] in [omitted for publication].  It is described on the School District [omitted for publication] website is having approximately [omitted for publication] students between the grades of [omitted for publication].

[16]        During the trial there was an issue raised concerning J.G. possibly attending [omitted for publication] Middle School ([omitted for publication]) located at [omitted for publication] in Fort St. John.  It is described on the School District [omitted for publication] website as having approximately [omitted for publication] students between Grades [omitted for publication].  It offers a [omitted for publication] program and a Band program.

[17]        According to J., if the Children are attending [omitted for publication] School but living with E. half the time, she would have to get them to the bus stop at the top of [omitted for publication] by 7:15 AM or the [omitted for publication] by 7:30 AM each morning.  The Children would be ready to be picked up at the [omitted for publication] at 3:15 PM or the top of [omitted for publication] at 3:45 PM.

[18]        Based on the Google Maps software the various distances and driving times (in good travel conditions with roads in good repair and with light traffic) are determined by the Court to be as follows:

a)            J.’s home to [omitted for publication] School is 6.6 km / 7 minutes;

b)            J.’s home to [omitted for publication] is 53 km / 43 minutes;

c)            J.’s home to [omitted for publication] School is 70 km / 56 minutes;

d)            J.’s home to E.’s home is 71 km / 57 minutes;

e)            E.’s home to [omitted for publication] School is 1.3 km / 3 minutes;

f)            E.’s home to [omitted for publication] is 18 km / 16 minutes;

g)            E.’s home to [omitted for publication] School is 65 km / 51 minutes;

h)            E.’s home to [omitted for publication] is 43 km / 38 minutes;

i)            E.’s home to [omitted for publication] is 64 km / 50 minutes;

j)              [Omitted for publication] to [omitted for publication] Store is 28 km / 22 minutes.

k)            [Omitted for publication] School to [omitted for publication] Store is 43 km / 34 minutes

l)              E.’s employment to [omitted for publication] Store 26 km / 21 minutes

[19]        If the Children were to be transported by school bus from one location to another, the travel time would be increased depending on the number of stops the bus would have to make for other passengers.

[20]        Driving times will also be affected by such variables as road, weather and traffic conditions, wildlife, and seasonal darkness in the morning and afternoon.

[21]        In light of the Court’s determinations on driving times and distances, the evidence of the Parties on those topics will not be repeated in the Evidence portion of this decision.

PERSONAL HISTORIES

[22]        E. was born on [omitted for publication] in Nova Scotia and moved to British Columbia in 1998.  She is presently employed at a [omitted for publication] company as a [omitted for publication] but she will soon be temporarily promoted to [omitted for publication] to cover a maternity leave.

[23]        J. was born on [omitted for publication].  He comes from a farming family.  He is presently employed at an [omitted for publication] services company.

[24]        The Parties met at a Christmas party in 2000, began a common-law relationship in 2001 and were married on September 14, 2002.  F. resided with the Parties throughout most of his growing up years although he attended school in Saskatchewan for one year.  The Children were born during the course of the marriage.

[25]        During the marriage the Parties operated both a [omitted for publication] farming operation and an [omitted for publication] business known as [omitted for publication].

[26]        For most of the marriage E. was employed in the [omitted for publication] industry in Fort St. John but for a period of about three years she was a stay at home parent.

[27]        The Parties separated on January 4, 2016, although they continued to share the family residence until April 14, 2016.

LITIGATION HISTORY

[28]        Due to the numerous filings by both of the Parties the Court considers it necessary to undertake a detailed review of the pleadings in the Provincial Court and a summary review what occurred in Supreme Court in order to fully capture the nature of the litigation and the Parties perceptions of and attitudes toward each other.

[29]        On March 21, 2016, E. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking orders for guardianship, spousal support and child support for the Children and F..  That Application was never served on J..

[30]        On April 15, 2016, J. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking orders for guardianship and prohibiting E. from leaving Fort St. John with the Children.

[31]        On April 18, 2016, E. filed a Reply disagreeing with the orders sought by J. and advising the Court that the Children were residing and attending school in [omitted for publication].  By counterclaim E. sought orders for guardianship and child support

[32]        On April 19, 2016, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking a review of a filed order and affidavit evidence.

[33]        On April 19, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related that since January 4, 2016, she and the Children had been residing in the basement of the residence until April 14, 2016.  On that evening J. packed all of her possessions and put them at the door to the residence.  The previous night he had returned home drunk and assaulted her.  She had consulted counsel in 2014, and had received counselling through her church after a violent incident but returned to live with J.  She was no longer able to tolerate 14 years of emotional, mental and physical abuse.  For 12 years she resided with J. in [omitted for publication] and worked fulltime in Fort St. John while at the same time attended to the Children’s activities.  She was the primary caregiver of the Children, was responsible for the maintenance of the residence, and was responsible for paying the family bills and tending to the financial records of their businesses.  She taught the Children to walk, talk, swim and skate and she volunteered at the Children’s sporting activities.  She believed J. was capable of hurting her, she was frightened for herself and the Children but she was prepared for J. to have time with the Children once he stabilized his behaviour.

[34]        On April 22, 2016, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking a Protection Order.

[35]        On April 22, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related that she asked J. to stay away from her and the Children for a period of time, that he hacked her phone and wiped out its content.  She went to the RCMP and they asked him to stay away from her.  Subsequently he had appeared at her residence advising that he had no papers requiring him to stay away.  She called the RCMP because she was frightened of him, and he called the RCMP alleging that she caring for the Children while drunk which was not true.

[36]        On April 22, 2016, the Court granted an Ex Parte Protection Order prohibiting J. from having contact with E.H. or E. except indirectly through J.G.C., from attending E.’s place of work or anyplace she might reasonably be expected to be and from attending the Children’s school except on one occasion for a concert.  J. was granted leave to apply to set aside the Protection Order and it was to expire on May 17, 2016.

[37]        On April 27, 2016, J. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking orders for guardianship, allocation of parental responsibilities and a Protection Order.

[38]        On April 27, 2016, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking a Protection Order against E., E.H., J.D.H. and his companies and employees to have no direct contact with J., G., or, M.G., that they not attend J.’s residence or any properties owned by him, G. or M.G., that they not attend [omitted for publication] School, that E. surrender to the Court the Children’s passports, that the Children not be taken outside of the [omitted for publication] Regional District and that E. refrain from conducting any business on behalf of [omitted for publication].

[39]        On April 27, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in his name in which he related his reasons for seeking a Protection Order alleging that E. was harassing him and his parents and for further Protection Orders against J.H., and E.H. on the basis that J.H. had used his employees to take items from J.’s residence.  He stated the Children should be returned to their home so that they could re-attend [omitted for publication] School, that E. had a drinking problem that might affect the Children and he had banking records to show her frequent alcohol purchases.

[40]        On April 28, 2016, E. filed a Notice of Family Claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking orders for divorce, child custody, child support, spousal support, division of property and debt including extensive real property, [omitted for publication], [omitted for publication], banking and investment accounts, [omitted for publication] and costs of the litigation.

[41]        On May 5, 2016, J. filed a Reply disagreeing with the orders sought by E. for guardianship, child support, spousal support and a Protection Order.  By counterclaim, J. sought orders for guardianship, allocation of parental responsibilities, parenting time, child support, spousal support, changes in or suspension or termination of an earlier order dated April 22, 2016, a Protection Order, other orders including that E. not remove the Children from Fort St. John, that she provide the Children’s passports to J., that the Children be returned to [omitted for publication] School immediately, that the Children’s primary residence be with J., that a report be prepared pursuant to Section 211 of the FLA, a Protection Order on the basis that E. was an alcoholic and regularly abused J. and the Children, that E. is not a guardian of the Children and that J. is the sole guardian with all of the parental responsibilities respecting the Children, that E. not have unsupervised contact with the Children until she successfully completes “a reputable alcoholism rehabilitation program” and in the alternative, that E.’s parenting time be supervised by a professional supervisor with the cost to be borne by her.

[42]        On May 5, 2016, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking to set aside the Protection Order and seeking orders that E. not remove the Children from the geographical area of Fort St. John, that the Children’s relocation be prohibited and that they be returned to J.’s residence, that the Children be re-enrolled in [omitted for publication] School, that E. deliver the Children’s passports to J., a Protection Order on the basis that E. was an alcoholic and regularly abused J. and the Children and that J. have sole guardianship of the Children until E. had successfully completed “a reputable alcoholic rehabilitation program” and that E.’s contact or parenting time with the Children be supervised until such program was completed.

[43]        On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in his name in which he related his wish to have the earlier Ex Parte Protection Order granted to E. set aside, set out the history of the business and farming operations he shared with E. and the history of their marital problems dating back to 2015.  E. had a history of alcohol abuse but it accelerated after 2015, with her often coming home late and drunk, sometimes with the Children with her, putting all of them in danger.  E. moved to the basement in January 2016, because of his attempts to curtail her drinking because that allowed her to continue drinking without interruption and the Children did not want to be around E. because of her alcohol excesses.  E. threatened on many occasions to take the Children and to force him to sell the business and the farm.  E. would often take his phone and call people he did business with to sabotage his business relationships with them.  While intoxicated, E. would often send him nasty and threatening text messages.  E.’s alcohol abuse had carried on for approximately two years up to that point.  E. was always jealous and possessive of him, often accusing him of cheating including with their family members.  E.’s family members deny that she had a drinking problem.  On one occasion in February 2016, while intoxicated, E. lit the kitchen garbage can on fire and sat there watching it rather than trying to put it out.  E. would often drink 4 to 5 beers, often with the Children in the vehicle, in the 45 minute drive from Fort St. John to their residence.  On one occasion prior to the final separation, J.G. was upset and when he tried to comfort her she said, “I wish beer had never been invented”.  That statement caused him to not drink beer in front of the Children since that date.  Many of the allegations set out in E.’s affidavit sworn April 18, 2016, concerning the incident alleged by her to have occurred on January 4, 2016 but that actually occurred on February 24, 2016, were untrue, on April 14, 2016, he did assist in packing boxes belonging to E. although most of her things were already packed and she was extremely drunk that evening.  E. withheld the Children from him for several days after she left.  He had extensive involvement in the raising of the Children through the years.

[44]        On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of V.G., his brother, in which Mr. G. related that within the last year E. had been very drunk and belligerent at family gatherings, that J. has been a role model father and uncle, that E. had permitted his daughter to watch an R-rated film, that on more than one occasion at a family gathering E. drove herself to the function in an intoxicated condition or became so intoxicated during the family gathering she was unable to care for the Children.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[45]        On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of J.G.C., the common-law spouse of his brother, in which Ms. C. related that she was concerned for the safety of the Children but that she worried about the amount of alcohol E. consumed at one time because she does not know when to stop and had blacked out on numerous occasions.  She had seen E. driving while intoxicated with the Children in her vehicle.

[46]        On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of A.G., his cousin in law, in which Ms. G. related that she had known J. for 17 years and that he is caring, friendly, a great person and a great father to his Children.  He is a hard-working man but still dedicated to his family and that after the Children were born, J. took a job closer to home so that he could be there for his Children.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[47]        On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of D.G., his cousin, in which Mr. G. related that J. is a respected, hard-working man who loves his family and that he was very close to the Children, involving them in his many farm activities.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[48]        On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of B.M., his cousin, in which Ms. M. related having known J. her whole life and that he was a good and caring man.  J. was a good parent to E.’s son F., and he was actively involved in the Children’s lives often taking them with him on his farming chores.  She had observed several occasions when E. was so intoxicated while in public that she was unable to attend to the needs of the Children.  E. should seek some professional assistance to deal with her alcohol issues.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[49]        On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of M.A.G., his sister-in-law, in which Ms. G. related that she had known E. for seven years and that E. often would consume alcohol to excess at family gatherings to the point that she was extremely intoxicated or would even pass out.  In the past two years E.’s alcohol consumption had increased to the point that she became intoxicated so quickly that she was unable to control her behaviour.  On several specific occasions in 2015 at family gatherings, E. became so intoxicated that she acted in a very bizarre fashion including disrobing in front of the gathering on one occasion; attempting to lap dance on her father-in-law’s lap on another and almost damaging a pool table.  Although E. loves the Children, her involvement with alcohol was to the point that she cannot be left as their primary caregiver.

[50]        On May 5, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in the name of T.G., his brother, in which Mr. G. related that all too often at family functions E. drank to the point of extreme intoxication and became belligerent.  Her drinking had increased over the past couple years and cause disturbances at family functions.  E. needed professional assistance with regard to her drinking problem.  She had easy access to alcohol because her brother owns a number of [omitted for publication] in the area.  Her family tolerated her excessive drinking.  J. and the Children get along very well and he continued to work hard to provide for the family, run the farm and the business yet still attending to the Children’s needs.  E. was deviously smart and had no issue with using the Children as pawns in this whole ordeal.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[51]        On May 10, 2016, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders prohibiting J. from taking the Children from within the geographic area of Fort St. John / [omitted for publication], the relocation of the Children from her residence, a blood test be taken from J. with regard to his alcohol consumption, that J. be restrained from operating a motor vehicle containing the Children within 12 hours of consuming alcohol, disclosure of all banking and credit account records J. has control over and that she have access to the financial records from January 1, 2016, that the Children be in the primary care of E., a Protection Order against J. as protection for E. and the Children, that E. have sole guardianship of the Children until such time as J. had successfully completed “a provincially recognized substance abuse rehabilitation program” and that J.’s contact or parenting time be supervised until he completed such program, interim child support and interim spousal support.

[52]        On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she referenced the fact that she had commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court on April 20, 2016, and served upon J. on April 29, 2016, contested the evidence set out in the affidavits of J.G.C., M.A.G., T.G., B.M., A.G., D.G. and V.G. as it pertained to her alcohol consumption and their alcohol consumption.  She enclosed letters of support from various friends of hers, she contested many of the facts alleged in J.’s earlier affidavit on numerous topics including their respective consumption of alcohol, business and personal financial issues, their marital relationship and divorce, care of their animals, J. sexual behaviours, J.’s hacking of her phone and removing data, the relationship with his extended family, day-to-day care of the Children, arranging for and attending the Children’s activities, the nature of text messages and emails between the two of them, the circumstances that arose on the date of separation, J.’s stalking of her since separation, J.’s false allegations to the RCMP about her being intoxicated while caring for the Children and attaching numerous exhibits including extensive text messages.

[53]        On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of N.E., her sister-in-law, in which Ms. E. related an incident that occurred on April 15, 2016, when the Children and their grandmother, E.H., were visiting her.  J. arrived at her property uninvited and forcibly entered her residence; at that point the Children ran and hid in the bedroom while J. was shouting about taking them with him and threatening to punch Ms. H. in the mouth.  She intervened demanding that he leave and eventually J. agreed and left the property.  She injured her hand, back and shoulders during the altercation and had to seek medical attention.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[54]        On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of D.H., her sister-in-law, in which Ms. H. related her history of knowing E. since 1999, E.’s positive attitude and attributes with regard to her personal relationships, child care and involvement in her Children’s and community activities.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[55]        On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of K.P., a long-time friend, in which Ms. P. related that E. did not allow alcohol consumption to interfere with her parenting or her driving.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[56]        On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of E.H., her mother, in which Ms. H. related her observations of E. and J.’s marriage, J.’s drinking and driving, J.’s dominating, controlling and disrespectful behaviour towards E.  She noted E.’s hands-on attitude in maintaining the household in contrast to J.’s lack of participation.  There were many occasions when E. and the Children had to retreat to her residence when J. was drunk and became abusive, and violent.  She related the incident on April 15, 2016, when J. tried to force his way into Ms. E’s home and his break and entry into her private residence located on property belonging to his parents.  J.’s parents insisted that she vacate the property on short notice after the litigation commenced.  J.’s father made disrespectful descriptions vulgar comments about E.  She described J.’s disregard for properly treating his diabetes, the drinking behaviours of and the effect of alcohol on E., J. and the G. family.

[57]        On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of J.D.H., her brother, in which Mr. H. related his observations of J.’s drinking alcohol and driving on numerous occasions, the excessive drinking that occurs at the G. family gatherings, and J.’s cruel treatment of E..

[58]        On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of J.S., a friend, in which Ms. S related her observations of E.’s dedication to her Children’s sporting activities, her excellence in maintaining her household and providing wonderful meals to the Children and her close bond with the Children.

[59]        On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of P.E., her brother, in which Mr. E related his observations of E. as a very loving and caring mother who was involved with the Children in their extracurricular activities, J.’s driving while intoxicated, often arriving at family camping events intoxicated and late in the night.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[60]        On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of T.T.C., her former spouse’s sister, in which Ms. T.C. related her close friendship with E. since they were teenagers, and E.’s excellent parenting of the Children and F., her nephew.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[61]        On May 10, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of J.T., her former spouse, in which Mr. T. related that his son F. was moved by E. to British Columbia with his consent and that she was a good mother to F. throughout the years.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[62]        On May 11, 2016, the Court granted a Consent Order (the Consent Order) setting aside the Protection Order made on April 22, 2016, ordering that a Family Justice Counsellor prepare a full Section 211 Report, requiring the Parties to complete the Parenting After Separation program, prohibiting the removal of the Children from outside the Northern Region as defined by the British Columbia Ministry of Health, prohibiting either Party from consuming alcohol while the Children are in their care, restraining the Parties from operating a motor vehicle containing the Children if they had consumed alcohol within the preceding 12 hours.

[63]        The Consent Order also dealt with parenting time in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as follows:

7.            J. shall have parenting time with J.G. and K.G. every weekend from Friday or Thursday, if Friday is a professional development day or statutory holiday, after school until Monday or Tuesday, if Monday is a professional development day or statutory holiday, before school commences.  J. will pick up and drop off J.G. and K.G. at school for the course of his parenting time.

8.            Should the parties be unable to agree on further parenting time while J.G. and K.G. are on vacation from school, parenting time for the months of July and August shall be split evenly between the parties on a week on, week off basis at dates and times as agreed between the parties.

9.            Moving forward, the parenting time between the parties reflected in this order shall not form the basis of a position of status quo, nor shall the enrolment of the Children in [omitted for publication] School form the basis of a position of status quo.

[64]        On June 13, 2016, J. filed a Response to Family Claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in which he denied practically all the claims made by E. in the Notice of Family Claim.

[65]        On June 13, 2016, J. filed a counterclaim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in which he sought orders that he be granted sole custody, primary residence and all parental responsibilities for the Children until E. successfully completed a reputable alcoholism rehabilitation program and that her parenting time with the Children be supervised, that E. pay him child support for the Children and F. and special and extraordinary expenses for the Children and F., spousal support for himself, an unequal division of family property and family debt in his favour, a declaration that certain assets were excluded property belonging to him and an order for compensation for property.

[66]        On August 8, 2016, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an order to amend the Consent Order so that parenting time is 50/50 during the 2016 – 2017 school year and that the Children not be removed from [omitted for publication] School.

[67]        On August 8, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in his own name in support of his Motion in which he related his view that the  parenting time of the Children should be equally shared between him and E., the Children be returned to [omitted for publication] for the 2016 – 2017 school year, that E. had denied him parenting time with the Children for three weeks after their removal from [omitted for publication] School, that he had re-enrolled the Children in [omitted for publication] School had arrangements made for them to be transported by bus from his driveway to the school and that E. refused to pay for the Section 211 Report despite earlier agreeing to do so.

[68]        On August 23, 2016, E. filed a Reply opposing the relief sought by J. in the Notice of Motion filed August 8, 2016, indicating that the Supreme Court proceeding was ongoing.

[69]        On August 23, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that J. had agreed to the Consent Order, that matters are proceeding in the Supreme Court, that J. had made threats against her, that the Children are settled in [omitted for publication] and that she picked that community because it was a small friendly community, the Children had made numerous friends in [omitted for publication] and were a five minute walk to school, the disruption alleged by J. was as a result of him putting E. and the Children out of their home on short notice, that the present Consent Order entitles them to almost equal parenting time, that the Provincial Court proceeding should be adjourned generally because of the commencement of the Supreme Court proceedings.

[70]        August 26, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in the name of Marian Krieger, her then counsel’s paralegal, in which Ms. Krieger attached numerous email communications between her then counsel and J.’s then counsel over a variety issues outstanding in the Provincial Court and Supreme Court proceedings.  This person was not a witness at trial and their evidence was not tested by cross-examination.  As such their affidavit must be given limited weight if not corroborated by other accepted evidence.

[71]        On August 29, 2016, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that during previous separations between her and J., prior to the final separation; the Children would always come with her and remain in her care when she was forced out of the family residence.  She attached a photograph of J. operating a [omitted for publication] with K.G. sitting on his lap and not safely restrained by a seatbelt.  She stated J. had taken the Children to [omitted for publication] School on June 30, 2016 telling them that he had re-enrolled them.  The Children have told her on numerous occasions they wish to continue to attend [omitted for publication] School.  The Children have become upset while accusing her of forcing J. to sell all of their assets when they should not be involved at all in that issue  The Children have advised her that when J. had his parenting time with them they often spend long hours with his mother while he is working.  She said she wished to have the Supreme Court adjudicate all matters at issue because of the availability of pre-trial discovery tools that would assist in determining the best interests of the Children.

[72]        August 29, 2016, J. filed an affidavit in his name to which he attached a number of emails in which he alleged inappropriate behaviour on E.’s part with regard to her treatment of F., restricting the Children’s activities while they are with him, arranging activities for the Children when they are with him without consulting with him or obtaining his consent and the school bus schedule for [omitted for publication] School.

[73]        On January 24, 2017, Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an Order with regard to possession and sale of certain assets, medical records concerning J.’s diagnosis and treatment for diabetes, J.’s production of insurance documents with respect to the beneficiary of those policies, E. to have permission to meet with the corporate accountant and obtain information and documents from that person, transfer of certain [omitted for publication] from one Party to another pending full resolution, the Children to attend the counsellor through E.’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP), contribution and distribution of various Section 7 expenses and that the Consent Order of the Provincial Court be varied with regard to each of the Parties travelling with the Children outside of the province and outside of Canada;

[74]        May 29, 2017, J. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking orders for a change in parenting time from the Consent Order while E. was in Vancouver tending to the needs of F. who had been injured in an automobile accident.

[75]        On May 29, 2017, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking a change to the Consent Order concerning parenting time of the Children while E. was away in Vancouver.

[76]        On May 29, 2017, J. filed an affidavit in his own name in which he related that the night before F. had been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident and he had to be transported to Vancouver for further treatment.  When asked by the doctor in Fort St. John, he was unable to provide medical decisions for F..  When E. arrived at the hospital a couple of hours later she was intoxicated.  E. had to go to Vancouver with F. and he advised her that he would take care of the Children while she was gone.  E. became angry and told him that her mother would take care of the Children because she did not wish them to miss any school but he informed her that he would ensure the Children attended all of their classes.

[77]        On May 29, 2017, the Court granted an Order giving J. interim parenting time with the Children until June 1, 2017, and directing that E.H. and J.C. be present and that E. could attend the hearing by telephone.

[78]        On June 1, 2017, the Court granted the Order giving J. interim parenting time with the Children until E. returned to Fort St. John.

[79]        On June 29, 2017, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders to enforce the Consent Order and to have the Children returned to his care with a police enforcement clause.

[80]        On June 29, 2017, J. filed an affidavit in his name in which he related that he went to the [omitted for publication] School on the last day of school to pick up the Children to commence his parenting time with them but that when he arrived the Children were not present.  He contacted E. to have her return the Children and she refused.  He contacted the RCMP and was told that the Consent Order was not police enforceable.  He had vacation plans arranged for the Children for over a month and E. was aware of that and was attempting to bully him.

[81]        On June 29, 2017, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that the Provincial Court file had been adjourned to the Supreme Court but that J. continued to file Motions and receive relief from the Provincial Court, that matters were on standby in the Supreme Court and that the Protection Order should be reinstated in her favour due to J.’s constant harassment of her, slandering of her name and character, his filing of false reports to the RCMP and his actions which were causing financial hardship on her and the Children.

[82]        On June 29, 2017, the Court granted an Order specifying parenting time for the Children to be with E. from June 29, 2017 until July 9, 2017, and with J. from July 9, 2017 to July 20, 2017, and that the police enforcement application be adjourned.

[83]        On July 24, 2017, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking a Protection Order and enforcement of the June 29, 2017, Order on the basis that she received information that J. had entered her home and was behaving out of control.

[84]        On July 21, 2017, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that she and J. were in court on June 29, 2017, but after the appearance J. refused to respond to a request for the return of the Children.  J. refused to return the Children as directed by the Court, and J. continued to show a lot of anger towards her using slander and vulgar language in her direction and in front of the Children.

[85]        On August 1, 2017, the Court granted an Order in which Judge Daley seized himself with any Provincial Court interim applications.

[86]        August 22, 2017, J. filed an affidavit in his own name in which he related that he is seeking full custody of the Children until E. undergoes treatment for alcohol.  He related the events of January through April 2016 and that he only agreed to the Consent Order because he had not seen the Children for many weeks prior.  He alleged that E. left the Children unsupervised for lengthy periods of time.  The Children asked him to return to [omitted for publication] School and E.’s only goal is to keep the Children in turmoil and away from him as can be seen by her breach of the earlier order on June 28, 2017.

[87]        On August 31, 2017, J. filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders for full custody of the Children.

[88]        On September 1, 2017, E. filed a Reply disagreeing with J.’s application for full custody and seeking final orders from the Court based on the status quo and the recently completed Section 211 Report.

[89]        On September 1, 2017, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that J. was very upset with the outcome of the Section 211 Report and that he continued to slander her name and to suggest to the Court that the Children are unhappy when in fact the Children are happy when they are with her.  She said that J. was making unfounded and untrue accusations against her and his actions are out of control and not focused on the best interests of the Children.  She would like the Children to reside with her throughout the school week and on one weekend each month and that they reside with J. during the rest of the time.  She requested that J. be permitted to communicate about the Children with her by email and that the Court approve the Children’s activities for the year because J. is uncooperative.

[90]        On September 14, 2017, the Court granted an Order fixing the trial dates for June 26, 27 and 28, 2018, fixing two pre-trial conferences, prohibiting the Parties from filing any further Applications or Notices of Motion without leave of the Court.

[91]        On September 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an Order at a Judicial Case Conference resolving all the issues of family property and debt except for certain issues arising from [omitted for publication].

[92]        On October 5, 2017, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related events that had occurred since the hearing in Provincial Court on September 14, 2017, she had contacted the Family Justice Counsellor and made a request of J. for mediation but with no response.  J. and his new spouse had made numerous requests of her to remove the Children from school for nine days to see J.’s new spouse’s family and she asked J. to agree to an exchange of some weekends because she does not have the Children on weekends.  She made a report to the RCMP after she spoke briefly to J. in the parking lot of the courthouse when he told her that he would not think twice about burning her car.  On September 26, 2017 J. texted her numerous times calling her a number of derogatory names and insisted that he would be taking the Children for the nine days in October.  J. refused to acknowledge the recommendations set out in the Section 211 Report and only then renewed his claims for sole custody.

[93]        On December 22, 2017, J. filed an Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements in which he did not indicate any orders he was seeking but alleged that E. did not take the Children to school so that they would not be able to have Christmas with him as she had threatened earlier.

[94]        On December 22, 2017, J. filed a Notice of Motion in which he sought enforcement of the Consent Order.

[95]        On December 22, 2017, J. filed an affidavit in his own name which attached a string of email messages between him and E. concerning the issue of Christmas vacation parenting time.

[96]        On December 22, 2017, E. filed a Reply disagreeing with the Application to enforce the Consent Order brought by J. and stating that vacation time was to be shared, that Christmas vacation was vacation time and that the Children requested that they remain with her for Christmas Eve and be returned to J.’s care midway through Christmas Day.

[97]        On December 22, 2017, the Court granted an Order giving J. parenting time with the Children from 3:30 PM on December 22, 2017 until 12 noon on December 25, 2017 at which time he was to return the Children to E.

[98]        January 3, 2018, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related that she had patiently waited for J. to stop his foolishness and move together for the best interests of the Children but that it has not happened.  She waited a full year to get a Section 211 Report and to obtain some weekend time with the Children but that had not happened that J. had continued to do whatever he wants with virtually no communication with her.  J. brought an application on December 22, 2017, and advised the Court that he works weekends, and is on a 24 hr call basis when he is caring for the Children.  The Children have advised her that they are often left in the care of J.’s girlfriend or mother on the weekends.  J.’s behaviour was promoting the litigation and she was being tarnished with the same bad behaviour although she had not filed for any relief from the Court since July, 2017.  J. is in contempt of numerous Supreme Court Orders and continues to breach Provincial Court orders including over the Christmas vacation when he refused to return the Children as required.

[99]        On January 15, 2018, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an Enforcement Order or direction from the Court regarding J.’s refusal to return the Children to her.

[100]     On February 1, 2018, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related that she was in Vancouver between January 19 and 23, 2018 to assist her son F. during his recovery from surgery, it was arranged for J. to keep the Children until she returned but he over held them against their wishes.  J. often has his mother pick up the Children and take them to their activities during his parenting time and very recently before the filing of the affidavit J. had again over held the Children.  She sought full-time care the of Children until the matters are resolved by trial because J. had taken the Children from her care on multiple occasions but then left them with his new spouse or his mother or other friends and family instead of caring for them himself during his parenting time.  J.G. had refused to take her phone to J.’s residence because he confiscated it from her.

[101]     On February 28, 2018, E. filed an affidavit in her own name in which she related that J. is currently in contempt of multiple Supreme Court orders for child support, Section 7 expenses and disclosure.  J. continues to be in violation of various Provincial Court orders concerning parenting time.  On February 8, with no advance notice to her J. had planned to take the Children out of school and on a trip to Kelowna for an undisclosed period of time.  Upon returning from Kelowna J. refused to allow the Children to leave his car stating “mom’s drunk” even though that was a lie and refused to let them out of the vehicle until she came up to the vehicle.  It was unreasonable for J. to refuse to allow her any weekend time with the Children particularly on weekends when they have formalized activities, functions, birthday parties or hockey tournaments, J. persistently told the Children that they will be returning to [omitted for publication] School even though that matter has not yet been determined by the Court.  J.G. was upset that she would be required to return to [omitted for publication] School thereby missing out on continuation of band to which she had become quite attached.  She has attempted to begin mediation with J. but he refused to participate.  An attempt was made at a Judicial Case Conference (JCC) with Justice Mayer, but J. walked out and refused to attend the following day.

[102]     On March 2, 2018, J. filed a Reply in which he disagreed with E.’s Application for an Order or directions alleging that her allegations were false and a waste of the Court’s time and that he was simply following the Court Order and, by counterclaim he sought to enforcement of the June 1, 2017 Order.

[103]     On March 2, 2018, J. filed four (4) affidavits in his own name.  In the first he related in response to E.’s affidavit filed October 5, 2017 that it was yet another example of E.’s actions fuelled by anger or jealousy and alcoholism and that she had a disease and needed help.  Her bad behaviours had been rewarded by removing the Children from school knowing he had a planned holiday with them.  She changed her permission to allow him to take the Children out of school for a fall vacation after the tickets were purchased and then began making unreasonable demands.  E. did not act immediately upon a Supreme Court order requiring her to return the fifth wheel trailer to him rather waiting four hours before doing so.  The Children had written a letter to the Court after the Section 211 Report which reads:

Judge,

My sister, K.G., and I like the way our parents share us.  Weekends and days with no school with Dad and weekdays with Mom.  Also, during the summer we think it should be one week and one week.  We would like things to stay this way.

Thank you,

J.G. and K.G.

K.G. had informed him that she wished to attend [omitted for publication] School with her cousins and step brother even requesting a little house at the end of the driveway to wait for the school bus on cold winter days.

[104]     In the second affidavit he related a wish to apologize to the Court for wasting valuable court time but that E. had deprived him of his holiday with the Children in the summer 2017, taking two holidays herself with the Children.  E. tried to interfere with his October holiday with the Children even though she had previously agreed to it.  E. was acting maliciously towards him and attempting to interfere with his relationship with the Children and that during the Christmas season of 2017 E. insisted on returning the Children to him earlier than originally planned.

[105]     In the third affidavit he related that E. had, throughout the various court proceedings, served him with materials on short notice.  She was willing to lie in affidavits which caused the proceedings to be protracted.  He had taken the Children with him to Kelowna during his weekend time and as such it was none of E.’s business.  At the end of the trip to Kelowna he attempted to drop the Children off with E. in [omitted for publication] late in the evening but she refused to come out to speak to him to demonstrate that she was sober.  The only times he has not taken the Children to one of their events during his parenting time had been either when they were out of town, when K.G. wanted to attend a birthday party or when the Children wanted to attend an event with other people from the [omitted for publication] School.  E. has filed over 42 affidavits with the Court as he’s only responded with 16.  E. suffered from alcoholism and depression and had been prescribed medication for depression but did not take it.  While E. continues to suffer from alcoholism any attempt at mediation would be impossible.

[106]     In the fourth affidavit he related that E. would prefer her mother rather than him to care for the Children when she was unable to do so while attending to F. in Vancouver even though he is their father.  She did not communicate with him effectively when dealing with the needs of the Children.  E. was prepared to enlist her mother to cause additional stress for him and the Children when it comes to his picking up of the Children at the school.  He has taken J.G.’s cell phone away during his parenting time because E. repeatedly texts her causing J.G. to become upset and disrupting his care of the Children.  E. constantly quizzed the Children for information when they left his care.  E. cannot move forward with her life because of her disease and she needed help.

[107]     On March 6, 2018, the Court granted an Order for E. to have parenting time with the Children from March 19 through 26, 2018 without prejudice to J.

[108]     On April 3, 2018, E. filed an affidavit in her name in which she related that J. assaulted her mother on March 28, 2018, when she served him with documents.  J. was involved in fraudulent and dubious sales transactions and he continued to maintain a [omitted for publication] even though he has advised the Supreme Court differently.  J.’s actions have cost her over $100,000.00 in legal fees and J. continued to refuse to share the Children’s holidays with her.

[109]     On April 17, 2018, E. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an Enforcement Order of the Consent Order and for an order for expenses to cover the cost of a transcript of a proceeding before Mr. Justice Blok where the proper interpretation of the Consent Order concerning vacation time was explained to J. by the Judge.

[110]     On May 30, 2018, Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an Order requiring J. to pay E. child support; dismissed J.’s applications for medical records and to dissolve an FMEP file and required both E. and J. to produce additional records which had not yet been produced during the proceeding.

[111]     Since the beginning of this litigation the Parties have collectively filed the following documents in the Provincial Court:

a)            Applications and Replies - 11;

b)            Notices of Motion - 14;

c)            Affidavits - 43;

d)            Orders - 10.

[112]     In total the Parties have appeared 12 different times in Provincial Court before 5 different Judges.

[113]     in addition to the Notice of Family Claim, Response to Family Claim and Counterclaim the Parties have collectively filed the following documents in the Supreme Court:

a)            Notices of Application and Application Responses - 38;

b)            Requisitions - 18;

c)            Affidavits - 64;

d)            Orders - 10;

e)            Miscellaneous Document - 27.

[114]     In total the Parties have appeared 17 different times in Supreme Court before 10 different Justices.

EVIDENCE

E.’s Case

E.’s Witnesses

[115]     E.’s employment manager, K.L.R. evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            E. is a self-motivated hard-working and reliable employee who will be assuming Ms. L.R. position during her upcoming maternity leave;

b)            she has seen E. and the Children interact on numerous occasions and their relationship is very good;

c)            she has known E. for approximately 2 ½ years but knows little of her personal life or what she does outside of work;

d)            she and E. attended a birthday celebration in 2016 at a local drinking establishment on a week night evening but she cannot comment on how many drinks E. had that night.

[116]     E.’s friend, D.P.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            she has known E. and the Children for approximately five years because she, like E., is involved in figure skating;

b)            over the years she has seen E. and the Children on numerous occasions and there is a very strong mother/daughter bond present;

c)            from what she knows of E. she would trust her with her own children and that they would be happy and safe in her care;

d)            she has rarely seen J. with the Children and cannot comment on his parenting of them;

e)            she is unaware of any Court orders that might restrict the Children’s travel.

[117]     E.’s sister-in-law, J.G.C’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            she has known E. and J. for 12 years and lives approximately 6 km away from J.’s residence in [omitted for publication];

b)            she travels from her home to Fort St. John on a regular basis and takes approximately 45 minutes in the summer and up to 1¼ hours in the winter.  She has also travelled from her home to [omitted for publication] twice a week during the winter and it takes approximately 1 ½ hours;

c)            her children played hockey in [omitted for publication] because there is no hockey team in the [omitted for publication] area and she did not want to put them in hockey in Fort St. John.

d)            when E. was living in [omitted for publication] they relied on each other for child care as needed and from her observations E. was the primary caregiver of the Children;

e)            although she is neutral in the matter between E. and J. she has been cast out from J.’s family and treated like a spy;

f)            she has been in E.’s home in [omitted for publication] several times with her children they and the Children are happy to see each other.  The home is well taken care of;

g)            she has not observed E. consuming any alcohol or drugs during her visits to the her home;

h)            she does not visit J. in his home because she does not feel comfortable there.  For a time after the separation she assisted E. and J. by driving the Children on some occasions but J. was very demanding and yelled at her;

i)            the contents of her May 5, 2016 affidavit are true and E. was drinking heavily in the months before the separation.  Although it is not mentioned in the affidavit J. was drinking heavily as well;

j)              her children attend [omitted for publication] School and it is a good school.  She has not been to [omitted for publication] School but she knows people who work there.

[118]     E.’s friend, A.E.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            she has known E. and the Children for two years.  She has three children of her own roughly the same age as the Children;

b)            E. and the Children appear to be full of energy and she ensures that they participate in many activities.  The Children appear happy and their relationship with E. is very close;

c)            one of her daughters regularly spends overnight on a weekly basis at E.’s home and she is very comfortable with that;

d)            she was asked by E. to serve documents on J. during the course of this proceeding.  He refused to take them and called her derogatory names, including crackhead, in front of the Children.  She has no substance abuse issues;

e)            she was present on May 29, 2017 at the incident at [omitted for publication] School when J. appeared with a Court Order and then dragged the Children out of their grandmother’s car;

f)            she has never seen E. drinking or taking drugs when she is caring for the Children.  She has no knowledge of E.’s social life including her drinking habits before they met;

g)            her dog did nip K.G. and subsequently the dog was euthanized.  The nip did not cause any injury to K.G. that she was aware other than some minor abrasions.

[119]     E.’s friend, J.S.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            she has known E. and F. for 14 years and the Children since their respective births through hockey and other activities.  She and E. have been friends for approximately eight years;

b)            throughout the years that she has known E., she has been the primary caregiver of the Children;

c)            over the years she has taken family vacations with E. and the Children but not J. or her husband;

d)            since E.’s move to [omitted for publication] they visit 3 to 5 times per week and she has observed the Children’s involvement in activities such as band, softball, volleyball, figure skating, swimming and golf;

e)            she knows that E. and the Children and F. have a strong loving bond and it is clear from her observations that they really enjoy being with each other;

f)            she has never seen E. and the Children together when E. was consuming or under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  She is never known E. to have a drinking problem or to drink to excess;

g)            J.G. is a funny, smart, outgoing, kind and talented young woman.  In a conversation she had with J.G. in May 2018 J.G. disclosed that she is excited about the prospect of attending junior high school at [omitted for publication] because she wants to remain involved in band.  J.G. also told her that she is tired of her parents fighting;

h)            K.G. is a witty, outgoing, strong-willed, kind and smart girl who enjoys sports;

i)            she has been to J.’s house on two occasions and has occasionally seen him at hockey games where her son and F. were participating;

j)              she is unaware of who cares for the Children when they are with J..

[120]     E.’s friend, J.C.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            he has been friends with E. for approximately 4 ½ years and they have been very close friends for approximately two years;

b)            he spends a great deal of time with E. and the Children doing various activities or just hanging out 3 to 4 days per week;

c)            he has been actively involved in getting the Children into golf including lessons which both E. and J. agreed with;

d)            E.’s relationship with the Children is fantastic, she is a great parent and the Children feel loved and happy;

e)            he has never seen E. consuming or under the influence of alcohol or drugs when she is caring for the Children;

f)            on the evening of F.’s automobile accident he received a text message when he got off the plane from Vancouver and immediately called J. as the text directed him to do.  From there he went to E.’s home to pick her up and drive her to the hospital.

g)            upon hearing the news about F., E. was very panicked and upset.  He did not detect any smell of alcohol on E. and they were in close proximity in his truck.  He remained at the hospital for a period of time and then returned to E.’s home to collect her clothing because she was going to Vancouver with F.;

h)            he has only seen E. overly intoxicated on two occasions.  On one occasion the Children were being cared for by others and on the second occasion the Children were with J.;

i)            he does not believe that his spending overnight at E.’s on the couch is confusing to the Children.

[121]     E.’s brother, J.H.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            he has often seen J. driving while intoxicated.  J. would often arrive separate from E. and the Children to family parties and get-togethers and would inevitably be drunk.  At the end of the party J. would drive away while still intoxicated;

b)            he went to E. and J.’s home on a couple of occasions when J. was drunk and becoming physical with E. and she called for assistance;

c)            he was at the same stag party as J. in 2012 that moved among a number of different drinking establishments.  At the end J. drove home even though he was quite intoxicated and had been offered a ride home;

d)            he has seen E. intoxicated on several occasions when she and J. were still living together.

[122]     E.’s mother, E.H. evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            prior to the separation she was in almost daily contact with E. and the Children.  Since the separation she picks up the Children after school every day and takes them to E.’s place of work;

b)            prior to the separation there were numerous times when E. and the Children took refuge at her home for days or weeks after J. had acted violently towards E.;

c)            prior to the separation E. was the primary caregiver of the Children and was fully engaged in all aspects of the Children’s upbringing;

d)            for several years she lived in a small mobile home on property belonging to J.’s parents approximately 5 km away from where J., E. and the Children resided.  Soon after the separation J.’s parents insisted that she remove her trailer from their property immediately.  Soon after that her home was broken into, items were taken and her dog went missing.  In the days up to the move, J.’s father came to her residence and told her that E. was a “rodeo whore”;

e)            soon after the separation E. and the Children were staying at [omitted for publication] E’s home when J. arrived at the property.  J.G. immediately ran into the bedroom and J. tried to force himself into the house.  She tried to impede J.’s progress and he told her to get out of his way or he would punch her in the mouth.  She was able to serve J. with some court documents.  Ms. E finally got J. to leave the residence;

f)            she has no recollection of having any discussions with J. in the early morning hours of May 29, 2017, soon after F.’s motor vehicle accident about what would happen with the Children the following day

g)            on May 29, 2017, there was an incident involving J., her and the Children at the [omitted for publication] School.  She had gone to pick up the children at E.’s direction when E. was leaving for Vancouver with F. for medical treatment.  J. arrived at the school telling her that he was taking the Children without any explanation to her or them.  The Children got upset, especially K.G., and refused to go with J..  He got into the car and dragged a screaming K.G. out.  She never received a copy of any Court Order from J. establishing that he could take the Children.  Had she received such a document she would have complied with it immediately;

h)            there was another incident when she was directed by E. to pick up the Children at the RCMP detachment.  When J. arrived he demanded to know where E. was and refused to give her the Children.  When she asked him why he was being like that he replied as to the effect that “I hate your guts and I despise you”.  This was said in front of the Children who became upset and told J. to stop that behaviour;

i)            J. is a diabetic and when he has a low sugar level he can act erratically;

j)              over the years she has seen J. driving while intoxicated on numerous occasions, sometimes with a beer in hand.  She is also seen E. drunk on a few occasions while with J. and has on one occasion saw E. overly intoxicated when she and J. were both in town at a social function.;

k)            she works at the [omitted for publication] store and sometimes the Children come there to sell fundraising tickets for their various sporting activities.

E.’s Evidence

[123]     E.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            throughout the Children’s lives she has been the primary caregiver and has been far more involved in their upbringing, day-to-day activities and extracurricular activities both prior to and subsequent to the separation.  That includes such things as insuring the children attend their medical and dental appointments, ensuring that they are properly fed and clothed, that they attend to their homework in a timely fashion and that they are registered for and participate in sporting and cultural activities that they are interested in.  The Children have excelled in school and in the extracurricular activities under her guidance;

b)            she and J. lived a lifestyle for many years when drinking socially and on a regular basis was both accepted and encouraged.  In the couple of years prior to the separation both she and J. were over using alcohol in various circumstances.  Despite her overuse of alcohol she never drove with the Children while intoxicated.  Since she has moved to [omitted for publication] and the Consent Order was made she never has the Children in her care where she has alcohol present or where she is consuming alcohol and she does not consume any alcohol for at least 12 hours prior to the Children coming into her care;

c)            she has been on a prescription of Citalopram for over eight years, for anxiety, not depression.  It has not in any way interfered with her capacity to care for the Children or conduct her day-to-day activities.  She is aware that it is recommended not to mix alcohol with that drug or at least not to drive if alcohol has been consumed;

d)            prior to the physical separation in January 2016 and the final separation on April 14, 2016, there were several previous separations due mostly to J.’s violence towards her while intoxicated.  During all of those separations she left with the Children without any complaint or interference from J.;

e)            In one incident J. went out to a stag party returning at 3:30 AM the following morning extremely intoxicated and having driven himself home.  When she confronted him the next morning he assaulted her and she and the Children left for several days;

f)            in June 2014, F. was in Saskatchewan attending school and playing hockey.  F. had a new driver’s licence and he received a truck as a gift.  She asked J. not to drink while with F. when he was driving his new truck.  Despite that request J. was drinking when F. was driving his truck home which upset her.  She threw a dishcloth at J. who responded by assaulting her.  After the assault, she and the Children left for two weeks;

g)            on another occasion J. had been drinking and rode away on a motorcycle.  Afterward she found beer in the saddlebag;

h)            in October 2015, she was out of town when J. called to tell her that F. and a friend got a pickup truck stuck in a field and there was considerable damage but the two young men were okay.  Later she heard from F. that J. was very drunk that day;

i)            in January 2016, she discovered J. “pleasuring” himself while speaking on the phone to a third party.  She immediately moved from the joint bedroom to the basement and they did not live as man and wife again after that incident;

j)              in February 2016, J. was to pick the Children up after figure skating but instead he went for drinks with co-workers at various drinking establishments around Fort St. John.  She was upset and sent him some nasty texts to which he replied to her to leave the home.  When J. returned home he was drunk and kicked in the door.  She and the Children left and went to her mother’s;

k)            she and J. had been discussing separation since January 2016 and after the incident in April 2016 she determined that she was non-existent to J. and when he told her to get out she did.  She was not drinking alcohol that night;

l)              on April 14, 2016, she and the Children had returned home from figure skating.  J. arrived with boxes and went downstairs telling her that he was going to pack up her possessions and that she should leave immediately.  She and the Children left at that time and she has not returned since then;

m)         after April 14, 2016, she did not advise J. of her or the Children’s whereabouts until they were somewhere safe and settled approximately two weeks later;

n)            up until 2012, she worked for a [omitted for publication].  She left that job after 12 years because J. convinced her that their [omitted for publication] related company was doing well and they were getting financially separated from his parents and she should be a stay-at-home mom.  The [omitted for publication] business environment is cyclical and she and J. had known that for several years.  However, when the work slowed in the [omitted for publication] in 2014/2015 they started to feel some financial pressures which resulted in her returning to work at the end of December 2015 because she could see that J. was giving up on the marriage, their business enterprise, the Children and the home;

o)            J. has said to others that the separation was due to financial pressures, her drinking and her behaviour, refusing to accept any responsibility himself.  Within three months after April 2016 he had moved his pregnant girlfriend, their farmhand’s spouse, into the former family residence.  She suspects that relationship had been ongoing for several months prior to April 2016;

p)            the constant disagreements with J. about the Children’s parenting time with each of them has been largely driven by J.’s refusal to be flexible on any front and his unique and incorrect interpretation of the Consent Order;

q)            J.’s interpretation of the parenting schedule set out in the paragraph 8 of the Consent Order as it pertains to the word “vacation” is simply not accurate and that was pointed out to him by Mr. Justice Blok in December 2016.  Despite that judicial direction, J. continues to insist that all times other than week days should be his parenting time with the Children except during the School Summer vacation;

r)            J.’s intransigence on the parenting time schedule has required her to attend court many times to try to get parenting time with the Children during other times when school is not in session such as Christmas and Spring Break.  By way of example she only got four days during the Christmas Break in 2017;

s)            despite the Consent Order J. has twice taken the Children outside of the Northern Region as defined by the British Columbia Ministry of Health without any further Court Order or her agreement.  On one occasion he instructed the Children to keep the fact he was doing so as a secret from her;

t)            the Children are sometimes late in arriving at school on Mondays after their weekend with J. and he has provided little if any explanation to the Court as to why that is occurring;

u)            the Section 211 Report accurately sets forth the Children’s wishes and indicates that further disruption of their living arrangements should not occur;

v)            J.G. has become very involved in band.  She plays the [omitted for publication] and wishes to pursue her band education.  That is available to her at [omitted for publication] but not at [omitted for publication] School;

w)           over the years that she drove from [omitted for publication] to Fort St. John for work she was involved in four motor vehicle accidents striking either an animal or a snow bank;

x)            it would be very difficult to impossible for her to attend to the transportation of the Children from her residence in [omitted for publication] to either [omitted for publication] School or one of the stops associated with that school because it would require the Children to get up extremely early;

y)            at the direction of the Court she produced banking records indicating the locations and the amounts spent on any place that alcohol may have been purchased although many of those purchases could have been food, fuel or non-alcoholic items or a mixture of alcohol and confectionery items.  [Omitted for publication] is a cold beer and wine store that also sells convenience items, the [omitted for publication] Inn is a combination liquor store, pub, hotel, restaurant and also has a bank machine;

z)            when K.G. was nipped by her friend’s dog she did not believe that attending the hospital was necessary given the minor nature of the injuries;

aa)         when F. suffered his serious motor vehicle accident in May 2017 she was at home asleep and does not know why any call from the hospital would not have awakened her.  Her friend J. arrived at her residence and took her to the hospital.  F. suffered serious [omitted for publication] injuries and eventually lost [omitted for publication] as a result of the accident;

bb)         the Children have been to some counselling paid for through her work EAP but that was discontinued by the counsellor who advised that if the Children wanted to come back to see her they could.  J.’s girlfriend’s text to her on Christmas Day insisting that the Children attend counselling was insensitive and not sent out of any genuine concern;

cc)         the Children have reported to her that J.’s four-year-old stepson has been violent towards them and on one occasion, even though he was the one being violent, K.G. was punished by J.;

dd)         for a short period of time K.G.’s behaviour at school went from being respectful and a community award winner to disrespectful.  She spoke to the teacher who indicated that the two week absence from school initiated by J. had a negative impact on her;

ee)         she rejected J.’s request for the Children to accompany him to Mexico for two weeks in November 2018 to attend his partner’s family members wedding in part because of J.’s denigrating method of communicating with her, in part because two weeks away was a struggle for K.G. the last time and neither of the Children want to be away for two weeks during the school year.  She does not know if the Children actually want to go to Mexico;

ff)            the Children were away during the school year on a trip to Cuba but that was many years ago before K.G. started school and J.G. was only in Kindergarten.

J.’s Case

J.’s Witnesses

[124]     The former principal of [omitted for publication] School, G.P’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            he was the principal of the school for approximately six years and during the time the Children attended;

b)            he was aware when the Children were removed from [omitted for publication] School and advised J. of the removal within hours of it occurring;

c)            both Children were good students both academically and behaviourally;

d)            he cannot comment on any comparison between [omitted for publication] School and any other school but did confirm that the Fraser Institute has rated [omitted for publication] School at between 6 and 8 out of 10 in the past few years and [omitted for publication] School at 5.5 to over 6 out of 10 during the same time period;

e)            there are no school buses running from [omitted for publication] to [omitted for publication] School but there are buses from the [omitted for publication] area to the school.

[125]     J.’s sister-in-law, M.A.G.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            she works at the [omitted for publication] as a [omitted for publication] and a [omitted for publication];

b)            she has seen J. and E. at family events over the years but has seen E. only two times since the separation;

c)            when E. and J. were together E.’s drinking was out of hand and she had concern for the Children.  Although others were drinking as well, no one was as drunk as E..  E. would get so drunk that her eyelids would partially close her words would slur and sometimes she would lay her head down.  She often could not meet the needs of the Children.  She has seen E. drive while intoxicated, even on occasion with the Children with her;

d)            she has not seen J. drinking any alcohol whatsoever in the presence of the Children in the past two years;

e)            when the Children are with J. he is a fully involved parent and they are happy.  He provides a for their needs as a hard-working father without any concerns;

f)            with her knowledge of J. she has not seen any signs of mental health or addictions issues and particularly not in the past two years;

g)            she has had no contact with E. over the past three years or so and can only rely on past occurrences.  She and E. did not see each other very often in the past.  E. appears to struggle with depression which appeared to become worse after she quit working to be full-time with the Children.  She has an addiction to alcohol and is volatile when drunk.  Her daughter described E. as a “mean drunk”.

[126]     J.’s stepson and E.’s son, F.’s evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            from April 2016 to October 2016 he lived with J..  He did not own a vehicle at the time but drove a vehicle that was insured by E..  At one point E. threatened to cancel the insurance because he was being a brat and all she could take from him was his truck.  He stopped living at J.’s residence because it was awkward after J.’s girlfriend moved in.  He moved into a [omitted for publication] associated with his [omitted for publication] and was residing there up to the time of the May 2017 motor vehicle accident

b)            in April 2017 he crashed his truck but did not call either J. or E. until the early morning.  E. asked him to go to the hospital but he declined.  J. took him to the hospital approximately a week later;

c)            he has no recollection of the May 2017 motor vehicle accident.  He was in a coma in Vancouver for several weeks and has returned to Vancouver for further medical treatment arising from the injuries.  He is not seen a counsellor with regard to that matter;

d)            he did originally sign a form, in blank, permitting J. to obtain his medical records from the Fort St. John Hospital arising from his May 2017 motor vehicle accident but he asked J. to destroy the document and not use it because he and E. are having a disagreement and she threatened to throw him out of her house although she knew she never would;

e)            for a period of time he went to [omitted for publication] Community College which was funded in part by a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP).  He got some of that money for living expenses including food and some other amount went to his tuition.  E. borrowed $5000 from that fund but repaid it.

[127]     J.’s spouse, J.V. was present in Court and assisting J. for the first two days of trial before giving her evidence.  Her evidence concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            she met J. and E. in 2013 and between then and the separation she has seen both J. and E. drunk.  She has not seen J. drunk in the past two years;

b)            she had originally hoped that E. and her could be civil and they were for a time but that broke down but she wasn’t sure why;

c)            the Children interact well with her children J.K.J.G. born [omitted for publication] (J) and T.C.V born [omitted for publication] (T) although it took a little bit of adjustment at first;

d)            she and J. maintain a household routine for all the children in their care to make sure they get to bed regularly at a reasonable time after doing all of the evening routine and that they are awakened and a consistent time the next morning;

e)            her relationship with J. is open and comfortable.  They realize there are issues regarding co-parenting of all the children so she and J. are attending counselling;

f)            prior to the May 29, 2018 incident at [omitted for publication] School, J. tried to get a hold of E. so that he could care for the Children while she was in Vancouver with F..  What he got in return were emails from E. threatening RCMP involvement so J. went to Court to get an Order to allow him to care for the Children;

g)            when she and J. arrived at [omitted for publication] School that afternoon, J. gave the Court Order to E.H. who crumpled it up and threw it away.  J. went into Ms. H. car to speak to the Children but she became upset and in turn the Children became upset;

h)            Ms. H. called her a “little whore” which upset J.G., who told her grandmother to “shut up” and then they drove away with the Children;

i)            when she and J. pick up the Children at the end of the school week sometimes the girls are exhausted from their week’s activities, sometimes they’re happy, sometimes they are just quiet.  When they return the Children to school on Monday invariably E. is parked near the school which upsets the Children because they don’t like the possibility of their mother and father coming close together.  She is uncertain whether or not E. does this to monitor J.’s delivery of the Children to school or for any other reason but it upsets the Children;

j)              for the past two years the Children have asked for a “bus house” at the end of the driveway so they can wait for the bus to [omitted for publication] School.  J.G.’s interest in band and attending [omitted for publication] could be accommodated if she resided with J. by catching a bus to [omitted for publication] School and then transferring to a bus on to [omitted for publication].  That bus would be filled with upper grade students because [omitted for publication] School goes to Grade [omitted for publication];

k)            when J. asked E. for permission to take the Children on a holiday in October, 2017 E. was at first amicable but after the trip was booked she became more demanding to the point of attempting to blackmail J. by insisting on two weekends in exchange for the time she was prepared to allow the Children to travel with J.;

l)              J. has never offered or given E. any weekend time with the Children aside from the weekends exchanged as a result of the October 2017 vacation;

m)         from her observations the relationship between J. and E. is not civil, is volatile and rocky and is something the Children can feel and react to.  It is not a good situation;

n)            she works for both the [omitted for publication] and [omitted for publication] in casual, on-call positions.  She is normally the one to get the Children ready to go on Monday when they return to [omitted for publication] School and she has, in the past, turned down work on a few occasions to accommodate the Children.

J.’s Evidence

[128]     J.’s evidence at trial concerning the relevant issues before the Court include:

a)            a lot of his evidence has already been presented in the affidavits filed by him up until now;

b)            E. is on a prescription of Citalopram for depression.  This drug should not be combined at any time with alcohol;

c)            E. often drank heavily and in particular in the years 2015 and 2016 her drinking became out of control to the point where she stopped doing everything for the family including the housekeeping and maintaining the business bookkeeping.  He has seen nothing to indicate her drinking habits have changed;

d)            he does like an occasional beer and although he may have a beer in hand he usually sips one throughout an evening whereas E. power slams her drinks and can drink several beer in a short period of time;

e)            he has Type 1 Diabetes diagnosed when he was 26 years old.  Despite his diagnosis he understands that he can still drink a beer and eat some food because one beer is low in sugar.  He has regularly had a beer while working in the fields and then driving home.  In the past he did have some trouble managing his disease but things are much better now;

f)            in the past he was a social drinker but even at family functions he watched how much he drank because he had to care for the Children and on many occasions E..  He is not a heavy drinker and although he has in the past driven while intoxicated he never placed the Children in harm’s way.  Since February 2016 after a conversation with J.G. he rarely has any beer.  When he does drink beer it is usually at home and never when the Children are present;

g)            despite E.’s assertions to the contrary she still continues to drink to excess at public functions.  He observed her doing so in February 2017 when he and his family attended the same concert that E. and Mr. C. did and he observed her drinking and dancing.  He doesn’t know if Mr. C. was drinking or who drove home;

h)            on another occasion he and E. were both attending the same hockey game.  J.G. was spending time with him and K.G. was spending time with E. and J.G. went to visit with E., became animated and excited and when J.G. returned to his car she said “mom’s drunk”.  He immediately texted E. confronting her with that information to which E. replied in a lengthy and nasty text of her own;

i)            E. is sick and unstable when she mixes her prescription medication and alcohol and that poses a danger to her and the Children.  He wishes E. would get help with her alcohol issues and her depression.  He wants to Children to have a healthy relationship with both of their parents but E. has to recognize and address her alcohol issues or she will never have a healthy relationship with the Children;

j)              the people who see E. at her place of work, including fellow employees, don’t see her after work and don’t experience her alcohol abuse;

k)            he believes that E. had made specific plans to move out in April, 2016 and was merely waiting for an excuse to do so when the events of April 14, 2016 occurred;

l)              the straw that broke the camel’s back for him was E. stealing the Children away from him and her excessive drinking in the months before;

m)         he erected a gate at the end of his driveway in the spring of 2016 to keep E. and her family members at bay because soon after the separation they ransacked his home;

n)            soon after the separation when he found out that the Children were at N.E’s home he went there to see them.  When he arrived at the door E.H. told the Children to hide in the bedroom because “he is here to get you”.  Ms. H. then pushed papers into his face telling him he was served.  Things then got heated between him and Ms. H. and he did threaten to punch her in the face but he did leave when asked by Ms. E;

o)            in the days after he went to [omitted for publication] School to see the Children and talk to them in the playground advising them that everything was okay.  The Children told him that E. and E.H. had told them that he was there to steal them.  He continued to go to [omitted for publication] School on a daily basis.  The principal and the teachers knew he was there and welcomed him into the classroom;

p)            a few days later the RCMP called him and served him with a Protection Order.  His lawyer applied to quash the Protection Order which was done as part of the Consent Order;

q)            It was his understanding at the time the Protection Order was granted that E. had told the Judge that he beat the Children;

r)            he agreed to the Consent Order for the following reasons, there is to be no alcohol consumption by anyone caring for the Children, the school year was nearly over and the case was yet to be scheduled, only the vacation in July and August was to be split between him and E. all of their weekends and time out of school were to be his and as described in Paragraph 9 of the Consent Order there was no status quo established by E. placing the Children in [omitted for publication] School;

s)            throughout his life he has been part of a large farm family.  Since the age of 18 he has also [omitted for publication].  He and E. started their own company soon after they were married which was quite successful until financial difficulties arose in 2014 as a result of a downturn in the [omitted for publication] industry.  Subsequent to the separation he tried to keep the business going but E. got conduct of sale of the business assets in the Supreme Court proceeding and the [omitted for publication] were sold.  There have been other assets that have been disposed of through the Supreme Court proceeding;

t)            since the separation he has at various times worked as an [omitted for publication], a [omitted for publication], a [omitted for publication] and a [omitted for publication].  In his present position he has very flexible hours because his employer knows he has contested parental responsibilities;

u)            despite orders granted by the Supreme Court with regard to use of the RESP E. misused those funds by borrowing some of them for her legal fees, paying rent for F. when he was not attending school and advising the Supreme Court that all the funds were gone when there was an application made for Section 7 benefits under the Child Support Guidelines;

v)            for the past two years he has had the entire burden of picking up and dropping off the Children during the school year without any assistance from E..  Even when he suggested an exchange location halfway between his residence and E.’s residence during the summer she vehemently refused;

w)           both Children received awards from the [omitted for publication] School in 2018 but he does not know if they received any awards in 2017 because E. didn’t take them to school on the last day to deny him some parenting time with the children;

x)            based on a study conducted by the Fraser Institute, [omitted for publication] School maintains a higher rating of between 6.1 and 8.2 over the years 2015 – 2017 then does [omitted for publication] with a rating of between 5.5 and 6.7 over the same years;

y)            if the Children reside with him arrangements could be made for J.G. to attend [omitted for publication] School and E. could transport her from the school to the [omitted for publication] bus stop;

z)            E. has often spoken to the Children about him and the dissolution of their marriage and that is not appropriate;

aa)         he tries to conduct himself professionally when dealing with E. but she carries more anger, often calling him names in texts she sends when she is drunk;

bb)         he questions the validity of the Section 211 report because it was prepared 13 months after the separation, that E. influenced the Children, there is no reference to [omitted for publication] School, the issue of substance abuse is not dealt with and he and the Children had limited time with the report’s author because she met them in his driveway at 8:45 PM and remained for only a short period of time;

cc)         although the Children are both very smart they are people pleasers who are trying to tell E. what she wants to hear to avoid conflict when in fact they would really like to be able to speak to a counsellor to really be heard.  E. refuses to agree to allow the Children to attend counselling for anything other than a quick fix;

dd)         when the Children wrote their letter to the Court they did so after he spoke to them and asked their view.  20 minutes later J.G. produced the letter;

ee)         in the event he and E. could equally share parenting time with the Children both would have time during the week and on weekends with them and they should equally share the driving responsibilities with the exchange at a neutral location;

ff)            he and E. end up in court a lot because she has no regard for any Court Order and just demands what she wants even though the Consent Order is quite specific;

gg)         in the summer of 2017 E. interfered with his prearranged vacation with the Children during the early part of July;

hh)         he does not see Easter as a time of vacation rather it is a weekend in the school year;

ii)            the Children are in lots of activities that E. signs them up for without any input from or agreement by him;

jj)            he does not refuse to permit the Children to bring their activities equipment with them when they come to his residence, it is E. who refuses to allow the Children to do so;

kk)         E. is unable to let go of the relationship and wants to maintain a lengthy and protracted litigation in both Courts.  She has made numerous applications in the Supreme Court which forced him to sell assets.  She makes ridiculous offers concerning issues surrounding the division of their property and his payment of child support;

ll)            F.’s May 2017 accident was E.’s fault insofar as her bad parenting decisions convinced him to move into his [omitted for publication] house with men of up to 23 years of age and she dispersed some of the RESP to give him an allowance that he then utilized for drinking;

mm)      it was no problem for him to stop drinking alcohol in front of the Children because he is not a big drinker like E.;

nn)         although it was disruptive for the Children to be moved from [omitted for publication] School to [omitted for publication] School without notice to him and it might be somewhat disruptive to move them back to [omitted for publication] School and E. should not be rewarded for her bad behaviour;

oo)         he and his partner, J.V., have both taken photographs of E. at various locations and at various times;

pp)         he and J.V. would like to take the Children to Mexico for one week this year to attend the wedding of Ms. V. ‘s family member;

qq)         many rental homes are available in the Fort St. John area and a few in the [omitted for publication] area.  E. could have moved to with the Children to those areas without disrupting his ability to have time with them;

rr)           the Children were unable to have a summer vacation with him in 2017 because of E.’s interference.  That is why the Children went with him on a vacation in October 2017 which lasted approximately 10 days.

ss)         it would be far better if E. just admitted that Mr. C. was her boyfriend.  He has no problems with Mr. C. and his involvement with the girls.

The Section 211 Report

[129]     The Section 211 Report was prepared by Anne Reuvekamp, Family Justice Counsellor pursuant to the May 11, 2016 Consent Order and submitted to the Court on June 30, 2017.

[130]     In preparing the Report the author met with E., J., the Children and Holly Joping, a social worker with the Ministry of Children and Family Development.  She reviewed various orders pronounced in this proceeding and the Children’s report cards.

[131]     The Report notes that the Parties relationship seemed to be going well until J.’s work in the [omitted for publication] industry diminished in 2014 and the family began to struggle financially.  The relationship deteriorated and verbal arguments and excessive drinking by both of the Parties ensued.  The Parties physically separated in January 2016 but remained in the same home until April 2016 when E. and the Children left the family residence and soon after moved to [omitted for publication].

[132]     In the Report J.G. is described by the Parties as:

a happy-go-lucky, smart, friendly, beautiful, curious and outgoing 11-year-old.  She is in her third year of figure skating, enjoys playing golf, swimming, track and field and reading.  She is healthy emotionally and physically.

[133]     A summary of J.G.’s views as described in the Report include:

a)            she is doing well in school, is interested in being involved in a variety of sporting and athletic activities and would like to be the Prime Minister of Canada,

b)            at E.’s home she has her own bedroom and likes to go for walks ride her bike and have Thursday night movies with E. and K.G.;

c)            at J.’s home she also has her own bedroom and likes to bake and be with J.’s three dogs and his spouse, J.G., who is due to give birth and she is excited about that;

d)            she enjoys spending time with her grandparents and at the time of the separation she was upset and she talked to both of her grandmothers;

e)            she is hurt that the Parties don’t get along and can’t be together in public stating “they need to start getting along because it’s not only hurting them it’s hurting me and K.G..”

f)            She likes talking to her counsellor, Erin and would like to continue to attend that counselling;

g)            she likes the parenting schedule as set out in the Consent Order and expressed a dislike of a one-week on one week off schedule with the Parties during the school year and wishes to have two week blocks with each of the parties during summer vacation;

h)            she wants the Court to know “I love both my parents.  I want them to get along and stop arguing…” and she wishes that “everyone could get along and be happy.”

[134]     In the Report K.G. is described by the Parties as:

outgoing, smart, funny, strong, and active seven-year-old.  K.G. is also in figure skating and golfing and would like to try playing hockey again.  K.G. is physically healthy but her emotional health is being affected by her parents’ separation.

[135]     A summary of K.G.’s views as described in the Report include:

a)            she is doing well in school but dislikes gym class and is interested in a variety of sporting activities;

b)            at E.’s home she has her own room and likes to jump on the trampoline, go biking and walk to her friends’ house;

c)            at J.’s home she has her own room, gets along with her stepmother and her stepbrother.  She likes to go for walks in the woods with J. and bake with her stepmother and others;

d)            she enjoys spending time with her grandparents and a paternal aunt and uncle;

e)            when she was younger there was barely any fighting and they had dogs and a cat but that one day the Parties had a big fight and E., J.G. and her had to leave;

f)            she has seen the Parties fight and she does not like seeing it and tells them to stop.  Sometimes E. says negative things about J. and sometimes J. tells her and J.G. that E. is “a lunatic” which makes her sad and she and J.G. tell him to stop;

g)            she would like J. to “not be so angry” and E. to “be not so sad”;

h)            she wants to Court to know that she likes the parenting schedule as it is and to continue going to school in [omitted for publication].  She is hoping that the best thing that could come from this is that her “mom and dad will stop fighting and be happy”.

[136]     The Report dealt with the parental capacity of each of the Parties noting that both of their residences were appropriate for the Children and that the Children had a close relationship with each of the Parties and with J.’s common-law spouse J.V..

[137]     The Report notes that E. would like the parenting regime to remain the same as set out in the Consent Order with the Children residing with her in [omitted for publication] and attending school in [omitted for publication] in the case of K.G. and attending school and a junior high school in Fort St. John in the case of J.G. save and except that she would like to have a full weekend occasionally and that the Parties have two week blocks with the Children during the Summer vacation.

[138]     The Report notes that J. would like a parenting regime of one week on one week off for each of the Parties with the Children attending [omitted for publication] School which would require an early start and a bus ride from [omitted for publication] to the school during the Children’s time with E..

[139]     J. also advised the Report author that he is not told about the Children’s activities by E, has concerns about E. trying to turn the Children against him and is concerned about E.’s drinking and feels she should participate in an alcohol and substance abuse program.

[140]     Under the heading Summary and Assessment the Report notes the following:

a)            the Children like [omitted for publication] Elementary and have no desire to return to their previous school;

b)            the Children do not want the present parenting schedule to change because it would be too hard to be away from one parent for so long but would like a two week parenting schedule during the summer vacation;

c)            the Children want the Parties to stop fighting, stop talking badly about the other and get along;

d)            the Children are settled in doing well at [omitted for publication] Elementary and another change might interrupt the progress they are making there;

e)            providing extended periods of parenting time for each of the Parties during the Summer vacation would benefit both Children and the Parties and would enable them to take a vacation together;

f)            the Parties need to improve communication with each other and need to work together towards being healthier parents for the Children and reduce the anxiety and stress the Children feel when the Parties are near each other;

[141]     J. was critical of the Report both from the perspective of its findings and recommendations.  He suggested that the Report author spent very little time with him and the Children during their meeting together.  E. endorsed the recommendations in the Report.

THE LAW

Family Law Act

[142]     The following Sections of the Family Law Act have application in determining this case:

a)            Best interests of child

37        (1)  In making an agreement or order under this Part respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with a child, the parties and the court must consider the best interests of the child only.

(2)  To determine what is in the best interests of a child, all of the child's needs and circumstances must be considered, including the following:

(a)  the child's health and emotional well-being;

(b)  the child's views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them;

(c)  the nature and strength of the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child's life;

(d)  the history of the child's care;

(e)  the child's need for stability, given the child's age and stage of development;

(f)  the ability of each person who is a guardian or seeks guardianship of the child, or who has or seeks parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact with the child, to exercise his or her responsibilities;

(g)  the impact of any family violence on the child's safety, security or well-being, whether the family violence is directed toward the child or another family member;

(h)  whether the actions of a person responsible for family violence indicate that the person may be impaired in his or her ability to care for the child and meet the child's needs;

(i)  the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the child or other family members;

(j)  any civil or criminal proceeding relevant to the child's safety, security or well-being.

(3)  An agreement or order is not in the best interests of a child unless it protects, to the greatest extent possible, the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being.

(4)  In making an order under this Part, a court may consider a person's conduct only if it substantially affects a factor set out in subsection (2), and only to the extent that it affects that factor.

b)           Assessing family violence

38  For the purposes of section 37 (2) (g) and (h) [best interests of child], a court must consider all of the following:

(a)  the nature and seriousness of the family violence;

(b)  how recently the family violence occurred;

(c)  the frequency of the family violence;

(d)  whether any psychological or emotional abuse constitutes, or is evidence of, a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour directed at a family member;

(e)  whether the family violence was directed toward the child;

(f)  whether the child was exposed to family violence that was not directed toward the child;

(g)  the harm to the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being as a result of the family violence;

(h)  any steps the person responsible for the family violence has taken to prevent further family violence from occurring;

(i)  any other relevant matter.

c)            Parenting arrangements

40        (1)  Only a guardian may have parental responsibilities and parenting time with respect to a child.

(2)  Unless an agreement or order allocates parental responsibilities differently, each child's guardian may exercise all parental responsibilities with respect to the child in consultation with the child's other guardians, unless consultation would be unreasonable or inappropriate in the circumstances.

(3)  Parental responsibilities may be allocated under an agreement or order such that they may be exercised by

(a)  one or more guardians only, or

(b)  each guardian acting separately or all guardians acting together.

(4)  In the making of parenting arrangements, no particular arrangement is presumed to be in the best interests of the child and without limiting that, the following must not be presumed:

(a)  that parental responsibilities should be allocated equally among guardians;

(b)  that parenting time should be shared equally among guardians;

(c)  that decisions among guardians should be made separately or together.

d)           Parental responsibilities

41  For the purposes of this Part, parental responsibilities with respect to a child are as follows:

(a)  making day-to-day decisions affecting the child and having day-to-day care, control and supervision of the child;

(b)  making decisions respecting where the child will reside;

(c)  making decisions respecting with whom the child will live and associate;

(d)  making decisions respecting the child's education and participation in extracurricular activities, including the nature, extent and location;

(e)  making decisions respecting the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including, if the child is an aboriginal child, the child's aboriginal identity;

(f)  subject to section 17 of the Infants Act, giving, refusing or withdrawing consent to medical, dental and other health-related treatments for the child;

(g)  applying for a passport, licence, permit, benefit, privilege or other thing for the child;

(h)  giving, refusing or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required;

(i)  receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive;

(j)  requesting and receiving from third parties health, education or other information respecting the child;

(k)  subject to any applicable provincial legislation,

(i)  starting, defending, compromising or settling any proceeding relating to the child, and

(ii)  identifying, advancing and protecting the child's legal and financial interests;

(l)  exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development.

e)            Parenting time

42        (1)  For the purposes of this Part, parenting time is the time that a child is with a guardian, as allocated under an agreement or order.

(2)  During parenting time, a guardian may exercise, subject to an agreement or order that provides otherwise, the parental responsibility of making day-to-day decisions affecting the child and having day-to-day care, control and supervision of the child.

f)            Exercise of parental responsibilities

43        (1)  A child's guardian must exercise his or her parental responsibilities in the best interests of the child.

(2)  If a guardian is temporarily unable to exercise any of the parental responsibilities described in section 41 (a), (c), (d), (f) to (j) or (l) [parental responsibilities], the child's guardian, in writing, may authorize a person to exercise, in the best interests of the child, one or more of those responsibilities on that guardian's behalf while the guardian is unable to do so.

g)           Denial of parenting time or contact

61        (1)  An application under this section may be made only

(a)  by a person entitled under an agreement or order to parenting time or contact with a child, and

(b)  within 12 months after the person was denied parenting time or contact with a child.

(2)  If satisfied that an applicant has been wrongfully denied parenting time or contact with a child by a child's guardian, the court on application may make an order to do one or more of the following:

(a)  require the parties to participate in family dispute resolution;

(b)  require one or more parties or, without the consent of the child's guardian, the child, to attend counselling, specified services or programs;

(c)  specify a period of time during which the applicant may exercise compensatory parenting time or contact with the child;

(d)  require the guardian to reimburse the applicant for expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred by the applicant as a result of the denial, including travel expenses, lost wages and child care expenses;

(e)  require that the transfer of the child from one party to another be supervised by another person named in the order;

(f)  if the court is satisfied that the guardian may not comply with an order made under this section, order that guardian to

(i)  give security in any form the court directs, or

(ii)  report to the court, or to a person named by the court, at the time and in the manner specified by the court;

(g)  require the guardian to pay

(i)  an amount not exceeding $5 000 to or for the benefit of the applicant or a child whose interests were affected by the denial, or

(ii) a fine not exceeding $5 000.

(3)  If the court makes an order under subsection (2) (a), (b) or (e), the court may allocate among the parties, or require one party alone to pay, the fees relating to the family dispute resolution, counselling, service, program or transfer.

h)           When denial is not wrongful

62        (1)  For the purposes of section 61 [denial of parenting time or contact], a denial of parenting time or contact with a child is not wrongful in any of the following circumstances:

(a)  the guardian reasonably believed the child might suffer family violence if the parenting time or contact with the child were exercised;

(b)  the guardian reasonably believed the applicant was impaired by drugs or alcohol at the time the parenting time or contact with the child was to be exercised;

(c)  the child was suffering from an illness when the parenting time or contact with the child was to be exercised and the guardian has a written statement, by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, indicating that it was not appropriate that the parenting time or contact with the child be exercised;

(d)  in the 12-month period before the denial, the applicant failed repeatedly and without reasonable notice or excuse to exercise parenting time or contact with the child;

(e)  the applicant

(i)  informed the guardian, before the parenting time or contact with the child was to be exercised, that it was not going to be exercised, and

(ii)  did not subsequently give reasonable notice to the guardian that the applicant intended to exercise the parenting time or contact with the child after all;

(f)  other circumstances the court considers to be sufficient justification for the denial.

(2)  If, on an application under section 61, the court finds that parenting time or contact with a child was denied, but was not wrongfully denied, the court may make an order specifying a period of time during which the applicant may exercise compensatory parenting time or contact with the child.

i)            Orders respecting reports

211     (1)  A court may appoint a person to assess, for the purposes of a proceeding under Part 4 [Care of and Time with Children], one or more of the following:

(a)  the needs of a child in relation to a family law dispute;

(b)  the views of a child in relation to a family law dispute;

(c)  the ability and willingness of a party to a family law dispute to satisfy the needs of a child.

(2)  A person appointed under subsection (1)

(a)  must be a family justice counsellor, a social worker or another person approved by the court, and

(b)  unless each party consents, must not have had any previous connection with the parties.

(3)  An application under this section may be made without notice to any other person.

(4)  A person who carries out an assessment under this section must

(a)  prepare a report respecting the results of the assessment,

(b)  unless the court orders otherwise, give a copy of the report to each party, and

(c)  give a copy of the report to the court.

(5)  The court may allocate among the parties, or require one party alone to pay, the fees relating to an assessment under this section.

j)            Misuse of court process

221     (1)  A court may make an order prohibiting a party from making further applications or continuing a proceeding without leave of the court if satisfied that the party

(a)  has made an application that is trivial,

(b)  is conducting a proceeding in a manner that is a misuse of the court process, or

(c)  is otherwise acting in a manner that frustrates or misuses the court process.

(2)  If an order is made under subsection (1), the court may do one or more of the following:

(a)  make the order apply

(i)  for a specified period of time, or

(ii)  until the party has complied with an order made under this Act;

(b)  impose any terms and conditions respecting the granting of leave to make further applications or to continue a proceeding;

(c)  require the party to pay

(i)  the other party for all or part of the expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred as a result of the party's actions, including fees and expenses related to family dispute resolution,

(ii)  an amount not exceeding $5 000 to or for the benefit of the other party, or a spouse or child whose interests were affected by the party's actions, or

(iii)  a fine not exceeding $5 000.

k)            Purposes for which orders respecting conduct may be made

222  At any time during a proceeding or on the making of an order under this Act, the court may make an order under this Division for one or more of the following purposes:

(a)  to facilitate the settlement of a family law dispute or of an issue that may become the subject of a family law dispute;

(b)  to manage behaviours that might frustrate the resolution of a family law dispute by an agreement or order;

(c)  to prevent misuse of the court process;

(d)  to facilitate arrangements pending final determination of a family law dispute.

l)            Orders respecting dispute resolution, counselling and programs

224     (1)  A court may make an order to do one or both of the following:

(a)  require the parties to participate in family dispute resolution;

(b)  require one or more parties or, without the consent of the child's guardian, a child, to attend counselling, specified services or programs.

(2)  If the court makes an order under subsection (1), the court may allocate among the parties, or require one party alone to pay, the fees relating to the family dispute resolution, counselling, services or programs.

m)         Orders restricting communications

225  Unless it would be more appropriate to make an order under Part 9 [Protection from Family Violence], a court may make an order setting restrictions or conditions respecting communications between parties, including respecting when or how communications may be made.

n)           Enforcing orders respecting conduct

228     (1)  If a party fails to comply with an order made under this Division, the court may do one or more of the following:

(a)  make a further order under this Division;

(b)  draw an inference that is adverse to the party, and make an order based on the inference;

(c)  make an order requiring the party to pay

(i)  the other party for all or part of the expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred as a result of the non-compliance, including fees and expenses related to family dispute resolution,

(ii)  an amount not exceeding $5 000 to or for the benefit of the other party, or a spouse or child whose interests were affected by the non-compliance, or

(iii)  a fine not exceeding $5 000;

(d)  make any other order the court considers necessary to secure compliance.

(2)  If a party fails to comply with an order made under section 225 [orders restricting communications], the court must consider whether it would be appropriate to make an order under Part 9 [Protection from Family Violence].

Case Law

[143]     The Parties did not provide any case authority to the Court.  However, in order to properly adjudicate matters the Court referred to the following cases:

a)            B.(M.W.) v. B. (A.R.) 2013 BCSC 885 - consider Section 37(2) factors individually then collectively; family violence includes emotional, financial or psychological control;

b)            S.(J.D.) v. P.(D.Y.C.) 2014 BCSC 1577 - one parent can be given exclusive control over some or all parental responsibilities;

c)            S.(S.J.) v. P.(Y.W.) 2017 BCSC 798 - see above

d)            F.(J.A.) v. F.(J.J.) 2016 BCSC 300 - Section 211 report is prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts contained;

e)            C.(T.) v. C.(S.) 2013 BCPC 217 - Section 211 reports should comment on present and possible future locations for the child;

f)            S.(L.) v. S.(G.) 2016 BCSC 1130 - best interests test applies to Section 221 considerations;

g)            B.(C.M.) v. S.(L.W.) 2016 BCPC 417 - 224 the Court can order a child to counselling without parental consent.

SUBMISSIONS AND PARENTING PROPOSALS

General Comments

[144]     Both J. and E. represented themselves in this proceeding.  As such, the Court must grant them some leeway with regard to how their submissions were presented.  However, the Court cannot give consideration to evidence described in the submissions that were not presented either by affidavits or by oral evidence at the trial.  Such additional evidence is not properly to be considered in arriving at a decision in this matter because it was not subject to cross examination.

[145]     J. pointed out the objectionable material in E.’s written submissions but then fell into the same pitfall in his written submissions.  The Court has done its best to identify and disregard the inappropriate submissions of both Parties.

E.’s Submissions

[146]     E.’s lengthy written submissions and her oral submissions which are admissible and applicable to the decision the Court must make can be summarized as follows:

a)            regardless of where they have resided she has always been the primary caregiver for F. and the Children.  That is the status quo and geography does not change that;

b)            although she and J. separated as a couple in January 2016, she was attempting to live in the basement with the Children until the end of the school year to minimize their disruption.  She asked J. to move out to one of many available properties owned by his family to reduce the tension in the household but he profanely demurred;

c)            after she and the Children left, J. immediately erected a steel gate to deny her access to the residence to collect her personal property and soon after, burned some of her personal property;

d)            there was disruption for the Children at the time of separation but they have not only adjusted and survived; but are now thriving in all aspects of their life.  They are used to the arrangement and they’re happy.  They have made their views clear as described in the Section 211 Report.  The Children’s views are further substantiated by the letter they wrote to the Court at J.’s request;

e)            the Children are old enough and intelligent enough to honestly communicate their wishes and views and they have done so but J. simply refuses to accept that;

f)            she chose [omitted for publication] for a variety of reasons including its small size, accommodation affordability, the quality and size of the school quite similar to [omitted for publication] School and community involvement;

g)            in order to maintain the Children’s lives in as much a similar fashion as they had enjoyed before the separation, she continued to enrol them in activities despite J. making it clear that he would not cooperate in taking them to activities that interfered with his parenting time;

h)            despite J.’s evidence to the contrary she did not try to sabotage his business interests and in fact continued to maintain the books as best she could even though J. took steps to block her from communicating with the accountant such that the business records of their businesses fell into disarray;

i)            J. regularly drank alcohol to excess and then operated motor vehicles.  When she would confront him about that behaviour he would fly into a rage often assaulting her and resulting in her and the Children having      to leave the home for a period of time.  J.’s rages might also be associated to his Type 1 diabetes which is not well-managed if a person is consuming alcohol to excess;

j)              many of her witnesses confirmed that J. had both alcohol and anger issues and several gave evidence of observing J. driving while intoxicated;

k)            J.’s accusations of her alcohol and prescription medication abuse are simply not true.  Both she and J. did drink a lot socially while together and on occasion one or the other or both of them became highly intoxicated at public or family functions.  She has presented numerous witnesses who have regular contact with her who attest that since the separation she has not consumed alcohol while in the presence of the Children.  At no time has there been any occasion where she has driven an automobile with the Children present while she is intoxicated;

l)              she does continue to drink socially but many of the purchases at various establishments that were examined during the course of the trial were for things other than alcohol or were alcohol purchases to be consumed with others during the time the Children are with J.;

m)         the placing of the Children in counselling was requested by her and ordered by Justice McNaughton and paid for through her EAP.  She is not opposed to the Children obtaining       counselling so long as it is with a counsellor licensed and qualified to address the issues the Children may have arising from the separation;

n)            there have been numerous court applications in both the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court but many of them were the result of J.’s refusal to fairly and reasonably interpret the Consent Order concerning vacation parenting time resulting in her having to seek the Court’s assistance.  There were also applications brought by J. in circumstances where he resorted to the Court before even asking her about the matter;

o)            J. has on numerous occasions throughout these proceedings made false allegations against her and has provided false evidence against her both through himself and through several witnesses he had provide untruthful affidavits or give false and misleading evidence before the Court;

p)            in particular, the evidence of M.A.G., as it pertains to any opinions about her mental health, should be given no weight because Ms. G. was not qualified by the Court to provide such opinion;

q)            due to J.’s false allegations against her which he spread throughout the rural community around [omitted for publication], she is now known as a “raging drunk, drug abuser, child kidnapper and child abuser” and the people from that community shun her;

r)            in J.’s evidence he described her as a great mother but since the separation he has often called her very derogatory names, sometimes in front of the Children.  As occurred before the separation she now spends the majority time with the Children and it is largely through her efforts that the Children are as well-rounded as everyone who knows them suggests they are.  She has been the only one to attend to the Children’s regular medical, dental and eye appointments throughout the years and has been      the only one who has paid for them;

s)            the concerns raised by J. about the expense of transporting the Children must be considered in the face of his contempt of Supreme Court orders to pay child support and the fact that she covers practically all of the Children’s clothing, medical, dental, sports and school fees and expenses;

t)            the evidence of J.’s new partner, J.V., should be given little weight by the Court as she was present throughout the trial prior to giving her evidence;

u)            there should be conduct Orders to control J.’s behaviour until he has obtained some counselling to manage his anger towards her and her family, to prohibit him and his partner from taking photographs or videos of her in the presence of the Children, that J. immediately stop defaming her by making false allegations about her substance abuse, stating that she kidnapped the Children and that she made false allegations about him to obtain the Protection Order.

E.’s Parenting Time Proposal

[147]     In the event the Children reside primarily with her, E. proposes the following parenting time regime:

a)            the Children reside with her in [omitted for publication] throughout the week and on one specified weekend per month during the school year subject to certain shared specified special occasions and vacation periods;

b)            the Children reside with J. in [omitted for publication] on all weekends except the one weekend specified to be with her subject to certain shared specified special occasions and vacation periods;

c)            a weekend during the school year would include any adjunct professional development days and statutory holidays;

d)            during the school year J. would pick the Children up from their respective schools at the beginning of his weekend and return them to their respective schools at the end of his weekend;

e)            J. would have electronic contact with the Children through J.G.’s phone when the Children are residing with her and she would have electronic contact with the Children through J.G.’s phone when the children were residing with J.;

f)            J.G. would commence school in September 2018 at [omitted for publication] and K.G. would commence school in September 2018 at [omitted for publication] School;

g)            despite the regular weekly parenting schedule she would get the first half of the Christmas school vacation with the Children in even numbered years and the last half of the Christmas school with the Children in odd numbered years;

h)            despite the regular weekly parenting schedule J. would get the first half of the Christmas school vacation with the children in odd numbered years in the last half of the Christmas school vacation with the children in even numbered years;

i)            despite the regular weekly parenting schedule she would get the Children for the entirety of the Easter weekend on odd numbered years and J. would get the Children for the entirety of the Easter weekend in even numbered years;

j)              despite the regular weekly parenting schedule she would get the Children for the full day on Mother’s Day and J. would get the Children for the full day on Father’s Day;

k)            there would be no exception from the regular weekly parenting schedule to accommodate J.G. or K.G.’s birthdays;

l)              despite the regular weekly parenting schedule during the School Summer vacation the Children would spend one two week period with her and one two week period with J. to accommodate vacations with the remainder of the School Summer vacation following the regular weekly parenting schedule;

E.’s Parental Responsibilities Proposal

[148]     In the event the Children reside primarily with her, E. proposes the following parental responsibilities orders:

a)            both she and J. have the right to deal with school, medical, dental and emotional well-being of the Children while each has parenting time;

b)            any concerns regarding the Children be communicated between her and J. by respectful emails, and in an emergency contact to be made between them;

c)            both she and J. remain as email contacts for the Children with regard to both their schooling and activities.

E.’s Other Orders Proposal

[149]     In the event the Children reside primarily with her, E. proposes the following other orders:

a)            contact between her and J. be limited and controlled until he has more control over his anger towards her and her mother;

b)            J. and J.V. be prohibited from making photographs or videos of her;

c)            she and J. shall be prohibited from consuming alcohol while the Children are in their care and that they each be restrained from operating a motor vehicle containing the Children if they had consumed alcohol within the preceding 12 hours;

d)            in the event J. refuses to authorize registration or pay for any sporting activities the Children wish to participate in, that she have the sole right to enrol the Children in those activities;

e)            J. be required to take the Children to their activities if they occur during his parenting time and if he is unable to facilitate taking the Children to such activities, he contact her so that she may take them to the event and then return them to him;

f)            J. remain responsible for transporting the Children at the beginning and end of his parenting time or in the alternative, that J. and her meet to exchange the Children at the Fort St. John RCMP detachment or in the further alternative, she provides J. with gas money;

g)            if the Children are required to attend counselling, that it is with a licensed counsellor with no less than five years’ experience dealing with the matters at hand.

[150]     In the event the Children are to reside primarily with J., she would seek mirror images of her proposal for parenting time and parental responsibilities but that any exchanges of the Children, other than delivering them to their school, are held in a public place at a fixed time.

J.’s Submissions

[151]     J.'s written submissions and brief oral submissions which are admissible and applicable to the decision the Court must make can be summarized as follows:

a)            E.’s alternate proposal for the parenting time of the Children is an arrangement he had offered on many previous occasions but she had refused.  The fact she is now prepared to accept it speaks to her games, family violence, outright lies, and disrespect for the Court in her evidence and submissions and unnecessary court time E. has imposed on these proceedings;

b)            E. was not ousted from the family residence.  She left of her own accord.  She admits consulting others about schooling and housing before moving to [omitted for publication];

c)            the Consent Order provides no status quo for E.’s move of the Children to [omitted for publication] and their enrolment in [omitted for publication] School;

d)            before the separation the status quo was that there was no primary caregiver and the Children attended [omitted for publication] School;

e)            at the separation E. abducted the Children and hid them from him for a considerable period of time while at the same time obtaining a Protection Order against him based on false evidence;

f)            there are available transportation resources for the Children to reside equally with both Parties while attending [omitted for publication] School which is not available if they attend [omitted for publication] School;

g)            he and his partner J.V. have a happy, healthy and loving home and have the best interests of the Children at heart;

h)            E.’s description of his relationship with J.G. V. and her negative descriptions of Ms. V. speaks to her character and bitterness and her inability to move on with her life which impacts on the Children;

i)            E. claims to want downtime with the Children, something his parenting time proposal would accomplish for everyone benefit;

j)              E. describes her relationship with the Children as a friendship, not a mother and daughter relationship.  E. has proven she does not have the best interests of the Children at heart because she continues to deny counselling to F., denies counselling to the Children, has moved three times since the separation, ripped the Children away from their friends and their school without notice, refused to take K.G. to the doctor after she was bitten by a large dog and engages in an unhealthy relationship with J.C. by permitting him to remain overnight in her home and causing confusion for the Children;

k)            E. has not denied having alcohol abuse issues combined with her prescription medication both prior to and after the separation.  She did not deny that she still had a drinking problem during her evidence in Court.  The partial bank records provided also demonstrated that E. made purchases of alcohol during her parenting time with the Children;

l)              E.’s evidence verifies that because the Children are with her throughout the school week, he does not get the opportunity to participate in most of their extracurricular activities;

m)         E.'s threats to F. concerning his truck, her misuse of his RESP funds, and her lies to F. such that he does not speak to J. are but one example of E.'s family violence.  The pressure she puts on F. must be magnified as it is applied to the Children;

n)            the Section 211 Report in no way addresses the complete situation.  His interview was conducted over a period of no more than three hours and the report did not address E.’s alcohol abuse or family violence.  E. has told the Children what they want and told them how they feel;

o)            several of E.’s witnesses presented evidence that was either greatly exaggerated, biased or outright untruths.

J.’s Parenting Time Proposal

[152]     J. proposes the following parenting time regime:

a)            on a temporary basis he be granted practically all of the parenting time, with E. receiving only supervised parenting time on weekends until she has attended a reputable drug and alcohol rehabilitation program to the satisfaction of the Court and then that she report back to the Court and continue with both counselling and sobriety;

b)            once E. has satisfied the Court with regard to her counselling and sobriety, an equal parenting time schedule be instituted with a one week on alternating schedule when school is in session with the exchange of the Children to be through their school bus or, on non-instructional day at [omitted for publication] or the [omitted for publication] Store;

c)            the Children attend [omitted for publication] School or alternatively, that K.G. attend [omitted for publication] School and J.G. attend [omitted for publication];

d)            each of the Parties to have a two week block during Summer school vacation with the Children, alternating annually with regard to who chooses first and the selected dates to do, to be provided no later than March 31 of each year;

e)            during the Christmas school vacation, the Children spend Christmas Eve and one half of Christmas Day with one Party and the other half a Christmas Day and Boxing Day to be spent with the other Party in alternate years;

[153]     In the event the Court does not accept his parenting time proposal, J. wishes the following regime:

a)            he continue to be granted practically all of the parenting time with E. receiving only supervised parenting time on weekends, until she has attended a reputable drug and alcohol rehabilitation program to the satisfaction of the Court and then that she report back to the Court and continue with both counselling and sobriety;

b)            he be compensated for his non - shared parenting time during the summer school holidays to make up to 182 days per year;

c)            for each trip he is required to make to [omitted for publication] for an exchange of the Children he be provided $100 for gas money and lost wages from employment;

d)            the exchange of the Children during shared holidays be at the [omitted for publication] Store at 12 noon on Wednesdays;

J.’s Parental Responsibilities Proposal

[154]     J. proposes that he be granted the following parental responsibilities:

a)            making day-to-day decisions affecting the Children and controling the supervision of the Children;

b)            making decisions respecting where the Children will reside;

c)            making decisions regarding the Children's education and participation in extracurricular activities including the nature, extent and location;

d)            subject to Section 17 of the Infants Act giving, refusing or withdrawing consent to medical, dental and other health-related treatments for the Children;

J.’s Other Orders Proposal

[155]     J. proposes the following other Orders:

a)            E. be required to follow her Doctor’s orders concerning her prescription medication;

b)            E. be required to make any plans regarding the Children with him and not use the Children as go betweens;

c)            E. and any third parties, except for a counsellor, be prohibited from discussing any aspects of the legal proceedings with the Children;

d)            E. and any member of her immediate family be prohibited from being present during his pickup and drop off of the Children at their school;

e)            E. and any member of her immediate family to be prohibited from calling J.G.’s cell phone during his parenting time.

DISCUSSION

General Comments

[156]     As can be seen from the detailed recitation of what has occurred in this proceeding and the summary of the litigation in the Supreme Court, the Parties have collectively and individually been unable to act and react to the separation in a manner that focused on the best interests of the Children.

[157]     They have expended large sums of money, to the impoverishment of themselves and, more importantly the Children.  They have invested vast amounts of their personal time in preparing copious amounts of pleadings.  They have recruited numerous family members and friends to their cause.  They have consumed an enormous amount of Court time, often over trivial matters, thereby denying or delaying other litigants the opportunity to have their matters adjudicated.  The Parties need to pause to assess what the litigation is accomplishing.  The Court intends to assist them in that endeavour.

[158]     In so far as parenting time and parental responsibilities are concerned, this Court will be imposing strict terms to curtail further litigation without the Court's permission into the foreseeable future.

[159]     It is incumbent upon the Court in crafting orders concerning the Children to insure that the orders protect, to the greatest extent possible, the Children's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being.

[160]     The Court is placed in the difficult situation of trying to craft such orders for the Children from the position of knowing relatively little about them and how they will react to the Court having to impose a regime because those best position to do so, their parents, have been unable to put aside their differences and work cooperatively to ensure the Children's best interests.

[161]     In this case the biggest issues in contention on a day-to-day basis are the allocation of parenting time and parental responsibilities between the Parties.  Coming up with an equitable allocation of those duties is far more an art than a science.  It is governed by the evidence and submissions accepted by the Court and the interpretation and implementation of the Statute and case law.

[162]     The Orders made might not be a perfect resolution of the matters, so the Court will leave open a very narrow opportunity for the Parties to cooperate in adjusting the orders to better meet the Children’s needs.

Status Quo

[163]     Paragraph 9 of the Consent Order reads:

9.            Moving forward, the parenting time between the parties reflected in this order shall not form the basis of a position of status quo, nor shall the enrolment of the Children in [omitted for publication] Elementary School form the basis of a position of status quo.

[164]     J. placed heavy reliance on that wording both in his evidence and in his submissions.

[165]     “Status quo” is defined in the Dictionary of Canadian Law as “The state in which something is or was.”  The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “the existing state of affairs”.

[166]     In Laboucane v. Laboucane (1976) 21 R.F.L. 3331 at 335 (B.C.S.C.) the Court said:

It is clear from the cases that while the status quo is an important factor for the Court to consider an application of this kind, the welfare of the children… is the paramount consideration.

[167]     In Wine v. Wine (1976) 27 R.F.L .129 at 129 (Ont. H.C.) the Court said:

a party can never simply by taking the children without good reason, and, keeping them for a short period of time, say with a shout of triumph “I have established status quo”.

[168]     The concept of status quo has much more applicability when interim, as opposed to final orders are being made.  Maintaining a status quo may or may not be in the Children’s best interests when long term planning is taken into account as occurs at the end of a trial where evidence on all the issues can be presented and tested before a decision is rendered.

[169]     The Court accepts that neither Party thought that it would take over two years to resolve the parenting time and parental responsibilities issues and that the provisions in the Consent Order would be resolved long before now.

[170]     As such, although the Court will consider other aspects of what may have been the status quo at the time of separation ultimately it is the provisions of Section 37 of the FLA that must be applied.  If the wording in the Consent Order and Section 37 diverge, Section 37 considerations must prevail.

[171]     In this case, in light of the evidence presented, the Court concludes that the only status quo matters that are relevant in arriving at a decision in this case is that both prior to and subsequent to the separation E. was, both in time and active involvement in all aspects their lives, the primary caregiver of the Children.  This finding is not meant to suggest that J. is not a suitable caregiver; he is; but it simply recognizes that E. was able and prepared to spend more time on the needs and nurturing of the Children while J. was more occupied with business and farm related duties that kept him away from the family residence.

F. Issues

[172]     Prior to the trial commencing there was considerable affidavit material filed referencing F..  At the commencement of the trial, both Parties advised the Court that there would be no relief sought concerning F. because he was now an adult.

[173]     Despite that assurance J. spent considerable time being critical of E. and her relationship with F..  Much of what J. raised, both in evidence and submissions, is not relevant to the decisions to be made about the Children and their best interests.

[174]     However, three areas need to be addressed.  First, J. alleges that E.’s interaction with F. concerning his truck insurance amounted to family violence.  While it is clear in the case law that financial control and misuse might amount to family violence, the evidence in this case did not even come close to meeting that definition.

[175]     The second pertains to J.'s allegation that E. was somehow “at fault” for F.'s catastrophic motor vehicle accident which left him with lifelong injuries.  J. directly raised the issue on several occasions in both the affidavit material and during the trial but later tried to suggest his concerns were limited to the fact that E. permitted and encouraged F. to live in an environment, the [omitted for publication] house, where alcohol was readily available to F. even though he was under age.

[176]     It is quite possible that F. was influenced by some of his older housemates regarding his alcohol consumption prior to his motor vehicle accident.  However, based on the evidence presented in the affidavits and during the trial it is far more likely that if F. was adversely influenced about alcohol it came from observing his parents and his extended family members consuming it, often to excess, at almost every family function.  If there is fault to be borne beyond F.'s decisions surrounding the motor vehicle accident it is attributable to both Parties given their past use and misuse of alcohol.

[177]     The third arises from J.'s allegation that E. has adversely affected F. by refusing or declining to arrange counselling for him.  F. is an adult and as such E. would have no status to make such arrangements or to compel F. to attend.

Alcohol Issues

[178]     The use and misuse of alcohol by J. and E. was an issue that occupied a large proportion of the affidavit and trial evidence.  Both Parties engaged both family members and friends in exonerating their present drinking practices and accusing the other Party of excessive drinking and child - endangering behaviour prior to the separation.

[179]     E.’s concerns about J.’s past drinking were related to his drunken driving; his violence when confronted about his drinking and the possible relationship between his drinking and his poorly managed diabetes.  She relied on her own observations and the observations of some of her witnesses in that regard.  Those allegations were denied by J..

[180]     J.’s concerns about E.’s past drinking were related to her drinking behaviours of rapid consumption, her drunken driving with the Children, her inappropriate actions at family events and her mixing of alcohol and her prescription medication for depression.  He relied on his own observations and the observations of some of his witnesses.  Those allegations were denied by E. and she noted her prescription was for long - standing treatment of anxiety.

[181]     The past drinking allegations were sufficient for the Court to impose a joint alcohol abstinence condition in the Consent Order.

[182]     Based on the reciprocal allegations and the evidence presented in the affidavits and the trial the Court accepts that both J. and E. did act inappropriately and in some instances drove illegally after consuming alcohol prior to the separation.  There is just too much evidence to conclude that either of the Parties was not misusing alcohol at times during the marriage and in particular during the several months prior to the separation.

[183]     Where the views of the Parties become really divergent is with regard to their alcohol use since the separation and now.  J. asks the Court to accept that he has had an epiphany concerning his alcohol consumption based on a conversation he had with J.G. and now he rarely drinks alcohol and never drinks alcohol when the Children are with him.  E. did not seriously contest that assertion nor did she present any evidence that J.'s past issues with alcohol misuse continue at the present time when he has parenting time with the Children.

[184]     J. also asked the Court to accept that E. continues to have problems with alcohol consumption to the point that he describes her as an alcoholic.  He asked the Court to note that the prescription medication E. is taking warns that alcohol should not be consumed at the same time and yet she continues to drink.  He also asked the Court to conclude, based on very sparse evidence but his own conjecture, that E. drinks alcohol when she has parenting time with the Children.  In that regard he pointed to purchases made by E. at various beer and wine and convenience stores on weekdays as direct evidence that E. was making alcohol purchases and consuming alcohol during her parenting time.  Under cross-examination E. pointed out that the purchases, indicated in her banking records, were made at facilities that offered not only alcohol but other convenience items and in some cases restaurant food.

[185]     J. expects the Court to conclude that he has greatly curtailed his alcohol consumption and eliminated it completely when he has parenting time with the Children.  In the face of E.'s and her various witnesses denials that she consumes alcohol during her parenting time with the Children J. asks the Court to reject all of that evidence and conclude that she is an alcoholic who will require treatment prior to being able to responsibly care for the Children.  He says that despite the fact that E. has been parenting the Children for over two years without any clearly demonstrated pattern of such behaviour.

[186]     There is simply insufficient evidence for the Court to conclude that E. should be required to attend any form of treatment or counselling for alcohol misuse.  That is not to suggest that if E. concludes that she requires some assistance to manage her drinking when she is not exercising parenting time that she should feel embarrassed about doing so.

[187]     What the Court is prepared to do at this point is to continue the alcohol abstention requirement when either Party is exercising parenting time and to increase the period of abstention for a longer period prior to the commencement of parenting time than is presently required to ensure each Party’s absolute sobriety during their parenting time with the Children.

Family Violence

[188]     Both Parties allege actions by the other during the marriage and since the separation amount to family violence.  Neither Party is seeking a Protection Order at this time but the circumstances of family violence must still be considered with regard to the provisions of Sections 37, 38, 183 and 184 of the FLA.

[189]     The Court has already dealt with and dismissed J.'s allegations of family violence against E. concerning her dealings with F..  Upon review of all of the evidence presented there is nothing aside from some possible instances of derogatory language that suggest any family violence by E. against either J. or the Children prior to or since the separation.  Any improper behaviour by E. from the separation until now and going into the future can, in the Court's view, be adequately controlled by conduct orders.

[190]     A similar review of the evidence concerning J.’s behaviour prior to the separation strongly suggests several incidents of family violence, particularly his assaultive behaviour on E. which sometimes occurred when Children were either present or within earshot.

[191]     One example is in the days immediately prior to E. leaving the family residence.  Despite his assertions to the contrary the Court has no difficulty in concluding that the family violence exhibited by J. on the day before and the day of E.'s departure with the Children drove her out.  She did not leave of her own accord although she acknowledged that there was a firm plan in place to depart on a later date.  She did not abduct the Children.  She took them and herself to a safe environment.

[192]     That type of behaviour has not persisted since the separation but J. has continued to engage in derogatory language directed at or about E. from time to time.  However, there is no need for a Protection Order against J. at this time.  The Court is confident that conduct orders will be sufficient going forward.

Conduct Issues

[193]     There was plenty of evidence presented throughout these proceedings concerning the rude and uncivilized language and provocative behaviour by J. and E. and members of their immediate and extended families.  These behaviours are not in the best interests of the Children.  They deserve judicial rebuke and direction to ensure they are not repeated, or at least are curtailed, in the future.

[194]     But one of many examples related to the evidence of Ms. V. who testified that although communication with E. was fine at first it had deteriorated and she didn’t know why.  Perhaps she might ruminate on the message she sent to E. on Christmas Day to the effect the Children required counselling and the response she received back from E..  There is nothing wrong with suggesting something to benefit the Children, if it is an honestly held belief.  Counselling for the Children is something the Court has determined is appropriate.  What is troubling is that Ms. V. would choose a holiday to send such a missive knowing that it might (and it did) result in a less than polite response from E..  It reflects badly on both of them.

[195]     A second example is E.’s appearance at [omitted for publication] School on the days J. returns them after his parenting time.  There is no need for such oversight.  Not once during the trial did E. suggest that J. was not an adequate caregiver, although she expressed some concern about tardiness.  Her vigilance in that regard must cease.

[196]     The same applies to J.’s and Ms. V.’s documenting of E. as she moves around the community.  That must be curtailed.  It may be relevant in future litigation with regard to E.’s care of the Children during her parenting time but it is an undue invasion of her privacy when the Children are not in her care.  Those times without the Children are none of J.’s or the Court’s business.

The Section 211 Report

[197]     J. raised several complaints and concerns about the Section 211 Report.  In particular, he alleged that the Report author did not spend sufficient time with him and the Children that she did not adequately address E.'s alcohol abuse or family violence and he suggested that E. inculcated ideas into the Children which the Children, in turn, repeated to the Report’s author.

[198]     Facts contained in a Section 211 Report are considered to be prima facie (on the face of it) evidence as to the truth of the facts set out unless contested.  To properly contest the facts, J. would have had to cross-examine the Report's author on the issues he disagreed with.  The Court asked both Parties at the beginning of the trial if they wished the Section 211 Report author called to give evidence and each declined to do so.  Without giving the Report’s author the opportunity to explain the areas that J. now criticizes the Court can give little weight to his concerns and complaints.

Children’s Counselling

[199]     The behaviour of the Parties up to now, combined with the interactions of extended family members on both sides with the Parties and the Children, has, in the Court’s view, most certainly adversely affected the Children physically, emotionally and perhaps psychologically.

[200]     The Children have had to intervene when either one of the Parties or a family member has used derogatory language to describe another family member in their presence.  It has been the Children who have had to admonish the adults to act civilly when bad language is hurled about.

[201]     In light of the circumstances, the Children have had to observe and endure over the past two years, the Court has determined that therapeutic intervention is required and at a level in time and expertise greater than the capacity available through the School District.  There will be a requirement for a private counsellor or psychologist to be engaged to assist them.

[202]     Such assistance will require each of the Parties to take the Children to any scheduled appointments that might occur on their parenting time.

[203]     During the litigation, the Parties have each accused the other of not wanting to cooperate in arranging for the Children to receive counselling assistance.  Those conflicting views will be resolved by the Court’s Orders on the topic.  There will be the need for some consultation between the Parties with regard to an appropriate person to provide the service and whether financial assistance is available to them through their employer.

[204]     Given how the Parties have chosen to separate the litigation between the two trial courts, this Court is unable to make any Orders concerning how the counselling will be paid for as a Special or Extraordinary expense.  The Supreme Court will have to make that determination if the Parties cannot agree on how any required payments will be divided.

Section 37 Considerations

[205]     In considering what types of orders should be put in place for parenting time and parental responsibilities the Court is directed by Section 37 of the FLA to consider “the best interests of the Children only”.  The section further provides 10 different factors that may be applicable in determining those best interests.

a)            the Children’s health and emotional well being

[206]     The Children are generally healthy and their regular medical, dental and other health related needs are being adequately addressed by E..  She will continue in that role.

[207]     In the months prior to and since the separation there has been an inordinate amount of stress and tension visited upon the Children.  It is now time for some certainty in their lives and for them to have the opportunity to freely speak to an independent third Party.  The counselling provisions of this decision should address those issues.

b)           the Children's views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them

[208]     The Children have expressed in a variety of forums their view with regard to how their parenting time with E. and J. should be arranged.  The Court accepts that on each occasion they have expressed their views they have done so freely and without any excessive direct or indirect pressure by either of the Parties

[209]     Unfortunately, the Children’s views have not been entirely consistent throughout the time since the separation which further complicates the Court's analysis.  In addition, it must be remembered that the Children's views are but one component for the Court to consider in assessing what will be in their best interests.

c)            the nature and strength of the relationships between the Children and significant persons in the Children's lives

[210]     The Children have a very strong bond with each of the Parties and they have also expressed a close relationship with Ms. V., their grandparents and extended family members.

[211]     J. is critical of the nature of E.’s relationship with the Children; describing it as a friendship as opposed to a parent/child relationship.  He presented no evidence to substantiate that the Children's relationship with E. was as he described and even if it was he presented no evidence that it was in any way inappropriate or harmful to the Children.

[212]     J. was also critical of E. permitting Mr. C. to sleep on her couch from time to time.  He described it as being confusing for the Children.  That alleged confusion on behalf of the Children has to be compared to J.'s decision to invite Ms. V., along with her child, to move into the former family residence within months of the separation which J. undoubtedly did not conclude to be of any negative impact to the Children.  In light of that view and those facts he should hesitate before casting aspersions.

d)           the history of the Children's care

[213]     The Court has already determined that, based on the evidence presented, E. was a greater participant in the Children's care prior to the separation because of the way the household duties were distributed between her and J..  Since the separation the care the Children has become more equally distributed.

[214]     E. and J. each seeks to change the parenting time regime for the Children going into the future.  The Court will be implementing a different regime of parenting time going forward.

e)            the Children's need for stability, given the children's age and stage of development

[215]     Aside from the stresses and possible emotional harm to the Children resulting from the Parties continued battling with each other they are in relatively stable environments and living arrangements appropriate for their ages and stages of development.

[216]     It would be appropriate for the Children to have reliable parenting time with each of the Parties both during weekends and weekdays so they can benefit from their parents input and support in each of those circumstances.

f)            the ability of each person who is a guardian or seeks guardianship of the Children, or who has or seeks parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact with the Children exercise his or her responsibilities

[217]     The Court has concerns about the Parties willingness, up to this point in time, to set aside their personal animosities for each other and focus on exercising their legal duties to the Children entirely based on the Children's best interests.

[218]     It is the intent and hope of the Court that this decision will assist J. and E. in refocusing their efforts based on what is best for the Children and not continuing to implement strategies and tactics primarily meant to distress the other Party.

g)           the impact of any family violence on the Children’s safety, security or well-being, whether the family violence is directed towards of the children or another family member

[219]     The Court is unable to determine how the past family violence visited by J. upon E. has affected the Children.  If there are detrimental effects arising from what occurred prior to the separation and the Party's behaviour toward each other since it is hoped the counselling the Children will be attending will assist in that regard and mitigate any ongoing difficulties or concerns the Children have.

h)           whether the actions of a person responsible for family violence indicate that the person may be impaired in his or her ability to care for the Children and meet the Children's needs

[220]     The Court has very little concern that J. has been greatly impaired in his ability to care for the Children or meet their needs.  In areas where the Court does have some concerns the conduct orders should sufficiently ameliorate any impairment.

i)            the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the Children's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the Children, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the Children or other family members

[221]     There are some areas of parental responsibilities on which the Court accepts E. and J. will be able to cooperate.  However, the Court also recognizes that most of the parental responsibilities can only be effectively conducted individually and independently or in some cases granted to only one Party.

j)            any civil or criminal proceeding relevant to the Children safety, security or well-being

[222]     There are no present criminal proceedings but there was suggestion made during the trial that J. is under investigation for assaulting the Children's maternal grandmother.  If such proceedings were to be instituted there is the possibility of some negative impact on the Children.

[223]     The sheer volume of applications and court appearances in both the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court and the inherent time and money devoted to and the stress arising from those proceedings on the Parties suggests that the Children's well-being has been negatively affected.  Living with parents going through such protracted and acrimonious litigation undoubtedly filters down to the Children.

Parental Responsibilities

[224]     The lack of cooperation between the Parties on practically all issues surrounding the Children militates against them sharing most of the parental responsibilities described in Section 41 of the FLA.  Instead, it is more appropriate in the circumstances to utilize the provisions of Section 40 of the FLA to grant such responsibilities individually to each of the Parties either generally or only when they are exercising parenting time with the Children.  Although they have demonstrated throughout this proceeding a general inability to cooperate on most parental responsibilities neither Party has contested the others ability to exercise such responsibilities in the best interests of the Children in most circumstances.

[225]     There is one parental responsibility that the Court hopes the Parties will be able to exercise sufficient degree of cooperation, or at least reciprocity, and that pertains to the Children’s extracurricular activities.  J. correctly noted that he was not consulted with regard to J.G.'s involvement in band.  However, it is an activity that she reportedly enjoys and wishes to pursue so its continuation will be permitted.

[226]     With regard to other extracurricular activities one of two courses of action will be sanctioned by the Court.  If the Parties agree on a certain extracurricular activity for one or both of the Children they can make the necessary and appropriate arrangements.  If there is an extracurricular activity the Parties can't agree on then each will be permitted to select no more than one extracurricular activity at a time for each of the Children and will be solely responsible for paying for that activity.

[227]     Regardless of whether or not the extracurricular activity is agreed to or individually selected by one Party or the other, both Parties will ensure that the Children attend all scheduled activities during their parenting time.

[228]     The Court accepts that E. has been the parent primarily responsible for ensuring the Children's medical, dental and other health-related treatments are arranged for, attended to and paid for.  She will be granted sole parental responsibility for those arrangements but any expenses that qualify as a Section 7 expense under the Child Support Guidelines will be paid for as directed by the Supreme Court.

[229]     There are other provisions of Section 41 which would not be easily shared between the Parties given the nature of the animus between them.  That includes determining where the Children will attend school and obtaining passports and other documentation for them.  In light of the other decisions being made here those responsibilities will be granted to E. under certain terms and conditions.

[230]     In support of his position that the Children should return to [omitted for publication] School J. relied, in part, on a graph obtained from the website of the Fraser Institute, a think tank, which purported to show that [omitted for publication] School rated higher than [omitted for publication] School year over year in some education categories.  There was no background information provided by J. from the Fraser Institute to explain how those results were obtained or analysed, so that information is of limited value to the Court.

[231]     Regardless of the rating of the two different schools it is clear that the Children continued to excel academically and behaviourally at [omitted for publication] School as they had in the past while attending [omitted for publication] School.

[232]     J. also maintained that the Children would have less travel if they attended [omitted for publication] School and were parented by him and E. on a weekly rotating basis.  At first, J. maintained that both the Children should attend [omitted for publication] School but later acknowledged that it might be appropriate for J.G. to attend [omitted for publication].  In light of that situation the Children, and in particular J.G. would be spending far more time on school buses then they will under the parenting time regime the Court will be imposing.

[233]     The Court also gave careful consideration to the Children's wishes which although undoubtedly influenced by the passage of time clearly indicate that they wish to attend [omitted for publication] School and [omitted for publication] as opposed to returning to [omitted for publication] School.

[234]     After taking into account all of the evidence and submissions presented on the topic the Court has determined that the Parties are incapable of cooperating on the issues surrounding the Children's education and that given where the Court has determined the Children should attend school E. will be left with that parental responsibility.

Parenting Time

[235]     The Consent Order has governed the Parenting time up until now and will continue to do so until October 1, 2018 when a new parenting time regime will replace it.

[236]     The interpretation of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Consent Order was a matter of much contention and litigation between the Parties over the past two years.  J.'s interpretation of the Consent Order is that except for July and August there are no other periods of "vacation" that would require him to share parenting time with E. other than the schedule of him having weekends with the Children and E. having them on the week days.

[237]     E. disagrees with J.'s interpretation stating that such time periods this Christmas and Spring Break are also "vacation" time.  E.'s interpretation found favour with Mr. Justice Blok of the Supreme Court who was unsuccessful in persuading J. to change his view.

[238]     This Court concurs with the interpretation of E. and Mr. Justice Blok concerning the Consent Order.  J.'s view is wrong both with regard to the plain wording of paragraphs 7 and 8 and the spirit of what was intended by those paragraphs.

[239]     In order to eliminate any ambiguity or uncertainty the new Orders for parenting time will be specific and detailed and, on the chance there is some ambiguity, will permit the Parties to seek further clarification and directions from the Court.

[240]     Neither Party nor the Children want the parenting time to remain as it is in the Consent Order.  However, there is a complete lack of consensus as to what changes should be made.

[241]     E. wants at least one weekend per month with the Children.  She says she would like some downtime with the Children which is not available throughout the school year except on weekends.  J. wants a one week alternating schedule.  He says that will allow both he and E. to have both weekend time with the Children and weekday time which will allow them to equally participate in the Children's scholastic and extracurricular endeavours.  The Children, when they made their views known some time ago, wanted the present weekly schedule to continue but with changes to the summer parenting regime

[242]     The Court has considered all of the suggested changes presented in the evidence and submissions and will implement a new regular weekly parenting regime which it believes takes into account some of the concerns raised by the Parties and the Children and is in the Children's best interests.

[243]     The new regular weekly parenting regime will have the following components:

a)            it will be based on a four week rotation;

b)            weekend parenting time will be extended and supersede the weekday parenting time if there is a professional development day or a statutory holiday attached to the weekend;

c)            it will involve both weekday and weekend parenting time for both Parties.  E. will have one weekend and J. will have one school week with the Children in each rotation;

d)            E. will have parenting time on every Mother's Day and J. will have parenting time on every Father's Day;

e)            the birthdays of the Parties and the Children will be part of the regular weekly parenting schedule;

f)            the Easter Weekend, if not associated with School Spring Break vacation will be part of the regular weekly parenting schedule.

[244]     The Court is satisfied that J.'s request to take the Children to Mexico for no more than one school week to attend a family wedding is appropriate so long as the Children have made arrangements with their schools to take any necessary homework with them or to complete some school - directed special project arising from their trip.  Such trips enhance extended family bonds and can provide a valuable educational experience.

[245]     In the event the trip to Mexico encompasses any days that would fall on E.'s regular weekly or weekend parenting time J. will make up those days by relinquishing an equal number of days of E.'s choosing so long as those make - up days fall in the regular weekly parenting time schedule and are utilized before June 30, 2019.

[246]     If either Party wishes to take the Children away from the Fort St. John area for more than 36 hours they shall provide to the other Party, at least seven days in advance, in writing, the trip itinerary including departure and return dates, mode of transportation and if by commercial airlines, the name of the airline, flight number and departure and arrival times, the name of the community or location where the Children will be and contact information where the Children can be reached electronically.  Both Parties should be able to keep in contact with the Children during times apart.

[247]     E. moved the Children some considerable distance from J.'s residence by moving to [omitted for publication].  J. has borne almost all of the transportation time and costs up to now.  That is not fair in the circumstances.  It is appropriate that E. shares some of the transportation duties for the Children thereby reducing J.’s time and expense.

[248]     Most of the exchanges of the Children will occur during the regular weekly parenting time schedule where the Children are already being taken to E.’s office at the end of the school day.  It is appropriate to select a location approximately halfway between Fort St. John and [omitted for publication] for some of the exchanges to occur.  It must be done in a public location where there is a safe and warm place to wait in case one Party is delayed due to weather or road conditions.  For those reasons the Court has selected the [omitted for publication] Store as the Exchange Location.

[249]     There was at least one occasion in the past where J. quite rudely expressed his concern that E.'s mother was bringing the Children to an exchange as opposed to E.  During his evidence J. advised the Court that his employer was flexible with regard to his work commitments regarding parenting time issues but in his submissions he expressed a concern that such flexibility may not be available to him in the future.

[250]     In order to alleviate some of the stresses that might occur with regard to their employment hours or facing each other at the Exchange Location, the Parties will not be required to personally attend and may appoint surrogates of their choice to attend on their behalf.

[251]     The Children's School Christmas vacation will be divided approximately in half between the Parties, alternating from the first half to the last half year to year, with the further proviso that if the Party who has the first half of the vacation remains at home, they will provide a specified 24-hour period including part of Christmas Day for the Children to spend with the other Party.

[252]     After careful consideration, and recognizing the Children's wishes as well as their increasing age and maturity, the Court concludes that the dividing of vacation times such as School Spring Break and the School Summer Vacation into larger time blocks would benefit both the Children and the Parties.  Such a schedule will reduce the number of times the Children need be exchanged, allow for some meaningful parenting time and permit out of town vacation trips.

[253]     The School Spring Break will be spent entirely with one Party or the other in alternate years.

[254]     The School Summer vacation will be divided into four blocks.  There will be time limits imposed for each Party to make their selection of which two of the four blocks they wish and who receives the first selection will alternate each year.  In the event selections are not made in a timely fashion there will be provision for default time blocks to be imposed.

[255]     In order to allow sufficient time for the Children to prepare for the school year E. will have parenting time from the end of the School Summer Vacation period until school commences in September each year.

[256]     There was evidence presented that J. has, from time to time, confiscated one or more of the Children's electronic devices during his parenting time.  This behaviour must and will stop.  Regardless of which Party the Children are with the Children are entitled to communicate with the other Party on a regular basis.  However, it would be appropriate for each Party to impose reasonable limits with regard to how frequently and at what times of the day the Children should feel free to contact the other Party and provide that information to the other Party.

[257]     During the course of the proceeding, issues were raised with regard to one Party or the other over - holding the Children at the end of their parenting time.  With the new and more detailed parenting time regime set out in this decision there should be no confusion between the Parties as to when their parenting time starts and stops and where the Children should be returned to on various days.  To ensure accurate and timely compliance with the parenting time regimes there will be police assist clauses.

[258]     The Parties would also be well advised to familiarize themselves with the provisions of Sections 61 and 62 of the FLA which provides for various penalties, including fines, for defying the Court's orders.  Given the past history of this proceeding the Court will not hesitate to immediately impose just sanctions if its Orders are wilfully disregarded.

DECISION

[259]     Upon the Court being advised the name and birthdate of each child is as follows: J.E.M.G. born [omitted for publication] (J.G.) and K.H.G. born [omitted for publication] (K.G.) (collectively the Children).

Children’s Counselling

[260]     Under s. 224(1) (b) of the FLA E.L.G., after receiving and considering the names of suggested professionals from J.R.G., will, within 30 days of this Order, enrol each of the Children in counselling for children who have experienced parental separation with an appropriately certified counsellor or psychologist.

[261]     E.L.G. shall provide confirmation of attendance of the Children with the counsellor or psychologist to the Court and J.R.G. on a quarterly basis until the counsellor or psychologist directs that further assistance for the Children is unnecessary.

[262]     Both Parties will confirm with their employer and provide to the other Party and the Court verification of whether funding from an Employee Assistance Program is available to cover all, or some, of the counselling for the Children.

[263]     In the event the counselling for the Children is not fully covered by an Employee Assistance Program available to either or both of the Parties the cost will be shared between the Parties as may be directed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia with regard to Child Support Guidelines Section 7 Special or Extraordinary expenses.

Parental Responsibilities

[264]     Under Section 40 (2) of the FLA E.L.G. and J.R.G. will each individually exercise the following parental responsibilities for the Children when the Children are residing with them:

a)            making day-to-day decisions affecting the Children and having day-to-day care, control and supervision of the Children;

b)            making decisions respecting where the Children will reside subject to the terms of this Order;

c)            making decisions respecting with whom the Children will associate;

e)            making decisions respecting the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including, if the child is an aboriginal child, the child's aboriginal identity;

h)            giving, refusing or withdrawing consent for the Children, if consent is required;

[265]     Under Section 40 (2) of the FLA E.L.G. and J.R.G. will each individually exercise the following parental responsibilities for the Children:

i)            receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive;

j)              requesting and receiving from third parties health, education or other information respecting the Children;

l)              exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the Children's development.

[266]     Under Section 40 (2) of the FLA E.L.G. and J.R.G. will jointly exercise the following parental responsibility for the Children:

d)            making decisions respecting the Children's participation in extracurricular activities, including the nature, extent and location subject to terms of this Order;

[267]     Under Section 40 (2) of the FLA E.L.G. only will have the following parental responsibilities:

d)            making decisions respecting the Children’s education;

f)            subject to section 17 of the Infants Act, giving, refusing or withdrawing consent to medical, dental and other health-related treatments for the Children except in a medical emergency when J.R.G. may participate in making such decisions;

g)            applying for a passport, licence, permit, benefit, privilege or other thing for the child;

k)            subject to any applicable provincial legislation,

(i)            starting, defending, compromising or settling any proceeding relating to the child, and

(ii)         identifying, advancing and protecting the child's legal and financial interests;

[268]     With the exception of J.G.'s band participation which will continue for so long as she wishes, E.L.G. and J.R.G. shall consult with each other regarding the Children's extracurricular activities.  If they can agree on an activity, the child shall be enrolled in that activity.  They will share the cost of that activity between them as they may agree or as ordered by the Supreme Court.

[269]     If E.L.G. and J.R.G. are unable to agree on an activity for one or both of the Children, each may select no more than one additional activity to enrol the Children in and shall bear all of the costs of that activity.

[270]     E.L.G. and J.R.G. will ensure that the Children regularly attend any of the extracurricular activities they agree to or as selected by one of them as detailed in this Order.

[271]     E.L.G. shall obtain and maintain possession of any passports issued in the name of the Children but shall provide such passports to J.R.G. when requested to permit the Children to travel outside of Canada.  Once the Children have returned to Canada, J.R.G. shall forthwith return the Children’s passports to E.L.G.

.Parenting Time

[272]     Under section 42 of the FLA the Guardians will exercise the following parenting time with the Children.

[273]     The present parenting time schedule under the Consent Order will continue until September 30, 2018.

[274]     When a parenting time exchange does not occur as part of the Children’s school attendance or as otherwise directed in this Order and the Appendices, the Children will be exchanged at [omitted for publication] Store located at [omitted for publication], BC (the Exchange Location).

[275]     If it is not convenient for either E.L.G. or J.R.G. to attend the Exchange Location themselves, they may appoint surrogates of their choice to attend on their behalf for the exchange of the Children.

[276]     Commencing on October 1, 2018 a new regular weekly parenting schedule based on a 28 day, 4 week rotation will commence as set out in Appendices A and B to this decision which will apply to the school year commencing the day after Labour Day and continuing until June 30 each year except as specifically supersede by specified vacation parenting times set out herein.

[277]     If the day preceding or following a Party’s weekend parenting time is a statutory holiday or professional development day, the weekend parenting time will include those additional days and supersede the weekday schedule.

[278]     Easter Weekend, if it is not associated with School Spring Break vacation, will be part of the regular weekly parenting schedule.

[279]     The Birthdays of the Children and the Parties will be part of the regular weekly parenting schedule.

[280]     E.L.G. will have specified parenting time every Mother’s Day from 9:00 am until 7:00 pm with any necessary exchange of the Children to occur at the Exchange Location.

[281]     J.R.G. will have specified parenting time every Father’s Day from 9:00 am until 7:00 pm with any necessary exchange of the Children to occur at the Exchange Location.

[282]     In 2018, only J. will have specified parenting time with the Children for up to 5 school days plus the weekends immediately before and immediately after to permit him to take the Children to Mexico for a family wedding.

[283]     If any of J.’s specified parenting time for the Mexico trip as described above falls on any of E.’s regular weekly or weekend parenting time schedule days, E. may select and J. will relinquish an equal number of days of E.’s choosing so long as the make-up days fall on the regular weekly parenting time schedule and are utilized before June 30, 2019.

[284]     If either Party wishes to take the Children away from the Fort St. John area for more than 36 hours they shall provide to the other Party, at least seven days in advance, in writing, the trip itinerary including departure and return dates, mode of transportation and if by commercial airline the name of the airline, flight number and departure and arrival times, the name of the community or location where the Children will be and contact information where the Children can be reached electronically.

[285]     The Parties will have the following specified parenting time with the Children during the School Christmas vacation:

a)            In 2018 and even numbered years thereafter, E. will have from the close of school on Friday in December and on consecutive days until Noon on the second following Sunday and J. will have the remainder of the vacation until school resumes in January;

b)            In 2019 and odd numbered years thereafter, J. will have from the close of school on Friday in December and on consecutive days until Noon on the second following Sunday and E. will have the remainder of the vacation until school resumes in January;

c)            Notwithstanding the schedule for School Christmas vacation described immediately above; in any year that a Party has the first portion of the School Christmas vacation if they are not travelling with the Children from the Fort St John area, the other Party shall have parenting time with the Children from Noon on Christmas Day until Noon on Boxing Day with any necessary exchange to occur at the Exchange Location.

[286]     Commencing in 2019 and in odd numbered years thereafter, J. shall have the specified parenting time for the entirety of the School Spring Break vacation from the end of classes on the last day of school until school recommences which will include the Easter weekend if it is part of the School Spring Break vacation.

[287]     Commencing in 2020 and in even numbered years thereafter, E. shall have the specified parenting time for the entirety of the School Spring Break vacation from the end of classes on the last day of school until school recommences which will include the Easter weekend if it is part of the School Spring Break vacation.

[288]     Commencing in 2019 and in odd number years thereafter, E. shall have first choice of any two of the four following specified parenting time periods during the School Summer vacation upon electronic written notice to J. by March 31:

a)            July 1 at 9 AM to July 16 at 9 AM;

b)            July 16 at 9 AM to August 1 at 9 AM;

c)            August 1 at 9 AM to August 16 at 9 AM;

d)            August 16 at 9 AM to August 31 at 9 AM.

[289]     In the event E. has not indicated her selections for the School Summer vacation to J. by March 31, J. will indicate his choice of any two of the four time periods by April 7.

[290]     Commencing in 2020 and in even number years thereafter, J. shall have first choice of any two of the four following specified parenting time periods during the School Summer vacation upon electronic written notice to E. by March 31:

a)            July 1 at 9 AM to July 16 at 9 AM;

b)            July 16 at 9 AM to August 1 at 9 AM;

c)            August 1 at 9 AM to August 16 at 9 AM;

d)            August 16 at 9 AM to August 31 at 9 AM.

[291]     In the event J. has not indicated his selections for the School Summer vacation to E. by March 31, E. will indicate his choices of two of the four time periods by April 7.

[292]     If in any year neither of the Parties indicates their selections for the School Summer vacation within the parameters described above, E. will have parenting time during the periods b) and d) and J. will have parenting time during the periods a) and c).

[293]     All required exchanges of the Children for School Summer vacation will occur at the Exchange Location.

[294]     In every year E. will have parenting time from the end of the School Summer vacation until school commences in September.

[295]     Each of the Parties will have reasonable telephone and/or electronic communication with the Children when they are enjoying parenting time with the other Party.  Neither Party will confiscate from the Children any electronic devices belonging to the Children at any time.

[296]     Upon being satisfied that a person has wrongfully withheld the Children from a guardian, the Court orders under s. 231(5) of the FLA that a police officer, including any member of the RCMP, apprehend the Children and take them to the guardian entitled to parenting time.

[297]     Upon being satisfied that a person has been wrongfully denied parenting time with the Children by the Children’s guardian, this Court orders under s. 231(4) of the FLA that a police officer, including any member of the RCMP, apprehend the Children and take them to the guardian entitled to parenting time.

[298]     For the purpose of locating and apprehending a child in accordance with this order, under s. 231(6) of the FLA a police officer, including any member of the RCMP, may enter and search any place he or she has reasonable and probable grounds for believing the child to be.

Conduct Orders

[299]     Under Sections 222 through 228 of the FLA the Parties will be subject to the following Conduct Orders.

[300]     The Parties will not consume, possess or be under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance within the meaning of Section 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, except as prescribed by a licensed physician, during their parenting time and for 36 hours before their parenting time begins;

[301]     Except at the Exchange Location for the Children or in an emergency, the Parties will communicate with each other only through data based electronic communications including texts, email and social media and then only on topics concerning the Children or the Supreme Court proceedings (if permitted by the Supreme Court).  Face-to-face communication is permitted at the Exchange Location.  In an emergency, telephone or face to face communications are permitted.

[302]     The Parties will:

a)            put the best interests of the Children before their own interests;

b)            encourage the Children to have a good relationship with the other Party and speak to the Children about the other Party and that Party’s partner 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.

[303]     The Parties will not:

a)            question the Children about the other Party or time spent with the other Party beyond simple conversational questions;

b)            discuss with the Children any inappropriate adult, court or legal matters; or

c)            blame, criticize or disparage the other Party to the Children.

[304]     The Parties will encourage their respective families to refrain from any negative comments about the other Party and his or her extended family, and from discussions in front of the Children concerning family issues or litigation.

[305]     On any days J. is required to pick up or return the Children to their schools, E. shall not be within 50 meters of either school for the 30 minutes prior to school commencement.

[306]     J. and anybody acting in his place or as his agent shall not without E.’s specific permission, capture any visual images of E. either by still photography or video when she is not exercising her parenting time.

[307]     E.L.G. and J.R.G. are at liberty to apply by way of Notice of Motion for directions concerning the implementation or enforcement of this Order.

[308]     After December 31, 2018 the Parties may jointly apply to vary the terms of this Order by filing the required Request, Affidavit, Consent and Consent Order to be reviewed by this Judge to ensure it meets the best interests of the Children before being granted.

[309]     Except as provided for immediately above the Parties are prohibited from making any further Applications to the Court without leave of this Judge before January 1, 2020.

[310]     The requirement to obtain the Parties’ signature approving the form of this Order is dispensed with.

[311]     A copy of this decision shall be placed in the British Columbia Supreme Court file involving the Parties for the assistance of that Court

 

 

_______________

M.J. Brecknell

Regional Administrative Judge

Northern Region

Provincial Court of BC


 

Appendix A

School Year Regular Weekly Parenting Schedule

Week 1

 

Day 1 - Monday

Children taken to their schools by J.

Children picked up from their schools by E.

Day 2 - Tuesday

Children with E.

Day 3 - Wednesday

Children with E.

Day 4 - Thursday

Children with E.

Day 5 - Friday

Children taken to their schools by E.

Children picked up from their schools by E. and taken to Exchange

Location for 4:00pm for pick up by J.

Day 6 - Saturday

Children with J.

Day 7 - Sunday

Children with J.

Week 2

 

Day 8 - Monday

Children taken to their schools by J.

Children picked up from their schools by E.

Day 9 - Tuesday

Children with E.

Day 10 - Wednesday

Children with E.

Day 11 - Thursday

Children with E.

Day 12 - Friday

Children taken to their schools by E.

Children picked up from their schools by E.

Day 13 - Saturday

Children with E.

Day 14 - Sunday

Children with E.

Week 3

 

Day 15 - Monday

Children taken to their schools by E.

Children picked up from their schools by E. and taken to Exchange Location for 4:00pm for pick up by J.

Day 16 - Tuesday

Children with J..  Children taken to their schools by J.

Children picked up from their schools by E. and taken to Exchange Location for 4:00pm for pick up by J..

Day 17 - Wednesday

Children with J..  Children taken to their schools by J.

Children picked up from their schools by E. and taken to Exchange Location for 4:00pm for pick up by J.

Day 18 - Thursday

Children with J..  Children taken to their schools by J.

Children picked up from their schools by E. and taken to Exchange Location for 4:00pm for pick up by J.

Day 19 - Friday

Children with J..  Children taken to their schools by J.

Children picked up from their schools by E. and taken to Exchange Location for 4:00pm for pick up by J.

Day 20 - Saturday

Children with J.

Day 21 - Sunday

Children with J.

Week 4

 

Day 22 - Monday

Children taken to their schools by J.

Children picked up from their schools by E.

Day 23 - Tuesday

Children with E.

Day 24 - Wednesday

Children with E.

Day 25 - Thursday

Children with E.

Day 26 - Friday

Children taken to their schools by E.

Children picked up from their schools by E. and taken to Exchange Location for 4:00pm for pick up by J.

Day 27 - Saturday

Children with J.

Day 28 - Sunday

Children with J.

Appendix B

School Year Regular Weekly Parenting Schedule

Weeks for the 2018 - 2019 and 2019 - 2020 School Years

2018

Week 1 - October 1 - 7

Week 2 - October 8 - 14

Week 3 - October 15 - 21

Week 4 - October 22 - 28

Week 1 - October 29 - November 4

Week 2 - November 5 - 11

Week 3 - November 12 - 18

Week 4 - November 19 - 25

Week 1 - November 26 - December 2

Week 2 - December 3 - 9

Week 3 - December 10 - 16

Week 4 - December 17 - 21*

2019

Week 1 - January 7 - 13

Week 2 - January 14 - 20

Week 3 - January 21 - 27

Week 4 - January 28 - February 3

Week 1 - February 4 - 10

Week 2 - February 11 - 17

Week 3 - February 18 - 24

Week 4 - February 25 - March 3

Week 1 - March 4 - 10

Week 2 - March 11 - 17

Week 3 - March 18 - 24

Week 4 - March 25 - 31

Week 1 - April 1 - 7

Week 2 - April 8 - 14

Week 3 - April 15 - 21

Week 4 - April 22 - 28

Week 1 - April 29 - May 5

Week 2 - May 6 - 12

Week 3 - May 13 - 19

Week 4 - May 20 - 26

Week 1 - May 27 - June 2

Week 2 - June 3 - 9

Week 3 - June 10 - 16

Week 4 - June 17 - 23

Week 1 - June 24 - 30

School Summer Vacation

Week 1 - September 3* - 8

Week 2 - September 9 - 15

Week 3 - September 16 - 22

Week 4 - September 23 - 29

Week 1 - September 30 - October 6

Week 2 - October 7 - 13

Week 3 - October 14 - 20

Week 4 - October 21 - 27

Week 1 - October 28 - November 3

Week 2 - November 4 - 10

Week 3 - November 11 - 17

Week 4 - November 18 - 24

Week 1 - November 25 - December 1

Week 2 - December 2 - 8

Week 3 - December 9 - 15

Week 4 - December 16 - 20*

2020

Week 1 - January 6 - 12

Week 2 - January 13 - 19

Week 3 - January 20 - 26

Week 4 - January 27 - February 2

Week 1 - February 3 - 9

Week 2 - February 10 - 16

Week 3 - February 17 - 23

Week 4 - February 24 - March 1

Week 1 - March 2 - 8

Week 2 - March 9 - 15

Week 3 - March 16 - 22

Week 4 - March 23 - 29

Week 1 - March 30 - April 5

Week 2 - April 6 - 12

Week 3 - April13 - 19

Week 4 - April 20 - 26

Week 1 - April 27 - May 3

Week 2 - May 4 - 10

Week 3 - May 11 - 17

Week 4 - May 18 - 24

Week 1 - May 25 - June 1

Week 2 - June 2 - 8

Week 3 - June 9 - 15

Week 4 - June 16 - 22

Week 1 - June 23 - 30*