[1]           This Case concerns where the Children should Reside, Parenting Time and Responsibilities, an Allegation of Alienation and the Validity of the Section 211 Reports.

[2]           E.L. (“the Mother”) and M.L. (“the Father”) were married for 18 years and then separated. The year of the separation was 2012.

[3]           They have three Children together: Child A who is now 16 years old; Child B who is now 13 years old; and Child C who is now 12 years old.

[4]           After their separation, which was in 2012, the parenting time, parenting responsibilities and residency of the Children were split 50-50 between the Mother and the Father.

[5]           At the time of separation, Child A was 9 years old, Child B was years old and Child C was 5 years old.

[6]           The Parents signed a Separation Agreement in 2013 providing that the residence, parenting time and parenting responsibilities for all three Children would be split 50-50 between them.

[7]           However, beginning in 2015 and continuing into 2018, the Father was reporting allegations of sexual abuse of the three Children by the Mother. This reporting began in 2015. The allegations of sexual abuse were reported to the Ministry of Child and Family and to the Police.

[8]           All of the allegations were investigated by both the Ministry and the Police and both concluded that the allegations of sexual abuse could not be substantiated. The Ministry and the Police found that although there was no sexual abuse, the Mother had engaged in “inappropriate nude activities” with her Children.

[9]           The “inappropriate nude activities” included the Mother playing the “Booby Game” with the Children. The Booby Game involved the Mother, while they were all together naked, in her bed, placing the Children’s heads between her breasts and then gently hitting each side of their head with her breasts.

[10]        The Booby Game actually started when the Mother and Father were still living together. The Father was in bed at the time the Booby Game was being played and he did not object to it. It should be remembered though that at the time they separated, the Children were still only 9, 6 and 5 years of age.

[11]        However, after the separation, the Mother continued to play the Booby Game with her three Children.

[12]        The Police and Ministry investigations concluded, that in addition to playing the Booby Game, the Mother would sometimes walk around the house in the nude and also, sometimes would have the Children in bed with her while they were all naked.

[13]        The Police and Ministry Investigations both concluded that the Booby Game was still ongoing but were of the opinions that there was no sexual abuse and no sexual intent by the Mother with respect to the Booby Game nor with respect to the other episodes of nudity in the house.

[14]        The Mother did admit to playing the Booby Game but insisted that it was just a fun and playful game without any sexual connotations at all.

[15]        I share the views and conclusions of the Police and Ministry that the Mother’s “Booby Game” played were not sexually motivated but find that she was incredibly naïve and thoughtless in continuing this type of behaviour with her Children as they became older and more mature.

[16]        Everything came to light when Child A, the oldest daughter, was about 12 years old. She confided in her School Guidance Counsellor after a Sex Ed Class that she felt extremely uncomfortable with her Mother persisting in playing the Booby Game with her and her two little sisters. She felt that something was not right about this.

[17]        The Guidance Counsellor, quite properly, immediately brought these serious allegations to the attention of the Ministry, the Police and the Father.

[18]        After the Police and the Ministry concluded that the Mother’s actions involving “sexual” inappropriateness were unsubstantiated, the Father (and I should say, also his Wife), nevertheless continued and still continue to believe that the Mother’s acts were both inappropriate and of a sexual nature.

[19]        Part of the reason that the Father and his current Wife continued to believe that these were sexually inappropriate acts was because Child A continued to maintain and see these acts by the Mother as sexually inappropriate acts. The Father and his Wife believed Child A when she said that the Booby Game was sexual and that was notwithstanding that the Police and the Ministry did not share that view. They honesty believed Child A who continued to talk about her Mother’s conduct as inappropriate sexual interference with them.

[20]        There is some uncertainty as to exactly when the Booby Game stopped. It was either after the Police interviewed the Mother about the allegations or it was after the Mother spoke to a male neighbour friend who said to her that it was kind of a strange and an inappropriate thing for her to be doing. Whatever the reason was that she stopped, it would have been in 2015 and she acknowledged and realized that her behaviour with the Children as they aged, was wrong.

[21]        There is no question in my mind that the Booby Game which the Mother insisted on playing with her Children as they got older was a form of “family violence” as defined in Section 1 of the Family Law Act and served to cause them emotional distress and emotional harm. The Mother did not, in my view, play this Game for any sexual purpose but in continuing to play this Game when her Children were no longer infants, showed incredibly poor judgement, naivety, and thoughtlessness.

[22]        Child A was the first Child to move out of her Mother’s house. She moved into her Father and Stepmother’s house, full-time in 2016.

[23]        Child B and Child C continued to live 50% of the time with their Mother and 50% of the time with their Father and his Wife until June 1, 2017. They then both moved-in with their Father and their Stepmother.

[24]        From June 1, 2017 onwards, all three Children lived exclusively with their Father and their Stepmother. According to the Father, Stepmother, School and the three Children themselves, the Children are now very happy at home, doing well at School and have made lots of friends.

[25]        Since 2017, all three Children have adamantly refused to spend time with their Mother. It is fair to say that their oldest Child, Child A, has been the most vocal and entrenched of the Children as far as her unwillingness to have anything at all to do with her Mother.

[26]        However having said that, it is clear that over the last couple of years, Child B and Child C have also become equally entrenched and adamant in their positions that they simply do not want to see or interact at all with their Mother.

[27]        Starting in 2015, Child A, in particular as I have said, became extremely angry and antagonistic to her Mother and still is. She absolutely refused since 2015 (and continues to refuse) to go to the Mother’s house or spend any time with her unless she is forced to do so by her Father or the Court. She only goes in order “to protect her sisters”.

[28]        From 2017 onwards, the two younger Children, Child B and Child C have reluctantly gone for visits with their Mother but only because the Court ordered the Father to facilitate visits with their Mother. Child A has accompanied them only because she wanted “to protect them from their Mother”.

[29]        After the Ministry’s initial involvement, the Mother’s time with the Children was supervised but then later became unsupervised.

[30]        The relationship between the Mother and each of her Children has continued to deteriorate over the years.

[31]        The Parents have been battling each other in Family Court since 2013.

[32]        This Trial began almost two years ago.

[33]        Both the Mother and the Father called a number of Witnesses to attest to what good parents they were. The Mother’s Witnesses, due to the circumstances, of course, were only able to talk about her loving relationship with the Children prior to 2015. The observations provided by the Father’s Witnesses were up-to-date.

[34]        Over the last 2 years, the Court has continuously directed the Father to do everything humanly possible to facilitate the three Children visiting with their Mother. I am not certain whether or not the Father, for the first long while anyway, actually did do everything in his power to make these visits happen. However, I am satisfied that over the past 7 or 8 months, the Father has done whatever he could to facilitate and encourage the Children to visit with their Mother.

[35]        Unfortunately, the compulsory Parenting Time Ordered over the past few years has been counterproductive. Supervised or unsupervised, frequent or infrequent, person to person or FaceTime have all been tried over the last four years. Not only have things not improved over the last four years, they have gotten worse. The Children have adamantly resisted spending time with their Mother. They have not wanted to see their Mother and have gone to extremes to avoid spending any time at all with her.

[36]        The Children run away from the spots where the Father drops them off to meet their Mother. They run and hide in nearby coffee shops or hop onto transit buses to avoid having to be with their Mother.

[37]        In 2017, 2018 and 2019, Child A video and audio taped four of the Parenting Times that their Mother had with her and her two younger sisters. (Exhibits 52-58, Exhibit H and Exhibit 78).

[38]        The video and audio tapes were simultaneously chilling and heart breaking to watch and hear. The Children would scream, cry or plead with their Mother to listen to them, to apologize to them and to explain why her behaviour toward them was what it was.

[39]        In other moments, the Children would become silent and try to absorb themselves in busy work, obviously, to make the time pass quicker. During those times, the Mother would try nonstop to interrupt their solitude by attempting to engage them in inane conversation. The Children appeared to become increasingly frustrated and angry.

[40]        Throughout these Parenting Times, the Mother simply would not listen. She showed no empathy or understanding whatsoever. Instead, she would sometimes put her hands over her ears, shake her head from side-to-side and make those “la,la,la” sing-sound sounds that little children do with their playmates when they want to show them that they are not interested in listening to anything they have to say. At other times, she would spread a newspaper in front of her and slowly flip through it, pretending to be absorbed in reading. Suddenly, she might call out to one of the Children that she had just seen their horoscope and their future looked very bright.

[41]        Whenever the Children would desperately try to get her undivided attention by pleading or screaming at her to listen to them, the Mother would refuse to engage with them and so it continued like that from one Parenting Time to the next. Over the past two years, during the trial period, I can say that the communication and relationships between the Children and their Mother have continued to deteriorate.

[42]        I know that the behaviour of the Children towards their Mother was heart breaking and excruciatingly painful to her. However, the Mother is the Adult and Parent, she is not the Child in the relationships. Her obligation and duty to the Children was to be present for them, talk to them, explain things to them, apologize to them and try to do everything in her power to move their relationship forward in a positive way. She had those opportunities but sadly, she just was not able to seize those moments and accordingly, the relationships continue to remain toxic.

[43]        Watching and listening to the videos clearly shows dismissive, uncaring and inflammatory behaviour towards the Children. The Children’s feelings of powerlessness, frustration, anger and hurt at each and every one of these meetings, is palatable.

[44]        Dr. Posthuma did suggest to the Mother that she take personal counselling and therapy. He also gave her some suggestions as to how she could better deal with her estranged Children.

[45]        The Mother did undertake some counselling but any positive results were not evident while viewing and listening to those video and audio tapes. It was also obvious that the Mother was not using any learned techniques or strategies in handling the emotionally toxic encounters.

[46]        The relationship between the Mother and Father has been and still is very acrimonious, conflicted and toxic. It has had the effect of exacerbating the emotional abuse of the Children.

[47]        The relationship between the Mother and her Children was so dysfunctional and toxic during the Parenting Times when they were together, I find that it fell within the Family Law Act’s definition of “family violence” in Section 1.

[48]        The Family were in high conflict and the Children were suffering such emotional abuse and distress at the hands of the Mother, midway through the Trial, a Children’s Advocate, a Lawyer, was appointed to represent the three Children for the remainder of the Trial.

[49]        After the Children’s Advocate was appointed, it quickly became evident that their Lawyer would be arguing that the three Children should remain living exclusively with their Father and Stepmother, the Father and Stepmother should have all of the Parenting Time and Parenting Responsibilities and that all contact between the Mother and the Children should be terminated.

[50]        Let me canvass some of the incidents showing very poor judgement by the Mother in relation to the Children.

[51]        An incident showing very poor parental judgment by the Mother occurred when the Mother and the Children were having Parenting Time at a local Starbucks. The Mother said that she was going to call the Law Society and have their Lawyer fired. The Children were shocked, angry and frightened. There was no discussion, just the cold threat. Child A called their Lawyer on behalf of herself and her Sisters. They were in a panic. Their Lawyer calmed them down and assured them that it would not be possible for their Mother to have her fired.

[52]        Another incident showing very poor parental judgment by the Mother occurred at another Parenting Time at Starbucks on September 13, 2018. The Mother told Child A (in the presence of the two other Children), that both the Judge and she have given up on Child A and that she should just go live with “her white Mother”.

[53]        Another incident showing very poor parental judgment which occurred subsequent to the involvement of the Children’s Lawyer was this: all three Children desperately wanted to transfer from [omitted for publication] to [omitted for publication]. They had two reasons for wanting this transfer:

[54]        This piece of poor parental judgment stands out because the Mother, rather than discussing the possibility of a transfer to [omitted for publication] with her Children or their Father, just put her foot down and said, “No”, it’s not going to happen. There was no logical reason to oppose the transfer and there was no good reason for her to decide to dig in her heels but she did so anyway.

[55]        Further, to make matters even worse, during one of her Parenting Times, the Mother pretended to pick up her phone and call their Principal to stop the transfer. She also told them that she had already talked to the Principal and that he had already agreed to abort the transfer. This was not true. The Children were hysterical and called their Lawyer as quickly as possible. An urgent Motion was filed and a Hearing was quickly held. The Court Ordered that the Children be allowed to transfer to [omitted for publication]. See the Judgment of this Court, dated August 22, 2018.

[56]        Another example of poor parenting judgment occurred when during one of the Parenting Times, the Mother told the Children that their Father only wanted them living with him so that he could get child maintenance money. This was completely untrue.

[57]        The Mother would also frequently tell the Children that their Father was not obeying Court Orders and that she would be taking him to see the Judge.

[58]        Other examples of the Mother’s poor parenting judgment are evidenced by her decisions to call the Police to assist her in picking up her Children for her Parenting Time. She did so once in March of 2015 and three other times in August of 2016. It is true that she had the Police Assist Clause available to her that was there for her use but she resorted to calling the Police when none of these situations were at all, “dire or necessary”. Resorting to calling the Police when the situations were neither dire nor absolutely essential, amounts to her having deliberately inflicted unnecessary traumatic situations for the Children. This was a display of very poor parental judgment by the Mother.

[59]        Another key example of the Mother showing very poor judgment toward her Children was this: the Children have complained to the Police, the Ministry, their Father and Stepmother that their Mother frequently walked around the house in the nude, had frequently snuggled in bed with them while everyone was nude and had “inappropriately” touched them. The Police and the Ministry both concluded that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate these allegations. However, it is very obvious that what the Mother ought to have done, was to have acknowledged to the Children that they had made these complaints, discussed with them how they had come to see her actions as sexual, acknowledged their feelings, told them how sorry she felt that they were feeling so badly and try to “own up” to any role she had played in causing all this distress for them. She did not do any of this. Instead, she blamed the Children, the Ministry, the Father, Stepmother and Dr. Posthuma for making up and adhering to all these totally false allegations against her. This blaming attitude was confirmed by the Ministry Social Workers, the Police Investigators, the Father, the Stepmother and Dr. Posthuma. Equally important, this was the same attitude and “blaming” that the Mother exhibited in her Testimony.

[60]        In my view, all of the foregoing amounts to “family violence” as defined in Sections 1(d) and 1(e) of the Family Law Act. In this Case, we have seen: the significant emotional harm experienced by the Children in the instances previously outlined, which had demonstrated extremely poor judgment by the Mother when dealing with her Children; we have seen the Mother allowing and abetting the prolonged toxic emotional environment to continue for months and months during her Parenting Times; we have seen the Mother never taking the initiative to begin effective steps to try control the deteriorating sessions; and we have seen the Mother communicating with her Children in an immature, goading and anguishing manner during her Parenting Times, thereby creating an emotionally charged and highly frustrating experience for her Children. In addition, of course, we have the evidence of the Mother inappropriately prolonging the Booby Game with her Children, especially with Child A; and we have the Mother’s outright refusal to even acknowledge the hurt and harm the Children were feeling nor to ever offer a sincere apology or explanation to them.

[61]        At the request and urging of the Mother, the Father, the Mother’s Lawyer, the Children’s Lawyer, as well as the three Children themselves, I agreed to see each of the Children, separately in my Chambers. I should note that by this time, the Father was conducting his case without Counsel.

[62]        I saw each of the Children in Chambers on March 29, 2019. Each Child was escorted separately to and from my Chambers by their Lawyer. Each Child was interviewed separately. A Provincial Court Clerk stayed in the Chambers for the complete interviews. The interviews were carried out as I had advised everyone on the Record in the Courtroom, beforehand. The interviews were audiotaped by the Court Clerk with each Child’s consent; after each interview, I immediately made notes of the interview. After all three interviews were completed, I prepared a short Summary of each interview to be provided to the Parties and their Counsel. The Children readily consented to the audio taping. Each Child was told that the audio tapes would be sealed in the Court Registry and would only be opened if I or another Judge authorized them to be opened. Each Child was told that I would be preparing a short Summary of my interview with her and would be giving a copy of the Summary to their Parents, their Mother’s Lawyer and their own Lawyer. I advised each Child that these Summaries were not going to be sealed. The three Summaries were filed as Exhibit 82.

[63]        Each of the three Interviews were conducted in the same way. First a few treats and milk were served, then a few moments of “chit chat” to make them as comfortable as possible, then a discussion of what their views were insofar as where they wanted to be living, then questions as to how frequently they wanted to see, talk or be with their Mother, their Father and their Stepmother and then, each Child was asked to give their reasons for holding the views that they did.

[64]        All three Children struck me as mature, thoughtful and articulate for their respective ages. All three Children seemed surprisingly comfortable, open and willing to talk about their family situation. They knew that the Court Case was about where they each should be living and how often they were to be with their Mother and their Father. Each Child was told that their views were very important to me but they had to know that it would exclusively be my decision to make and not theirs. Each Child said that their Lawyer had already told them that.

[65]        Each Child was adamant that they did not want to see, talk or be with their Mother. Each Child described their Mother as never even trying to listen to them. Each Child described their Mother as often being angry towards them and not making any efforts to apologize or explain to them the reasons for her past and present behaviours towards them. Each Child told me that before, during and after encounters with their Mother over the last two years, they would be anxious and feel horrible. Each Child also raised the issue of not being able to understand why their Mother was trying so hard to prevent them from going to [omitted for publication] l where they desperately wanted to go. They each also mentioned wanting to travel with their Dad and Stepmother but their Mother always insisted on preventing that and once again they were at a loss to figure out why that was.

[66]        I did not discuss the Booby Game or the nudity allegations with the Children.

[67]        Each Child spoke fondly and lovingly of their relationship with their Father and their Stepmother. They each referred to their Stepmother as their “Mother” and to their Biological Mother as, “E.”. Each Child told me how happy they were to be all together at [omitted for publication] instead of the [omitted for publication]. They talked about all the new close friends they had made at the School and how comfortable and happy they were there. Each Child smiled as they talked about their life with their Father and their Stepmother. They each spoke about how easy it was to talk with them, to raise any issues with them and how both of them had endless patience to listen and talk to them at any given time. They also spoke of the myriad of fun, intellectual and physical activities they enjoyed with them. In short, they were very content, happy and well-adjusted living there full time. They each expressed that the major problem in their life was with their Mother (“E.”).

[68]        Each Child was firm in not wanting to communicate at all with their Mother.

[69]        However, there might have been a few small “bright spots”.

[70]        Child A said that maybe after she became an Adult, she would be able to deal with her Mother on an equal footing and maybe then, she would be willing to try to engage with her in some way. She said that for now, she felt she needed at least a three year break from her Mother.

[71]        Child B, who is very religious said that if God told her that she should speak to her Mother, then she would, but she quickly added “so far He has not.” She said that she often prays for her Mother to go and get some help for her problems.

[72]        Child C said that she did not want to see her Mother again. The way she phrased it was, “what’s the point in having a meeting if she is not even trying or wanting to talk and I don’t want her to hurt me anymore?”

[73]        I would refer to what I said may be “possible bright spots” as this: Child A said, “maybe in three years”, Child B said that if God intervened with instructions, she would obey and Child C (subtly) hinted that maybe, if her Mother received some help, they could try to talk again.

[74]        That may be way too optimistic but that unfortunately, that’s all there is.

[75]        The Mother's Counsel argued that the Children had been “alienated”. There were three fatal problems with Counsel’s argument that the Children had been alienated.

[76]        If one party alleges that alienation of the children has occurred, that party must call a child psychiatrist or child psychologist as an expert witness to provide their opinion that the children have, in fact, been alienated and that particular child psychiatrist or child psychologist must have examined the children in order to come to that opinion. See Williamson v. Williamson, 2016 BCCA 87 at para. 30; D.S.W. v. D.A.W., 2012 BCSC 1522; and M.A.N.R. v. D.J.S., 2018 BCSC 2136 at paras 19-23. In this case, Counsel did not call an expert witness who had examined the Children. Counsel did not call a child psychiatrist or child psychologist to testify that the Children had been alienated.

[77]        Furthermore, the Mother's Counsel was completely unclear as to exactly what her allegation was. Once, she referred to the Children as being "alienated". Another time, she referred to the Children as being "brainwashed". Another time, she referred to the Children as being “under coercive control”. The case law has recognized the psychological diagnosis of “alienation” but has not recognized a psychological diagnosis of coercive control or brainwashing.

[78]        In addition, at one point, the Mother's Counsel argued that it was the Father who alienated his Children. At another time, the Mother's Counsel argued that it was the Father’s Wife who alienated the Children. At another time, the Mother’s Counsel argued that it was all or some combination of the Father, his Wife and the oldest Child (Child A) who had alienated the two youngest Children.

[79]        Accordingly, it is my finding alienation nor either of the other two allegations have been proven.

[80]        I now turn to a consideration of what weight should be given to the two Section 211 Reports that were written by Dr. Posthuma.

[81]        Dr. Posthuma prepared the first Section 211 Report in 2015 (Exhibit # 60) and an updated second Section 211 Report in 2017 (Exhibit # 61).

[82]        Both of the Section 211 Reports were very negative towards the Mother. Dr. Posthuma was highly critical of the Mother's relationship with the Children. Dr. Posthuma was very positive about the Children's excellent relationship with their Father and their Stepmother. Dr. Posthuma outlined the Views of each of the Children as being definite that they wanted to live exclusively with their Father and their Stepmother and they did not want to have any contact at all with their biological Mother.

[83]        The Mother's Counsel challenged the validity, reliability and professionalism of Dr. Posthuma’s Reports.

[84]        The Mother’s Counsel was invited and encouraged on at least three occasions, to call Dr. Posthuma for cross-examination. She refused each time. See: Rule 11 of the Provincial Court Family Rules dealing with disputing Section 211 Reports and the availability of the cross-examination process for the authors of Section 211 Reports.

[85]        Instead of calling Dr. Posthuma for cross-examination, the Mother's Counsel produced a short “Critique Report” by Dr. Waterman who was critical of some of the methodology used by Dr. Posthuma. Critique Reports have generally been looked upon as having little or no weight. See: Hejzlar v. Mitchell-Hejzlar, 2010 BCSC 1139 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC1139; L.C.T. v. R.K., 2017 BCCA 64; and Sandhu v. Bhullar, 2016 B.C.J. No. 2272. Dr. Waterman did not interview the Children nor did he interview the Father, although he did interview the Mother. His Report was filed as an Exhibit only for the purpose of serving as a “Critique Report” and I did not find it to be useful for my deliberations.

[86]        The Mother’s Counsel also reduced to writing 91 criticisms of Dr. Posthuma’s investigation, interviewing, the methodologies he used and his professional opinions. None of these criticisms, of course, were put to Dr. Posthuma’s because he was not called to the Witness Stand to be cross-examined. However, this list of criticisms was permitted to be filed as an Exhibit, with the Caveat that the matter of what weight should be given to them was questionable, given that Dr. Posthuma’s was not given the opportunity to answer any of these criticisms.

[87]        The Mother’s Counsel further advised that the Mother had complained to The College of Psychologists of BC about the Section 211 Reports which Dr. Posthuma had prepared for her Family Law Trial. This Complaint was made pursuant to The College of Psychologists Complaint Process which process set out in sections 32 – 37 of The Health Professions Act.

[88]        The procedure is for the Registrar to refer the Complaint to the Inquiry Committee together with his/her assessment of the Complaint and any of his/her recommendations for the disposition of the Complaint. Next, the Inquiry Committee investigates the matters raised by the Complaint and makes a Decision. The Decision can be to take no any further action and dismisses the Complaint, attempt to resolve the matter between the Psychologist and the Complainant, reprimand or take remedial action against the Psychologist or Direct that a Citation be issued against the Psychologist. Whatever the Inquiry decides, they must provide a letter to the Complainant outlining their findings and their Decision.

[89]        Unfortunately, before the Inquiry could conclude, Dr. Posthuma’s elected to resign his Membership in the College with the undertaking that he would not reapply for Membership in the future.

[90]        The end result was that a full Inquiry never took place and there was no finding, one way or the other as to any wrongdoings, negligence or unprofessionalism, as was alleged by the Mother.

[91]        In the Courtroom, I already explained to the Parties that without a Decision being made by the College, I would not be able to even take into consideration the fact that they had convened an Inquiry. I explained then and now repeat that a Judge cannot follow the maxim, “Where there’s Smoke, there’s Fire”.

[92]        Therefore, I have not, in my deliberations, considered the fact that a Complaint was made to the Registrar, that the Registrar saw fit to refer the Complaint to the next step (to the Inquiry Committee) nor that an Inquiry into Dr. Posthuma’s work on the Mother’s Family Court File was underway.

[93]        The questions which still remain however, in view of all the foregoing, what weight should be given to Dr. Posthuma’s Reports?

[94]        Before answering that Question, I should say at the outset that I have decided that I have sufficient evidence based upon everything that I have set out in all of the foregoing Paragraphs, to make my Decision without using Dr. Posthuma’s two Section 211 Reports.

[95]        The only reason that I am about to make comments concerning his Reports is because the Mother was so passionate about what she believed Dr. Posthuma did wrong and because her Counsel spent such a great deal of time and effort criticising his Reports, that I believe they are entitled to some commentary by this Court. I appreciate that this runs counter to the prevailing wisdom which advises Judges to refrain from offering Obiter Dicta comments.

[96]        Here is a short, not exhaustive, summary of what factors gave me some serious concerns about Dr. Posthuma’s Reports:

[97]        In conclusion, having considered, Sections 1, 37 and 38 of the Family Law Act as those sections relate to the facts of this Case, and the case law cited, it is THE ORDER OF THIS COURT THAT:

[98]        In my view, it is not a psychologically healthy situation for any child, except in cases of extreme abuse, to never again have any contact with one of their birth parents. Accordingly, I will DIRECT that one year from now but only provided that the Mother first provide to a Judge in Chambers, in advance of any Hearing, a Letter of Opinion from a Doctor stating she has engaged in extensive and successful counselling with a Registered Psychiatrist or Registered Child Psychologist and has learned how to modify her behaviour to better relate to and thereby possibly be able to begin a reunion process with her estranged Children. This Court will reconsider, then and only then, the possibility of restoring some Parenting Time to the Mother.