IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           The parties were married in 2009 and separated in December 2018. They have two children,

[2]           K.C., 9 years old and N.C., 6 years old.

[3]           T.C. is applying for an order reinstating his parenting time, however, he would like the court to consider granting him 50% parenting time rather than the previous arrangement he made with R.E. during the pandemic to see his children from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

[4]           R.E. objects to the drastic change in parenting time proposed by T.C. Furthermore, she takes the position that T.C. should exercise his parenting time as they agreed at his residence in Vancouver, which is four blocks from hers, rather than at his girlfriend’s home in Maple Ridge.

[5]           The information that has been placed before me demonstrates that the communication between the parties has been poor. For the most part, this is due to T.C. failing to inform R.E. about his circumstances and intentions, and failing to communicate the steps taken in the household that he intends to reside in to protect the residents there against the Covid Virus.

[6]           When T.C. brought his application, the court directed that he provide full particulars of these matters to R.E., but it has only been in the course of this hearing, through questions put to him, that T.C. has provided complete details.

[7]           These include the fact that both he and his girlfriend (who the children met in December) are working from home. Ms. B.’s son, R.B., who is 9 years old is residing with her and is not visiting his father during the pandemic because he continues to work in construction outside his home. Ms. B. is abiding by all protective guidelines as directed by the Public Health Authorities.

[8]           T.C. and Ms. B. have decided to pool their resources by living in Ms. B.’s residence, which is larger than T.C.’s. It provides room for both adults to do their work from home as well as room for the children to play. The two children will be sharing a queen-sized bed, in a room in which R.B. will sleep on a large blow up mattress on the floor.

[9]           R.E. takes the position that Maple Ridge is too far away. She says that previously the children would walk back and forth between their parents’ homes. Now they will have to undertake a lengthy drive between homes. She is particularly concerned because neither she nor T.C. drive. However, her father and Ms. B. both drive and have access to vehicles.

[10]        R.E. also stated that the children have had difficulty dealing with the separation. They were attending counselling to deal with their anxiety relating to their parents’ separation for some time, which ended because of limited financial resources. Of course, there are not likely counselling resources available for the children at this time.

[11]        She also raised a concern about T.C. having time to supervise the children while he is working from home. This is not an issue because I am not contemplating making any drastic change to the schedule at this time.

[12]        In this case, the only issue is whether T.C. should exercise his parenting time in Vancouver or in Maple Ridge as he proposes. I find that now that he has communicated to R.E. all the precautions in place to deal with the risk of COVID‑19, his proposal to reside with Ms. B. in Maple Ridge is reasonable. Although the children will have to travel between the residences, there is an individual available in each household to provide transportation when necessary. While there is a significant distance between the households, the parties’ adjusted parenting schedule takes into consideration the need to reduce transitions at this time, and the distance is not so great given that each household has transportation available.

[13]        Given the precautions that have been put in place, I find that the residence in Maple Ridge is a safe place for the children to spend time with their father, and will likely provide them with a more comfortable and perhaps more interesting environment than T.C.’s Vancouver home. I cannot find that this is not in the best interests of the children.

[14]        I am going to make an interim order that T.C. will have parenting time with the children from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

[15]        T.C. will transport the children by private vehicle to and from these visits unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

[16]        I will also make an order for such further and other parenting time as agreed between the parents from time to time so that you do not need to come back to court if you are able to reach an agreement as to a different arrangement when circumstances change.

[17]        Finally, I will say that it is incredibly important that separated parents communicate effectively in co-parenting their children. That communication should not focus on the rights of the parents to see their children, but rather on the rights of their children to have parents that can share important information about the children’s safety and welfare respectfully and effectively.

[18]        This case is an example of one party placing his perceived right to his children over the mother’s right and responsibility to ensure the children are protected during an unprecedented crisis. I recognize that the parties’ different views of the residence issue may have ultimately landed them before the court, in any event. However, it is appalling that the matter was brought to the court before full disclosure had been made to R.E. as to what T.C.’s intentions were and as to what precautions had been taken to ensure the children would be safe. I hope that this exercise will bring home to both parties the meaning of co-parenting in the children’s best interests.