IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]         In 2021, L.E.V. and K.V. separated after a twelve-year relationship. For the past eleven years they have resided in [the Williams Lake area], BC. L.E.V. and K.V.’s only child is A.V., a seven year old daughter with special needs. K.V. has been A.V.’s primary caregiver since A.V. was two months’ old. In March 2020, L.E.V. retired and took on increased parenting responsibilities for A.V. K.V. intends to move Abbotsford, BC, where she has friends, family, and employment opportunities. She wants A.V. to move with her. L.E.V. seeks an order prohibiting K.V. from relocating their daughter from the only home she has ever known.

[2]         August 24, 2021, L.E.V. and K.V. appeared before me in Williams Lake Provincial Court with respect to the following matters:

[3]         On August 24, 2021, I heard and dismissed K.V.’s Protection Order Application and provided my oral reasons for doing so. I reserved my decision on L.E.V.’s Priority Parenting Application. The salient issue before me is whether the Court ought to prohibit K.V. from relocating A.V. from [the Williams Lake area] to Abbotsford, BC.

[4]         This matter came before me on August 24, 2021. L.E.V. appeared in person and was represented by Ms. E. Chorneyko; K.V. appeared in person and was self-represented. I heard the oral testimony of L.E.V. and K.V. and received into evidence the affidavits and exhibits filed with the Court. I heard submissions from K.V. and Ms. E. Chorneyko, on behalf of L.E.V. Ms. Chorneyko also provided me with copies of the following legal authorities: (a) Duggan v. White, 2019 BCCA 200; (b) K.L.G. v. D.J.T., 2013 BCSC 1684; and (c) S.R.W. v. R.C.D.A.D., 2021 BCSC 1158.

[5]         The trial on L.E.V.’s Priority Parenting Application concluded at the end of the court day and I reserved my decision. These are my reasons for judgment.

[6]         L.E.V. is 62 years old, having been born on [omitted for publication]. He is former commercial truck driver who is currently retired or semi-retired. K.V. is 53 years old, having been born on [omitted for publication]. K.V. has a long history of working with special needs children and adults and intends to continue doing so.

[7]         L.E.V. and K.V. met and entered into an intimate relationship on October 10, 2009. At that time they both lived in the Lower Mainland. They moved into the family home in [the Williams Lake area] BC, in June 2010. L.E.V. had acquired this home from his father shortly before he commenced his relationship with K.V.

[8]         L.E.V. and K.V. married on [omitted for publication] 2010. They resided together in [the Williams Lake area] until August 11, 2021 . . . [omitted for publication]

[9]         For the past nine years, L.E.V. and K.V. have fostered children who the Director of the Ministry of Child and Family Development (“MCFD”) had removed from their parent’s care.

[10]      In January 2014, MCFD placed A.V. in L.E.V. and K.V.’s home as a foster child. She was just two months old, having been born on [omitted for publication] 2013. She was the biological daughter of S.F. and B.S.  A.V. lived with L.V. and K.V. [in the Williams Lake area] as their foster child until [omitted for publication] 2020, when they formally adopted her. A.V. is L.E.V.’s first and only child; she is the youngest of K.V.’s five children, two of whom are adopted.

[11]      A.V. is a member of the [omitted for publication] First Nation. She suffers from serious developmental deficiencies arising from her in utero exposure to alcohol and street drugs. In 2018, A.V. was assessed by the Interior Health Children’s Assessment Network (“IHCAN”) which included Dr. Carmen Swansen, registered psychologist, Dr. M. McKay, paediatrician, and Lorry-Ann Austin, MSW, RSW, social worker and assessment coordinator. In an assessment report dated May 29, 2018, the IHCAN medical team diagnosed A.V. with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (“FASD”) and determined she met the DMS 5 criteria for Global Developmental Delay. I also understand from L.E.V. and K.V. that A.V. suffers from an anxiety disorder described as selective mutism which renders her unable to speak around certain people or in certain social situations.

[12]      Over the past couple of years L.E.V. and K.V.’s relationship disintegrated. K.V. testified she considered herself “separated” from L.E.V. for approximately two years, although they continued to share the same home and care for A.V. and MCFD foster children. In her applications filed before the court, K.V. claims she separated from L.E.V. on January 12, 2021. L.E.V. says he separated from K.V. on June 17, 2021, when she provided him with written notice of her intention to relocate to Abbotsford with A.V. Nevertheless, they continued to share [their residence in the Williams Lake area]. L.E.V. says that in December 2020, they had five foster children residing in their home: CEIS 16.

[13]      K.V. moved out of the family home in [the Williams Lake area] in the afternoon of August 11, 2021, after she had returned home from shopping to find a number of boxes of ammunition on the bed in the master bedroom. K.V. interpreted this incident as L.E.V.’s non-verbal threat of family violence.

[14]      L.E.V. admits he emptied a bag containing some boxes of ammunition onto the bed on August 11, 2021, but denies this was done in order to threaten or alarm K.V.

[15]      K.V. wants to relocate with A.V. to Abbotsford, where she has family, friends, a residence, and employment. L.E.V. wants to continue to reside with A.V. in [the Williams Lake area], BC.

[16]      In June 2021, K.V. provided L.E.V. with written notice that in 60 days she was relocating with A.V. to Abbotsford. At this time L.E.V. and K.V. were still sharing the residence at [omitted for publication] Road. She states:

[17]      Abbotsford is approximately [omitted for publication] kilometres or a six hour drive from [omitted for publication], BC.

[18]      K.V. states her move date was August 14, 2021. The notice is dated June 11, 2021, and witnessed by G.L. on June 14, 2021. The notice is appended to L.E.V.’s June 30, 2021 application.

[19]      On June 30, 2021, pursuant to Rule 80 of the Provincial Court Family Rules, L.E.V. filed a Form 16 Application for an Order Prohibiting the Relocation of a Child in Williams Lake Provincial Court Registry, File 21-5647 (the “June 30, 2021 Application”). It was entered in the Court Electronic Information System (“CEIS”) as document 1. Specifically, L.E.V. sought an order “to prohibit the relocation of a child”: CEIS 1, p. 7, para. 4.

[20]      At the time L.E.V. filed his June 30, 2021 Application, there were no extant proceedings before the court.

[21]      On July 9, 2021, K.V. filed and served an affidavit in response to L.E.V.’s June 30, 2021 Application. In her July 9, 2021 affidavit K.V. set out what she perceives as the benefits of A.V. relocating to Abbotsford: CEIS 3.

[22]      This matter came before Judge Daley in Williams Lake Provincial Court on July 15, 2021. L.E.V. and K.V. attended remotely and were self-represented. The matter was adjourned for a further appearance to allow for the parties to obtain legal counsel.

[23]      On July 28, 2021, K.V. filed and served a second affidavit (Form 45) in response to L.E.V.’s June 30, 2021 Application: CEIS 4, 5. To this affidavit, K.V. attached as exhibits: (a) IHCAN’s assessment report dated May 29, 2018; and (b) emails from Charlotte Lundeen, A.V.’s speech and language therapist for School District #27.

[24]      This matter came before Judge Stanford in Williams Lake Provincial Court on July 29, 2021. At that time, Judge Stanford advised L.E.V. that he could not proceed with his June 30, 2021 Application under Rule 80, because there were no existing written agreement or orders referred to in s. 65 of the Family Law Act respecting parenting arrangements with A.V. She directed L.E.V. to refile his application with a Form 15 Application About Priority Parenting Time Matter, and abridged the time for a response from seven days to three.

[25]      On August 6, 2021, L.E.V. filed his Priority Parenting Application opposing K.V.’s plan to relocate A.V. more than 50 kilometres from [the Williams Lake area]: CEIS 9. In this Priority Parenting Application he sets out the facts he says militate in favour of A.V. remaining in [omitted for publication].

[26]      On August 6, 2021, L.E.V. filed an Affidavit in support of his Priority Parenting Application: CEIS 10. He attached as an exhibit to his affidavit A.V.’s Grade 2 report card.

[27]      On August 6, 2021, K.V. filed a Written Response and affidavit to L.E.V.’s Priority Parenting Application. She contended it was in A.V.’s best interests to relocate to a place where she would have access to more resources: CEIS 8. K.V. says she was seeking an order allowing A.V. to relocate to Abbotsford.

[28]      On August 10, 2021, K.V. filed and served a written response and affidavit in reply to L.E.V.’s Priority Parenting Application: CEIS 12. K.V. attaches as exhibits to her August 10, 2021 affidavit: (a) correspondence from Dr. Jolien Steyl confirming A.V.’s diagnosis with FASD, Global developmental delay, and language delay; (b) a letter of support from Charlotte Lundeen, A.V.’s Registered Speech and Language Therapist; (c) a letter of reference from K.B., a friend and manager of [omitted for publication] Community Living; and (d) a letter of support from B.W.B., A.V.’s paternal biological grandmother.

[29]      On August 10, 2021, K.V. filed an Application About a Family Law Matter. In her August 10, 2021 Application K.V. sought order that:

[30]      On August 12, 2021, K.V. filed an Application About a Protection Order (“Protection Order Application”) against L.E.V. on behalf of herself, her daughter A.V., and her foster child, O.L.M.: CEIS 13. K.V. says she had concerns about L.E.V. leaving ammunition on the bed in the master bedroom where she slept. K.V. took this incident as a threat by L.E.V. that he intended to kill her or himself.

[31]      K.V.’s August 12, 2021 Protection Order Application came before Judge Nadon on August 12, 2021. He ordered K.V. serve L.E.V.’s counsel, Ms. E. Chorneyko, with the application by Tuesday August 17, 2021. The application was returnable to court on August 24, 2021: CEIS 14.

[32]      On August 20, 2021, L.E.V. filed his own affidavit and that of B.H. in response to K.V.’s Protection Order Application.

[33]      On August 24, 2021, I heard and dismissed K.V.’s Protection Order Application. I accepted L.E.V. left boxes of ammunition on the bed through inadvertence or oversight. I did not find the act complained of constituted “family violence”.

[34]      On August 24, 2021, I also heard the L.E.V.’s Priority Parenting Application.

[35]      On August 26, 2021, the parties appeared before the Court at my request. At that time, I expressed concern about adjudicating the Priority Parenting Application independent of an Application About a Parenting Matter. Although K.V. had filed an Application About a Parenting Matter on August 10, 2021, it was not before the court: CEIS 18. Moreover, L.E.V. had not yet filed a Reply or Counterclaim to that application.

[36]      On August 27, 2021, L.E.V. filed a Reply to an Application About a Family Matter and Counterclaim: CEIS 19 (“August 27, 2021 Reply”). In these pleadings L.E.V. sought an order naming him A.V.’s guardian. He disagreed with the parenting arrangements K.V. proposed in her August 10, 2021 Application. In response to K.V.’s application with respect to parenting responsibilities, L.E.V. proposes the following allocation:

[37]      In response to K.V.’s application with respect to parenting time schedule, L.E.V. states:

[38]      In his counter application for parenting arrangement, L.E.V. seeks an order prohibiting the relocation of A.V. more than 50 km away from [the Williams Lake area].

[39]      In his Priority Parenting Application, L.E.V. states he is seeking an order prohibiting K.V. from relocating A.V.: CEIS 9.

[40]      Section 46 in Division 2 of the Family Law Act sets out the criteria the Court must consider on an application to change the child’s residence where no written agreement or court order respecting parenting arrangements exists. This section applies in the case before me as the parents have recently separated. Section 46 requires me to consider A.V.’s best interest and the reasons K.V. seeks to relocate with her. I must not consider whether K.V. would move without A.V. It reads:

[41]      In S.R.W. v. R.C.D.A.D., 2021 BCSC 1158, Justice Macintosh held the relocating parent bears the onus of obtaining an order permitting the child’s relocation. In Kular v Kular, 2020 BCSC 1782 (CanLII), however, Justice Forth states:

[42]      Appellant authorities require the trial court to undertake a blended analysis that considers relocation as part of its determination of parenting arrangements: Duggan v. White, para. 21-22; K.W. v. L.H., 2018 BCCA 204 at paras. 108, 110. The analysis “requires a balancing of all relevant factors, including a parent’s proposed move with the child to a new community, in deciding what is in the child’s best interests”: Falvai v. Falvai, 2008 BCCA 503at para. 25.

[43]      Section 37(2) of the Family Law Act requires the court to consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including:

[44]      A.V.’s paternal grandmother, B.W.B., describes A.V. as having been born into a “cycle of child apprehension, addictions, and violence.” As a result, A.V. has significant developmental delays due to in utero exposure to drugs and alcohol. IHCAN assessors opined in their May 29, 2018 assessment report:

[45]      Dr. Steyl confirms in his July 30, 2021 correspondence that A.V. is diagnosed as having: (a) FASD; (b) Global development delay; and (c) language delay. Otherwise, A.V. is healthy and is not on any chronic medication.

[46]      L.E.V. says that A.V.’s well-being is best nurtured by her continuing to reside with him in [the Williams Lake area] for the reasons set out in his August 27, 2021 Reply. He cites the following benefits for A.V.:

[47]      I note the IHCAN assessment mentions that A.V.’s care givers may benefit from the ongoing support of the FASD Key Worker Program at the Cariboo-Chilcotin Child Development Centre.

[48]      K.V. says that in [the Williams Lake area], A.V. is isolated, particularly in the winter when children are not usually outside playing. Although there are some girls who are friendly to A.V. at school, they are not A.V.’s friends per se. A.V. does not visit these girls in their homes, just as they do not visit A.V. in her home. They play together outside when school is in session. A.V. has no extended family in the immediate area. Her school, service providers, extra-curricular activities, and classmates are in Williams Lake, a [omitted for publication] minute drive from [omitted for publication]. K.V. says regular access to a qualified speech language pathologist is key to A.V.’s development. She says in Williams Lake A.V.’s access to these professionals is at best intermittent and unpredictable and at worst, non-existent.

[49]      K.V. argues that in Abbotsford, A.V. would have more opportunities and programs to help support her development and growth. Foremost, A.V. could continue to live with K.V. who has been A.V.’s primary caregiver for most of her life. In her July 9, 2021 affidavit K.V. lists the benefits to A.V. relocating to Abbotsford:

[50]      I am left with the impression that both Williams Lake and Abbotsford have resources necessary or desirable to foster A.V.’s health, development and well-being.

[51]      Another important consideration under the “health and emotional well-being” factor of the s. 37(2) analysis is the “maximum contact principle”. In K.L.G. v. D.J.T., 2013 BCSC 1684, Justice N Brown states (at para. 104), maximum contact with both parents is consistent and harmonious with promoting the children’s emotional well-being in s. 37(2)(a) of the Family Law Act. In the case before me, time and distance will limit how much contact A.V. will have with her non-primary care giver. I am satisfied, however, that both L.E.V. and K.V. are supportive of A.V. having a meaningful relationship with the other parent.

[52]      A.V. is a seven year old child with significant cognitive deficiencies. It would not be appropriate to consider her views on where she is to reside.

[53]      The evidence clearly shows that A.V. has a close and loving relationship with her adoptive parents, L.E.V. and K.V. K.V. was A.V.’s primary care giver from the time A.V. was two months old until last year when L.E.V. lost his job driving for [omitted for publication]. Since then, L.E.V.’s parental responsibilities toward A.V. have increased to the point that he and K.V. now share equal parenting time with A.V. Even when employed, L.E.V. cared for A.V. by himself for a week or more two or three times per year when K.V. went to the Lower Mainland to visit her family.

[54]      In her letter of support dated April 4, 2021, A.V.’s biological paternal grandmother, B.W.B., says she met K.V. when A.V. was seven months old. She met L.E.V. sometime later. B.W.B. is the executive director of the [omitted for publication]. She states:

[55]      I am satisfied that both K.V. and L.E.V. are engaged, competent, loving and nurturing parents who are emotionally connected to A.V.

[56]      L.E.V.’s proposal for parenting arrangements if A.V. were to remain with him in [the Williams Lake area] more-or-less mirror those K.V. proposes if A.V. were to relocate with her to Abbotsford. K.V. says if A.V. is permitted to relocate with her to Abbotsford, she will meet L.E.V. in Cache Creek to transition A.V. into his care. Cache Creek is about [omitted for publication] kilometres from [the Williams Lake area].

[57]      K.V. proposes L.E.V. have parenting time with A.V. as follows:

[58]      The other significant persons in A.V.’s life include members of the F. family. B.W.B. is the mother of A.V.’s biological father, S.F., who died in August 2019. B.W.B. and her husband J.B. reside in Prince George, BC. They raised A.V.’s biological brother, A.F., who is now 12 years old, her half-brother, M.S.M., who is 17, and her half-sister, S.M., now 19. I gather M.S.M. and S.M. have now moved out of their grandparents’ home, but continue to reside in Prince George.

[59]      A.V. has a close relationship with the F. family. She visited them in Prince George approximately once per month prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then A.V.’s visits had been curtailed to once every three or four months. Typically, L.E.V. and K.V. met B.W.B. and J.B. in Quesnel, BC, to transition A.V. into their care for a weekend visit.

[60]      B.W.B. says that L.E.V. and K.V. promised her to make every effort to ensure that:

[61]      B.W.B. trusts L.E.V. and K.V. to honour their commitments to her and to A.V.’s biological father, now deceased.

[62]      L.E.V. says he will continue to foster A.V.’s relationship with the F. family. He is concerned that if she is relocated to Abbotsford, A.V. relationship with the F. family will weaken. L.E.V. acknowledges that because of her Indigenous heritage, A.V.’s ongoing relationship with the F. family is important.

[63]      K.V. says that she was the person who facilitated and encouraged A.V.’s relationship with the F. family and will continue to do so. She has discussed with B.W.B. her plans to relocate and the steps she will take to preserve A.V.’s relationship the F. family members. Specifically, K.V. says:

[64]      K.V. says she has discussed with B.W.B. her plans to relocate to Abbotsford. K.V. acknowledges that B.W.B. and J.B. love A.V. very much and she is committed to maintaining A.V.’s relationship with the F. family.

[65]      K.V. says that A.V. has also bonded with her adult sisters, nieces and nephews in Abbotsford. Moreover, if she were living in Abbotsford, A.V. could also cultivate a relationship with L.E.V.’s mother, who resides in Cloverdale, BC.

[66]      L.E.V. and K.V. are the only parents A.V. has ever known. A.V. was raised in the family home in [the Williams Lake area] She has a trampoline and swing set in the yard; and there is a lake nearby where she can fish and swim. L.E.V. and K.V. are close friends with their neighbours [omitted for publication] with whom A.V. is familiar. S.Y. is another family friend in [the Williams Lake area] with whom A.V. is close. S.Y. is a former foster parent who has taken care of A.V. in the past. K.V. is currently staying with S.Y. until she relocates to Abbotsford.

[67]      Until last March, L.E.V. worked four days per week. K.V. did not work outside the home, but fostered children for MCFD. L.E.V. retired in March 2020. He believes he can support himself and A.V. with his pension and money he receives from MFCD for fostering D., L.E.V. and K.V.’s current foster child. L.E.V. believes he now has roughly equal parenting time with A.V. He takes on half of the cooking and the majority of driving duties transporting A.V. to school and her extra-curricular activities such as dance class and swimming lessons.

[68]      B.W.B. writes in her August 4, 2021 letter:

[69]      L.E.V. says that he and K.V. have different parenting styles. He “responds to A.V.’s behaviour with her developmental delays in mind and take[s] care not to impose standards of behaviour on her that she is not capable of attaining.” K.V. says that L.E.V. excuses A.V.’s bad behaviour instead of correcting it. It does not assist A.V.’s development when L.E.V. uses her diagnosis to excuse A.V.’s misconduct despite the fact A.V. responds favourably to K.V.’s positive parenting.

[70]      L.E.V. says he plays with A.V. every day which helps improve her speech. He takes A.V. swimming and horseback riding at the Cariboo Blue Farm, where the trainers are aware of A.V.’s limitation. L.E.V. believes that working with animals and their handlers enhances A.V.’s speech development.

[71]      IHCAN recommended, among other things, that:

[72]      L.E.V. contends that relocating A.V. to Abbotsford will be unnecessarily destabilizing. Obviously A.V.’s home life cannot remain the same as it was when L.E.V. and K.V. were together. If K.V. relocates A.V. to Abbotsford, it will be difficult for L.E.V. to maintain the close relationship he and A.V. have nurtured. Because of her developmental and speech delays communicating with A.V. electronically by telephone or video conferencing will be constrained. Also, if A.V. moves to Abbotsford, she would lose contact with her friends and service providers in the [Williams Lake] area. A.V. will have to struggle to form new relationships. She is doing well in [omitted for publication] Elementary and enrolling her in a new school may undermine the progress she has made in the past few years.

[73]      K.V. says although she is relocating, she is moving into a stable home with a supportive family. A.V. will be with loved ones. She will have easy access to support services and extra-curricular activities, which IHCAN recommends. K.V. also considers her own efforts integral to A.V.’s ability to thrive.

[74]      K.V. has been offered employment as an ABA therapist to work in group homes for children with special needs in Abbotsford. Her worksite is across the street from [omitted for publication] Elementary, where A.V. will attend school. For three days per week, K.V. will work at the group home and for two days per week she will work as a behaviour interventionist for special needs children. K.V. says this employment will make her financially capable of supporting A.V. It will eliminate the need for day care as K.V. will work from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm each day. It will alleviate the need for K.V. to foster children for MCFD, which can be exhausting. Also having foster children in her home has both a positive and negative impact on A.V. Whereas A.V. enjoys having foster siblings, she becomes frustrated and upset when they leave and does not understand why. Fostering children is also emotionally wearing on K.V., who says it breaks her heart when they leave.

[75]      K.V.’s employment in Abbotsford will end at 3:00 pm, thus enabling her to pick up A.V. after school and devote herself to nurturing A.V.’s growth, learning and development. K.V. will have more money than she has currently has to enrol A.V. in extra-curricular activities.

[76]      K.V. says her employment opportunities in [Williams Lake area] are diminished because of the lack of day care facilities for youth with special needs in the area.

[77]      K.V. says that even if she remained in [Williams Lake area], A.V.’s circumstances would not remain unchanged. For example, although A.V. does have a teaching assistant at [omitted for publication] Elementary, this assistant changes from year to year. A.V.’s classmates and care providers also change. C.S., the person assisting A.V. at New Horizons Society, no longer works there.

[78]      Although I have some evidence of L.E.V. having residual difficulties from a broken ankle he sustained in 2012, I have no reason to believe that either parent suffers from any significant health issue. I would think it unlikely MCFD would contract with L.E.V. and K.V. to foster children-in-care if they were not up to the task.

[79]      I am satisfied that K.V. has made reasonable and workable arrangements to care for herself and A.V. in Abbotsford. I am also satisfied L.E.V. is able to care for himself and A.V. in [the Williams Lake area]. What will happen if L.E.V. has to return to working outside the home is less certain given the dearth of day care providers for children with special needs in the area. L.E.V. believes he can remain retired if he continues to foster D., a child currently in his and K.V.’s care.

[80]      K.V. says she is best suited to be A.V.’s primary care giver. She accompanied A.V. to all her appointments with the paediatrician and speech therapist. She arranged for A.V. to take dance classes, and registered her for pre-school and the Strong Start program. It was K.V. who pursued fostering children at the outset. Having worked with children and adults with special needs for the past 35 years, K.V. believes she has the aptitude, education and training to properly care for A.V. She says what L.E.V. learned about caring for children with special needs, he learned from her.

[81]      Both parties have raised issues of family violence. On August 12, 2021, K.V. filed a Protection Order Application, expressing concern that L.E.V. left boxes of ammunition on the bed in the master bedroom where she ordinarily slept. K.V. interpreted this incident as L.E.V.’s non-verbal threat to kill either her or himself.

[82]      L.E.V. does own four firearms, two of which he inherited from his father. L.E.V. removed the firearms from the family home [in the Williams Lake area] in December 2020 when he allowed his Possession and Acquisition Licence (“PAL”) to lapse. L.E.V.’s friend, B.H., has a gun safe and active PAL. B.H. agreed to store the firearms until L.E.V. renewed his PAL: CEIS: 16, 17. The ammunition for those firearms remained stored in their original boxes and stacked in the master bedroom closet at [omitted for publication] Road.

[83]      On August 11, 2021, K.V. was packing in anticipation of her move to Abbotsford. On that date, K.V. and L.E.V. had A.V. and two foster children living in their home. When K.V. went shopping L.E.V. went into the master bedroom to see what she was packing. He noticed a red bag he did not recognize on the closet shelf. He moved the bag to the bed to examine its contents. He discovered it contained boxes of ammunition. He said he intended to ask K.V. upon her return why the ammunition had been placed in that bag. He became otherwise distracted and forgot to return the boxes of ammunition to the closet shelf.

[84]      K.V. reported the incident to the police, who called L.E.V. He explained what had happened, and at the officer’s request, L.E.V. placed the ammunition in his own gun safe. This was the sum of the police involvement.

[85]      Later that day K.V. emailed L.E.V. about the ammunition on the bed. He assured K.V. he was not trying to frighten her. He said the ammunition was on the bed because he found it in a red bag in the closet and did not remember putting it there. He emptied the bag on the bed and forgot to return the bag or its contents to the closet.

[86]      L.E.V. had no history of mental illness or family violence. K.V. has not alleged otherwise. K.V. testified that L.E.V. had never said or done anything previously to cause her to feel threatened. Although K.V. found the presence of the ammunition boxes on the bed unsettling, she returned to the family residence every day thereafter, even when L.E.V. was present.

[87]      I accepted L.E.V.’s explanation as to how and why the ammunition boxes ended up on the bed and dismissed K.V.’s Protection Order Application. I did not and do not find this incident was an act of family violence.

[88]      L.E.V. expresses concern K.V.’s adult sons, K.B. and T.CB. may pose a danger to A.V. in Abbotsford. Both men have a history of violence and live in the Lower Mainland. T.CB. spent five years in prison for his role in a shooting at an apartment building where rival gang members lived. K.G. assaulted L.E.V. on December 24, 2010, injuring his eye lid requiring six stitches. In February 2020, while staying at the [omitted for publication] residence, K.G. said to L.E.V., “I will kill you or have eight of my buddies come and fuck you up.” L.E.V. said he refused to allow K.G. in his home after he made this threat.

[89]      L.E.V. believes K.V. still has contact with her sons when she is in the Lower Mainland. He fears that if she moves with her mother to Abbotsford, A.V. will be placed in a situation where she will come in contact with these men.

[90]      K.V. says she has not seen her sons in two years, but does speak to them on the phone. She acknowledges that T.CB. had been imprisoned in the past, but T.CB. lives in Burnaby, not Abbotsford. He has been out of jail for three years and now lives a pro-social life. T.CB. is engaged in counselling and works six days a week delivering bread. In any event K.V. has no intention of renewing her contact with T.CB. until such time as she and L.E.V. agree he can be trusted and it is safe to do so.

[91]      K.V. acknowledge K.G. did injury L.E.V.’s eye lid over ten years ago (December 24, 2010) when L.E.V. attempted to intervene to stop some rough-housing between K.G. and his brother, T.CB. The injury was accidental. K.G. expressed remorse and L.E.V. forgave him. Thereafter K.G. regularly spend part of the summer at their residence [in the Williams Lake area].

[92]      K.V. has no knowledge of K.G. threatening L.E.V., and L.E.V. has never mentioned this incident to her. She maintains K.G. was not even in their [omitted for publication] residence in February 2020. K.V. says that K.G. has separated from his wife and has two children he helps raise. A.V. has a close relationship with these children. K.V. denies her contact with K.G. poses any threat to A.V. MCFD has no concerns about K.G. around children, be it A.V. or his own. L.E.V. has never asked her to keep K.G. away from A.V., but she does have the ability to do so if necessary

[93]      I accept that family violence is broadly described in the family law context: S.R.W. v. R.C.D.A.D., para. 52. Even so, I do not find there is any family violence currently present in K.V. or L.E.V.’s life that is directed towards A.V. or any other family member.

[94]      I am satisfied that neither parent is responsible for any family violence and neither is impaired in his or her ability to care for A.V. and meet her needs.

[95]      The fact that post-separation K.V. and L.E.V. could continue to share a home and care for A.V. and foster children speaks favourably about their ability to cooperate on issues affecting A.V. I am satisfied that any parenting arrangement requiring K.V. and L.E.V. cooperate with each other will not pose any risks to the safety, security or well-being of A.V. or other family members.

[96]      There are no other civil or criminal proceedings relevant to A.V.’s safety, security or well-being.

[97]        In British Columbia, s. 46(2)(a) of the Family Law Act directs that when analysing the best interests of the child, a court must consider “the reasons for the change in the location of the child’s residence”. In Stav v. Stav, 2012 BCCA 154, the Court of Appeal held the reasons for a move are a legitimate consideration in assessing a child’s best interests.

[98]        At para. 17, in Duggan v. White, the Court of Appeal, expressly eschewed the suggestion the relocating parent must prove necessity:

[99]      K.V.’s reasons for moving are three fold: (a) she wishes to be closer to her and A.V.’s extended family in the Lower Mainland; (b) she believes A.V. will have access to more services that what is available to her in Williams Lake; and (c) K.V. has employment opportunities which will allow her to support herself and A.V.

[100]   I have already discussed K.V.’s evidence as to why she believes A.V. will benefit from living with or near her extended family in Abbotsford and in a community which has more resources for a child with A.V.’s specific disabilities. As to her own increased employment opportunities in Abbotsford, K.V. says a major impediment to her working outside the home in Williams Lake is the dearth of day care facilities for children with special needs. K.V. still has connections in Abbotsford with non-profit organizations where she used to work with children and adults with cognitive disabilities. She has already secured two jobs which will permit her to pick up A.V. after school and obviate the need for day care during the school year. Moreover, K.V. will be able to financially support herself and A.V. without having to foster other children, which can be emotionally draining for both mother and daughter.

[101]   I accept K.V. reasons for seeking to relocate herself and A.V. are sincere and purposeful. I have no reason to believe K.V. is relocating to thwart L.E.V.’s parenting time with A.V. or for any other ulterior motive.

[102]   Section 46(2)(b) of the Family Law Act expressly prohibits the Court from considering whether the guardian who is planning to move would do so without the child. Appellate authorities recognize that when a trial judge considers the willingness and lack of willingness of primary care parents to remain in the jurisdiction it places them in an inequitable “double bind”, which Justice Smith described in Fotsch v. Begin, 2015 BCCA 403, at para. 80 as follows:

[103]   The court should not make parenting time orders which will have the effect of indenturing a parent to a community. I take guidance from the words of Justice Conrad speaking for majority in RJF v. CMF, 2014 ABCA 165:

[104]   Appellate authorities direct that when assessing mobility a trial judge must accept a planned move as a given. The appellate court in Duggan v. White case found the trial judge erred on by giving preference to the status quo. The trial judge only considered the effect of the proposed move on the relationship between the child and his father, and failed to consider the potential effect of the proposed alternative on the child and his mother.

[105]   Justice Saunders states at para. 68 in Duggan v. White:

[106]   In the case before me, the status quo would require L.E.V. and K.V. to continue to reside in the same residence in a remote community in order to co-parent. Obviously, this is untenable. As the trial judge, I must consider whether it is in A.V.’s best interests to live with K.V. in the parenting arrangement she proposes or with L.E.V. in the one he proposes. I pause to note that although he advocates for primary residence of A.V. in [the Williams Lake area], L.E.V. appears to view favourably an alternative parenting arrangement where he and K.V. would live in sufficient proximity they could share equal parenting time with A.V. Ideal though it may be, the “ideal model is not on the table in these circumstances” K.L.G. v. D.J.T., 2013 BCSC 1684, at para. 124, and at para. 115, citing Falvai v. Falvai, 2008 BCCA 503. 124. I cannot stray from the alternatives presented by the parties: Duggan v. White, para. 58.

[107]   The Court is obligated to engage in a blended analysis balancing all relevant factors in deciding what parenting arrangements are in the child’s best interests. Section 37(3) of the Family Law Act requires any order I make to protect, to the greatest extent possible, the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being. As Justice Brown notes in K.L.G. v. D.J.T., (at para. 132), this invites an expansive overview of the circumstances of the parents and the child. It is a daunting task. It bears reiteration that I find that L.E.V. and K.V. are engaged, competent, loving and nurturing parents who are emotionally connected to A.V. If L.E.V. and K.V. were to remain living in close proximity to each other, I would likely endorse a shared parenting arrangement. However, that is not the scenario before me. The options I have to compare is A.V. living primarily with L.E.V. in [the Williams Lake area] or A.V. living primarily with K.V. in Abbotsford.

[108]   The factors that militate towards A.V. remaining in [the Williams Lake area] with L.E.V. include:

[109]   The factors that militate toward A.V. relocating to Abbotsford with K.V. include:

[110]   I conclude on a balance of probabilities that it is A.V.’s best interest to remain in her mother’s primary care, although it involves her relocating from [the Williams Lake area] to Abbotsford. In my view this parenting arrangement will maximize, to the greatest extent possible, A.V.’s physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being. I am ordering that K.V. is a liberty to relocate A.V. from [the Williams Lake area] to reside primarily with K.V. in Abbotsford, B.C.

[111]   L.E.V. and K.V. asked that I make orders concerning guardianship, parenting responsibilities, parenting time, both in person and electronic, and transitioning A.V. between the two households. Because L.E.V. and K.V. have thus far demonstrated a willingness to communicate and cooperate with each other in a reasonable and respectful manner, I will leave it to them to determine the precise details of the dates, times and place for transitioning A.V. between the two households. Accordingly I make the orders set out below.