IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]         B. was born on [omitted for publication]. This decision will refer to her as B. to preserve her privacy. Her parents are S.T.M. and C.G.H. (jointly the Parties). S.T.M. is a [omitted for publication]. C.G.H. is an [omitted for publication] who owns and operates a consulting [omitted for publication] firm, [omitted for publication].

[2]         The Parties have long been unable to agree on how they should allocate their parental responsibilities and parenting time with B. Those disagreements resulted in this litigation. It has been protracted, acrimonious and expensive for the Parties, both emotionally and financially. It has been wearing in stressful on them, their families, and their friends. Most importantly, it has had adverse impacts on B.

[3]         B. has several complex, not fully addressed mental health and behavioural issues. Diagnoses of B.’s many challenges over the years include separation anxiety disorder (SAD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

[4]         The experts who have assessed or treated B. now agree that she also has Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). That term is used here to describe the condition. ASD is an incurable neurodevelopmental disorder but therapies can help a person better understand their circumstances and develop strategies to assist them in their daily life.

[5]         Over the years, several health care professionals were engaged to ascertain and implement strategies that would benefit B. with her multiple diagnoses. The Parties have been unable to agree on how the various experts’ reports and strategies should be implemented in B.’s best interests and what role B. should have in that implementation.

[6]         I must resolve the following issues:

[7]         In light of the voluminous evidence presented orally, by affidavits, in electronic communications, by video, and through various experts’ reports it is important for the Parties and counsel to have an understanding of my approach in reviewing and summarizing the evidence. It is a similar approach to that adopted in R. v. Connell, 2017 BCPC 123, by the Honourable Judge T. Woods where he said at paragraphs 5 and 6:

[8]         The evidence in this decision is summarized and condensed; sometimes without specific reference to whose evidence it was or from which document it emanated. Where evidence was presented in an affidavit and repeated at trial or described in several places in submissions to support different findings it will be referred to only once.

[9]         Since the Parties’ separation, B. has lived primarily with S.T.M. with C.G.H. having shorter periods of parenting time. He contested this parenting time arrangement both before and after the litigation started.

[10]      S.T.M. started a relationship with D.H. in August 2016. They started living together in January 2017 but did not commence conjugal relations until August 2017. D.H.’s two sons, who are slightly younger than B, moved into the home around April 2018 and resided there on a week on week off schedule. S.T.M. and D.H. separated and he and his children left her home in the summer of 2022.

[11]      C.G.H. started a relationship with T.C. in 2018. T.C. has no children.

[12]      There are a number of pets and other animals at both homes but the most important one to B. is her dog, [omitted for publication], who regularly accompanies her as she travels back and forth between the homes. B. has trained [omitted for publication] to be a therapy dog and takes [omitted for publication] to senior residences.

[13]      The documentary evidence was extensive and varied and included:

[14]      There were 17 days of oral evidence, in person and by video, from 17 witnesses. There were eight subsequent appearances, for oral submissions and new evidence involving three additional witnesses.

[15]      S.T.M. was born on [omitted for publication] and is now [omitted for publication]. C.G.H. was born on [omitted for publication] and is now [omitted for publication].

[16]      S.T.M. studied criminology at colleges in British Columbia and Ontario but did not complete her degree because she joined the [omitted for publication]. After her training, she transferred to [omitted for publication] where she met C.G.H.

[17]      C.G.H. received a psychology degree from University British Columbia in [omitted for publication]. He taught English at schools in Korea and in Vancouver for four years. For approximately four years, he worked as a youth and childcare counsellor on a team with other professionals assisting youth who came from a troubled background, broken homes or had some form of developmental disability. He moved to [omitted for publication] to start a career as a [omitted for publication] with the [omitted for publication].

[18]      The Parties began a spousal relationship in the summer of 2006 and lived in a home owned by S.T.M. near [omitted for publication]. In [omitted for publication], S.T.M. became pregnant with B. she had a difficult pregnancy with many health issues including many planned and unexpected medical appointments, some brief hospital stays and other medical interventions. She assumed modified duties with the [omitted for publication] but received her regular salary.

[19]      B. was slightly under weight at birth. She cried a lot in her early infancy and got very little sleep. She learned to walk at a young age. S.T.M. remained at home for one year while C.G.H. continued his employment but on an altered schedule.

[20]      The Parties disagree on the level of C.G.H.’s assistance to S.T.M. during the pregnancy and his assumption of household duties during that time and after B.’s birth while S.T.M. was on parental leave. C.G.H. expressed concern about S.T.M. breastfeeding B. until she was almost two years old, claiming that activity interfered with his time with B, it was not natural and resulted in enmeshment between S.T.M. and B. C.G.H. acknowledged to Dr. Aube that he was “at best a part time dad” during that period.

[21]      He also disagreed with S.T.M. frequently co-sleeping with B. until she was about nine years old because he did not think it was healthy. He said that if B. cried or fussed at night S.T.M. would become anxious and would immediately go to her bedroom, often for the whole night.

[22]      Around the time of B.’s birth C.G.H. became a [omitted for publication] for northern British Columbia. The Parties disagree about how many days C.G.H. was away from home in that position. S.T.M. maintained he was frequently away throughout the province, often for extended periods, while C.G.H. stated such absences were rare, to close by communities and never exceeded two nights but he acknowledged to Dr. Aube that he was very busy with that position and had to travel “sometimes up to three days a week around the province”.

[23]      C.G.H. said that he resigned from that position after one year so he could spend more time at home. S.T.M. acknowledged that C.G.H. resigned but that did not result in him spending more time with her and B. C.G.H. was also away from home in blocks of time for several months while working as a first-aid attendant at a mine.

[24]      S.T.M. said that in B.’s early infancy, the two of them made several extended visits to her parents’ home near [omitted for publication], and her sister’s home in Prince George so her family could assist with B.’s care. In addition, S.T.M.’s parents were frequent visitors in [omitted for publication] and they assisted with B.’s care. C.G.H. discounted the frequency, lengths and purpose of these visits.

[25]      C.G.H.’s parents lived in a community close to [omitted for publication] but S.T.M. described them as having only infrequent and limited contact with B. in her early infancy. There was a tentative arrangement that C.G.H.’s parents would provide childcare for B. when S.T.M. returned to work but on the eve of that happening, the arrangement fell through. S.T.M. said it was because C.G.H.’s parents decided they did not have the energy, while C.G.H. maintained that a dispute arose between his parents and S.T.M.’s parents causing her to terminate the arrangement.

[26]      S.T.M. secured childcare for B. with the spouse of one of her co-workers but that required a daily total commute of 80 kilometres to get her there. S.T.M. said that she did all the driving but C.G.H. disagreed with that assertion saying that he did some of the driving. That arrangement continued until S.T.M. moved from [omitted for publication].

[27]      When she first returned to work, S.T.M. was on general duty but she transferred to [omitted for publication], so she would not have to work night shifts. She said that whenever she was at work, B. would be in childcare even when C.G.H. was not working and at home. S.T.M. said that C.G.H. did not fully participate in household chores and other duties in B.'s younger years but that he did participate on occasion and occasionally took B. to the doctor or dentist. C.G.H. disputed that contention maintaining he was equally involved in all aspects of parenting verified by numerous photographs in evidence.

[28]      C.G.H. wanted to move from [omitted for publication]. The Parties discussed C.G.H.'s career plans and he decided to attend university. In [omitted for publication], C.G.H. moved to Prince George to attend the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC). His original intention was to pursue medicine studies but he changed to study [omitted for publication]. During his first term, C.G.H. lived in Prince George during the week and returned to [omitted for publication] on some weekends.

[29]      In [omitted for publication], S.T.M. obtained a compassionate transfer to Prince George that also provided additional career opportunities for her. When S.T.M. was working, B. attended UNBC's day care program and she had the assistance of her sister. C.G.H. said he often dropped B. off at day care before going to class and picked her up at the end of the day if B. was not in an activity, in which case her aunt or another caregiver would pick her up. S.T.M. contended that C.G.H.’s participation in transporting B. to day care was sporadic.

[30]      S.T.M. said that even if he had a day off, C.G.H. would take B. to day care and on many weekends where S.T.M. was working and C.G.H. was at home he would take B. to her aunt’s so he could focus on his studies. C.G.H. disputed that claim.

[31]      When B. was approximately three years old and attending day care, she started showing signs of anxiety. At the time, both S.T.M. and, to a lesser extent, C.G.H. viewed B’s behaviours as personality “quirks.”

[32]      S.T.M. said that B. had a very upsetting reaction to fire alarms that required additional work by her and the day care to lessen B.’s anxieties. C.G.H. did not assist in this area. B.’s anxieties around fire alarms persisted into her later childhood. She expressed to S.T.M. fear of being burned in a fire and would cry.

[33]      C.G.H. did not agree that B. had problems with fire alarms. He said he was a [omitted for publication] and S.T.M. is a [omitted for publication] and B. was exposed to sirens. He did not agree that B. was suffering anxiety as a result of the fire alarms at the day care or subsequently.

[34]      In [omitted for publication], S.T.M. went to Ottawa for a two-month [omitted for publication] course to qualify as a [omitted for publication]. During that time, S.T.M. said B. was cared for by C.G.H. and her sister, while C.G.H. said he was practically B’s only caregiver.

[35]      S.T.M. said that as an [omitted for publication], she would occasionally be called out at night and on weekends and whenever that occurred she would have her sister or third party care for B. because C.G.H. was working hard on his university studies.

[36]      C.G.H. said that while S.T.M. was taking her [omitted for publication] training he was able to almost completely toilet train B. but when S.T.M. returned she continued to wipe B.'s bottom and that behaviour continued until B. was nine years old even though he objected to it. He said that B. and S.T.M. had a code so S.T.M. would know when B. wanted assistance in the bathroom. After the separation when B. was at his home he insisted that she attend to her own personal hygiene and that upset her.

[37]      S.T.M. agreed that B. was potty trained very easily but insisted that she have a clean bottom. However, she would sometimes soil herself while at day care. B. disclosed she did not like using the bathroom there because there were no doors on the stalls. That issue was resolved through the combined efforts of S.T.M. and the day care without any assistance from C.G.H. S.T.M. subsequently attributed B.’s continuing hygiene issues to her later diagnosed ASD.

[38]      Starting in the summer of [omitted for publication], C.G.H.’s [omitted for publication] education involved considerable fieldwork that took him away from Prince George, often for many days at a time. His absences required further adjustments to B.’s care regime involving an additional third party who worked at the day care. This summer work and childcare arrangement continued until the end of the summer of 2013.

[39]      In July 2012, S.T.M. was pregnant but miscarried. C.G.H. was in the field and returned to be with S.T.M. He only remained a short time before returning to work. S.T.M. said that C.G.H.'s lack of support greatly distressed her and the relationship began to founder.

[40]      In the summer of 2013, C.G.H. found out that S.T.M. was having an affair. He left his job but continued his studies. The Parties started marriage counselling. C.G.H. said that he also stopped drinking wine because it seemed to upset S.T.M. even though he was not a heavy consumer. S.T.M. was not a drinker. After a few sessions, S.T.M. stopped attending the marriage counselling.

[41]      In September [omitted for publication], B. began Kindergarten. The Parties participated in getting B. to school and a caregiver was hired to pick her up after school, care for her and take her to arranged activities. S.T.M. said B. was very anxious about starting Kindergarten. She seemed to have difficulty adapting to change and it required considerable effort on S.T.M. and the teacher’s part to help B. overcome those fears.

[42]      That winter B. also expressed a fear of getting her tongue stuck on a metal pole at school. S.T.M. worked with B. to overcome those fears. She said that both she and C.G.H. continued to attribute that behaviour to B.’s personality quirks. C.G.H. attributed S.T.M.’s many visits to the Kindergarten to her insistence in wiping B.’s bottom. He did not recall S.T.M. raising any major concerns about B.’s anxieties at that time.

[43]      S.T.M. said that although the diagnoses of B’s. mental health challenges were not until 2018, she noticed as early as 2011 that B. exhibited a number of unusual behaviours. She spoke to C.G.H. about them but he described them as quirks or odd behaviours. When they became more pronounced, C.G.H. dismissed them and criticized her for raising them, telling her that she did not know what she was talking about and that his experience as a paramedic and working with youth gave him better insight to the situation.

[44]      C.G.H. denied belittling S.T.M., calling her dumb or stupid, that her concerns had no merit or saying that she was making things up. He also did not tell her that he knew better because he knew better as a [omitted for publication], had a degree in psychology or that he had worked as a child counsellor.

[45]      The Parties separated in early summer 2014 when C.G.H. found out that S.T.M. was continuing her affair. C.G.H. moved out of the home immediately. He first went to [omitted for publication] to advise S.T.M.'s parents about the situation where he had a verbal confrontation with her father, R.M. He then went to stay with friends for a short period.

[46]      C.G.H. sought counselling assistance and obtained a prescription from his doctor to address his mental health that he took for approximately three months. He said he obtained permission from UNBC to delay his Master's thesis so he could find work and a place to live.

[47]      C.G.H. continued his fieldwork and continued to be away for extended periods. He rented a basement room in a home where several other men lived. He said he did not feel it was an appropriate place to have overnight parenting time with B. but that S.T.M. brought her over to visit with him when he was home on weekends. S.T.M. said that C.G.H.’s parenting time with B. during that time was limited to occasional weekends because he was often absent for work until November 2015 when he moved into his first home in a rural area outside of Prince George.

[48]      S.T.M. said both prior to and in the immediate months following their separation she was the parent primarily responsible for B.’s day-to-day care because C.G.H. was often away from home for school or for work or pursuing his studies to complete his education. The sporadic nature of C.G.H.’s parenting time with B. was very troubling to B. Due to her mental health challenges consistency and routine in scheduling was, and remains, very important to her health and well-being.

[49]      In November 2014, the Parties entered into the Agreement drafted by C.G.H. after he consulted with the Internet and some lawyers by phone. It dealt with all aspects of the dissolution of the spousal relationship. The terms of B.’s continuing care and child support included:

[50]      S.T.M. said that C.G.H. insisted the Agreement have equal parenting time because he did not want to pay any child support although he acknowledged to her that he would not be able to care for B. on an equal basis because of his fieldwork. She did not do any research nor get any legal advice prior to signing the Agreement and accepted what C.G.H. said about equal parenting time. She agreed to those terms because C.G.H. told her that he would smear her name with her family, friends and co-workers regarding her affair and because she believed that equal parenting would be in B.’s best interests.

[51]      C.G.H. said he did not threaten or coerce S.T.M. in any way to sign the Agreement and that her friends and family already knew about the affair. He knew he would be absent a great deal in the summer months but that he would have more time with B. in the winter months.

[52]      C.G.H. paid no regular monthly child support until the litigation commenced but each Party contributed to B.'s expenses as described in the Agreement.

[53]      Starting in September 2014 and continuing until November 2017, S.T.M. had a boarder who helped care for B. and ensure she got to school on time when S.T.M. was working. After school, the caregiver picked B. up and took her to her activities.

[54]      S.T.M. said that in the summers of 2014 and 2015, C.G.H. was very busy with his field work and in the winter months he worked hard on completing his Master’s thesis so did not have a lot of time for B.

[55]      S.T.M. said that C.G.H.'s infrequent, sporadic and often unplanned parenting time with B. had a detrimental effect on B. and she displayed anger, frustration and anxiety when presented with surprise or unplanned events. She tried to explain those concerns and made suggestions to assist B. to C.G.H. but he ignored her.

[56]      C.G.H. maintained that S.T.M. was very cooperative in ensuring he had time with B. when he was available and that he and B. would do things together including rock climbing, bicycle riding, riding ATVs, going swimming and activities at places including the museum. S.T.M. said she encouraged C.G.H. to take B. rock climbing because she did not enjoy it. For a time C.G.H.’s brother Tom lived with him. He was a ski instructor who taught B. to ski, an activity she enjoys.

[57]      S.T.M. said that she kept C.G.H. informed of B.’s activities by sending photographs of her swimming, playing soccer and the like. C.G.H. insisted on having B. for Christmas 2015 and that was arranged.

[58]      C.G.H. said that on many weekends, B. would come to his home with S.T.M. who would remain overnight and they enjoyed conjugal relations. He said that pattern continued well into 2016. He was wary of her intentions given her previous affair but he believed they might be working towards reconciliation. He was unaware that S.T.M. had started a relationship with D.H.

[59]      C.G.H. told S.T.M. that he wanted to have more time with B. without her being present. She agreed, but continued to come to his home unannounced during his parenting time. Later S.T.M. began to often send B. to his home with a friend or cousin. He concluded that S.T.M.’s actions were meant to undermine his regular requests for equal parenting time.

[60]      C.G.H. said that B. started to become reluctant to spend time with him without S.T.M. being present. On many occasions, B. confided in him that she missed S.T.M. and was worried that S.T.M. would “die of a broken heart.”

[61]      C.G.H. said that around the same time S.T.M. advised him that it was B.’s choice not to increase parenting time with him and that she intended to respect B.’s wishes over his objections that B. should not be given a choice in the matter and it should be resolved between the Parties.

[62]      S.T.M. said that at that time she never told B. that she had any choice about spending time with C.G.H. and she always encouraged B. to spend time with him when he requested it.

[63]      In January 2016, she proposed to C.G.H. a scheduled care regime to lessen B.’s anxieties about surprises and lack of advance knowledge of her routine but C.G.H. ignored her proposal. Throughout 2016, B.’s adverse behaviours surrounding her time with C.G.H. became even more pronounced and worrisome.

[64]      S.T.M. said she corresponded regularly with C.G.H. describing her observations and concerns about B. but he either ignored her or said she was making things up. C.G.H. said that both he and S.T.M. recognized that B. was showing signs of anxiety that needed to be addressed.

[65]      In June 2016, B.’s behaviours and her reluctance to spend time with C.G.H. became even more pronounced. B. told S.T.M. that on one occasion at C.G.H.'s she had left the gate to the chicken coop open. When he discovered that, C.G.H. told her that if she did that again he would cut off the chickens’ heads in front of her.

[66]      Soon after the incident, S.T.M. reported to C.G.H. that B. was wetting the bed and showing signs of great anxiety. S.T.M. said she contacted C.G.H. to find out what happened, suggested a meeting to discuss that and other issues, that they implement a schedule for B.’s time with him and that C.G.H. phone B. on a regular schedule. She got no reply to that email.

[67]      C.G.H. said that he explained to B. the importance of making sure to close the gate to chicken coop to prevent his guardian dogs from attacking the chickens. B. appeared to understand but not long after she left the gate open and the dogs almost got to the chickens. He was very upset and shouted at B.

[68]      He did not say he would kill the chickens in front of her or anything like that. He explained that if the dog got into the chicken coop they would all be dead. After the incident, S.T.M. told him that B. was reluctant to come to his home on the weekends when he returned from his fieldwork. He believed his reaction to the incident may have initiated or exacerbated some of B.'s anxieties and he feels badly about that.

[69]      S.T.M. said that the incident and C.G.H.’s response, as B. interpreted it, remains a continued source of anxiety and concern for B. Dr. Ambrose confirmed that B. still displays anxiety when talking about the incident.

[70]      C.G.H. said that the incident occurred at the same time S.T.M. was starting her relationship with D.H. which B. and S.T.M. never told him about and that deception increased B.’s anxieties.

[71]      S.T.M. said that in the summer months of 2016 and 2017, C.G.H. was often away for up to 10 days at a time doing [omitted for publication] fieldwork.

[72]      In the summer of 2016, S.T.M. purchased a new home and soon after suggested to C.G.H. that they exchange B. at a neutral location. C.G.H. said that he had only been to S.T.M.'s home on a few occasions and he did not know why she was reluctant to have him come there but that she was very evasive when he would ask questions about what was going on in her home. She also asked him to stop asking any questions of B. about what went on in her home even though he was not doing anything more than making general inquiries about what was going on in B.’s life. He said that B. became even more reluctant to come to his home without confirming everything with S.T.M.

[73]      S.T.M. said in the fall of 2016, a plan was implemented with B. spending one weekend night and Tuesday after school at C.G.H.’s and that prior to that happening both she and C.G.H. would set out for B. what was planned for that time to make her more comfortable. For a while, B. was accepted that approach and some of her worrisome behaviours diminished.

[74]      C.G.H. said that in the fall of 2016, he purchased an iPad for B. and after that B. began to contact S.T.M. more and more often when she was with him. At first he did not discourage that behaviour but he became more concerned when B.’s contacting S.T.M. after almost everything she did at his home became routine.

[75]      S.T.M. said that B. has always had difficulty sleeping but that became worse in the fall of 2016 when she began to express fear that because she could not sleep, she would die. In addition, B. complained of symptoms of bladder infection, began vomiting and having diarrhoea. When she brought those concerns to C.G.H.’s attention, he brushed her off.

[76]      She consulted a number of medical practitioners in 2016 and 2017 to see if there was some organic basis for B.’s symptoms and behaviours but nothing was found. For most of that time, C.G.H. was dismissive of her concerns but by August 2017, he agreed that B. should see a counsellor.

[77]      C.G.H. said that B. did have some difficulty falling asleep from time to time at his home but he was able to help her to do so. He did not notice that she had any fears about not being able to fall asleep or that she had the other symptoms when she was with him.

[78]      In 2016, S.T.M. suggested to C.G.H. that he reach out to B. on a regular basis. C.G.H. said he tried that for a considerable time but B. did not respond. He felt that S.T.M. was trying to track what arrangements he was making with B. for their time together.

[79]      B. told S.T.M. that she was upset about the type of and the volume of the movies at C.G.H.’s home. S.T.M. relayed those concerns to C.G.H. but B. continued to complain. B. also complained about C.G.H.’s alcohol consumption, saying that he drank heavily and drank in the hot tub. S.T.M. asked C.G.H. if he would consider refraining from alcohol when he had B.

[80]      C.G.H. said that he and T.C. consume alcohol, mostly wine, in moderation. He cannot drink more wine than that or he will get migraine headaches. He also stopped consuming alcohol in the hot tub. When B. was much younger, he would drink wine while studying and would dispose of the bottles the next day. He never hid any bottles anywhere in the house to hide his drinking. B. has never told him she is uncomfortable with him drinking in her presence.

[81]      S.T.M. said she and B. slept over at C.G.H.'s home in 2016 and 2017 to take care of his animals when he was absent. On some of those trips, S.T.M. said B. expressed some fear of going there but would not say why.

[82]      S.T.M. said her and C.G.H.’s sexual relationship ended in late 2016. She went over to his home during the Christmas season of 2016 for some specific activities to try to show B. that they could still get along as a family but she was not there to have sex with C.G.H. C.G.H. said that he and S.T.M. maintained a conjugal relationship well past the time she began her relationship with D.H.

[83]      B.’s fears and anxieties increased and she became so agitated she could not sleep and then would vomit because she was fearful that she would not get enough sleep and would die of exhaustion. C.G.H. said he recognized B.’s anxiety issues but said he saw no signs of her vomiting, having diarrhoea or having sleep difficulties.

[84]      In the summer of 2017 while B. was with C.G.H., she called S.T.M. 26 times in one 10-minute period when S.T.M. was out of cell range. B. was distraught and was convinced S.T.M. was dead. After that, S.T.M. determined that she could never be out of cell range when B. was not with her.

[85]      In 2017, B.’s activities included swimming, piano, yoga, French tutoring and her counselling sessions. C.G.H. did not express any concerns about those activities. S.T.M. said that B. complained C.G.H. was not helping her with her French homework and that he told her he was letting her do it at S.T.M.'s home. She said that at that time C.G.H. insisted that any of B.'s activities must occur on her parenting time.

[86]      C.G.H. said that S.T.M. would not communicate with him in advance to discuss in what activities B. participated. Rather, she would engage B. in those activities and then send him a list of what they were and that he had to ensure B. attended them during his parenting time.

[87]      C.G.H. said that in 2016 and 2017, his communication with S.T.M. had some difficulties but they were communicating regularly. However, he began to realize that instead of him and S.T.M. acting as parents and trying to solve situations involving B. cooperatively S.T.M. and B. became closer. He was cut out of many conversations and decisions but was left to deal with problems that S.T.M. said B. was having.

[88]      In her emails, S.T.M. regularly described his time with B. in a negative fashion and that B. had negative thoughts about spending time with him. When he was with B. they had a good time and enjoy each other’s company. There was separation anxiety in B. but largely because of S.T.M.’s actions.

[89]      There were occasions when B. told S.T.M. that she missed C.G.H. When they occurred, S.T.M. said she contacted C.G.H. and they tried to arrange time for him and B. to spend time together as soon as possible. In the summer of 2017, C.G.H. expressed a wish to spend more time with B. The Parties had discussions on how that could occur but B. continued to have difficulties with anxiety and her time with C.G.H. so, in August 2017, they agreed to engage a counsellor.

[90]      The first counsellor hired to help B. was Ms. Janice Butler (Ms. Butler). From August 2017 until November 2017, there were seven or eight sessions with her. Ms. Butler did not give evidence at the trial.

[91]      Ms. Butler suggested that B. would benefit from more time with C.G.H. and a schedule of increased and scheduled parenting time for C.G.H. commenced with two overnights per week, usually Mondays and Fridays. That continued until May 2018 when C.G.H. cancelled the Monday overnights when he started his summer fieldwork. S.T.M. said that the change upset her because B. was just getting used to the new schedule but B. expressed happiness that she did not have to go to C.G.H.’s as often.

[92]      C.G.H. said that after several sessions Ms. Butler suggested that the bond between him and B. was much weaker than the bond between B. and S.T.M. She suggested that he and S.T.M. should work on reducing B’s reliance on her and that both of them should work on enhancing B.’s relationship and bonding with him to include increasing his parenting time to three nights per week.

[93]      He said that Ms. Butler told the Parties that B.'s anxiety was related to S.T.M.'s own anxiety issues. It was soon after that that S.T.M. said she wanted to find a new counsellor. C.G.H. said that Ms. Butler was discharged because S.T.M. did not like the advice they were receiving. S.T.M. said that they jointly agreed not to continue with Ms. Butler because she was not a registered psychologist and as such, S.T.M.’s extended health plan would not pay her fees.

[94]      S.T.M. disagreed with Ms. Butler’s view that there was nothing wrong with B. that more time at C.G.H.’s could not resolve when, from her experience, B. was having great difficulties. In retrospect, given B.’s various subsequent diagnoses, Ms. Butler was wrong in her analysis.

[95]      C.G.H. had one final session with Ms. Butler after the joint relationship ended. He said Ms. Butler suggested that S.T.M.’s relationship with B. was one of “enmeshment”, where S.T.M. was acting as a co-dependent to B. and that without some work, B. would not become her own person and personality.

[96]      On January 15, 2018, S.T.M. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking guardianship, contact with B., parenting time, allocation of parental responsibilities and a protection order. On the same date, S.T.M. filed an affidavit requesting a change in the parenting time from what was in the Agreement until B. was assessed, treated by a child psychologist and a Section 211 Family Law Act (FLA) report was prepared. The affidavit alleged, that despite the Agreement, C.G.H.’s parenting time with B. had been sporadic and at his convenience. On January 31, 2018, S.T.M. withdrew the Application.

[97]      S.T.M. said there was an incident in January 2018 where, after helping to buy a birthday cake and present for C.G.H., B., at the last minute, refused to go to his home as arranged and locked herself in her bedroom. That resulted in a heated exchange between the Parties. S.T.M. alleged C.G.H. told her that he would take B. and S.T.M. would never see her again. Soon after that incident B. told S.T.M. that she did not want to go to C.G.H.’s because he pinched her bottom and her nipples, he would watch her in the shower and he insisted she clean her private parts with her hand.

[98]      S.T.M. researched other possible professionals to assist with B.’s behaviours and found Dr. Ambrose. C.G.H. agreed to engage Dr. Ambrose and she began working with B. in January 2018. C.G.H. said he was in favour of the move because of Dr. Ambrose’s greater education and experience in dealing with children of separated parents. Her involvement with B. and the Parties is detailed elsewhere.

[99]      Starting in early 2018, B. became less resistant to spending time with C.G.H. and eventually voluntarily agreed to spend time with him including additional times scheduled on short notice. In May 2018, C.G.H. suspended his Monday night parenting time for the summer because of his fieldwork.

[100]   In the summer of 2018, C.G.H. asked S.T.M. if she and B. would monitor his time in the field and that he could report in each day by satellite phone. S.T.M. agreed and C.G.H. felt it would be beneficial to help B. remember whom her father was and that he was out working in the field.

[101]   C.G.H. said that beginning in 2018, although his available time was truncated during the summer due to his fieldwork, he was available approximate 42% of the time. S.T.M. resisted him having additional time with B. He could not recall whether he believed that routine and consistency was important for B. at that time because her ASD had not been diagnosed.

[102]   S.T.M. said that in the fall of 2018 when C.G.H. wanted to return to the previous schedule, B. was very resistant and started to exhibit a number of her previous anxiety behaviours of crying, not sleeping and breaking down. However, after considerable encouragement from her, B. did spend her parenting time with C.G.H.

[103]   Around this time, S.T.M. told C.G.H. that she was having difficulty with getting B. into the car to travel to the exchange location. C.G.H. said that he could not understand what that problem was because whenever B. was with him they had a lot of fun and she seemed to enjoy their time together.

[104]   Although B. was making progress in 2018 with Dr. Ambrose’s help, S.T.M. said that near Halloween that year B. had a complete unravelling over a fear that S.T.M. was going to sell or give her to an orphanage. That lasted for about a week but B. seemed to come out of it. C.G.H. said he was unaware of that episode until it was revealed at trial.

[105]   S.T.M. had earlier suggested using a Family Justice Counsellor (FJC) but it was late fall of 2018 when C.G.H. went to see them. He said that he was not getting very much parenting time although all the experts had suggested equal parenting time.

[106]   C.G.H. said that after his initial meeting with the FJC he made a complaint to the Ministry of Child and Family Development (MCFD) about S.T.M. continuing to wipe B.'s bottom given that she was now 10. MCFD told him that they did not deal with matters like that because it was not a matter of imminent harm. MCFD told him that the FJC had reported the same matter. S.T.M. said that both Parties wiped B.'s bottom until approximately 2018. She acknowledged that is unusual but attributed B.'s needs in that regard to her later diagnosed ASD.

[107]   On January 29, 2019, S.T.M. filed another Application to Obtain an Order seeking guardianship, contact with B., parenting time, allocation of parental responsibilities and child support retroactive to July 1, 2014. On the same date, S.T.M. filed an affidavit similar in content to her January 15, 2018 affidavit but with the addition of child support issues.

[108]   The meetings between C.G.H., S.T.M. with the FJC resulted in a draft Memorandum of Understanding, dated March 5, 2019, which provided C.G.H. with an extra hour of parenting time with B. On the very first time that was to occur, B. phoned him in tears saying she did not want to come.

[109]   After that incident there was to be another meeting with the FJC to discuss matters further. C.G.H. attended but S.T.M. did not. C.G.H. said S.T.M. was avoiding the counselling sessions because she did not like what they were suggesting for his parenting time. S.T.M. said she advised the FJC of her unavailability on the scheduled day. C.G.H. did not get that information and no steps were taken after that.

[110]   On March 13, 2019, C.G.H. filed a Reply opposing the relief sought in the Application and counterclaiming for parenting time, child support and cancellation or reduction of any arrears of child support. On April 3, 2019, S.T.M. filed a Reply to the Counterclaim opposing the relief sought by C.G.H.

[111]   In the spring of 2019, C.G.H. took B. to Vancouver and they went to the aquarium and Science World. He reported that B. had a good time and there were no major issues. S.T.M. said that although B. had good moments on that trip she talked more about that she was upset that C.G.H. and T.C. were arguing. At one point B. became very agitated and anxious and threw up in the taxi and that she had a cold but C.G.H. and W.C. would not help her.

[112]   In early 2019, Dr. Ambrose suggested that S.T.M. start making small changes in her home so things were not always exactly the same to assist B. in adapting to different situations, in part, to accommodate the differences between the Parties’ homes. That continued until B.’s ASD was diagnosed when it was decided to return to a more predictable arrangement.

[113]   In 2019, Dr. Ambrose made a number of recommendations to the Parties of work to be done with B. to address her OCD symptoms. C.G.H. said he followed the direction of Dr. Ambrose in that regard and after several months, Dr. Ambrose reported to him that B.’s OCD symptoms had diminished considerably.

[114]   C.G.H. said that although S.T.M. and D.H. had been living together since January 2017 he did not find out about it until the summer of 2019 when Dr. Ambrose mentioned it in passing. She thought that he already knew about that living situation. Although he communicated with S.T.M. about D.H. and their relationship, he was not told that they were living together as a family.

[115]   He believes that many of B.’s anxieties during that time arose from her having to lie about her living situation in S.T.M.’s home. He also believes that S.T.M. encouraged B. not to disclose her family situation to him. C.G.H. said that after Dr. Ambrose spoke to B. and advised her that he knew about the stepparent family B. seemed to release a lot of anxiety, was a lot more affectionate and much happier for a while.

[116]   S.T.M. initially said that she had told C.G.H. about D.H. around the time he moved in. Later she said she was unaware that she had to disclose to C.G.H. the living arrangements in her home and now that she was aware of that situation, she would do so in the future.

[117]   In 2019, C.G.H.'s parenting time with B. was four overnights per month and every Tuesday. However, B. became resistant to the Tuesdays.

[118]   C.G.H. said that his parenting time with B. was further reduced and when he questioned S.T.M. about that, she insisted that it was B.'s choice and that she would always back up B.'s choices to which he responded that B. should not be making parenting decisions. He said S.T.M. repeated that position many times since the separation.

[119]   In May 2019, C.G.H. and T.C. purchased a home together in a rural area in the city. S.T.M. said B. had a lot of difficulty adjusting to that move and started to fall apart so she contacted Dr. Ambrose for advice and assistance. B. wanted to pick out her room at C.G.H.'s new home but was told the room she selected was going to be C.G.H.'s office. There were also disagreements about what colour she could paint her room in his home and an interior decorator was consulted and rejected B.'s choice of colours as being too overwhelming.

[120]   C.G.H. said that the room B. selected was not a safe place for a bedroom due to egress issues in the case of a fire so he asked B. to make another choice that she agreed to without any complaint. He took many steps to make B.’s bedroom area more comfortable for her by in many ways imitating what she has at S.T.M.’s home and renovating a bathroom to her tastes. This was done to help with B.’s sleep difficulties. When B. is at his home, he regularly asks her in the morning how she has slept the night before and in most cases she reports that she is sleeping reasonably well.

[121]   In the summer of 2019, C.G.H. took B. to the Okanagan on vacation. S.T.M. said although B. enjoyed some activities that she was upset because she said she was forced play beer pong and she was told she was putting on too much sunscreen so it was taken away from her. She told S.T.M. that the sunscreen smelled like S.T.M. and she liked that so she put it on.

[122]   C.G.H. said that B. along with some other children were playing what they called “beer pong” but played it with fruit juices and soft drinks. At one point B. was putting on so much sunscreen others at the gathering became concerned and intervened.

[123]   B. said she enjoyed when she and T.C. were studying about the Ogopogo phenomenon but she was upset when C.G.H. told her that Ogopogo was not real. When B. returns from a vacation that has some positive aspects but is otherwise negative from her perspective S.T.M. said she tries to focus on the positive aspects to reassure B. that she had a good time.

[124]   On August 26, 2019 the Parties attended a Family Case Conference (FCC) and entered into an Interim Consent Order for C.G.H.’s parenting time with B. which included:

[125]   C.G.H. said that he agreed to the terms of FCC Order although he wanted more parenting time because he saw it as a starting point. He said that up to that time his parenting time with B. was considerably less than what the FCC Order provided.

[126]   For a short time, the new schedule under the FCC Order went well with Parties communicating with B. in advance, about what would be happening during her time with C.G.H. S.T.M. said that did not last long and when she attempted to get C.G.H. to continue to provide advance information so she could preload B. he did not do so.

[127]   Early in the 2019 school year, B. refused to go to school one day. S.T.M. said that with the assistance of the vice principal, the counsellor and the aboriginal support worker they made B. feel more comfortable in the classroom and immediately before the transition to C.G.H.’s home on Tuesdays and Fridays. B. continued to have Tuesday and Friday/Saturday parenting time with C.G.H. with some complaints but few issues because the transition occurred directly from school.

[128]   After the FCC, B. complained to S.T.M. that she did not like going to C.G.H.’s home and that she did not feel safe there. She also expressed to S.T.M. her frustrations that C.G.H. simply refused to listen to her about what she wished to do or not to do and he called her a liar.

[129]   C.G.H. said that in September 2019, without consulting him, S.T.M. sent him emails outlining B.’s schedule of extracurricular activities. He did not think S.T.M. should be able to arrange activities for B. during his parenting time and he and B. should consult about what activities they would do together during his time with her.

[130]   In the fall of 2019, B. had dance lessons on Friday nights when C.G.H. had her and he took her to those lessons. He enjoyed the dance lessons. B. convinced a friend to go to the dance lessons with her. B. participated in a Christmas dance recital and after the recital, there was a gingerbread making party that B. enjoyed.

[131]   There were some occasions in the fall of 2019 where B. would complain of a migraine, decide not to go with C.G.H. and caught the bus to S.T.M.’s home without either Party knowing in advance. S.T.M. agreed that on occasions when B. had migraine headaches, C.G.H. had over-the-counter medicines on hand and that with his medical knowledge as a paramedic he could have easily dealt with B.’s symptoms.

[132]   On another occasion in the fall of 2019, B. refused to go to C.G.H.'s home for the scheduled parenting time. According to S.T.M., B. was upset, angry, crying and vomiting and she supported B.'s decision not to go because she felt that more important to stabilize her physical and mental health. She said that she would always do so in B.'s best interest.

[133]   S.T.M. said that she constantly encourages B. to spend time with C.G.H. through discussion, and, on occasions, bribery. Even when B. does not physically resist she often complains about having to go.

[134]   S.T.M. said that when she tells C.G.H. that B. chooses not to go on certain times it is not her giving B. the choice but it is simply advising C.G.H. that B. is refusing to go despite her best efforts to make it happen. She has never told B. that she has the right to choose. B. obtained that information from other children she knows that they were permitted choose.

[135]   S.T.M. denied interfering with C.G.H.’s time or discouraging B. from seeing him but she sent several emails to C.G.H. in 2019 indicating that it was “up to her [B.]” to decide if she wanted to see him. One read, in part:

[136]   The Sunday day visits were unsuccessful almost immediately. S.T.M. said each Sunday was a big fight with B. to get her out of the house and into the car to go to the exchange location because she refused to go to C.G.H.’s. She sent many communications to C.G.H. pointing out the problem and proposed that C.G.H. have B. From Friday night until Sunday afternoon rather than having the exchange on Saturday evening and Sunday morning but he did not respond.

[137]   C.G.H. said that after the FCC Order S.T.M. contacted him about changing the parenting time but that it would have resulted in him having less time with B. so he rejected her proposal. He did not make any counter proposal.

[138]   C.G.H. said that when he did not obtain his parenting time, particularly on Sundays, he would explain to S.T.M. and B. that both The Report and the FCC Order, to which S.T.M. consented, provided him with more parenting time but that she was not complying.

[139]   S.T.M., and later D.H., took B. to every Sunday exchange as required by the FCC Order. S.T.M. said that once they arrived at the exchange location and B. refused to get out of the car C.G.H. did very little, if anything to get B. to go with him but accused her of letting B. decide. She suggested to C.G.H. that he remove B. from her car but he declined to do so.

[140]   C.G.H. said on the Sunday exchanges R.M. or D.H. would never tell B. to get out of the car or encourage B. to go with him. Often they would just drive up and not even pull into a parking space. B. would roll down the window slightly and tell him she didn’t want to come and then they would drive off. He found their behaviour frustrating and heart breaking.

[141]   C.G.H. said that at the Sunday exchanges he sometimes remained in his vehicle and sometimes got out and went to the vehicle where B. was. On every occasion, he attempted to speak to B. about coming with him. On no occasion did S.T.M. actively encourage B. to get out of the car and go with him. S.T.M. would sit there in silence and in prior or later communication between them; she would say she would not force B. to get out of the vehicle.

[142]   On several Sundays, he would try to encourage B. to come with him by suggesting things that they had done in past weeks that were fun or that there were things planned for that Sunday that were going to be fun. On many occasions B. did nothing more than roll the window down an inch to and say she was not coming. On some occasions, she was not even dressed for the day, being still in her pyjamas.

[143]   There were two videos of Sunday exchanges in evidence. One from November 24, 2019, that C.G.H. recorded where B. did not come with him and he said S.T.M. did not encourage her to come. The other from the April 26, 2020 exchange where D.H. said he felt intimidated by C.G.H.'s actions and that he did tell B. "Go with your dad". The circumstances of that exchange were different from many others because C.G.H. came up to the car door and T.C. was present. D.H. said change upset B. and she shut down. C.G.H. said that the video shows he was not acting aggressively towards D.H.

[144]   C.G.H. said he attended all of the Sunday exchanges on time but was denied parenting time with B. every time. In addition, there was one other exchange where he was going to be late so he sent T.C. She arrived four minutes late and B. had already left the exchange location.

[145]   C.G.H. said on one of the Sunday exchanges he believed S.T.M. had a witness and that she was trying to set him up to pull B. out of the vehicle. He was always polite, respectful and calm.

[146]   C.G.H. alleged that S.T.M. wrongfully withheld B. from him during his scheduled parenting time contrary to the FCC Order and Section 61 of the FLA. He produced a spreadsheet of his missed parenting time in 2019 and 2020. S.T.M. did not deny that there were several days that C.G.H. missed his parenting time, almost exclusively on Sundays, but that he got some make up parenting time. C.G.H. said he got some extra parenting time in 2020 but it had nothing to do with the missed Sundays.

[147]   S.T.M. said other missed parenting time included:

[148]   C.G.H. said some additional examples where he lost parenting time included:

[149]   In November 2019, Dr. Aube interviewed the Parties and others, prepared The Report and provided it to the Parties. C.G.H. endorsed Dr. Aube’s findings, opinions and recommendations. S.T.M. seriously disagreed with the contents and accuracy of The Report but did agree with the recommendations concerning B.’s parenting time with each of the Parties.

[150]   In April 2020, soon after the Covid restrictions started, Dr. Ambrose suggested that an increase in C.G.H.’s parenting time with B. might be appropriate because B.’s anxieties and stress were at a reduced level and school was cancelled. The Parties agreed with that idea but it did not occur.

[151]   C.G.H. and T.C. brought horses to their home. At first B. was very enthusiastic about the horses, enjoyed riding and spending time with them. C.G.H. said this was but one example of him acting on S.T.M.’s suggestion to get B. engaged in activities but they do not work out.

[152]   One of T.C.’s mares was due to foal in May 2020. B. was the very excited about the prospective birth and insisted she be notified as soon as the foal was born. The day of the foal's birth B. came to C.G.H. home earlier than her scheduled arrival time. B. wanted to spend a lot of time with the foal going as far as sleeping in its stall. She was very engaged.

[153]   The Unicorn Club is an equine-based therapy resource for children with special needs. It has had a lot of success working with children who have a variety of disabilities. T.C. and C.G.H. thought such a resource would benefit B. given her interest in the foal. B. went for one lesson and then within a few weeks said she was no longer interested in that activity. When the foal was a few months old, S.T.M. said B. was no longer interested in horses.

[154]   S.T.M. said that B. said that she felt forced to go riding and stopped all interest in the horses. This upset S.T.M. because she had hoped that B. would enjoy the horses at both C.G.H.’s and her home. She was unaware that B. had the opportunity to participate in the Unicorn Club.

[155]   On June 1, 2020, C.G.H. filed a Notice of Motion and an Application for Urgent Hearing under the Court’s Covid-19 protocol (the Motion). On the same day, he filed an affidavit attaching numerous documents that were resubmitted at trial.

[156]   On June 27, 2020, B. and a friend found a shotgun under C.G.H.’s bed. This occurred when C.G.H. and T.C. were away for slightly over an hour purchasing lifejackets. During that time, B. and her friend were frightened by some noises they heard. They contacted S.T.M. and she suggest that they look around the house to satisfy themselves that there was nothing there.

[157]   In doing so they went into C.G.H.’s room, which S.T.M. was unaware B. was prohibited from doing, and discovered a shotgun under the bed. They took pictures of the gun and sent them to the friend's mother who contacted S.T.M. and later C.G.H. to ensure that the children were safe.

[158]   S.T.M. said that the children were left alone for an extended period and that they were very frightened by what they found under the bed. C.G.H. said the shotgun was usually stored in a gun safe but was under the bed because there had been some bear sightings in the neighbourhood and his mare had recently foaled and he was concerned about a bear attacking.

[159]   At some point subsequent to the Shotgun Incident, an entry was made on the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database concerning C.G.H. even though the RCMP never interviewed him about the matter and he was never charged. C.G.H. was very concerned that the CPIC notation would pose difficulty in him renewing his firearms license, which he requires for his fieldwork, and that in any future dealings with the police or any international travel he may be restricted because of that notation. C.G.H. said that he believed S.T.M. had something to do with the CPIC notation and that he had to spend considerable time and money to get the entry reversed.

[160]   S.T.M. said she did not make the notation herself nor did she know who made that it. She had no input into it nor access to that part of the file because of the nature of the investigation.

[161]   On June 19 and July 3, 2020, the Motion was heard. On August 13, 2020, the Court released Reasons for Judgment found at S.T.M. v C.G.H. 2020 BCPC 181 and granted an interim order that included:

[162]   The Reasons for Judgment made a number of suggestions to assist the Parties in trying to move forward in their relationships with B. including:

[163]   C.G.H. said he never spoke to B. about the police enforcement clause in the August 2020 Order. After the FCC Order, he did have some conversations with S.T.M. about that order in front of B. However, he has not had any discussions with or made comments to B. about lawyers, judges and the Court since the August 2020 Order.

[164]   S.T.M. said that after the August 2020 Order things went better for B. and she was prepared to go to C.G.H.’s with only a few complaints or concerns. Those concerns mostly occurred on Mondays in the early fall of 2020 after her time with C.G.H. when B. would complain of being tired, being unable to focus and having migraines.

[165]   C.G.H. asserted and S.T.M. denied that the police enforcement clause resulted in B. going to all of the exchanges because S.T.M. was afraid of the embarrassment of her [omitted for publication] colleagues having to come to enforce the order.

[166]   S.T.M. suggested, through Dr. Ambrose, that B. and C.G.H. have a session with Dr. Ambrose on those Mondays to work on any issues B. had arising from the weekend but that never occurred.

[167]   Despite that, frequent electronic communication between S.T.M. and B. continued during C.G.H.’s parenting time. S.T.M. said that she would only respond to B.’s messages when B. reached out to her. However, the documentary evidence showed S.T.M. initiating text messages with B. on various occasions.

[168]   It appears that, following the August 2020 Order, S.T.M. never communicated to B. that it was inappropriate for B. to be contacting her on every slight matter, despite correspondence from her counsel that she would address the issue.

[169]   C.G.H. said that both before and after the August 2020 Order B.’s electronic contact with S.T.M. continued unabated with tens, and sometimes hundreds, of various types of electronic communication occurring between them every day when B. is with him. He said B. would often take her iPad to the bathroom and stay in there for hours communicating with S.T.M.

[170]   C.G.H. said it is important to consider the electronic communication to understand how B. acts and how S.T.M. responds. C.G.H. produced a spreadsheet of a sampling of messages between S.T.M. and B., from March 2019 to August 2021 including the following examples:

[171]   S.T.M. said that if she does not respond, B. begins to spiral and will just continue to text and call until she answers. This often happens in the middle of the night when B. cannot sleep. S.T.M. said she worked hard with Dr. Ambrose to limit these communications in a way that is healthy for B.

[172]   C.G.H. said B. insists on watching television at night in her bedroom before she falls asleep. This is not healthy and was discouraged by Dr. Ambrose. B. should be listening to music or meditative sounds to assist her in her sleep and not watching television or spending time communicating with S.T.M. on her tablet because that reduces the effectiveness of her sleep.

[173]   Dr. Aube was unaware of the amount of electronic communication between B. and S.T.M. at the time of The Report. When informed of that issue at trial she said that it was impeding C.G.H.’s parenting time, and it was like using a “remote control” over B. If she had known that information prior to The Report, she would have recommended C.G.H. have final decision - making authority.

[174]   The August 2020 Order included conduct orders about respectful communication. C.G.H. alleged that S.T.M. has either ignored or made a mockery of those orders with statements, messages and actions that are disparaging of him and do nothing to help support building his relationship with B. She negatively critiqued his decisions and household rules to B. from a distance.

[175]   The August 2020 Order provided that after one Party drops B. off at school for an exchange, the other Party becomes responsible for any matters that might arise at school. C.G.H. said that S.T.M. breached that order by frequently attending B.’s school during his parenting time.

[176]   S.T.M. said that B.’s behaviours became more worrisome in the early winter of 2020 when she started writing depressive poems, talked about running away from C.G.H.’s and caused damage to his home.

[177]   B. kept a journal at C.G.H.’s home. In the journal, parts of which she shared with S.T.M., she expressed deep hatred and loathing for C.G.H. B. also used a rock to scratch the floor in her bedroom at C.G.H.’s home and sent a photo of that to S.T.M. S.T.M. said that she told B. that such behaviour was inappropriate. She brought those two matters to Dr. Ambrose’s, but not C.G.H.’s, attention. S.T.M. said she is not prepared to tell B. that her feelings and actions are wrong even if they are inappropriate. B. shared that information with her because B. believes she can share everything with S.T.M.

[178]   C.G.H. said when B. scratched her bedroom floor at his home she communicated with S.T.M. about wanting to come home and S.T.M. said she would attempt to make that happen. He was not aware of the scratched floor until much later and it was not a major issue.

[179]   S.T.M. said B. has a lot of difficulty with cutlery at meal times. B. reported that she was upset when she was in Jasper with C.G.H. and he was critical of her use of cutlery. People with ASD often have difficulty with fine motor skills such as eating with cutlery. B. reported that she could not stand the noise the knife was making on the plate so she tipped it upside down. When B. got home from Jasper, she took all the cutlery in S.T.M.’s home and hid it. S.T.M. did not see that as problematic.

[180]   In November 2020, S.T.M. suggested to C.G.H. a change to the August 2020 Order such that B. would be returned to her on Sunday evening rather than to school on Monday to give B. time to decompress and get a good night’s sleep but he your refused. C.G.H. said that when S.T.M. contacted him about reducing his parenting time from Monday morning to Sunday evening he refused her suggestion because the Court recognized that an increase in his parenting time was appropriate and both The Report and Dr. Ambrose endorsed that view.

[181]   C.G.H. said that after the August 2020 Order, which included the police enforcement clause, he did not miss any of his scheduled parenting time with B. except for during the time MCFD was dealing with a disclosure made by B. in January 2021.

[182]   C.G.H. said that since the August 2020 Order when B. comes to his home she is initially confused and anxious but soon falls into the routine of the household enjoying herself and activities they engage in. T.C. said that it was around September 2020 that they started noticing improvements with B. being more affectionate with her and C.G.H. Since B.’s time increased to five days in 2021, she has been even more able to relax and fall into the routine of his household while she is there.

[183]   However, on the last day before she is to return to S.T.M.’s home, B. becomes withdrawn as if she was turning off prior to her return. She also shows signs of anxiety if anyone asks about what is going on in her life at S.T.M.’s home. C.G.H. noted that despite the noticeable improvements with B. at his home, S.T.M. approached, and encouraged B. to speak with him about reducing his parenting time.

[184]   On November 21, 2020, B. told S.T.M. that she wanted to return to her home sooner than scheduled time. Rather than encouraging B. to remain at C.G.H.’s home she told B. that she missed her.

[185]   S.T.M. said C.G.H. regularly tells her that B. is enjoying her time with him and the activities that they participate in at his home but that is not what B. tells her. B. says she does not enjoy her time with C.G.H. She has learned from reading about people with ASD that often they camouflage by looking like they're having a good time when really they're upset and holding everything inside until later when they can release it to somebody they trust.

[186]   In December 2020, B. contacted S.T.M. when she was at C.G.H.’s home and said that she was seeing devils. S.T.M. provided B. with holy water that she used to make crosses on various windows and mirrors in C.G.H.’s home. Neither B. nor S.T.M. told C.G.H. about devils in his home or B.’s wish to use holy water at the time. He found out about it afterwards.

[187]   C.G.H. said that when B. has concerns that she shares with S.T.M. but not him S.T.M. takes no steps to contact him to inform him or to suggest how they might be alleviated. She does however communicate extensively with B. in a fashion that does not reinforce B’s relationship with him.

[188]   S.T.M. said that in early 2021, B. became constipated during the time she was with C.G.H. causing other physiological issues upon her return to S.T.M. She reported that to Dr. Ambrose who worked with B. to alleviate her anxieties of being at C.G.H.’s home.

[189]   In early January 2021, B. made a disclosure to her school social worker alleging inappropriate behaviour by C.G.H. The social worker contacted MCFD and an investigation by MCFD and the RCMP ensued. During that time, S.T.M. was instructed not to discuss the disclosure with B. and C.G.H.’s parenting time was suspended.

[190]   S.T.M. said that she spoke to social workers and agreed that an interview would not take place at the school. She said she did not receive any instructions from the MCFD social workers that they insisted on being present during an interview but SW Shalaina Weibe (Ms. Weibe), an MCFD child protection social worker assigned to the matter, contradicted that evidence. S.T.M. said she was told by someone to take B. to the North District RCMP office for an interview.

[191]   Ms. Wiebe said she confirmed with S.T.M. and RCMP members that an interview of B. would not take place without her being present to reduce the possibility of having to conduct a second interview of B. However, without the knowledge of anybody at MCFD the RCMP interviewed B. She attempted to contact C.G.H. to advise him about what was occurring but was unable to reach him until later.

[192]   Sgt. Jennifer Collins conducted the interview at the RCMP North District office to isolate the matter from S.T.M. who works at the [omitted for publication]. Sgt. Collins concluded it was not a criminal matter and that MCFD could continue their investigation. She relayed that information to S.T.M. but not to C.G.H.

[193]   During that interview B. disclosed:

[194]   After reviewing the details of the RCMP interview of B. and being advised that B. was involved in ongoing counselling with Dr. Ambrose MCFD made a decision that no further investigation was necessary.

[195]   Based on the disclosure provided by the RCMP and MCFD, S.T.M. has no concerns about B.’s safety with C.G.H. but she is concerned as to why B. would react in the way she did.

[196]   S.T.M. was concerned about some of the disclosure made by B. Including that C.G.H. and his brother drink alcohol together, that B. wished C.G.H. would drink until he "passed out", and that B. was very sad about having to spend time with C.G.H. She referred that information to Dr. Ambrose.

[197]   In response to B.’s disclosure C.G.H. said:

[198]   S.T.M. said that in the late spring of 2021, B. told her that C.G.H. was continuing to talk about her disclosure and that he said she was a bad person and a liar. B. told S.T.M. that she was self-harming and S.T.M. brought that to Dr. Ambrose’s attention. S.T.M. said she now thinks that the disclosure may be a form of bridge burning which people with ASD sometimes do.

[199]   Subsequent to the RCMP investigation, the notation on CPIC about C.G.H. was discovered. Sgt. Collins said she had no knowledge of how the notation about C.G.H. appeared on CPIC because she has no access to that database.

[200]   C.G.H. said he was kept totally in the dark and received absolutely no information from any official source about the nature of the disclosure investigation or its results other than receiving information approximately a week later that the investigation had concluded with no adverse findings.

[201]   He was not able to speak to B. about her complaints in order to address them in any fashion but he did discuss the matter with Dr. Ambrose who said she would speak to B. about the matter. After Dr. Ambrose spoke to B., she reported to C.G.H. that B. did not have any remorse for making the disclosure or any real understanding of how serious it was.

[202]   S.T.M. said that C.G.H. disclosed The Report to MCFD, B.’s school and Dr. Ambrose without her approval, which was a serious breach of her and B.’s privacy.

[203]   S.T.M. said that she tells B. to be truthful even if it is in the face of a negative response from her or C.G.H. C.G.H. said he has never accused B. of being a liar although he has explained to her on several occasions the necessity and value of telling the truth and not lying. S.T.M. permitted B. to lie to him for over two years about her stepfamily.

[204]   C.G.H. said that the disclosure allegations were old complaints that B. had raised with him and S.T.M. in years past and Dr. Ambrose had addressed them. He said that after the investigation ended, he and T.C. continued to walk on eggshells and his hands were tied with regard to exercising any parental authority or control over B. He is not able to communicate freely with B. He does not ask her why she is feeling the way she is feeling towards him. He does not address some of the fears and anxieties that she has around him. He does not speak to B. about her historical complaints against him. B. does not feel comfortable enough to share these things with him either.

[205]   If he attempted to do so, B. would report to S.T.M. who will then contend he was not sensitive to B.’s needs and her condition. At the suggestion of the professionals, particularly Dr. Ambrose, he has not had the opportunity to sit down with B. and discuss the false disclosure and how they might resolve things going forward.

[206]   C.G.H. believes that B. is a very troubled young woman but that many of her anxieties are because of the enmeshed relationship she has with S.T.M., their co-dependency and S.T.M.’s alienation of B. from him. A lot of B.’s behaviours and anxieties are a result of he and S.T.M. not being able to communicate and co-parent successfully and that means they need outside assistance through FST and a parenting coordinator.

[207]   On February 18, 2021, C.G.H. filed an Amended Reply of the Reply originally filed on March 13, 2019 and an Amended Notice of Motion originally filed June 1, 2020. In the Amended Reply C.G.H. seeks sole guardianship, parental responsibilities and parenting time with B. as well as child support and cancelling of any child support arrears.

[208]   C.G.H. said B. often takes medications while at his home without him being aware of what she is taking. She will communicate with S.T.M. who will suggest to her what to take without keeping him informed. On one occasion in winter, S.T.M. suggested that B. reach outside her window to get some snow to ease her sore throat.

[209]   C.G.H. said that S.T.M. on rare occasions relays vague details about B.’s health concerns but she will not communicate clearly with him about the details of those issues so that he can properly address them. S.T.M. said she does not tell C.G.H. about B.’s medications at his home because in the past when she tried to discuss matters with C.G.H. he just turns things around.

[210]   S.T.M. said that in the summer of 2021, Dr. Ambrose told her that she did not need to schedule any further appointments for herself and B. jointly but that she would continue to have appointments with B. and C.G.H. on a regular basis. As far as she was aware, C.G.H. did not take any steps to ensure regularly scheduled appointments for B. and him with Dr. Ambrose.

[211]   On one occasion, [omitted for publication] ate a chocolate cookie while B. was at C.G.H.’s home. Rather than consult with T.C., a veterinarian, about [omitted for publication]’ health, B. communicated electronically with S.T.M. B. told S.T.M. that she did not want to talk to C.G.H. or T.C. because she would be in trouble for having food in her room. S.T.M. did not insist that B. talk to T.C. but did some online research and then reassured B. that [omitted for publication] would be fine.

[212]   C.G.H. said B. sneaks things supplied by S.T.M. into his home such as cookies, cakes and candies to which he objects. Many gifts that he and W.C. give to B. are taken from their home to S.T.M.’s and never returned.

[213]   C.G.H. said that although B. has often communicated with S.T.M. about feeling unsafe in his home she has never had a conversation with him about that subject to allow him to take any steps to make her feel more comfortable.

[214]   In the summer of 2021 B., C.G.H. and T.C. went on vacation to the Toronto area. T.C. said she and C.G.H. started talking to B. about that trip in 2019 and showed her pictures of her family members and the house they would be visiting. The trip was postponed from 2020 due to Covid. S.T.M. wanted B. to bring [omitted for publication] but as a brachycephalic dog breed [omitted for publication] could suffer distress or death in the cargo hold of an airplane and she was too big to travel in the cabin.

[215]   T.C. said they took many photographs of their trip showing everyone, enjoying their time with friends and family in southern Ontario. While there they went to a haunted house attraction, rode on a Ferris wheel, toured a butterfly conservatory and drove through an African safari; all of which B. found very entertaining.

[216]   T.C. said that during the vacation, B. would text S.T.M. regularly and she would text her more on the days she was having the most amount of fun. She was unaware of the content of those texts until later when C.G.H. downloaded them from B.’s iPad. On the flight home, they treated everyone to first-class seating. When B. was told about that arrangement, she was very excited but in the day before and on the trip home, she became very distant and disengaged.

[217]   S.T.M. said that prior to the trip to Toronto, B. said she would just run away and find a police officer when they got to Toronto so she would not have to spend time with C.G.H. B. only received seven days’ notice of what would be occurring on the Toronto trip, which was not enough time to prepare her. C.G.H. was also very late in advising her that [omitted for publication] could not go on the trip. B. objected to spending seven nights with C.G.H. but did go.

[218]   When B. was in Grade 7, she switched from French immersion to English classes. C.G.H. said that there was very little discussion with S.T.M. about moving B. from French immersion to English studies. He was not fully involved before S.T.M. made the decision but he supported it. S.T.M. said they discussed the transfer for several months before it occurred.

[219]   The French immersion program students go to a high school closer to where C.G.H. lives while those in the English program go to a high school near S.T.M.’s home. C.G.H. said he raised with B. which high school she may wish to go to in Grade 8 and advised her that they could facilitate her going to high school with her former French immersion classmates if she wished and she could use his address to fall within the catchment area. B. related to S.T.M. that C.G.H. pressured her about the options but that was not the case. S.T.M. said that B. was very upset by the suggestion. B. now attends high school nearer to S.T.M.’s residence.

[220]   When B. started high school, she received an Independent Education Program (IEP) counsellor. That counsellor arranged with S.T.M. to have an appointment early in the school year. S.T.M. asked if C.G.H. would be contacted and was assured that he would be. She went to the meeting with the counsellor to discuss B.’s IEP. Subsequently, C.G.H. accused her of going behind his back in making the appointment.

[221]   C.G.H. said that S.T.M. denied making an appointment with the counsellor when she had and he only found out about later from the counsellor. The counsellor told C.G.H. that B. is transitioning well into high school.

[222]   B.'s transition to high school had gone relatively smoothly in part because she was taken to the school several times in the previous school year to get familiar with it. B. had some initial struggle with her math educational assistant but they changed her to a new math class and she seems to be doing well.

[223]   B. still had difficulty with gym classes because she was bullied. She left the class on several occasions. The IEP counsellor suggested an individual gym program for her that S.T.M. supported but C.G.H. initially did not so B. remained in gym class for a time. She now has an online fitness program that she is supposed to do regularly. C.G.H. said that B. does not always participate in the program when she is at his home.

[224]   When B. started to have her first menstrual cycle, S.T.M. had some email communication with C.G.H. about that topic. That communication became convoluted and acrimonious.

[225]   On December 21, 2021, S.T.M.'s counsel filed written submissions. On February 1, 2022, C.G.H.'s counsel filed written submissions. On February 11, 2022, S.T.M.'s counsel filed reply submissions.

[226]   On March 22, 2022, B. filed an Information Form for Appointment of Lawyer for Child attaching a draft order.

[227]   On March 23, 2022, T.C. filed an affidavit sworn on February 15, 2022, detailing concerns she had about B.’s best interests arising from information she received from third parties about the status of S.T.M.’s and D.H.’s relationship. The information alleged that S.T.M. was having an affair with J.L.

[228]   On March 23, 2022, S.T.M., J.L., C.S., and N.S. filed affidavits in response to the affidavit filed by T.C. refuting her allegations.

[229]   Based on the affidavits filed by S.T.M., C.G.H.’s counsel asked the Court not consider the affidavit evidence because although T.C. stood by the information she relayed to the Court, that evidence was hearsay, and in the face of direct evidence from others, it might be innocently inaccurate. S.T.M.’s counsel maintained that the Court should consider all the affidavits because T.C. and C.G.H. were raising scandalous and false allegations about S.T.M. to gain an advantage in the litigation.

[230]   On April 27, 2022, most of the persons who filed affidavits and D.H. were cross-examined. T.C. maintained that she only reported what she had heard from third parties about S.T.M.’s relationship with J.L. because she was concerned about the stability in S.T.M.’s home and how that might impact B. She acknowledged contacting the family of S.T.M.’s former deceased spouse to obtain information about any violence in their relationship.

[231]   C.S., J.L. and S.T.M. contradicted T.C.’s evidence about the nature of S.T.M. and J.L.’s relationship. S.T.M. accused C.G.H. and T.C. of trying to dig up dirt about her past relationship. D.H. was unaware of most of the history and dynamics of S.T.M. and J.L.’s relationship.

[232]   In the summer of 2022, S.T.M. and D.H. separated. He and his two sons moved from S.T.M.’s residence. Commencing on August 10, 2022, D.H. began contacting C.G.H. alleging that S.T.M. was in a romantic relationship with J.L. that had been the subject of the April 2022 court proceedings.

[233]   On August 25, 2022, C.G.H. filed an affidavit attaching an extensive text message exchange he had with D.H. in which D.H. provided details of his allegations concerning S.T.M.’s relationship with J.L. That affidavit was brought to the Court’s attention during the August 25, 2023 hearing to determine if B. would have a lawyer appointed to represent her.

[234]   On November 16, 2022, C.G.H. filed a further affidavit updating the communication between himself and D.H. up to October 14, 2022. That affidavit also raised the concern that B. had not been participating in any counselling sessions with Dr. Ambrose since March 2022 and he was unsure if sessions had resumed.

[235]   On December 14, 2022, S.T.M. filed an affidavit refuting D.H.’s allegations that she was in a romantic relationship with J.L. and that those false allegations were raised months before by C.G.H. and T.C. put additional strain on her relationship with D.H. to the point that they separated.

[236]   S.T.M.’s affidavit also addressed Dr. Ambrose’s ongoing counselling relationship with B. Dr. Ambrose stopped seeing patients in March 2022 and she did not return to work until the fall. During that time, B. was without a counsellor. S.T.M. said she looked for another counsellor but was unsuccessful. C.G.H. was critical of her attempts but did not take any similar steps.

[237]   In November 2022, S.T.M. contacted Dr. Ambrose and the sessions resumed. Dr. Ambrose is working on a restricted basis but S.T.M. was confident that further sessions could be arranged depending on B.’s requests and Dr. Ambrose’s advice.

[238]   On December 14, 2022, D.H. filed an affidavit in which he confirmed that he had no evidence of any romantic relationship between S.T.M. and J.L. despite what he had told C.G.H. in telephone conversations and numerous text messages.

[239]   On January 20, 2023, C.G.H., S.T.M. and D.H. were cross-examined. C.G.H. was not cross-examined about S.T.M.’s romantic relationship with J.L. or Dr. Ambrose’s counselling schedule with B.

[240]   S.T.M.’s cross-examination evidence included:

[241]   D.H.’s cross-examination evidence included:

[242]   Dr. Ambrose is a Registered Psychologist specializing in child clinical psychology. Since 2013, she has provided individual therapy for youth with a variety of mental health conditions. She is qualified to complete ASD assessments through the BC Autism Assessment Network.

[243]   Dr. Ambrose was qualified as an expert in providing therapy to youth with mental health conditions including anxiety and OCD and the assessment and diagnosis of ASD.

[244]   She was retained to treat and assist B. They began working together in January 2018, initially weekly then, over time, to less frequent sessions. That also involved meeting and working with S.T.M. and C.G.H. Soon after she began working with B., she diagnosed her with SAD and GAD.

[245]   Those disorders manifested in B’s:

[246]   Some of the treatments she has utilized with B. included Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), exposure therapy that was gradual and consistent and involved the assistance of the Parties, and prescription medication.

[247]   In November 2018, Dr. Ambrose suggested a further diagnosis for B. of OCD and recommended medication to assist her. Both Parties initially expressed some reluctance with that course of treatment. However, after further research S.T.M. accepted that medication and continued assistance from Dr. Ambrose would benefit B.

[248]   C.G.H. continued to oppose the medication approach until February 2019. He said that based on his medical knowledge as a paramedic, he was concerned that once a person started on the medication recommended by Dr. Ambrose they would remain on it for the rest of their life.

[249]   There was controversy between the Parties surrounding prescribing medication for B. S.T.M. said that there was an agreement that both Parties would meet with the doctor to discuss the matter but an earlier appointment became available. She was unable to contact C.G.H. to let him know but she kept that appointment and the doctor prescribed the medication.

[250]   C.G.H. said the Parties had agreed that they would both speak to the doctor before medication was prescribed, but S.T.M. went ahead with an appointment without him and obtained the prescription. He said S.T.M. was making important decisions about B. behind his back, which further deteriorated their communication. He maintained that B. has never been diagnosed with OCD. Once B. started her medication, it had a positive effect almost immediately.

[251]   C.G.H. said he has concerns that B.’s prescription medication for OCD and anxiety seemed to give her frequent headaches for which she takes further medications. He believes the medications may have contributed to B.’s unhealthy weight gain and health effects takes her doing poorly at school.

[252]   S.T.M. said that in the past C.G.H. did not ensure that B. took her medication as prescribed. C.G.H. said that there is only one occasion when B. did not take her medication when with him on an overnight trip and that was because she had forgotten to bring the dose from S.T.M.’s home. He checked the Internet and satisfied himself that missing one dose was not dangerous.

[253]   C.G.H. said that at some point Dr. Ambrose suggested that his parenting time with B. should gradually increase up to seven days. S.T.M. told him that once B. had the necessary tools to address her OCD an increase in his parenting time would be appropriate.

[254]   C.G.H. said that Dr. Ambrose has been of great assistance to B. and a great resource for him as well. They have had many joint sessions in which Dr. Ambrose has gently corrected many of B.’s misconceptions or concerns about him.

[255]   Dr. Ambrose did not prepare a report but some of her observations of B. and the Parties are summarized in The Report and include:

[256]   Dr. Ambrose’s trial evidence about B.’s anxieties included:

[257]   Dr. Ambrose’s trial evidence on B.’s ASD included:

[258]   C.G.H. noted B.’s ASD is in the mild end of the spectrum. She is attending peer counselling in Prince George and Dr. Ambrose is qualified and knowledgeable in the treatment of people with ASD. In his view, there is no need to include further ASD experts.

[259]   In his experience B. does not need a lot of preloading when opportunities arise that may change her schedule such as a trip to Kamloops to visit relatives. He agrees that B. does better with consistency and routine.

[260]   S.T.M. said the following about B.’s involvement with Dr. Ambrose:

[261]   Dr. Aube is a Registered Psychologist privately retained by the Parties in September 2019 to prepare The Report. S.T.M. chose her from a list provided by C.G.H.

[262]   S.T.M. said that she believed that a View of the Child report would be sufficient and that a full Section 211 report was unnecessary but C.G.H. requested it. C.G.H. asked her to contribute $3000 to the cost and she agreed to that in correspondence between counsel. She was aware that the preparation of a full Section 211 report might be more than $6000.

[263]   C.G.H. said that throughout 2019, S.T.M. repeatedly requested a Section 211 report. He eventually agreed but S.T.M. refused to pay half the cost of The Report so he paid $15,000.

[264]   In early November 2019, Dr. Aube came to Prince George and interviewed the Parties at length, performed psychometric assessments on each of them and observed their interactions with B. and other family members. She also interviewed B. on two occasions. Later in November, she had some brief telephone contact with each of the Parties. In addition, Dr. Aube interviewed nine collateral witnesses including Dr. Ambrose, and reviewed numerous documents supplied by the Parties.

[265]   C.G.H. acknowledged that prior to retaining Dr. Aube there was an agreement between his and S.T.M.’s counsel that they would present mutually agreed upon documents to Dr. Aube. He acknowledged that his counsel forwarded additional documents to Dr. Aube, including draft affidavit material he prepared, without the agreement of S.T.M. or her counsel. C.G.H. believed that all the information Dr. Aube relied on in The Report concerning his and S.T.M.’s history was accurate and correct.

[266]   The Report, released in November 2019, addressed the issues of parenting responsibilities and parenting time, focused on the views and needs of B., in light of her age, and the ability and willingness of each of the Parties to endorse B.’s needs in exercising their parenting responsibilities. Dr. Aube said it was prepared to assist the Court in determining B.’s best interests in the face of the Parties’ disputes.

[267]   In The Report Dr. Aube noted the following regarding her approach to preparing The Report and her interactions with the Parties:

[268]   The Report summarized each of the Parties views about B.’s history and her parenting time with them and the other Party. Much of that information was similar to the Parties’ affidavit and oral evidence. However, there were some differences between what The Report attributed to each of the Parties and their evidence.

[269]   The Report summarized the following clinical impressions:

[270]   The Report also discussed parental alienation noting that it is a rather new concept that does not have a consistent professional definition. Psychological manipulation of a child can prevent, disturb, injure or destroy the natural bond between a child and a parent.

[271]   It set out and discussed four main factors relevant to ascertaining whether alienation is the primary cause of a child’s rejection of one parent and alignment with the other. They include evidence of:

[272]   In applying those factors to the information received and reviewed The Report concluded that there were signs of parental alienation and that even though they may have been initially unintentional and at times subtle there was evidence that B. was harmed.

[273]   The Report discussed the concept of enmeshment noting that it can result in a triangulation dynamic that involves an inter-parental dispute and the forming of an alliance with one parent against the other by the child. This may result in difficulty transitioning between each parent’s home and exhibiting healthy bonding with both parents. Enmeshment is often present with parental alienation as was the case with S.T.M. and B.

[274]   In discussing the topic of the child’s view The Report noted that B. wanted to please both of the Parties but found the decision process extremely demanding describing it as a 10 on the scale of 1 to 10 with 10 as the worst scenario.

[275]   The Report discussed B.’s needs as follows:

[276]   Despite Dr. Aube saying she had expertise and experience in dealing with ASD, The Report made no mention of it and did not recommend an assessment for B.

[277]   The Report’s conclusions and recommendations included:

[278]   In conclusion, The Report set out two possible scenarios going forward:

[279]   S.T.M. had many concerns about The Report including:

[280]   S.T.M. said that in her meetings with Dr. Aube they discussed the issue of a psychoeducational assessment for B. She had requested that for some time but C.G.H. was resistant. After he spoke to Dr. Aube, he became more open to the idea. That resulted in the Parties retaining Dr. Rocha.

[281]   She told Dr. Aube that at Christmas of 2015 and 2016, C.G.H. insisted that she buy all the presents for B. from Santa or else he was going to tell B. Santa was not real and C.G.H. said that it was her responsibility to buy the presents because she had ruined the family. C.G.H. denied that allegation.

[282]   S.T.M. said she is willing to have her parenting style questioned by any experts and she is always trying to improve by relying on the advice she gets from experts such as Dr. Ambrose. She told Dr. Aube that C.G.H. does not support B.'s academic pursuits, he was opposed to B. receiving OCD therapy including medication and that he questioned the diagnosis.

[283]   S.T.M. agreed that C.G.H. was not physically violent and that she concurs with the MMPI test results for C.G.H. that he is generally stable and responsible.

[284]   S.T.M. agreed with Dr. Aube that B.’s social development is somewhat delayed but according to Dr. Rocha’s and Dr. Welder’s later assessments her cognition and maturity is age-appropriate.

[285]   She took Dr. Aube’s criticisms of her to heart and has reflected on them to see if there were areas in which she could improve as a parent. She consulted with Dr. Ambrose to see how her approach to dealing with B. might be increasing B.’s anxieties and how that might change to assist B.

[286]   C.G.H. said that soon after S.T.M.’s interview she expressed displeasure with Dr. Aube stating that she was “not that highly regarded”. He agreed with The Report’s content and recommendations. He said he would take whatever steps needed to implement the recommendations. Based in part on his own observations and The Report, he is very concerned that S.T.M.’s actions are indicative of parental alienation and that those actions are having a detrimental effect on his relationship with B. and B.’s overall mental health.

[287]   C.G.H. said The Report suggested he have lunch with B. once a week at school. He tried that one time and B. refused to come out so he did not try again.

[288]   He acknowledged that his counsel sent The Report to MCFD and others without his knowledge and S.T.M. and her counsel were not informed.

[289]   D.H. was present during the observation session at S.T.M.’s home and spoke to Dr. Aube in person and by phone. His evidence of those interactions included:

[290]   T.C. was present during the observation session at C.G.H.’s home and spoke to Dr. Aube by phone. Her evidence of those interactions included:

[291]   S.T.M.’s sister, V.B. briefly spoke to Dr. Aube by telephone. Her evidence of that interaction included:

[292]   S.T.M.’s friend, J.B. spoke briefly to Dr. Aube by phone. He could not fully recall all of the conversation but Dr. Aube’s initial tone was very ignorant, arrogant and one sided but when he confronted her she did ask about some of S.T.M.’s good qualities.

[293]   S.T.M.’s friend, S.T. spoke to Dr. Aube by phone. She did not recall many of the details but was aware that Dr. Aube was conducting an assessment and the questions centred on S.T.M.’s parenting.

[294]   R.M. spoke briefly to Dr. Aube in person at S.T.M.’s home. He said The Report contained false and scandalous assertions about their family including how he and his wife raised S.T.M.

[295]   After reading portions of The Report, R.M. and his wife filed a complaint against Dr. Aube with the College in January 2020. S.T.M. filed a similar complaint about Dr. Aube and The Report. The College consolidated the two complaints into one for the purpose of their investigation. The College released its decision on March 8, 2022.

[296]   The College categorized the nature of the M.’s allegations into five main areas:

[297]   The College reviewed 30 correspondences provided by S.T.M., her parents and Dr. Aube. In reviewing that material, the College considered and applied their standards, bylaws and Code of Conduct provisions. They also noted that Dr. Aube, as an author of a Section 211 report under the FLA, was not acting as a witness or advocate for either parent but assisting the Court in determining issues including the best interests of the child.

[298]   The College stated that the complaint process is not a forum to address a complainants’ disagreement with factual findings, conclusions or recommendations. The College does not conduct its own psychological assessment or substitute its professional opinion for those of a court appointed assessor. Its role is to focus on professional conduct and compliance with the Code of Conduct and that it is not within its investigative mandate to examine the substance of the underlying custody and access assessment or to make findings of fact.

[299]   The College then summarized its evaluation of each of the enumerated allegations:

[300]   Although the College found no regulatory criticism of Dr. Aube’s assessment and The Report, it felt that a review specifically about the issues of consent and a general discussion of the M.’s allegations would benefit her in her ongoing work. Dr. Aube agreed to take those steps.

[301]   Approximately two years after Dr. Aube completed The Report she testified at trial. After a review of her extensive and detailed curriculum vitae, she was qualified, without objection, as an expert in clinical and forensic psychology and in the preparation of Section 211 reports.

[302]   Prior to her trial evidence, she reviewed Dr. Rocha’s and Dr. Welder’s reports as well as some other documents provided by counsel. Her evidence included:

[303]   Dr. Rocha is a Registered Psychologist who provides clinical psychological services to children and adolescents. The Parties had concerns around B.’s struggling to maintain focus and complete tasks and that she might be falling behind in her academic, social and emotional development. They retained Dr. Rocha to conduct a psychoeducational assessment on B. and provide a report.

[304]   Dr. Rocha obtained a detailed personal and family history for B. and reviewed her educational history and performance. She noted that B. has had the benefit of tutoring assistance throughout her school career as well as support from a school assistance worker.

[305]   She met with B. and had her participate in a variety of psychological assessments. She noted that B. used her best efforts in performing the various tasks assigned to her.

[306]   Dr. Rocha’s report detailed B.’s cognitive and academic strengths and weaknesses and recommended learning strategies to suit her specific needs at home and school. She noted that while B. was in the average range on some aspects of her neurodevelopmental profile she had several below average or impaired aspects that required immediate, concerted, and cooperative efforts by the Parties, the school system, tutors and other resource providers to enhance, as much as possible, B.’s opportunity for success.

[307]   She stated that among her other mental health issues, B. has long-standing anxiety challenges. Based on her observations and other contributing factors, she suggested that B. may have a mild form of ASD and that there were overlapping symptomology challenges in working with children who may present with SAD, GAD and OCD.

[308]   Dr. Rocha did not provide any recommendations concerning parenting time. She described how B.’s days should be structured to reduce her stress noting that although B. may have difficulties managing change, it did not mean that change should be avoided but rather that it should be done in a fashion to ensure consistency and predictability in her daily life.

[309]   Ms. Paxton has a Master’s degree in counselling psychology and is a Canadian Certified Counsellor. Since 2006, her practice has focussed primarily on children, families and partners of people with ASD. She was qualified as an expert in the areas of counselling individuals with ASD and counselling their family members.

[310]   Ms. Paxton had no direct dealings with either of the Parties, their partners or B. She reviewed the letter of instruction provided by S.T.M.’s counsel, the reports of Dr. Rocha and Dr. Welder and The Report.

[311]   Ms. Paxton described some common characteristics of persons with ASD including:

[312]   Ms. Paxton said that when she begins working with a new client or family there is no typical process but she begins by trying to get a history and to see, meet and get to know the people involved with the client to see what dynamics exist. The process is a flexible but she often investigates whether predictability and structure need to be reinforced because persons with ASD often need visual supports, such as making lists, rather than simply verbal communication or instructions.

[313]   Lack of preplanning with regard to transitions often results in an increase in anxiety if it is not well supported. The reactions of anxiety and panic result in fight, flight, freeze or fib behaviours resulting in aggressiveness, trying to escape the situation, becoming totally immobile, or providing some kind of rationalization about being unable to make a change. Unexpected changes often result in increased anxiety expressed by verbal behaviours or physical actions.

[314]   In her clinical experience, clients with ASD usually have some level of anxiety that may manifest in a variety of ways including OCD.

[315]   The hormonal changes of a child with ASD upon entering puberty tends to dis-regulate them and make it more difficult for them to manage their behaviour, thoughts and feelings.

[316]   Many people with ASD have a key person who they gravitate towards often described as a “point person.” For a child this tends to be one parent regardless of whether or not the parents are separated or together. This orientation can be very hurtful to the parent who is not the point person. There is some speculation that the point person is often the mother because they tend to be more involved in the early stages and early years of the child’s life. In her clinical experience up to 80% of her clients have a point person in their family.

[317]   The relationship between the client and the non-point person can be enhanced to create bonds by a variety of methods including spending quality time and building positive memories around activities. It is beneficial for them to have shared experiences and interests.

[318]   It would be helpful to assist a child client if the point person spoke positively about the other parent including encouraging the child think about the fun they will have with the other parent.

[319]   Those at the higher end of ASD often have a very negative focus around what would otherwise seem to be a very happy activity or occasion. They may focus on one or two negative experiences that may seem unimportant to others. She spends considerable time with clients trying to alleviate the person’s negative focus by providing positive CBT techniques.

[320]   The parents themselves as well as the child determine the success of building a relationship between a child and the non-point person. When everyone is prepared to collaborate, success is much greater then when they are hostile towards each other.

[321]   Some people with ASD focus on negative views of particular people. In those cases the person filters out all the positive experiences and focus only on the negative ones. This occurs in up to 98% of the clients she works with. What might seem insignificant or frivolous to others can be very significant to a person with ASD.

[322]   She has worked with parenting coordinators regarding child clients with ASD on several occasions both as an advisor and to provide background information about ASD.

[323]   In circumstances where separated parents are in conflict the chances of being able to help a child bond more closely with the non-point parent is far less likely to happen. It is a multiparty process. It is more successful when the non-point parent’s time with the child is spent doing things the child really enjoys as a cornerstone of building a positive.

[324]   Some people with ASD will display emotional mirroring, will reflect or adapt the emotions of someone else around them, and may on occasion magnify those emotions. If a person with ASD is around a person with high anxiety on a regular basis, they may well display anxiety themselves at an elevated level.

[325]   Addressing negative focus views on the part of a person with ASD can be very complicated and a somewhat individualized process with many different strategies that can be employed.

[326]   It would be of assistance in dealing with the child’s negative focus for the parent having the positive experience with the child sharing photographs or videos of that experience so that the other parent can reinforce the positivity of the situation. Videos and photos help the parents to point out to the child that they were having fun though there might have been minor negative experience during the day.

[327]   In general, it would be better if transitions were less frequent because the changes are often very stressful. Children with ASD are no different in some ways from neuro-typical peers. They gain and lose interest in activities from time to time but a person with ASD sometimes has a stronger response to getting involved in the activity and then similar negative response when they finish or decide they do not want to participate in the activity.

[328]   Sometimes people with ASD tend to compartmentalize in the sense that what they do in one location they are not readily able to transfer to a different location.

[329]   Dr. Gamache has a PhD in Counselling Psychology and previously practised as a clinical counsellor.

[330]   Dr. Gamache was qualified to give an expert opinion on the following topics:

[331]   She reviewed The Report, Dr. Welder’s assessment and the August 13, 2020 Reasons for Judgment.

[332]   She has been in practice since 2001 and is a co-founder of and the Program Director for REACH, a collaborative divorce coach, child specialist mediator and media consultant. REACH was founded in collaboration a number of professionals including lawyers, therapists and psychologists and in consultation with a Supreme Court Justice to develop a therapeutic practice model in 2015.

[333]   She also has experience with alienated children and parents through her practice as a marriage and family therapist specializing in separation, divorce and remarriage. She has specialized training and experience and works with groups developing literature, programs and other tools for professionals working with separated and alienated families.

[334]   She and the REACH team often work with families after a Section 211 Report has been prepared. Working from the report, therapeutic interventions are developed in consultation with the parents and the child with the goal that the child should have the best possible relationship in a family with the least amount of conflict possible. A finding in a report of alienation informs the process they undertake. Wherever possible the REACH team engages senior practitioners to work on resistance/refuse situations.

[335]   C.G.H. contacted her in July 2020 and she met with him and T.C., via Zoom, concerning the family situation and B. She has never met S.T.M. or B.

[336]   She described FST as the engagement and treatment of a group of people who have inter-related relationships that are all mutually influencing. There has to be a 360° view of the whole family in circumstances where alienation is an issue because one of the characteristics of alienation is that the narratives of the different parties are so different that it becomes hard to know really what is going on.

[337]   FST would also take into account individual characteristics such as an ASD diagnosis. FST has the capacity to narrow in on a specific area and then to back out and see how it relates to the whole family’s circumstances.

[338]   FST utilizes theories, techniques and knowledge to understand in a holistic way how the whole family functions and to attempt to improve communication between the various members of the family so that it can function better to create a healthy environment for children.

[339]   At its core, FST treats the family as a whole but does not deny there are individuals that bring influence and concerns forward. FST is there to help create support fundamental attachments between children and their parents so that the child can stand solidly in their own developmental trajectory without being worried about what the parents are going to say when they move from one home to the other. Those types of worries distract the child and can bring tremendous anxiety on them.

[340]   In FST there is a prevalent view that there needs to be a team for the family where there are entrenched relationships so that each party can have a direct therapeutic relationship with one person and the team can come together to work through the challenges of a damaged relationship such as alienation, also known as the resist/refuse dynamic.

[341]   Some people are resistant to using FST because they do not want experts looking at what is going on inside the family, so the therapy has to begin with a court order. It could feel very vulnerable for the participants. However, a child would receive the message that there are people who care about the family, including the therapists and the Judge determining matters.

[342]   FST can be expensive with the retainer required for each member of the team with a timeline of approximately one year or more.

[343]   She believes that C.G.H., S.T.M. and B. could be assisted through FST. She would recommend the team led by Marianne Cottingham from Langley who has 13 different therapists involved in her practice including one who has been a behavioural interventionist with ASD children. She also uses therapy dogs.

[344]   Dr. Welder is a Registered Psychologist retained by the Parties in late 2020 to conduct an ASD assessment on B. after considering Dr. Rocha’s report and Dr. Ambrose’s views. She did not give evidence at trial.

[345]   Dr. Welder obtained background information about B. and the Parties from a variety of sources. She administered a number of ASD diagnostic tests. Her report detailed those test results and her interpretation of them.

[346]   Based on the information provided and the test results, Dr. Welder’s conclusion was that B.’s circumstances supported a diagnosis of ASD, referred to as Asperger’s under previous criteria. In support of that diagnosis she noted the following particular to B.’s circumstances:

[347]   S.T.M. said that based on Dr. Welder’s report she has done a lot of reading and research about ASD and has organized her home to assist B. in her day-to-day functioning. She has also registered with Autism BC and obtained information from them and attended seminars.

[348]   Some of the changes to her home to assist B. included a special room for B. to decompress when she is feeling stressed which includes bright colours, a sensory swing and a stereo to play loud music.

[349]   C.G.H. said that he has also taken a number of steps to educate himself about ASD and obtain assistance from a variety of resources to assist him in better understanding B.’s situation and how he may work to enhance their relationship.

[350]   T.C. is a [omitted for publication] familiar with the care of [omitted for publication] and practices part-time on a schedule of her choosing. She also owns and operates an [omitted for publication] in Prince George.

[351]   She has no children but has been involved with children throughout her adult life. She has extended family in Prince George including her parents, her sister and her family and cousins.

[352]   She described her relationship with C.G.H. as being an excellent, loving relationship and they are good friends as well as partners. He is supportive of her personal and professional goals. C.G.H. is generally a calm, easy-going person and she has only seen him angry on a couple of occasions. He has shown emotions arising from the difficulties in his relationship with B. and S.T.M. and the toll of the litigation.

[353]   Her evidence concerning B. included:

[354]   Her evidence about vacation trips with B. included:

[355]   T.C. said she is aware that B. has high functioning ASD. Before B. was diagnosed she and C.G.H. met with Dr. Ambrose and discussed some of the symptoms she had noticed to be indicative of ASD. Dr. Ambrose recommended that B. get privately assessed in order to obtain a quicker diagnosis and they agreed.

[356]   Some of her knowledge about ASD comes from her sister who has worked with special needs children her entire career. She and C.G.H. also gained knowledge reading a number of books and articles recommended to them by Dr. Welder. She is also a member of a stepmothers support group for children with high functioning ASD.

[357]   She and C.G.H. have tried to set up their home to make it comfortable for B. including permitting her to set up her room the way she wanted, having the necessary stimulus items and making sure there is food that B. likes in the home when she is there.

[358]   She and C.G.H. have also spent a great deal of time consulting with both Dr. Ambrose and Dr. Gamache about steps they can take in things they can do to make B. more comfortable in their home.

[359]   W.C. is T.C.’s mother. She was previously employed with MCFD and as a school counsellor. She has a Master’s degree in educational counselling and has extensive experience in dealing with and teaching disabled children in a variety of environments.

[360]   She said C.G.H. is a wonderful person with a great sense of humour who is very good to her daughter. T.C. and C.G.H. love each other and they are supportive to each other as partners.

[361]   She has known B. since December 2018. B. is a good conversationalist who likes to cuddle with C.G.H. and watch movies. C.G.H., T.C. and B. play games both inside and outside the home. C.G.H. is a doting father and very involved with B.’s activities when she is at his home; particularity taking care of the animals.

[362]   B. has certain challenges but she is not aware of the diagnosis. C.G.H. and T.C. work hard to be supportive and address B.’s challenges and they have created an environment to make her feel comfortable in their home.

[363]   She noticed that since B. has become a teenager she is more unwilling to comply with C.G.H.’s requests. She is not sure whether that is because B. is a teenager or acting with an awareness of the acrimony between the Parties.

[364]   She believes B. is in a difficult situation because she lives in two realities, one with S.T.M. and one with C.G.H. She is trying to figure out her emotional attachments in both situations. When B. is with C.G.H., she often speaks of S.T.M. One of the things she says quite often is that her fear is that S.T.M. will die of a broken heart.

[365]   D.T. is a friend, a former co-worker and now an employee of C.G.H.’s. He said C.G.H. was a very good paramedic with lots of experience, empathy and ability in dealing with children in stressful situations.

[366]   C.G.H. took more time off during S.T.M.’s pregnancy and after B. was born to help care for her. C.G.H. was a very happy father and participated in B.’s care.

[367]   Over the years, he has seen B. he has noticed her to be a generally happy child but when it is time for her to return home to S.T.M., she becomes withdrawn, distant, and stressed and would often just sit by herself. The only time he has seen B. act oddly when she is with C.G.H. is just about the time she is to return home.

[368]   His family was with C.G.H. and B. in Penticton in 2019. B. was smearing a lot of sunscreen on her face. He and his wife approached B. and said that doing so is not healthy but B. said she had to do it, telling them “this keeps me close to my mom because my mom’s heart breaks when I’m not with her” and later B. said, “My mom said this keeps me close to her”. That was not the only time B. made similar comments.

[369]   V.B. and S.T.M. have a close relationship. She lives with her family in Prince George and her son and B. are good friends. She is B.’s piano teacher. Their families regularly share family social events; she sees S.T.M. and B. regularly and sometimes cares for B.

[370]   Prior to S.T.M. and C.G.H. separating, she would socialize regularly with S.T.M. but C.G.H. was often not present. Activities for her children and B., particularly in the summer, were planned with S.T.M. with no involvement from C.G.H.

[371]   C.G.H. was a good brother-in-law but after he and S.T.M. separated he was no longer part of their family and they have had limited contact since.

[372]   After the separation S.T.M. was accommodating of C.G.H.’s wish to spend time with B. particularly during the summer months when he was busy working out of town. S.T.M. tried to help B. feel more comfortable in C.G.H.’s home including shopping for clothes for her, decorating her room there and assisting B. in caring for C.G.H.’s animals when he was away.

[373]   B. expressed not feeling comfortable at C.G.H.’s home soon after he bought his first home. B. had many worries that she did not feel like she could talk to C.G.H. about. B. would often speak to her about missing S.T.M. and not being able to talk to her. Since acquiring a cell phone B. carries it with her constantly and frequently calls S.T.M. When B. is at her home, she will call S.T.M. several times throughout the day about a range of topics including her many worries. When B. has worries, she likes to speak to S.T.M. and they are very interconnected.

[374]   B. has related to her incidents involving C.G.H. including:

[375]   Based on her experience there are certain situations that affect B. including:

[376]   D.H.’s evidence not set out elsewhere included:

[377]   D.H.’s evidence about ASD included:

[378]   For most of his life, R.M. and his wife have operated a farm in the [omitted for publication] area. After S.T.M. and C.G.H. commenced their relationship, he accepted C.G.H. as a member of their family with many benefits and privileges only given to family members. He and his wife would see S.T.M. and C.G.H. on a regular basis and travel to [omitted for publication] from time to time to help them.

[379]   He and his wife assisted during S.T.M.’s pregnancy with B. Their seven grandchildren are very important to them. They met B. soon after she was born and they visited with S.T.M. and B. both at [omitted for publication] and on many occasions when S.T.M. and B. came to stay with them on the family farm. C.G.H. would occasionally come on the visits.

[380]   S.T.M. is an excellent mother from B.’s birth to the present. C.G.H. was initially a little standoffish and had limited participation in B.’s parenting before the separation although he expressed strong views on the topic. C.G.H. made it clear to him that B.’s care was taking up too much time.

[381]   When S.T.M. and C.G.H. moved to Prince George, he and his wife would see them more frequently and would stay with them.

[382]   After the separation, he sent an email to C.G.H. telling him to reconcile his relationship with S.T.M. or he would cease being a member of their family. Since then he has had very little contact with C.G.H. He believes that C.G.H. does not love B.

[383]   B. does have challenges and S.T.M. has continuously worked hard to address them as they arise including meeting with numerous professionals and using their advice to work with B.

[384]   He has never seen S.T.M. discourage B. from spending time with C.G.H., or speak ill of him. After the separation, S.T.M. made numerous efforts to encourage C.G.H. to spend time with B. including offering to moving closer to C.G.H. to order to facilitate joint parenting time but he did not appear to be very interested.

[385]   B. is an amazing girl with many interesting and definite skills in interacting with others. She has views on a number of topics and she is succinct and to the point in expressing those views. She does have difficulty adjusting to changes in routine when she expresses anxiety and disappointment and when unexpected changes occur she becomes very silent and subdued.

[386]   S.T. is a retired member of the [omitted for publication]. She has known S.T.M. since S.T.M. transferred to Prince George. They are good friends and see each other regularly. She described S.T.M. as a very loving, compassionate caring parent and a truthful and honest person. She has never seen S.T.M. discouraging B. from, or doing anything that would be harmful to B. having a relationship with C.G.H.

[387]   Her eldest son is the same age as B. Her children are good friends with B. and they once attended the same school and in some cases, the same class. She regularly saw S.T.M. and B. at school functions and concerts but C.G.H. did not attend nearly as often.

[388]   She is an acquaintance of C.G.H.’s because B. and her children are friends and see each other at each other’s homes including having sleepovers; almost exclusively when C.G.H. has his parenting time with B. She has limited opportunity to witness a relationship between B. and C.G.H. Her daughter told her that C.G.H. asks many questions when she visits there which she finds quite invasive.

[389]   B. has told her that she feels more comfortable sleeping at her home then at C.G.H.’s where she spends a lot of time by herself. She has not seen B. exhibit any anxieties in her home but has seen those anxieties in B. at school. Her anxieties lessened after she started taking prescription medication.

[390]   During the Shotgun Incident, she spoke to her daughter and later to C.G.H. who assured her all was well and the shotgun would be properly stored. She did not report the matter and was not aware of any investigations undertaken by the RCMP. Her daughter continues to have sleepovers with B. at C.G.H.’s home and she has no ongoing safety concerns.

[391]   J.B. has been S.T.M.’s friend for over 20 years. He said S.T.M. is like a sister to him and B. is like his niece. S.T.M. is a protective, caring and loving mother and goes out of her way to ensure that B. gets all of the resources she needs to be successful. He sees them intermittently sometimes up to four times per month and less in other months.

[392]   He does many activities with B. when he visits including games, hanging out and spending time with [omitted for publication]. When B. visits his home, they enjoy each other’s company and she does not appear to be anxious. He is aware that B. has some challenges with anxiety, which she exhibited during some conversations where she talks about going to C.G.H.’s home. B. has told him that C.G.H. does not like her calling S.T.M. when she is with him and that the rules in each household are different. From his observations, B. appears very mature for her age. She is smart, methodical and a good joker.

[393]   On March 22, 2022, B. filed an Information Form for Appointment of a Lawyer for Child that was brought to the Court’s attention when the Parties appeared on March 23, 2022.

[394]   On April 26, 2022, B. filed an Application for Case Management Order seeking the appointment of a lawyer for her through the Child and Youth Legal Centre (CYLC).

[395]   On May 5, 2022, I granted an order appointing a lawyer to present her Application to have a lawyer appointed for her in the litigation.

[396]   On August 25, 2022, I heard B.’s Application to have a lawyer appointed through the CYLC. C.G.H. opposed and S.T.M. endorsed the Application.

[397]   On September 8, 2022, I appointed a lawyer through the CYLC to represent B.’s interests in the litigation. That lawyer was Mr. Gregory Petrisor, KC. Those Reasons for Judgement are reported at 2022 BCPC 302.

[398]   The order appointing Mr. Petrisor as counsel for B. permitted him to review the contents of the file including:

[399]   Mr. Petrisor met with B. on several occasions to obtain information and her instructions including background information, the present parenting time schedule, B.’s present relationship with and time spent with the Parties, B.’s relationship with extended family members and her views on future parenting time.

[400]   Based on the information available to him from the Court file and his meetings with B., Mr. Petrisor determined that the best way to present B.’s views was through a written summary on various topics and B.’s position concerning her parenting time with each of the Parties. That summary included that B.:

[401]   B.’s request of the Court with regard to parenting arrangements included:

[402]   S.T.M.’s response to B.’s views included:

[403]   S.T.M. does not agree with B.’s views regarding a flexible parenting time arrangement with C.G.H. because she requires a clear and consistent planned schedule. Eliminating overnight parenting time would undo much of the progress that is already been made and that B. would simply choose not to have any parenting time with C.G.H. which is not in her best interests.

[404]   The present parenting time schedule has been very difficult for B. and should be modified such that C.G.H. would have parenting time and alternate weeks from Thursday until Sunday evening so that B. can return home and be well rested for school on Monday.

[405]   C.G.H. filed an affidavit, on which he was cross-examined, attaching 255 pages of photographs of B., texts messages between him and B. and recent correspondence about B.’s weight issues.

[406]   His responses to B.’s views included:

[407]   C.G.H.’s counsel provided 184 pages of written submissions, subsequent written submissions on issues raised after the trial and oral submissions.

[408]   S.T.M.’s counsel provided 42 pages of written submissions, 13 pages of reply submissions and oral submissions including on issues raised after the trial.

[409]   B.’s counsel made oral submissions in support of her views.

[410]   The many sections of the FLA and CSG and numerous case authorities referred to by counsel and the Court are set out in Appendix B.

[411]   I reviewed and considered all the written and oral submissions but have greatly condensed and summarized them here.

[412]   Faryna, Bradshaw, Franklin and Re: Novac discuss the tests the Court must apply in assessing the credibility of a witness. The Court should find that C.G.H. was a credible witness and S.T.M. was not.

[413]   S.T.M. acknowledged that [omitted for publication] are impressed with the public’s trust with higher standards of truthfulness in both affidavits and oral evidence and that she must not exaggerate, embellish or give evidence that is in any way misleading. Despite that, she either overstated or understated facts. She exaggerated, speculated and was vague, inconsistent, a careless historian and, at times, a dishonest and campaigning witness.

[414]   S.T.M.’s evidence should be viewed with caution unless other reliable evidence corroborates it. She failed to provide documents or records to prove or disprove her claims, mostly relying on her own account, and the hearsay evidence of B., which must be considered in the context of parental alienation.

[415]   Some examples of S.T.M.’s unbelievable evidence are:

[416]   S.T.M.’s credibility must also be considered in relation to her complaint about Dr. Aube. Dr. Aube was a fair and impartial expert witness. She had no motive to be biased in The Report. S.T.M. disagreed with Dr. Aube’s conclusions and she and her parents filed false complaints with the College solely for the purpose of discrediting The Report so the Court had no independent expert evidence about alienation.

[417]   As a [omitted for publication] S.T.M., was well aware of her duty to strictly obey court orders and promote respect for the judicial system. She breached numerous court orders and has displayed no remorse for breaching her obligations as a litigant, and as a peace officer, who is obligated to uphold the rule of law and to encourage respect for the court system. S.T.M.’s behaviour raises serious credibility issues regarding her past and future actions and testimony as a [omitted for publication].

[418]   The law places a higher standard on [omitted for publication] in their private lives and in Court. S.T.M.’s evidence conformed to her oath but her role as a mother is very different from her role as an [omitted for publication] and her evidence should be considered like other mothers giving evidence in a family proceeding.

[419]   S.T.M. gave honest, sincere testimony to the best of her ability and was not untruthful, or inconsistent in her evidence. She had good recall and gave context and detail when asked. C.G.H. mischaracterized and ignored her evidence on several points in order to paint her as inconsistent.

[420]   She did the lion's share of B.’s caregiving. C.G.H.’s evidence showed him caring for B. but instances were rare. She did not say that C.G.H. never participated in any of these activities.

[421]   S.T.M. only hears negative things from B. about B.’s time with C.G.H. Dr. Ambrose and Ms. Paxton said that it is not unusual for people with ASD to fixate on the negative. C.G.H. disagrees that B. only has negative experiences with him, but that is B.'s reality.

[422]   Without evidence, C.G.H. blames many things on her including the CPIC entry and various appointment mix-ups.

[423]    C.G.H.’s testimony was evasive and non-responsive. He often avoided the questions asked and repeated answers, to suit his narrative, even when presented with electronic communications that contradicted his testimony. In the event of a conflict in the evidence, S.T.M.’s evidence should be preferred.

[424]   In the summer of 2016, B. seemed to be anxious. The Chicken Coop Incident occurred after C.G.H. warned B. that the chickens and the dogs must be separated or the dogs would attack the chickens. B. left a door open that allowed the dogs access to the chicken coop but he intervened just in time. That was the only time he yelled at B. It was not, and is not his practice to yell at her. He immediately regretted the incident and attempted to resolve it with her.

[425]   B’s anxiety manifested and amplified around the same time that D.H. moved into S.T.M.’s home. He was unaware of the move until two and a half years later when Dr. Ambrose inadvertently mentioned it. B. never mentioned that D.H.’s two boys spent every other week living there after spring of 2018. S.T.M. said that she had told him about D.H. and his sons living with her since 2016 but at trial admitted that she “never even thought about it” as to why it was left to B. to bring up. S.T.M. told B. not to tell and told him not to question B. about her home.

[426]   Prior to the Chicken Coop incident C.G.H. discounted her concerns about B.’s anxieties, often making fun of her. He also refused to cooperate with her to try to address them. C.G.H. did not speak to B. about the incident.

[427]   She denies being untruthful or concealing her relationship with D.H. from C.G.H. because she corresponded with him numerous times on that topic. C.G.H. had no reaction when Dr. Ambrose told him about D.H. and it was not until several days later that he feigned surprise in support of his false narrative of B.’s alienation from him.

[428]   C.G.H. was troubled with S.T.M.’s co-sleeping with B. because it was both dangerous and inappropriate for an adult to sleep with an infant. S.T.M. disagreed and continued the practice for many years. She also continued to assist B. with her toileting until she was 9 or 10 years old. He objected to that practice and said that B. was old enough to maintain herself.

[429]   S.T.M. breastfed B. until she was almost two years old and would hold B. for extended periods and not put her down. He thought it both excessive and unhealthy for B.’s development.

[430]   In Williamson, the Court described parental alienation, at paragraphs 39 to 41, as a term used in the context of divorce and separation cases to describe a breakdown in the relationship between a child and one of the separated parents:

[431]   In The Report Dr. Aube concluded, “there are signs of parental alienation, even though it may have been initially unintentional and at times subtle, there is evidence that B. was harmed in the process.” At trial, Dr. Aube said that initially the alienation may have not been purposeful, but as soon as it became apparent that C.G.H. wanted more involvement in B.’s life, the alienation became intentional.

[432]   S.T.M. relies on Dr. Ambrose not finding there was alienation. Dr. Ambrose is not an expert on alienation and unlike Dr. Aube, she is a clinical psychologist not a forensic psychologist and it is not her job to verify what she was told by S.T.M. Dr. Ambrose’s response at trial that there was not alienation does not preclude the Court from finding that there was alienating behaviours exhibited by S.T.M. and B.

[433]   Dr. Aube became aware of B.’s ASD diagnosis after The Report was delivered. She is familiar with ASD and Asperger’s Syndrome and said that B. might have ASD, but she also suffers from alienation. They are not mutually exclusive and she would not change the parenting recommendations expressed in The Report.

[434]   There was no independent expert evidence linking B.’s repetitive behaviours to ASD, other than S.T.M.’s own subjective opinion evidence and some hearsay anecdotal evidence from Ms. Paxton, who was not qualified as an expert in ASD, and has never met or assessed B.

[435]   L.G. outlined 11 characteristics of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) focused on the alienating parent’s behaviour. Most of these characteristics are present in B. A PAS diagnosis is based on the level of symptoms in the child, not the alienating parent. B.’s behaviours and not S.T.M.’s are important for a finding of alienation.

[436]   A child’s PAS characteristics and parental alienation are powerful psychosocial forces that lead the child to develop comorbid emotional problems, troublesome and often deviant behaviours, and impaired interpersonal relationships.

[437]   The Report set out the criteria used to make a finding of alienation including four major factors that are relevant to ascertain whether alienation is the primary cause of a child’s rejection of one parent and alignment with the other. The Report did not indicate any evidence that C.G.H. and B. had an inadequate relationship prior to B. refusing to have parenting time with him, consistent with other evidence.

[438]   S.T.M.’s position is that C.G.H. was an absentee parent, and she was a single parent and he had little early involvement in parenting B. Dr. Aube said that estrangement is when a parent and a child see less and less of one another, and the child realizes that they do not have much in common. In this case, alienation and not estrangement is present. B. was especially susceptible to S.T.M.’s alienation from C.G.H. because of the early days of enmeshment between them and B.’s ASD diagnosis.

[439]   In N.R.G. the Court discussed the distinct differences between the concepts of estrangement and alienation in paragraphs 276 -278:

[440]   Applying the legal concept of alienation versus estrangement from N.R.G., B. is clearly alienated rather than estranged. Her responses to C.G.H. are not reasonable or adaptive. In The Report, Dr. Aube wrote that, “the rationale, used by B. for rejecting her dad, is rather meek.”

[441]   Dr. Ambrose commented on B.’s rejection of C.G.H. saying she did not know the reasons behind it but gave examples of B. reporting things that were quite trivial. S.T.M. said “the things [B.] comes up with are just so ludicrous”. S.T.M. also said that on some occasions, the things that B. says might not be based on a reality other than her own. She described it as possibly being “bridge burning” related to B.’s ASD.

[442]   There is no rational or understandable reason for B. to reject C.G.H. The RCMP and MCFD investigations revealed no inappropriate behaviour by him. The Report said there is no evidence that he has been abusive to B. S.T.M. did not allege any form of verbal, emotional, physical and/or sexual abuse by him towards B.

[443]   The Report discussed the Favoured Parent (S.T.M.) engaging in behaviours consistent with alienation including;

[444]   In G.N.R., the Court noted that in alienation there is “intentional undermining by the former of the child’s relationship with the latter … undermining of the relationship can arise from direct or indirect behaviour”. Dr. Aube testified that alienation starts very subtly, by wondering if the child is safe, asking questions, giving the child subtle messages, telling them they will be missed. An example was B. being afraid that her mom would die of a broken heart or telling her mom that she was afraid. S.T.M. used subtle manipulation of B., for many years masking her actions in B.’s various health syndromes in a successful campaign of alienation.

[445]   In C.L.M., the Court held that Dr. Aube’s opinion, in that case, was fully supported by the evidence adduced that “clearly establishes that … the claimant consistently engaged in behaviours that slowly alienated the children from the respondent … I am satisfied that lay and expert evidence prove that”. The Court then discussed behaviours similar to the Favoured Parent described by Dr. Aube. Further, in paragraphs 388 and 398, the Court stated:

[446]   There has been considerable PAS of B. by S.T.M. and her actions amount to family violence.

[447]   In N.R.G., the Court described some of the legal responses to alienation including court-ordered therapeutic intervention, supervised parenting and transferring guardianship from the alienating parent. C.G.H. was seeking an order that the Parties and B. attend FST and move to an immediate equal parenting regime. That was amended to seek orders granting him full parental responsibilities and for the Court to consider remedies similar to M.S.R.

[448]   S.T.M. denied interfering with C.G.H.’s time or discouraging B. from seeing him but she made it evident to B. that it was “up to her” to decide. S.T.M. expressed that view in several emails in 2019. It became clear that S.T.M. groomed B. and B. embraced the idea that she should be reluctant to spend time with him even though she obviously enjoyed her time with him and T.C. once she was at their home. Her resistance was the direct result of S.T.M.’s influence. That is supported by the findings in The Report. S.T.M. had authority over B. as almost no parenting time was missed after the imposition of the police enforcement clause.

[449]   S.T.M.’s conduct also undermined C.G.H.’s time with B. by stressing how much she missed B. when she was at his home, and by sending a barrage of electronic communications when she was there.

[450]   There was also no evidence that B’s high-functioning ASD is the root cause for her behaviour towards C.G.H., and only him. Dr. Aube did not attribute this behaviour to ASD, and there is no other expert evidence that does.

[451]   C.G.H. should receive compensatory parenting time. This will allow him to have the time he should have had with B., but also to improve the strong bond that already exists between them. Given B.’s age, there is very little time to repair the harm that has been caused by S.T.M.’s alienating conduct. B. must be given the message that both of her parents are important, and that message to her must be conveyed immediately.

[452]   S.T.M. denies she attempted to alienate B. from C.G.H. B.’s reluctance comes from a combination of many factors including:

[453]   B.’s ASD diagnosis was a light bulb moment for S.T.M. because it provided answers for many of B.’s different struggles. She is now better equipped with the knowledge and resources available to help B. Viewing B.’s struggles through the ASD lens has helped her better understand B.’s specific challenges.

[454]   C.G.H.’s focus is the best interests of B. He continues to participate in Dr. Ambrose’s therapy with B. He actively endorsed The Report and its recommendations. He organized B.’s psychoeducational assessment as recommended by The Report.

[455]   He is concerned about the emotional and psychological damage done to B. by the enmeshment and parental alienation diagnosed by Dr. Aube but denied by S.T.M. Despite years of therapy B.’s trivial complaints about him persist.

[456]   He has followed the objectives and recommendations of the Court, and the medical professionals to improve his relationship with B. while S.T.M. remains resistant to any suggestion that would bolster his relationship with B.

[457]   Dr. Gamache has seen significant improvement with him and T.C. in their parenting of B. He is making efforts to be the best parent for B. but S.T.M. does not recognize those efforts and continues to prohibit him from exercising these improvements through continued parental alienation.

[458]   He has requested a parenting coordinator multiple times but S.T.M. has refused this request.

[459]   B.’s unique health and emotional needs make it particularly important to take into account her diagnoses when assessing what is in her best interests. It is also important to assess how to best support B.in dealing with, and overcoming, those challenges. B.’s mental and physical health and emotional well-being are connected. B.’s anxieties often manifest in physical symptoms. She becomes ill, cannot sleep, and has migraines.

[460]   C.G.H. has completely ignored, or discounted, B.’s health and emotional well-being. He blames S.T.M. for every one of B.’s struggles. He has not participated in obtaining any additional supports for B. He has not supported B.’s therapies or her medications that are both clearly beneficial, and has denied that she has OCD, or ASD.

[461]   C.G.H. says that B.’s anxieties are a reflection of S.T.M.’s anxieties despite the fact that she has never been diagnosed with any anxiety issues. C.G.H.’s denials makes him completely incapable of assisting B. When S.T.M. tries to communicate with him about B.’s issues, he ignores her.

[462]   The professionals’ evidence substantiates that it would be completely detrimental to B.’s health and emotional well-being to uproot her from S.T.M.’s home and implement the dramatic change that C.G.H. seeks. C.G.H. has consistently insisted on implementation of an equal parenting regime, and later sole parenting time to him, without considering the impact that such a schedule would have on B.

[463]   In order to protect B.’s health and emotional well-being, the Court should order a schedule that increases parenting time only when doing so will not result in further harm to B.’s mental and physical health.

[464]   B.’s views should be heard, but not considered because they are not her own. They result from parental alienation and the enmeshed relationship between her and S.T.M.

[465]   B. does not have the cognitive maturity to make the decision to which Party she should go to for parenting time. S.T.M. first said that B. was six months to one year behind others of her age, while later maintaining that B. has recently matured. The Report says B. does not want to make the decision and S.T.M. is harming B. by assigning such a daunting and serious task to her.

[466]   S.T.M. maintains that B. “is not ready” for a shared parenting regime. B. mirrors S.T.M.’s views and it is not B. but rather S.T.M. who is not ready for shared parenting.

[467]   In C.J.J., the Court found that the parties’ 16-year-old son had been alienated from his mother. It was in his best interests to order him, and family members, to attend a reunification program. At paragraph 409, the Court held:

[468]   B. is almost 15 years old and has clearly expressed her views in her diary and to other people. There is no shortage of other evidence of her views, including from the Parties’, Dr. Ambrose, who has worked with B. for several years, The Report and Dr. Aube, the evidence of other witnesses, and her interview with Sgt. Collins. Most important are the views that she has expressed through Mr. Petrisor. Given her age, it is imperative that her views receive consideration.

[469]   The undeniable theme is B.’s very strong preference is to spend less time with C.G.H. where she feels unsafe, is not allowed to be herself, is not listened to or believed and suffers greater anxiety. B. wants to spend more time with S.T.M. where she feels safe, supported and loved.

[470]   B. has also demonstrated what she wants. She has taken the bus to S.T.M.’s home on more than one occasion during C.G.H.’s parenting time. She has threatened to run away. She has threatened to harm herself, and has acted on that on one occasion (although the incident did not cause Dr. Ambrose concern). She has expressed suicidal thoughts. She has fought, kicked and screamed to try to keep from having to go to C.G.H.’s home. She also has physical symptoms including vomiting when she has to spend time with C.G.H.

[471]   The Court in T.T. noted that it was a well-established principle that the Court should give considerable weight to the views of an older child, proportionate to their age and level of maturity and that for custody orders relating to children in their teens to be practical they must reasonably conform to the wishes of the child. As B. gets older, her views become even more important to consider.

[472]   T.T. noted that Section 37 (3) of the FLA directs that an 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.

[473]   C.G.H. disputes that prior to the separation S.T.M. assumed almost all the work and responsibility for B. He helped S.T.M. during her pregnancy and was involved in B.’s early care as a happy and engaged father. This included reducing his work schedule after B. was born.

[474]   C.G.H. was, and is, a loving and caring father, who made a significant contribution to the family, both emotionally and financially. He is involved in all aspects of B.’s medical care and education. He formed a strong early bond with B. S.T.M. undermined that relationship by her post separation conduct.

[475]   C.G.H. continues to endorse visits between B. and both sides of her extended family and he encourages her to speak freely about her family and feelings.

[476]   S.T.M. is B.’s primary attachment. Dr. Ambrose and B. have indicated that her secondary attachment, or “safe place”, is her maternal grandparents in Burns Lake. She had a strong relationship with her stepfather, and her two step- siblings. She also has a strong bond with her maternal aunt, and her family.

[477]   Dr. Aube said that it would be “devastating” for B. if C.G.H. received sole custody and guardianship. The most important person in B.’s life is S.T.M. and even small changes to the care arrangements that affect B.’s time with her would have a significant impact on B.’s mental health.

[478]   The amount of electronic communication S.T.M. and B. have when B. is with C.G.H. highlights the importance of the bond between them. There are many examples of B. sending numerous communications to S.T.M. in a short period of time and if there was no response, B. would spiral and continue to communicate until S.T.M. answers. This often happened in the middle of the night when B. cannot sleep.

[479]   S.T.M. has worked closely with Dr. Ambrose to limit the communications in a way that is healthy for B. There has been significant progress but B. has a strong need to have regular contact with her.

[480]   C.G.H. is unable to communicate with B. He does not ask her why she is feeling the way she is feeling towards him, address the fears and anxieties she has or speak to her about her historical complaints. B. does not feel comfortable enough to share these things with him.

[481]   C.G.H. must stop blaming S.T.M. and actually start implementing the things that the professionals and S.T.M. have proven to be beneficial for B. C.G.H. needs to work to improve the nature and strength of his relationship with B. Until that happens and B. is comfortable with him, there should be no changes to increase his parenting time.

[482]   C.G.H. had a solid relationship with B. and was heavily involved in her childhood prior to separation. Dr. Gamache said that previous history does not always determine the relationship between a parent and child. Relationships may be mended or improved through positive encouragement by the mother.

[483]   S.T.M. has been B.’s primary caregiver for her entire life. B.’s primary residence has been with S.T.M. since the separation. B. attends high school within the catchment area of S.T.M.’s home. A change to B.’s primary residence to C.G.H.’s home would require a change of schools.

[484]   On almost all of C.G.H.’s parenting times B. has a friend come to sleep over one night and then goes to the friend’s home for another night. When C.G.H. has B. in his care for several nights, his actual time with her is limited. B. only insists on sleepovers when she is in C.G.H.’s care, finding ways to entertain herself and avoid spending time with C.G.H. B. struggles significantly whenever she has long blocks of time with C.G.H. That favours not increasing his the parenting time at this point.

[485]   Dr. Aube wrote, “C.G.H. is unmistakably the hallmark of a caring loving father and it is her opinion that B. should not be deprived of having a regular, fulfilling relationship with C.G.H.” He and T.C. have accessed therapies that will be helpful to B. including the Unicorn Club, Dr. Gamache and FST.

[486]   As a child with anxieties; OCD and ASD, B.’s particular needs and her stage of development makes this factor very important. The evidence is clear she needs stability, consistency and routine.

[487]   Ms. Paxton, Dr. Ambrose and Dr. Aube highlighted the importance of “preloading” B. with information beforehand on what she is going to be doing or expect to occur in her day. B. does not do well with surprises and S.T.M. has asked C.G.H. on several occasions to explain to B. what she can expect during his parenting time. C.G.H. refuses to provide this information to B. and does not see the need to pre-load her.

[488]   B.’s most stable and consistent environment is with S.T.M. Any change, even small ones, can have a serious negative impact on her. Dramatic changes to the parenting arrangements will an equally dramatic negative impact.

[489]   C.G.H. has consistently exercised his parental responsibilities to B. He has researched numerous sources for support on children with ASD and worked to apply these skills to his relationship with her. He has learned about the issues of parental alienation and ways to improve his relationship with B.

[490]   C.G.H. did not reliably exercise his parenting time in the past as shown by the numerous times that he changed the schedule in the early years after separation.

[491]   The Court should have no confidence that he is able to exercise parental responsibilities. C.G.H. missed most of B.’s school functions for the majority of her elementary school. He did not attend parent teacher interviews. He did not assist with retaining professionals to help B. He did not register her in any extra-curricular activities, aside from horseback riding. He does not help her arrange for babysitting, dog walking or fundraising. He is virtually unaware of what is going on in B.’s life. The only thing that C.G.H. has shown he is willing to do with respect to B. is have her in his home.

[492]   There is nothing preventing C.G.H. from getting any information about B. that he would like directly from the school. He has the same access to the information as S.T.M. does but blames her whenever he is unaware of something that is within his responsibility as a parent to know.

[493]   If C.G.H. is given the decision making power over B. there is no evidence that he will be able to properly exercise his responsibilities. S.T.M. on the other hand, has proven that she is an actively involved parent and regularly advocates for B.’s needs.

[494]   After B.’s disclosure to her school counsellor, C.G.H. amended his Reply claiming sole guardianship and sole parenting time despite all the evidence that such a change would be devastating for B.

[495]   C.G.H.’s and T.C.’s actions in presenting false evidence about S.T.M.’s relationship with J.L. and attempting to obtain information about S.T.M.’s past history from her previous deceased spouse’s family is nothing more than an attempt to dig up dirt to gain an advantage and demonstrates a lack of ability to appropriately exercise parental responsibilities.

[496]   The Court must consider the impact of family violence on B. The definition of “family violence” is broad and includes “psychological and emotional abuse”. Dr. Aube said that alienation is a form of emotional abuse and has long-term consequences.

[497]   In C.J.J., the Court found that alienation is a form of psychological abuse and was family violence. Whether inadvertently or not, S.T.M. has engaged in family violence against B. In C.J.J., the Court ordered that the family attend reunification therapy.

[498]   S.T.M. is not alleging any family violence by C.G.H. She denies that she has committed family violence against B.

[499]   B. repeated dated allegations of inappropriate actions by C.G.H. That is not family violence but is a concern for B. that has festered for years.

[500]   C.G.H. has reported S.T.M. to the MCFD. He did that soon after S.T.M. filed an Application in order to gain an advantage in the litigation.

[501]   No submission

[502]   This only applies as it relates to B.’s perception that C.G.H. wronged her in the past. By failing to deal with these issues, his inability to see B.’s perspective and address those concerns C.G.H. is impaired in his ability to care for her and meet her needs.

[503]   Both Parties said they wish for equal parenting time with B. but only C.G.H. has shown a true intention and action to reach this target. Despite the recommendations of medical professionals and The Report, S.T.M. has continuously failed to provide him with equal parenting time further fracturing his relationship with B.

[504]   S.T.M. maintains that B.’s ASD has been a primary component for her delaying equal parenting time but that the current parenting schedule is “close to 50/50 actually.” She wants to speak to an ASD specialist and get their help to get them “to that point” and the transition to equal parenting time needs to be slow.

[505]   S.T.M. maintained that B. needs pre-loading and consistency in her day to day life but it is clear ‘preloading’ only applies to scenario’s that S.T.M. sees fit and convenient. She has exploited B.’s ASD diagnosis to suit a narrative that prevents C.G.H. from having equal parenting time.

[506]   S.T.M. repeatedly tried to communicate with C.G.H. about concerns and issues that have arisen regarding B. C.G.H., for the most part, has ignored her communications.

[507]   It is in B.’s best interest that the Parties communicate. That has not occurred in the past and is not currently happening. The Parties should be required to communicate on matters affecting B. but be prohibited from blaming, criticizing, or disparaging each other either to B. or to each other.

[508]   No submissions

[509]   There are no ongoing civil or criminal proceedings relevant to B.’s safety, security or well-being. Although the Shotgun Incident showed C.G.H.’s illegal and unsafe firearm storage, it was S.T.M.’s view that no further action was needed and she did not report the incident to the RCMP. C.G.H. now keeps guns safely locked away in accordance with the law.

[510]   C.G.H.’s position on parenting time changed between the end of the trial and the final submissions after B. became involved in the litigation.

[511]   The most important issue is the prospective parenting regime of B. S.T.M. has for years stated that she is in favour of an equal parenting regime, but she has resisted its implementation saying B. is still not ready. This, notwithstanding the fact that B. is 15 years old and that when she is able to spend time with C.G.H. and T.C. at their home, she is happy, enjoys her visits and loves the animals there.

[512]   S.T.M. submits that equal parenting time should be implemented only if and when recommended by Ms. Paxton. There is no evidence that Ms. Paxton is qualified or willing to make final parenting decision-making, or is able to ascertain B.’s best interests.

[513]   The Court should order an equal time parenting regime and that B.’s primary residence be with C.G.H. The Parties should share all parenting decisions respecting B.’s education, health, and other related issues and in the event of a disagreement on any issue, C.G.H. should have final decision-making power as recommended by Dr. Aube. B. deserves closure and a loving relationship with C.G.H.

[514]   In Young, the significance of the maximum contact principle in the under the Divorce Act was emphasised in the statements:

[515]   Although maximum contact is not absolute, it is in B.’s best interests to have maximum contact with C.G.H. to facilitate a stronger relationship to counter the parental alienation of S.T.M. Several professionals have advocated for an increase in his parenting time with B. and S.T.M. has provided no compelling evidence to dispel the notion that he is not fit to have equal parenting time.

[516]   His limited parenting time until now should not be considered to be the status quo nor should it continue moving forward. As described in H, the current parenting schedule should not remain the status quo because it does not reflect B.’s best interests.

[517]   In J.A.M.P., the Court ruled that equal parenting time is not necessarily in the best interests of the child if the circumstances do not call for it. There needs to be a focus on the Parties’ right or entitlement to parenting time as well but there are no presumptions in the proper allocation of parenting time.

[518]   C.G.H.’s primary goal is B.’s best interests. He has acted on the extensive evaluations in The Report and other medical guidance to improve his relationship with B. and to ensure that increasing his parenting time is the appropriate measure for her. S.T.M. position that the present circumstances do not call for a change in parenting time is contrary to the advice of medical professionals that should take precedence.

[519]   It is critical to B.’s well-being that she move easily between the Parties respective homes. The history of stress she has experienced has caused her emotional and psychological harm and resulted in poor progress in school. The stable, structured, and calm atmosphere of C.G.H.’s home will be of considerable assistance to B., will assist to reduce her stress and psychological issues, will, improve her school performance and offer her a haven. Through an equal parenting regime, C.G.H. can apply the maximum contact principle and continue to be a strong role model in B.’s life. Such a change in the parenting schedule will require S.T.M.’s compliance and police enforcement.

[520]   It is imperative that each of the Parties be able to set standards, expectations and instil core values in B. There are big parenting approaches between the two households. S.T.M. said that she and C.G.H. have polar opposite views on how to raise B. He is unable to set any limits on B.’s behaviour based on her complaints to S.T.M. and her false disclosures.

[521]   B. could benefit from more discipline, and the evidence shows that B. has not been getting enough discipline from S.T.M. Some parents comfort a child too much, or not enough. S.T.M. legitimizes B.’s unrealistic concerns about her safety but says that B.’s concerns are not rooted in anyone else’s reality but her own.

[522]   B. should spend more time in C.G.H.’s home to get a better grasp on reality. She is 15 years old, and there is very little time to assist her and reshape her views to understand authority and to be able to function within the structure of society. S.T.M.’s constant shielding of B. is contrary to her best interests.

[523]   It is essential that the Court appoint a parenting coordinator to assist the Parties in resolving any issues that may arise while exercising their parenting responsibilities. The Court should order the Parties and B., to engage and participate in FST to assist them in smoothing out any remaining issues and to assist in making the transitions from one home to the other comfortable and stress-free for B.

[524]   The Court should grant C.G.H. all of the parental responsibilities and final decision-making authority over B. until she reaches 19. The Court should also grant him all of the parenting time for a period determined by the Court and the reunification experts, as ordered in M.S.R.; with alternate weekends to S.T.M.

[525]   In M.S.R., the Court found that parental alienation constituted psychological abuse and is a form of family violence. The Court should grant a Protection Order against S.T.M. in favour of C.G.H. and B.

[526]   Since separation, S.T.M. has maintained that she would like to arrive at an equal shared parenting time arrangement. However, any transition to such a regime, must take into account B.’s unique needs and be done in a way with which B. is comfortable. The focus must be on what parenting arrangement is best for B., and not what the Parties want.

[527]   Section 40(4) of the FLA specifies that, “no particular arrangement is presumed to be in the best interest of the child” and specifically set out that there is no presumption of equal parenting time between guardians.

[528]   If parental alienation is proven, which is strongly disputed, in C.H.T., at paragraph 80, the Court determined that “an order requiring the child, the alienated parent, or both the child and the parent, to see a family counsellor, is the more appropriate step towards reconciliation”, rather than a change in physical custody.

[529]   There is no presumption that parental responsibilities should be allocated equally. Since B.’s birth, she has exercised virtually all of the parental responsibilities, although both Parties were able to do so. C.G.H. was not proactive about decisions for B. He relied on, and continues to rely on, S.T.M.

[530]   When C.G.H. is involved in making decisions for B., he makes them contrary to her best interests. Examples include his inability to ensure B. properly took her medications and his insistence that B. remain in gym class in the face of her serious struggles and being bullied, and her anxiety increased dramatically.

[531]   S.T.M. seeks a Joyce model parental responsibilities order. Such an order would require that C.G.H. actually respond and communicate with her with respect to decisions that must be made for B.’s, but allow S.T.M. to be the final decision maker while allowing C.G.H. to apply for directions if he disagrees.

[532]   S.T.M. was well aware of her requirement to follow the FCC Order. The Court should not accept that she did everything she could to encourage B. B.’s refusal to go to C.G.H.’s home stopped and his scheduled parenting time occurred immediately after the August 2020 Order containing the police enforcement clause.

[533]   The Court should reject S.T.M.’s contention that the previous denial of parenting time and the present compliance is due to the change in the transitions and exchanges in the August 2020 Order.

[534]   S.T.M. knew that if she did not provide support for B. to go to C.G.H.’s for their scheduled parenting time, an RCMP colleague would enforce the order.

[535]   The police enforcement clause should remain in effect because after it became part of the August 2020 Order, C.G.H.’s parenting time with B. was no longer prevented by S.T.M. and virtually no parenting time was missed.

[536]   S.T.M. opposes a police enforcement clause. The courts have been clear that a police enforcement clause is an extraordinary remedy that should be used only sparingly and only in the most egregious circumstances. The Court in D.A.B. stated paragraph 162:

[537]   The biggest issue with the FCC Order was that there were far too many transitions. They were very difficult for B. because she needs consistency and routine. S.T.M. strongly advocated for months that the transitions change so that they were not anxiety inducing for B. but C.G.H. refused and posed no alternatives. The August 2020 Order reduced the transitions and, as a result, there has not been any missed parenting time since because there are fewer transitions and not because of the police enforcement clause.

[538]   Since June 2020 that there is no need for a police enforcement clause and having one just increases the risk of harm to B. A police enforcement clause is a tool of last resort and should only be utilized if there is no other order which would be sufficient to secure compliance. There is no longer justification for such an extraordinary and extreme remedy.

[539]   S.T.M. agreed that:

[540]   S.T.M. actually gave reasons why a Parenting Coordinator would be beneficial. BC Parenting Coordinators Roster Society website states “Parenting coordination is a process that gives parents … access to a neutral decision-maker who can resolve day-to-day parenting conflicts as they arise, with the goal of minimizing further conflict and additional appearances in court.”

[541]   In R.M., the Court appointed a parenting coordinator noting that the parents were unable to achieve rational compromise to important questions involving their children and that that “court applications are expensive, cumbersome, and at times unhelpful in solving the real problems concerning the care or parenting of children.”

[542]   British Columbia Courts have appointed a parenting coordinator in other circumstances to reduce expensive court applications and to provide timely resolution to parenting disputes, including Silverman, L.G. and McClaughry.

[543]   The Court should appoint a parenting coordinator in order to avoid future litigation and to make better use of the Parties’ and the Court’s time and resources.

[544]   S.T.M. would rather not have a Parenting Coordinator appointed because the decision-making would come from a Parenting Coordinator and she would lose her rights as a mother. She would like to have things sorted out with C.G.H. with the help of an ASD specialist.

[545]   S.T.M. maintains that a parenting coordinator is not necessary. However, if the Court appoints a parenting coordinator, S.T.M. proposes one who has experience working with children with ASD, or a local parenting coordinator in Prince George.

[546]   Dr. Gamache recommended that the Parties and B. participate in a FST program. She said some people are resistant to using FST so a court order is required. FST is in B.’s best interests in the following ways:

[547]   British Columbia Courts have ordered FST and/or reunification in other circumstances including L.D.K., J.C.W and N.B.

[548]   Dr. Gamache suggested that Dr. Cottingham be appointed. She has a clinic in Langley with thirteen (13) therapists, who work with high-conflict families including a member who is a behavioural therapist with ASD children. She conducts many sessions remotely.

[549]   FST and the REACH program have benefits but they are both too expensive and too inconvenient for the Parties to be a realistic option. The REACH program requires approximately 40 – 50 hours at a rate of $300 per hour, lasts for at least a year and requires travel to Vancouver on a regular basis. This is not something that S.T.M. can afford.

[550]   She proposes that the Parties retain Ms. Paxton to work with B. and the Parties to better understand a child with ASD with the goal of improving their relationship with B. Ms. Paxton has extensive experience resolving these types of issues. Any schedule for B. must take into account her unique needs. Ms. Paxton will be able to help the Parties communicate better with B. to understand why she is resisting spending time with C.G.H.

[551]   Ms. Paxton clearly explained that many of the symptoms and behaviours B. exhibits are common among ASD children. She has devoted her entire practice to helping ASD children and their families resolve the very issues that are hurting this family. She offers her program through video calls and has had success with that method throughout the pandemic. She also charges significantly less at $100 per hour.

[552]   B.’s counsel submitted:

[553]   S.T.M.’s position throughout this proceeding has been that that consistency, stability and preloading is very important for B. but that she uses those reasons to deny parenting time to C.G.H.

[554]   S.T.M.’s description of the ending of her relationship with D.H. and the circumstances surrounding her relationship, romantic or not, with J.L. are unbelievable and her behaviour has posed a danger to B.’s well-being and psychological stability.

[555]   The evidence from third parties who provided information to T.C. prior to her filing her affidavit about the secretive nature of S.T.M.’s relationship with J.L. leave a compelling suggestion that S.T.M.’s evidence about the nature of that relationship is untrue. Those third parties are good friends, and in one case a workmate, of J.L.

[556]   S.T.M. denied that she told J.L. that C.G.H. had abused her. J.L. told that information to the third parties who disclosed it to T.C.

[557]   D.H. was unaware of the nature of S.T.M.’s relationship with J.L. Not long after the April 27, 2022 court appearance, D.H. was asked to move out of S.T.M.’s home. D.H. and his sons were a significant and strong presence in B.’s life. S.T.M. did not present any evidence as to whether that change in circumstances had any effect on B.

[558]   After S.T.M.’s separation from D.H., B. did not resume counselling with Dr. Ambrose until November 2022.

[559]   S.T.M. has taken the position, without any evidence to support it, that C.G.H. and T.C. are raising false and malicious allegations against her and she blames them for the end of her relationship with D.H. when in fact it was her own actions that caused that separation.

[560]   S.T.M. has remained an unreliable witness throughout this proceeding relying on many incredible statements about her actions, particularly as it applies to the nature of her relationship with J.L., and her disclosure about that relationship to both D.H. and the Court.

[561]   D.H.’s explanation about why he sent various communications to C.G.H. on two different occasions and then disavowed the authenticity of his allegations against S.T.M. in his oral evidence are simply unbelievable.

[562]   S.T.M. has not alienated B. from C.G.H. and that is not the cause of his poor relationship with B. S.T.M. has been trying for almost a decade to get C.G.H. to participate more fully in B. life and to communicate cooperatively with both B. and her.

[563]   C.G.H. resorts to blaming S.T.M. for the circumstances that B. finds herself in at his home including being bored and spending time alone, not sleeping well, stress and anxiety.

[564]   C.G.H. refuses to listen or make any meaningful adjustments to benefit his relationship with B. He has consistently ignored various strategies that have proven to benefit her. He now resorts to saying that B. is lying in her statements to the Court through her counsel.

[565]   B. has now had the opportunity to tell the Court her views about C.G.H.’s lack of communication with her, lack of support for her interests, lack of participation in what she wishes to do and his criticism of her school grades, her weight and her ASD. B. is at her wits end to the point where she has contemplated suicide.

[566]   C.G.H. refuses to provide B. with consistency and routine, refuses to preload her with information and a schedule, refuses to meet her at her level and communicate with her or to take an interest in her activities. This has resulted in estrangement, not alienation, largely due to C.G.H.’s actions or inactions in addressing B.’s unique ASD circumstances.

[567]   C.G.H. relies on the recommendations in The Report but he has not acted on even the most basic recommendation for him, to contact B. regularly and participate in her school activities.

[568]   It is clear from B.’s views that time spent with C.G.H. is time where she feels more stressed, more lonely, more unhappy and that impacts her mood, her anxiety her school work, her friendships her self-esteem in virtually every aspect of her life.

[569]   Any increase in C.G.H.’s parenting time with B. prior to their relationship improving will result in a young woman who is drastically more sad and stressed. Until C.G.H. makes some meaningful changes to his approach in dealing with B., their relationship will never succeed. On the other hand, the evidence is clear that B. is happy, content and well-adjusted at S.T.M.’s home.

[570]   B. is a mature, intelligent, capable person who gets good grades, has skills in caring for animals and is a responsible babysitter who organizes her activities largely independent of S.T.M. The Court cannot ignore that B.’s views are her own; they are real and valid and must be carefully considered. Ignoring her views will not fix the relationship difficulties with C.G.H.; he must take steps to do that.

[571]   Unreasonable withholding of parenting time is described in Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the FLA allowing the Court to make a variety of enforcement orders.

[572]   Early in the litigation C.G.H. applied for orders that S.T.M.:

[573]   These payments are necessary because if orders are ignored without consequence respect for the Court will be undermined resulting in further breaches of orders and enforcement applications.

[574]   C.G.H. should be reimbursed, in whole or in part, for the $30,078 in the legal fees incurred to enforce the FCC Order for his denied parenting time as was done in J.C.P. and discussed in A.N.

[575]   C.G.H. sees no need for a $5,000 bond to secure the parenting time terms in the final order if a police enforcement clause is included. However, due to her breaches of previous conduct orders a bond is necessary to ensure that S.T.M. complies with any conduct orders made.

[576]   It is imperative that C.G.H. be granted 39 days make-up parenting time for the days wrongfully denied by S.T.M. The Report confirmed that compensatory parenting time is important to show B. that both Parties are equal, that they love her and care for her.

[577]   The facts here are very similar to A.N. with a high conflict history of breaches of parenting time and conduct orders regarding a 14-year-old son and a 16-year-old daughter who had ASD and anxiety. The father claimed that, despite his best efforts, the children, primarily the 16-year-old daughter, refused to go to their mother’s home for parenting time and he could not force them to go. The Court held that the father had breached the parenting time order and thus denied the mother her court-ordered parenting time. The Court referred to K.R., at paragraphs 57 - 59 and said:

[578]   S.T.M.’s conduct is similar and undermined C.G.H.’s time with B. by;

[579]   In Waters, the Court held that a parent should be doing anything in their power to encourage court-ordered parenting time. As demonstrated by the numerous missed Sunday parenting times neither S.T.M.’s nor D.H.’s attempts to facilitate parenting time between B. and C.G.H. were adequate.

[580]   Relying on Sections 228, 230 and 61 of the FLA, C.G.H. claims for reimbursement of legal expenses from and payment of penalties by S.T.M. in relation to missed parenting time.

[581]   He relies on A.N. but in that case, the Court dismissed the application seeking reimbursement for legal fees, stating at paragraph 27 that, "there is insufficient evidence before me to entertain such a remedy". He also relies on J.C.P. but in that case, the order for reimbursement of legal fees was based on the Hague Convention. C.G.H. presented no cases in which the Court allowed the reimbursement of legal fees for a denial of parenting time.

[582]   There was no evidence presented about the legal expenses. The bills were not tendered and counsel was not cross examined on the necessity of the work, as was the case in J.C.P. As discussed in L.S., there is no evidence of what the expenses were, what they were incurred for, given the many heads of relief claimed at the time, or whether they were reasonably and necessarily incurred. The Court should dismiss the application.

[583]   The Parties' testimony and the electronic communications demonstrate that until the summer of 2019, C.G.H.'s parenting time was sporadic, and at all times facilitated and encouraged by S.T.M. She facilitated parenting time between B. and him whenever he requested, and even offered time when it was not.

[584]   C.G.H. mischaracterized the missed parenting time that occurred between September 2019 and June 2020. He ignores that many of B.'s actions occurred without S.T.M.’s knowledge or encouragement, such as B. going directly from school to S.T.M.'s home. He also erroneously assumed that S.T.M. and D.H. were actively encouraging, or "coaching" B. to resist spending time with him.

[585]   S.T.M. and D.H. spoke about the efforts made by them to improve the transitions and to encourage B. to go with C.G.H. S.T.M. tried multiple strategies and made numerous suggestions to improve things while C.G.H. made no suggestions and did not respond to S.T.M.'s attempts to improve the situation.

[586]   C.G.H.’s spreadsheet supporting his allegation that S.T.M. wrongfully withheld B. from him during his scheduled parenting time contrary to the FCC Order and Section 61 of the FLA shows that his missed parenting times were almost exclusively on Sundays when the transitions were especially difficult for B. There were almost no issues during the Friday night or Tuesday evening exchanges and parenting time.

[587]   S.T.M. did not wrongfully withhold B. from C.G.H. The opposite is true, she did everything she could to follow the Court’s orders, while trying to minimize the harm to B. in a very difficult situation. S.T.M. never encouraged B.’s resistance. She literally fought with her each Sunday to get into the vehicle. She tried a variety of strategies, without any support from C.G.H., but they were unsuccessful.

[588]   At paragraphs 60-63 of K.R., the Court analysed Section 61 of the FLA:

[589]   This was an impossible situation for S.T.M. She was doing what she could to follow an order that was clearly harming B. Short of physically removing B. from the vehicle, which neither Party was prepared to do, there is nothing further that could have been done.

[590]   Dr. Ambrose explained that B. struggles with transitions and changes to her routine. Ms. Paxton said that these issues are especially difficult for children with ASD. B. cannot be treated the same way as other children. S.T.M. acted in a way that was situationally appropriate, but ultimately unsuccessful. The Court should find that S.T.M. did not wrongfully withhold B. from C.G.H.

[591]   If the Court concludes there has been a wrongful denial of parenting time, there is discretion, like in K.R., not to impose a penalty. It is not necessary to fine S.T.M. for the missed parenting time. She has proven that she will comply with the Court’s orders and a fine would not affect the goal of ensuring compliance. A solution has already been found. Application of Section 61 of the FLA should be retrospective only as decided in D.R., S.G. and D.M.F.

[592]   Similarly, an order for make-up parenting time would not benefit B. An increase of parenting time with C.G.H. for 39 days, would only introduce further changes and instability into her routine. B. does best with consistency and routine and a schedule which is not consistent and dramatically increases the amount of time that she spends away from S.T.M. would be detrimental to B.'s health and well-being.

[593]   As a result of an order disclosing documents from the RCMP investigation, it was discovered that a Canadian Police Information Centre (“CPIC”) entry had been made that showed C.G.H. “May be of concern to Firearms Officers.” There was no explanation or documentation as to why C.G.H. might be of concern to anyone. Sgt. Collins professed to know nothing about CPIC entries in general and the one related to C.G.H. in particular.

[594]   C.G.H.’s renewal application of a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) required for his fieldwork was initially denied because of the CPIC entry. After he filed a complaint with the RCMP, he received within a very short time, confirmation that the CPIC entry had been removed and his license was being “fast-tracked”.

[595]   C.G.H. believes S.T.M. had something to do with the CPIC entry.

[596]   S.T.M. denies any knowledge of or involvement in the CPIC entry made about C.G.H.

[597]   The Parties be recognized as joint guardians of B.

[598]   The Parties equally share all the Section 41 parental responsibilities for B., under Section 40(2) of the sing the Joyce model, as follows:

[599]   The Parties retain Katherine Paxton for counselling sessions with B. immediately and with the Parties at Ms. Paxton’s discretion.

[600]   C.G.H. will continue to have parenting time with B. from Thursday until Tuesday, every other week but it will be increased to equal parenting time at a pace and schedule determined by Ms. Paxton, taking into account B.’s best interests.

[601]   Each Party have parenting time with B. for two weeks uninterrupted each summer break.

[602]   The Parties have parenting time at all other times as agreed between them.

[603]   The Parties will:

[604]   The Parties will not:

[605]   The Parties will encourage their respective families to refrain from any negative comments about the other parent and their extended family, and from discussions in front of B. concerning family issues or litigation.

[606]   C.G.H. have sole guardianship of B.

[607]   C.G.H. have sole parental responsibilities for B. until the age of 19.

[608]   B. reside full-time with C.G.H., with S.T.M. having alternate weekend parenting time for at least 6 months, or until FST suggests that it is appropriate for S.T.M.’s parenting time to increase.

[609]   Pursuant to Section 224 of the FLA, that the Parties, and where appropriate B., shall attend FST, with Marianne Cottingham of Crossroad Collective, to assist them in managing their relationship with each other and B. so they each support the other in co-parenting B. with the costs to be shared in proportion to their respective incomes.

[610]   Pursuant to Section 215 of the FLA, Dr. Michael Elterman be appointed as parenting coordinator for a minimum term of 24 months to assist the Parties in carrying out the orders of the Court without conflict, with costs to be shared equally.

[611]   An order that the Parties vary the scheduled parenting time only by written consent or the approval of the parenting coordinator.

[612]   Pursuant to Section 61(1) and Section 61(2) (d) of the FLA, C.G.H. be compensated $30,077.88 for legal expenses related to his application to enforce parenting time.

[613]   Pursuant to Section 61(2) (g) and/or Section 230 of the FLA, that S.T.M. pay to C.G.H. a fine of $5,000.

[614]   Pursuant to Section 231(5) of the FLA, an order that a police officer upon being satisfied that a person has wrongfully withheld a child from a guardian, apprehend the Child, B. and take to the guardian entitled to parenting time as specified.

[615]   Pursuant to Section 225 of the FLA, neither Party shall interfere with the parenting time of the other nor communicate with B. while she is in the other Party’s care except in emergencies.

[616]   Pursuant to Section 61(2) (c) of the FLA, C.G.H. receive 39 days of compensatory parenting time with B. over a period of one year.

[617]   Each Party shall inform each other prior to any transition date of any illness, or other medical issue of B., including any prescription or other medication administered to, or needed by B.

[618]   Each Party shall inform the other promptly of any injuries, illness, mental health concerns, or other significant events regarding B. that take place during their respective parenting time.

[619]   The Parties will:

[620]   The Parties will not:

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

[622]   Pursuant to Section 230 of the FLA, that S.T.M. give security, in the form of a bond in the amount the Court considers appropriate, to be posted with the Court for compliance with court orders.

[623]   Pursuant to Section 224 of the FLA, that the Parties will cooperate with B.’s continued therapy with Dr. Ambrose with the costs to be shared in proportion to their respective incomes.

[624]   In any family law case, the proof of facts at issue is determined on a balance of probabilities, what version of events is more likely than not. The Court’s determination of what has been proven is based on the totality of the evidence presented by the Parties taking into account the source, consistencies and inconsistencies, reliance on recollection alone or documentary support, and the interest of the person giving the evidence in the outcome of the case. The Court is permitted to accept and rely on all, some or none of a witness’ evidence.

[625]   In Younesi, Kent J. discussed recollection and evidence in paragraphs [55] through [58] as follows:

[626]   In S.R.M. the Court described credibility in paragraph 114:

[627]   These approaches are consistent with previous decisions concerning credibility and reliability including Faryna and Bradshaw.

[628]   It is necessary to be careful in relying too heavily on a witnesses’ demeanour to determine credibility as there is a risk of misinterpreting the testimony of a better actor as truthful or the poor presentation of an honest witness as deceptive.

[629]   The evidence of both Parties had weaknesses and shortcomings that undermined both their credibility and reliability. Neither Party was a “balanced” witness. The same assessment applies to some of the other witnesses. A witness is “balanced” when they shy away from minimization or exaggeration, acknowledge memory gaps and honestly address difficult facts or weaknesses in their evidence. They answer questions in a responsive and thoughtful manner and do not attempt to respond strategically, offer negative editorial comments about the other Party, attempt to control the narrative or have an agenda.

[630]   Both Parties’ evidence included examples of nonresponsive monologues, condescending comments, and obtuse or evasive argumentative responses.

[631]   S.T.M. was prone to using expansive examples of her good efforts and C.G.H.’s lack of effort. She often fell back on the mantra that things would be better for B. by retaining an ASD expert while rejecting other avenues that could assist in resolving the difficult circumstances B. and the Parties face.

[632]   In response to C.G.H.’s allegation that she suffers from anxiety S.T.M. said several times that she was never diagnosed with anxiety. What she did not say was whether any medical professional, family member or friends ever suggested that she be assessed for anxiety or that she had been assessed and reassured that she does not have anxiety. That information would have been helpful in considering the evidence and may have assisted Dr. Aube in her work.

[633]   At times, S.T.M. was a nervous, animated and anxious witness. She was also animated and demonstrative when listening to some of the other witnesses. In light of her ASD, if B. observed similar behaviour by S.T.M., especially surrounding parenting time with C.G.H., it could have increased her anxiety symptoms.

[634]   C.G.H. often slipped in references to S.T.M.’s relationship-ending infidelity in circumstances where it had no relation to the question asked or the relevant answer. He continues to harbour resentment towards S.T.M. and that has tainted his view of her since the separation and throughout his evidence.

[635]   C.G.H. either condoned or encouraged T.C. to allege further infidelity by S.T.M. and to make inquiries of her personal history after all of the trial evidence concluded, depriving S.T.M. of any realistic opportunity to refute it. T.C.’s other evidence was generally fair and balanced.

[636]   C.G.H. vehemently denied almost all negative statements B. made about or attributed to him. During his evidence, he responded to some questions with aggression or indignation verging on anger. Those reactions give credence to S.T.M.’s allegations that he was condescending and superior during their relationship. It provides a possible explanation for some of B.’s complaints about the nature of their relationship and her fear of him.

[637]   C.G.H., through his counsel, provided unsolicited information to Dr. Aube without S.T.M. and her counsel’s knowledge and consent. Much of that information was unsubstantiated and shown at trial to be incorrect or misleading. Dr. Aube relied on that information and S.T.M. did not have the opportunity to gather and present information to refute C.G.H.’s information.

[638]   C.G.H. also provided The Report to several third parties without S.T.M.’s knowledge or consent violating her and B.’s privacy. Those actions indicate a lack of fair mindedness and commitment to the process by C.G.H. which, in turn, undermines his credibility.

[639]   Dr. Welder’s report was comprehensive and I accept her opinions and recommendations about B.’s ASD. Both Parties said that they were informing themselves about ASD to understand better B.’s circumstances and to be able to assist her.

[640]   The evidence of Dr. Rocha, Dr. Ambrose, Dr. Gamache and Ms. Paxton was clear and helpful and their opinions, within their area of expertise, assisted me in my deliberations. Sgt. Collins and SW Weibe gave their evidence in a professional and straightforward manner.

[641]   I give little weight to what Ms. Butler may have told either of the Parties about B.’s challenges except to note that I agree with S.T.M.’s statement that Ms. Butler’s comment that there was nothing wrong with B. was incorrect.

[642]   The family and friends evidence was, in general, honest and unbiased recollections of what they observed and, in some instances, what B. told them. That was helpful to me in obtaining better insights about B.

[643]   R.M.’s evidence made clear that he holds continuing animus toward C.G.H. That carried over to a threatening gesture he allegedly made to C.G.H. when leaving the courtroom.

[644]   D.H.’s evidence was very problematic. His actions in misleading C.G.H. after he and S.T.M. separated caused considerable expense and stress to the Parties and so undermined the rest of his evidence I cannot give it any weight unless other evidence corroborates it.

[645]   Although she did not give evidence under oath, B. presented her views and wishes in hope of a particular outcome, separate from the Parties’ positions. I must consider them in determining her best interests. My deliberations were complicated by B.’s ASD and a lack of evidence about how it specifically affects her in a number of areas.

[646]   There are clear examples in the evidence where B. misled S.T.M. while she was at C.G.H.’s home causing S.T.M. unnecessary concern. There is also the circumstances of her disclosure to the school social worker. Almost all of her allegations were restatements of complaints Dr. Ambrose dealt with years before. B. showed no regret or remorse for her actions even though they caused great difficulty for C.G.H.

[647]   It was also difficult to determine whether some of her recent complaints about C.G.H.’s behaviour in calling her a liar and denigrating her ASD symptoms were reports of new concerns or repetition of earlier incidents.

[648]   In addition, I also have to remember that even S.T.M. has difficulty, from time to time, in determining whether B.’s reports to her of C.G.H.’s actions are based on perceptions influenced by her ASD or objectively plausible.

[649]   After considering all the evidence, I conclude that at times C.G.H. has expressed to B. his rigid views about her diagnoses, accused her of being untruthful and, spoken to her sternly or harshly with little regard for B’s perception and response.

[650]   In highly acrimonious proceedings such as this is important to keep in mind B.’s best interests when considering the conduct of the Parties. A useful observation in that regard can be found in K.D.P., where Justice Goepel said:

[651]   The adversarial nature of litigation can exacerbate underlying acrimonious feelings of the Parties. In N.R.G., Justice Kent commented at paragraph 293:

[652]   The Parties’ voluminous electronic communication history clearly shows that sometimes they were cordial and cooperative while in many other circumstances they were argumentative, accusatorial, uncivil and disrespectful. There were many occasions where S.T.M. relayed relevant information to and sought a response from C.G.H. where he simply ignored her and did not respond. There were other occasions when C.G.H. sought information from S.T.M. about B. She replied that it was none of his business or gave him incorrect information.

[653]   S.T.M. said that there were many times she tried to inform and explain to C.G.H. that B.’s many anxiety influenced behaviours impacted on B.’s wish to spend time with him and that he should respect and act on those concerns but he refused. C.G.H. replied that S.T.M. was often exaggerating or simply making up issues to interfere with his time with B. and that S.T.M.’s actions negatively affected B. When B. was with him, their time together was generally positive and enjoyable for both of them.

[654]   The Parties have a history of significant disagreements about the nature, severity of and the appropriate treatment for B.’s interrelated health and behavioural challenges. C.G.H. raised “concerns” about B.’s diagnoses and treatment but did not present any medical evidence or learned literature to disprove her diagnoses of OCD and ASD.

[655]   Dr. Ambrose raised a valid concern about C.G.H.’s perception and acceptance of the approach taken in assisting B. saying that he told her that he does not accept B’s OCD diagnosis and questions the ASD diagnosis.

[656]   C.G.H. was very critical of S.T.M. not getting assistance for B. when Dr. Ambrose closed her practice for several months. But, he did nothing to seek out alternative therapists or ascertain when Dr. Ambrose returned to practise. That indicates a lack of attention by him to an important component of ensuring B.’s best interests.

[657]   C.G.H. did not demonstrate that Dr. Ambrose’s approach was inappropriate or that it has not shown positive results. There is nothing to suggest that Dr. Ambrose’s work with B. is lacking in any way. She has built a trusting bond with B. and has made significant progress in addressing B.’s many challenges.

[658]   Dr. Ambrose’s approach benefits B. Given the high level of animosity between the Parties, I will not leave her in the middle of competing treatment perspectives. That will be resolved by granting all the duties and responsibilities under Section 41 (f) of the FLA to S.T.M.

[659]   Dr. Ambrose may no longer require joint sessions with S.T.M. and B. but they may need to continue with C.G.H. and B. If that is the case, S.T.M. must ensure that appointments with Dr. Ambrose, although scheduled by her, are arranged on C.G.H.’s schedule and occur as much as possible during his parenting time so he can take B. to and participate in the appointments.