D. F. P. Plaintiff - v. -, 2014 ABQB 793

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: P v B, 2014 ABQB 793 Date: 20141229 Docket: 4801 131703 Registry: Calgary Between: D. F. P. Plaintiff - and - B. A. B. Defendant Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Family Law Act ,

section 100. By Court Order, there is a ban on publishing information that may identify the children or guardians in this matter. NOTE: This judgment is intended to comply with the restriction so that it may be published. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the

Honourable Madam Justice B.E. Romaine _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] The question in this application and cross-application is which parent should have day to day care of a ten year old child. The primary issues are the “maximum contact principle” and what effect should be given to the wishes of the child as expressed to his counsel. II. History of Parenting Arrangements [ 2 ] The parties were married in 2002 and separated in 2006. From their separation until January 1, 2014, their son, K, resided primarily with Ms B. Mr P had specified access.

K is now ten years old. [ 3 ] In March, 2010, Mr P unsuccessfully applied for sole custody of K. Macleod, J. ordered at that time that there was to be consultation between the parents on major issues affecting K, but that Ms B would have the final say in the event of a disagreement. [ 4 ] In January, 2013, Mr P applied for shared parenting of K, but this application was struck for failure to comply with filing deadlines. In February, 2013, Mr. P’s new partner, Ms M, applied for guardianship of K. Her application was dismissed.

In June, 2013, Mr P applied again for shared parenting. [ 5 ] In the fall of 2013, I assumed case management of this matter.

At that point, counsel for K had been appointed by court order. [ 6 ] After hearing Mr P’s application for shared parenting, I directed that, commencing in January, 2014, the parties would share parenting of K on a one week on, one week off basis, with the non-residential parent having access to K on Wednesday of the non- residential week from after school until 8 pm. [ 7 ] On May 22, 2014, barely five months into the shared parenting regime, Mr P advised Ms B by email that he was moving to Innisfail, Alberta effective July 1, 2014.

He began the email with “I just wanted to let you know about a couple of changes that will be affecting you.” [ 8 ] The email advises that Mr P and his partner had purchased a house in Innisfail and that, initially, they would be commuting to Calgary for work. Mr P noted that he didn’t believe that he and Ms B would need to make any changes to the current parenting schedule, as the change would only require a trip once a week for each of them, adding “(a)s you have mentioned, you have the freedom of making your own

schedule so accordingly the Wednesday access time should not be an issue for you.” [ 9 ] He then proposed that K attend school in Innisfail commencing in September, 2014.

He conceded that (“a)lthough the week on/week off rotation seems to work great for us and K has been happy with this arrangement, [the move] will obviously interfere with his schooling”. [ 10 ] Mr P listed a number of reasons why he thought the school in Innisfail would be better for K, including that K would be able to walk to school with his younger step-sister and they could “support each other.” He also wrote that K had expressed that “he would like to live primarily with us”.

Mr P then advised Ms B of some changes he was making to the details of his summer vacation access. [ 11 ] Mr P had clearly discussed the move with K prior to advising Ms B of his plans by email.

Ms B reports, and this is not contradicted by Mr P, that K returned home from a week of parenting time with his father and handed her the form for fall registration in the school in Calgary that he currently attends, stating that Mr P would not sign the form because “Dad says I’ll be living with him in September and going to school in Innisfail”. [ 12 ] It is clear from the evidence that, while the move did not occur until July 1, 2014, Mr P and his partner had made the decision to move weeks prior to the May 22, 2014 email.

He says that the decision was primarily a financial one, as the cost of housing is cheaper in Innisfail, and that he and his partner believe in the virtues of living in a small town. [ 13 ] This email was discussed at a June, 2014 case management meeting. I explained to Mr P that he could not unilaterally change the existing custody regime without making an application to have the shared parenting arrangement changed to one in which he would have primary care of K. He seemed surprised at the idea that his proposal could not be implemented without Ms B’s consent or a change of custody application.

The issue was not emergent during the summer, as the parties had agreed to longer periods of shared parenting to encompass family vacations and K was not in school, but I warned Mr P that an application should be brought as soon as possible, and that alternative arrangements may have to be made in September if the application could not be heard by then. [ 14 ] On June 19, 2014, I made the following order:

a) absent further order or agreement, K was to be registered at and attend the school in Calgary that he had been attending for the 2013 – 2014 school year;

b) shared parenting during the summer would be on the basis of two weeks on, two weeks off;

c) Wednesday access would continue unless a Wednesday fell during the residential parent’s holiday travel time with the child; and

d) Mr P would be responsible for all transportation to and from Innisfail. [15] I offered several dates for the application to be heard during the summer, but the parties were not available. The idea of aprofessional assessment into K’s best interests was discussed at the case management meeting of July 18, 2014, but Mr P stated that hewas not able to afford to pay half the cost. [16] Mr P filed an application for primary care of K on July 18, 2014.

Ms B filed a cross-application for primary care on August28, 2014. [17] On September 3, 2014 as the application had still not been heard, I ordered that Ms B was to have primary care of K, and MrP was to have access three weekends a month until the change of custody applications could be heard on their merits. Since the partieswere not able to obtain a date for a special with respect to these applications before another judge before the spring of 2015, I agreed tohear them on December 3, 2014. III.

Analysis [18] The leading case on mobility applications is of course Gordon v Goertz (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, in whichthe Supreme Court set out certain factors for a court to consider when determining the best interests of a child in the context of a mobilityapplication. In this case, Mr P has already relocated and, unlike the applicant in most mobility cases, he is not and has not been theprimary custodial parent.

The application must be considered in the context of Ms B being historically the primary custodial parent, witha recent shared parenting regime from January to August, 2014. [19] Clearly, the threshold requirement for a change in a custody or access order, being a change in circumstances that materiallyaffects the child, has been met in this case, as Mr P’s move has made continuation of the fledgling shared parenting regime impractical. [20] Therefore, Gordon v Goertz directs me to make a fresh inquiry into the best interests of the child, having regard to all therelevant circumstances relating to K’s needs and the ability of his respective parents to satisfy them.

Both parents bear the evidentiaryburden of demonstrating where the best interests of the child lie. [21] The seven factors that I must consider, as set out in para 49 of Gordon v Goertz, are as follows:

a) the existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent;

b) the existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent;

c) the desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents;

d) the views of the child;

e) the custodial parent’s reason for moving, only in the exceptional case where it is relevant to that parent’s ability to meet the needsof the child;

f) disruption to the child of a change in custody;

g) disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools, and the community he has come to know. A. The existing custody arrangement and relationship betweenthe child and the custodial parent [22] As indicated by the history of this matter, Ms B is currently K’s primary care giver and has been for the last eight years, otherthan for the period between January 1, 2014 and August 31, 2014 when the parties shared parenting. [23] It is clear that Ms B is a good and loving parent, dedicated to K’s best interests.

Unfortunately, Mr P has chosen to suggest insupport of his application that Ms B does not prioritize K’s education and is not a responsible parent. He submits that he and his currentpartner are “a full family home in which K has a maternal and paternal role model and siblings.” He suggests that “(l)iving primarilywith Ms B places [K] in a single family home and research shows that places him at risk”.

Mr P cites research that he says suggests thatmost of the physical and sexual abuse of children is committed in single-parent homes where the father is not present as a protector. [24] These allegations are ridiculous and disingenuous. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms B does not take K’s educationseriously; the best evidence is to the contrary. There is no suggestion of any risk of physical or sexual abuse of K, who has both parentsdeeply involved in his life.

While Mr P may consider his life-style to be better for K, Ms B has shown a long-standing, consistent patternof good parenting in the face of periods of financial stress when Mr P was unable to support Kyle financially. She has worked hard tosupport herself and K financially, while still being an involved and competent parent, despite the challenges of full-time employment. [25] Some of Mr P’s criticisms relate to Ms B’s use of day-care for K after school and until she is able to return home from work.This is an inevitable necessity for many working parents.

Mr P suggests that K would be better off with him in Innisfail, as he would notneed to be in daycare.

[ 26 ] Although both he and his partner work full-time, he describes an arrangement whereby K and his 8 year old half-sister would be left at a friend’s house in the morning where they would “buddy-up” to walk to school. He suggests that if he had primary care of K during the week, K and his half-sister could walk home from school together and would be there alone for about an hour before an adult got home. [ 27 ] Neither the day-care arrangement nor Mr P’s plan is perfect: both reflect the realities of child care when the adults in the family must work.

I am not satisfied that the fact that K may have to be in daycare while in Ms B’s care makes her parenting less competent, or detracts from K’s best interests, nor am I satisfied that Mr P’s plan is better for K. B. The existing access arrangement and relationship between the child and the access parent [ 28 ] Currently, Mr P has generous access and, like Ms B, is a good and loving parent, dedicated to K’s best interest. Ms B does not dispute this, subject to an issue that is discussed later in this decision.

She recognizes that both she and Mr P are able to provide for K’s basic needs and that K has a strong bond with both of his parents. [ 29 ] In the event that Ms B continues to be the primary care-giver for K, she does not suggest changing the arrangement from joint custody and she is willing to offer Mr P the same terms of generous access as now exist. [ 30 ] However, Mr P suggests that if he has primary care of K, Ms B would only be entitled to alternate weekend access during the school year with increased access over the summer, generous holiday access and access during professional development days.

His major concern seems to be the driving commitment to and from Innisfail. [ 31 ] I am satisfied that both Ms B and Mr P are good and competent parents, with K’s best interests in mind. I am also satisfied that K has a strong bond with both of them. C. The desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents [ 32 ] This is one of the major issues in this application.

The Supreme Court in Gordon v Goertz noted that Parliament specifically mentioned the principle of maximum contact between the child and both parents in section 16(10) of the Divorce Act , which obligates the court to take into consideration the willingness of the applicant to facilitate the child’s contact with the non-custodial parent. The Supreme Court noted that this principle is “mandatory, but not absolute”. [ 33 ] Mr P’s move has made the shared parenting regime unworkable, but it is not this, but his willingness to facilitate contact with Ms B if he is granted day-to-day care of K that is of concern.

Section 16(9) of the Divorce Act stipulates that I should not take into consideration the applicant’s past conduct unless it is relevant to his ability to act as a parent of the child. In this case, there are danger signs that raise a concern that Mr P is unlikely to facilitate K’s contact with Ms B. [ 34 ] Ms B submits that Mr P has shown a lack of regard for court orders with respect to Ms B’s parenting time with K, and a lack of respect for Ms B as a parent.

She alleges that, while she has tried to give effect to a “right-of-first-refusal” provision set out in a December 2, 2013 order at Mr P’s request, by allowing Mr P unscheduled parenting time with K when she was unavailable to care for him during her regular parenting time, Mr P does not offer her the same opportunity, and will leave K with his partner, his parents or his partner’s parents when he is unavailable. She gives several examples, and Mr P does not deny them.

She also describes how she agreed to forego her Wednesday access when Mr P was on a two-week holiday out of town with K, but how Mr P told Ms B that she could not take K out of town for a two-week summer vacation because she had not given him the 30-days notice for out-of-country travel required by a previous order, an issue that had to be resolved through case management. [ 35 ] Ms B describes an incident that occurred when her brother came to town unexpectedly during Mr P’s parenting time. She asked Mr P if K could spend some time with his uncle.

Mr P does not deny that he refused this request, offering instead that K’s maternal uncle could spend some time with him, his partner and their family if he wanted to see K. Mr P fails to see why this would not have been appropriate. [ 36 ] On another occasion, Mr P asked Ms B for accommodation on a day when Ms B was to have parenting time with K. Ms B had to refuse, explaining to Mr P that K had a family birthday party to attend. Mr P took the extra time he had requested anyway and drove K to Calgary a number of hours late.

He did not let Ms B know where K was during this time. [ 37 ] Mr P advised the Court in September 2014 during a case management meeting that he had Fridays off work, and should thus be able to have K in his care all professional development days when he was off school.

Ms B alleges, and Mr P does not deny, that K has instead been in the care of Mr P’s partner, his paternal grandparents, and for part of the time, alone and responsible for his two year- old sister during the last few professional development days. [ 38 ] Ms B submits that, despite a court order that requires Mr P to encourage K to maintain regular communication with Ms B, particularly when away on holidays, Mr P ignores this obligation.

It is clear from Mr P’s comments on this issue during case management that he does not agree that he should encourage K to contact his mother, and does not place a high priority on it. Ms B alleges that K has been prevented from responding to her text messages on the basis that he is only permitted one hour of screen time a day on his IPod, and that K has been grounded for breaching that rule while trying to respond to a message from her. [ 39 ] Ms B also submits that Mr P is too free to discuss court matters with K. While Mr P submits that he tries not to do so, it is

clear that he raised the issue of the move and K attending school in Innisfail with K before he informed Ms B of his move. Mr P suggests that it is difficult to ensure that K does not hear his conversations with his partner about court matters. I understand that there are allegations that Ms B also behaves inappropriately by discussing issues in the litigation with K, but on the whole of the evidence I am satisfied that Mr P is less careful about not discussing custody and access matters with K or in his presence. [ 40 ] The role of Mr P’s partner with respect to the issue of respecting Ms B’s rights as a parent is also troubling. I have concerns about two recent incidents:

a) Ms B attempted to communicate with Mr P about a wart problem that K was having, and advised that she had made an appointment with K’s regular doctor to deal with the issue. Instead of Mr P responding to Ms B about that plan, Ms M took K to a walk-in clinic for wart treatment during Mr P’s parenting time.

b) K was sick during a professional development day in October, 2014. Ms B took him to his maternal grandparents’ house, where he curled up on the couch, watching TV. Mr P told Ms B that he had to work, but that his partner and parents were shopping in Calgary and could pick K up. Ms B suggested that they pick up K after shopping for Mr P’s weekend access, but Ms M picked K up at 12:30 p.m. and took him shopping, despite his complaints of feeling unwell. Ms M explains that she quizzed K on what medication his mother had given him.

She is critical of Ms B’s choice of over-the-counter medication, and says that, in her “nursing judgment, [she]came to the conclusion that K was once again not as sick as he claimed to be.”

c) That same weekend, Ms M describes taking K to the school in Innisfail that she and Mr P wish K to attend, for a “special lunch event” and “Hallowe’en assembly, giving him an opportunity to experience the school’s atmosphere.” [ 41 ] It is alleged that K has been told that if he lived primarily with Mr P, he would have a bedroom of his own, but that if he lived with Ms B, he would have to share a bedroom with his sisters when in Innisfail.

Mr P and Ms M say that they have not made a decision on the issue, but Ms M confirms that they decorated a bedroom in their home appropriately for a boy in mid-November, 2014 and that the decision on which rooms will be their daughters and which will be K’s will depend on the result of the change of custody application.

The timing of the room renovations and promises or implied promises that may have been made to K dependent on which parent had day-to-day care of him are of concern. [ 42 ] In November, when Ms B drove to Innisfail on a Sunday to pick up K at 5:30 for his return to Calgary, Mr P, his family and K were not at home, but had gone grocery shopping for dinner.

Clearly, Mr P’s decision to take the entire family grocery shopping at a time when he knew Ms B was scheduled to pick up K created tensions during the exchange, and also reflects his displeasure with the September case management order that clarified the Sunday pickup time as being 5:30 p.m., rather than 8:00 p.m., as Mr P wanted. [ 43 ] Ms B also describes how she tried to communicate with Mr P about whether K should have a Hepatitis B and HIV virus vaccine. Instead of responding to her, Mr P contacted the school directly to give his consent without advising her.

She also describes how Mr P did not send the proofs for K’s school pictures to her which K had brought home during one of Mr P’s weeks of parenting. She only found out that they had been provided to K when she received a final notice from the school. [ 44 ] None of these issues are very serious, but they do form a pattern that supports Ms B’s concern that Mr P is unwilling to facilitate Ms B’s parenting time.

It is also noteworthy that Mr P is offering less access to Ms B if he has day-to-day care of K than she had agreed to for him under the present parenting regime, and that he offers “open access based upon Ms B’s willingness to travel for it”. I must conclude that Ms B is correct in her assessment that Mr P does not respect Ms B’s parenting rights and would be unwilling to facilitate maximum contact. D. The views of the child [ 45 ] Counsel for the child reports that K would prefer to live primarily with his father, and recommends this change in the parenting regime.

While a child’s wishes should be given due consideration and respect, K is not yet at an age where his wishes would be an over-riding factor. [ 46 ] One of K’s major concerns, apparently, is that he is unhappy with the day-care arrangement that is necessary because of Ms B’s employment. It is also noteworthy that Mr P appears to believe that K is capable of greater independence than does Ms B, including an arrangement that would have him take responsibility for his younger sister after school on a regular basis. Ms B is aware of K’s professed unhappiness with day-care, but unfortunately her options are limited.

K also appears to enjoy the company of his younger half- siblings naturally enough and has expressed feeling less alone when with the larger family. It may also be a factor that, until recently, Ms M worked only part-time, so she was more available to care for K than she now will be, working full-time. [ 47 ] As Ms B points out, K’s time with Mr P has been “fun-time”, being weekend access with an extended family or with a step- mother who had more time at home.

He has not had the experience of day-to-day care with Mr P under the parenting regime that is now proposed. [ 48 ] I must agree with Ms B that K is not able to assess the implications this proposed change of parenting regime would have on his relationship with his mother, who has never been a purely access parent. For this reason, I give K’s expressed wishes less weight than I would have had he experienced the change that is being proposed or realized how it would limit his time with his mother and the community to which he is accustomed. E.

The custodial parent’s reason for moving [ 49 ] This factor is irrelevant to the analysis unless this is an exceptional case where it is relevant in order to assess Mr P’s ability to meet the needs of the child.

[ 50 ] Ms B submits that this is an exceptional case, in that Mr P decided to move for an improper motive. She submits that Mr P’s unilateral move to Innisfail was a planned and deliberate attempt to gain primary care of K and to restrict Ms B’s ability to parent K. [ 51 ] Ms B’s suspicions are understandable. It was barely months into the shared custody arrangement long-sought by Mr P that he and his partner started planning the move and searching for a house in Innisfail. Mr P has previously applied unsuccessfully for sole custody.

He has been uncooperative with respect to the right-of-first-refusal option, and has not extended Ms B the same consideration with respect to requests for changes to the parenting regime as she has given to him. He has made ridiculous and unfounded allegations about Ms B’s parenting ability in this application.

It is tempting to believe that the move was calculated to make it difficult for Ms B to continue to maintain her current bond with K, given the more limited access offered and Ms B’s work schedule. [ 52 ] However, I am unable to conclude that Mr P is deliberately attempting to frustrate Ms B’s opportunities for parenting. Rather, his conduct is more akin to a failure to appreciate any viewpoint other than his own and any interests other than the interests of his new family.

I must conclude from his conduct that Mr P finds it difficult to consider or respect Ms B’s position as K’s mother and long-time primary care-giver, but I am not convinced that the move was prompted by an improper motive. F. The disruption to the child of a change of custody [ 53 ] Unfortunately, whether Ms B has primary care of K or Mr P does, K will suffer disruption from the move and his inability to continue to have equal parenting time with both parents.

I am concerned that, in expressing a preference for primary care by Mr P, K does not appreciate the extent of the disruption to his life that would ensue, particularly since he has not experienced having his mother solely as an access parent. [ 54 ] As conceded by Mr P in his May email to Ms B, K was happy with the shared parenting regime. However, counsel for the child advises that K is well-adjusted and capable of withstanding the disruption that a change occasioned by this move will inevitably cause, and thus this factor does not weight heavily in my decision. G.

The disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools and the community he has come to know [ 55 ] K has spent all of his life in Calgary so far, apart from some periods of time in Innisfail last summer and fall. He has friends here, his maternal grandparents, and a school he has attended for several years. [ 56 ] Conversely, K has developed ties with his half-siblings, now in Innisfail. He would be closer to his paternal grandparents there.

He has made new friends. [ 57 ] Again, there will be a disruption for K in these areas of his life, whether he spends most of his time in Calgary or Innisfail. [ 58 ] Counsel for the child advises that he is capable of adjusting to either scenario, and thus, this factor does not weight heavily in my decision. IV. Conclusion [ 59 ] The determining factor in this difficult case is that Mr P is reluctant to facilitate Ms B’s parenting time, and that, thus, the maximum contact principle would be best served if Ms B has day-to-day care of K, with generous weekend access to Mr P.

I appreciate that maximum contact is not an absolute principle, but in this case the threat and strain to Ms B’s continued bond with K if Mr P was to have primary care tips the balance.

In all other respects, the parties are equally competent parents, both of whom are dedicated to K’s best interest’s, but Mr P appears unable to appreciate the importance of Ms B’s role in K’s life, and unable to show flexibility when it comes to variations in the parenting regime that are in K’s best interests, but interfere with his parenting “rights” under a court order. [ 60 ] I have considered carefully what is reported by counsel to be K’s preference. I am concerned that K does not appreciate the extent of the disruption to his relationship with his mother that a change of primary care would entail.

His wishes will become a stronger factor as he matures, but K should now be relieved of the pressure of having to express a preference, and certainly should not be bribed, cajoled or harassed by either parent to do so. [ 61 ] The parties will thus continue to have joint custody of K. Ms B shall have primary care of K during the school year and Mr P shall have specified access as follows:

a) three weekends each month, from Friday after school (2:30 p.m. and/or daycare) through to 5:30 p.m. on Sunday,

b) in the event that Mr P’s weekend access falls on a weekend followed by a holiday Monday, then Mr P’s weekend access shall be extended to 5:30 p.m. on the holiday Monday. [ 62 ] During the summer vacation months, the parties shall utilize a two-week on, two-week off parenting schedule. The exchange shall occur on Sundays at 5:30 p.m. [ 63 ] Mr P shall be responsible for all pick-ups from Calgary and transport to Innisfail for the start of scheduled access. Ms B shall be responsible for picking the child up in Innisfail on Sunday evenings (or, in the case of a holiday Monday, on Monday evenings). K will be present and ready for pick-up when the change of parenting is scheduled to occur.

[ 64 ] Professional Development (PD) days shall be governed as follows:

a) in the event that Ms B is not working on the PD day, the ordinary access

schedule as detailed above shall apply. For greater certainty, if Ms B is not working on the PD day and the PD day falls on Mr P’s ordinary weekend access day, then Mr P’s weekend access shall commence Friday at 2:30 p.m. as usual.

b) in the event that Ms B is working on the PD day and the PD day falls on the Friday before ordinary weekend access, Mr P’s weekend access shall commence the Thursday prior to the PD day from the time that K finishes school through to 5:30 p.m.

Sunday. [ 65 ] There will no longer be a right of first referral to the other parent. [ 66 ] K may contact either parent by telephone or through his iPod at any time he wishes, regardless of rules with respect to the use of electronic devices for entertainment purposes. [ 67 ] Both parties shall refrain from discussing any adult matters with K, including any matters with respect to parenting, this litigation and the K’s place of residence.

Counsel for K shall explain this decision to K and answer any of his questions. [ 68 ] Ms B may travel outside of Canada with K without the consent of Mr P on ten (10) days written notice to Mr P. Mr P may bring an application to the Court if he disagrees with the travel. [ 69 ] Ms B may take the child on work-related educational trips even if it involves the child missing school. [ 70 ] During any period of travel with the child, and throughout the summer, the party caring for K shall facilitate (by suggestion) a phone, Facetime or Skype call to the other parent every third day.

If the other parent does not hear from K in that time, he or she may call K at the end of the third day. [ 71 ] Both parents are entitled to reasonable vacation time. The parties are to exchange travel information and emergency contact information regarding vacation plans with K. [ 72 ] Christmas access will be: on even numbered years, Mr P will have K Christmas Eve day commencing no later than noon until Christmas Day no later than 4:00 p.m. at which time K will be with Ms B for the remainder of Christmas Day and Boxing Day. On odd numbered years, the situation is reversed.

This is subject to any agreement otherwise between the parties or further order of this Court. [ 73 ] Ms B is to consult with Mr P on all major issues involving K’s schooling and health and other significant activities. If the parties cannot agree on parenting issues that relate to the day-to-day well-being of K, Ms B shall have the final say, subject of course, to Mr P’s right to question a decision as not being in the best interest of K. [ 74 ] The usual provisions with respect to exchanges of financial information and MEP enforcement shall apply. Heard on the 3 th day of December, 2014.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 29 th day of December, 2014. B.E. Romaine J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: D.F.P. on his own behalf Brett M. Coleman

for B. A. B. C. Hopfner for the child K