P. v. S. & S. Date:, 2013 BCPC 181

Citation: P. v. S. & S. Date: 20130516 2013 BCPC 0181 File No: 11-24716 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: D.P. APPLICANT AND: S.S. L.S. RESPONDENTS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R.M. GALLAGHER Counsel for the Applicant: F. Wilder

Counsel for the Respondent S.S.: A. Liggett Counsel for the Respondent L.S.: S. Mirzaian Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Dates of Hearing: March 13, April 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 20 & May 3, 2013 Date of Judgment: May 16, 2013 [ 1 ] This Family Law Act proceeding is in relation to N.R.S. (N.S.) born [DOB] (6 years old). D.P. and S.S. are N.S.’s parents and L.S. is her maternal grandmother. [ 2 ] D.P. and S.S. are also parents to two other children, D., born [DOB] (3 years) and N., born [DOB] (2 years). D. is in the primary care of D.P. and N. is in the primary care of S.S.

Since N.S. was six months old, she has been in the primary care of L.S. At the conclusion of this trial the parents intend on entering into a consent order with regards to D. and N. [ 3 ] On January 27, 2011, D.P. made an application for custody, guardianship and access to N.S. S.S. filed a Reply on September 2, 2011 disagreeing with D.P.’s application for custody and guardianship but agreeing to his application for access. She made her own application for custody, guardianship, child support and an order for a DNA test to confirm D.P. is the father. L.S. filed a Reply on September 2, 2011.

She agreed with access to D.P. but did not agree with his application for custody and guardianship. She made her own application for custody and guardianship of N.S. Given the new Family Law Act , all three parties are applying for guardianship and parenting time of N.S. [ 4 ] The parties have attended a Family Case Conference. The parties have also attended mediation and an agreement was made on December 21, 2011. It has taken more than 2 years to have this matter heard in court. THE WITNESSES [ 5 ] I heard from D.P. and his witnesses A.D. and M.J.; S.S. and her witnesses S.L.

A.S. and P.T.; L.S. and her witnesses H.S., S. and J.S. THE EVIDENCE THE PARENTS CASE D.P. [ 6 ] D.P. is 28 years old and has lived in Vancouver all of his life. He has a large extended family that he spends time with regularly. He works on call doing movie work and receives Disability Social Assistance for a bipolar disorder. He graduated from high school and attended 1 year at Vancouver Community College. [ 7 ] D.P. and S.S. met online in 2007. Three months after meeting each other, S.S. was pregnant with their first child N.S. Addiction [ 8 ] D.P. has had difficulties with addiction since 2007.

In August 2007 when N.S. was 7 months old, D.P. first used drugs – crack cocaine. He has not used any hard drugs for 2 - 3 years now. [ 9 ] At that time S.S. gave N.S. to her mother to care for, N.S. has lived with her grandmother since that time. D.P. had no contact with N.S. for the first 3 months, he then resumed visits with N.S. in his father’s home when he was clean and sober, when N.S. was 11 months old. [ 10 ] In May 2008 D.P. again began using drugs and started serious use of alcohol. He stopped work and went into a recovery program: (redacted), in May 2008 and remained there for approximately two months.

He saw N.S. several times a month during that time. He did not finish the program. D.P. then began attending a fellowship program for recovery. Once clean and sober D.P. had overnight weekend visits with N.S., supervised by his own father. In October 2009 D.P. slipped back into drinking and drugs. He went back into recovery, at (redacted). He attended for six weeks and completed the program by the end of November 2009. He saw N.S. twice during that recovery period. [ 11 ] When his second daughter D. was born, [DOB], he was clean and sober. She was born premature and stayed in the hospital for one month.

D.P. visited her everyday. D.P. and S.S. were not living together at that time. D. was removed from her mother’s care and placed in foster care. By October 2010 D.P. had relapsed and in November and December 2010 he attended (redacted) for 6 weeks. After that D.P. was again clean and sober. He worked with VACFAS and moved into his own residence and D. was returned to his care under supervision on April 20, 2011. [ 12 ] D.P.’s third daughter, N., was born on [DOB] and in October 2011 D.P. relapsed. He recovered and D. was returned to his care in April 2012.

She was removed again briefly and returned by the Ministry to D.P.’s care under terms of supervision and the terms of supervision have expired. As recently as 6 weeks ago D.P. relapsed and had 6 or 7 beer. D. was not with him at the time, he had left her with his mother. The relapse lasted two days and he returned to Alcoholics Anonymous and has made the decision to stop drinking. It has been 3 weeks now. [ 13 ] D.P. admitted that he has had a relapse in each year from 2007 - 2013. He testified that the Ministry social worker has told him

that as long as he has a recovery plan in place and he does not drink when D. is in his care, she can stay with him. D.P. testified that over the last 6 months he has come to recognize that the consequences of his drinking are similar to the consequences of his drugs. [ 14 ] D.P. has taken many steps towards sobriety and good parenting. [ 15 ] He has been an active Alcoholics Anonymous member for 2 years. He worked with a Family Preservation Worker in 2010 and 2011.

He completed 2 anger management programs, he has been connected with the Boys and Girls Club for a number of years and he has completed a peer mentoring program in 2010 – 2011. He has completed a number of other programs and filed many certificates at the hearing. [ 16 ] He and D. have attended the (redacted) since August 1, 2011 and N. started attending in February 2013. D.P. is quite involved in (redacted). He volunteers in the community program in the kitchen and as well on Saturday Mornings. Relationship with S.S. [ 17 ] D.P. describes his relationship with S.S., as “on and off”.

It is now on and has been since February 2012 with a 1 month break in that time. D.P. testified that it was S.S.’s use of drugs that would cause the relationship to end. She has now been clean since January 2011. [ 18 ] D.P. admitted that his relationship with S.S. was abusive in the past. [ 19 ] The day before N. was born he assaulted S.S. and was in custody for the birth. The charge resulted in a no contact order and a conditional discharge. There was a second charge in relation to S.S. in April 2007, but the case was not pursued.

He has a conviction for driving while impaired in April 2007 his driver’s license continues to be suspended and he owes $10,000 to ICBC for the motor vehicle accident. [ 20 ] D.P. denies ongoing violence in their relationship. He denies that in November 2012 he threatened to put S.S.’s face on a hot burner. He admitted that in January 2013 when police were called by neighbours there was an argument between he and S.S. However, when the police attended, S.S. advised the police that it was a loud TV not a fight.

He admitted to an incident with J.S. at a coffee shop in April 2013 when he and S.S. were arguing in front of the children. He admitted to pushing S.S. and being very close to her face. He admitted on another recent occasion, saying he “Fucking hates S.” which N.S. overheard. Although he apologized to N.S., he knows she was upset. He admitted that during Christmas 2012, he had a fight with his mother while the whole family was driving to a Christmas party.

His mother drove to the police station and N.S. saw her father in handcuffs. [ 21 ] D.P. testified that the courses he has taken have given him a better understanding and honesty about himself. He is able to not take his issues out on S.S. and will reach out for his own support when required. Difficulties with contact with N.S. [ 22 ] Throughout his struggles D.P. has continued to have ongoing contact with N.S. He made a list of his visits with N.S. from December 1, 2007 to October 2008 (Exhibit 1). D.P. has been continually denied contact arbitrarily with N.S. and it has gone on for a very long time.

The June 22, 2011 email from D.P. to L.S. (Exhibit 19) illustrates the difficulties D.P. was experiencing 2 years ago. D.P. does not have a good relationship with L.S., S. or J.S. and finds that they cannot hear him out. He believes L.S. uses organic food for N.S. as a control issue over him and S.S. He has nothing against organic food but he does not think that it has to be exclusive. He has been denied time with N.S. as a result of her eating something not organic. He certainly feeds her the food sent with N.S. to her. [ 23 ] His main focus in life is to parent his children well.

He is committed to doing whatever it takes to parent properly. His Ministry social worker supports his parenting of D. A.D. [ 24 ] A.D. is a business owner and manager of (redacted) in Burnaby and Vancouver. He is married and the father of 3 children. He runs a recovery program in east Vancouver. He has been friends with D.P. for 3 years. He has observed D.P. and his younger daughter D. in his home on numerous occasions; he finds he is a very caring and extremely patient father. As well, D.P. has attended his 12 step recovery program once a week for between 12 – 20 times.

The recovery program includes child care and he has been able to observe D.P. parenting D. He has also had the opportunity to observe D.P. with his daughter N.S. as they both attended a camp with the church that he is a part of. D.P. is excellent with N.S. He has been to D.P.’s 2 bedroom apartment at (redacted) and he finds it very clean and organized. M.J. [ 25 ] M.J. is a self employed (redacted). He has known D.P. for 5 years, has been D.P.’s Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor for 2 years. They met at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, he has been a member for 16 years.

He knows of D.P.’s relapses, he said the key is transparency, that D.P. has honesty, humility, and open mindedness. He self reports and has a huge willingness to take steps to recovery. He has completed a 12 step program. He has met D.P.’s children D. and N.S. twice. He described D.P.’s most recent relapse when D. was living with him, it lasted 2 days. He was very impressed that D.P. was dealing with the pressures of Family Court and not relapsing. He mediated between D.P. and J.S. in early 2012 and found J.S. to be bossy, focused on the problem instead of the solution. S.S. [ 26 ] S.S. has had a difficult life.

She attended many schools and left in grade 9. She started running away from home at the age of 12 and started using crack cocaine at the age of 13. When N.S. was 7 months old S.S. relapsed after 4 ½ years of being clean. She decided to give N.S. to her mother to be cared for. There was no agreement or court order made and it was never intended to be a permanent placement. Two and a half years ago when she was clean, she began to reconnect with N.S. Her youngest daughter N. has

lived with her since birth April 8, 2011. The April 19, 2013 letter from the Ministry Social Worker states that they have no protection concerns (Exhibit 21). [ 27 ] She has been living for the last 2 years at (redacted) housing. It is a 2 bedroom house which she can stay in until December 2013, S.S. is in receipt of Social Assistance. She intends to apply for the (redacted) housing program so that she can live close to D.P. and co-parent.

S.S. has participated in a number of courses: anger management, parenting, day treatment, 12 steps, 156 hours of detox treatment in 2010, Ministry directed detox at (redacted), she has seen a drug counselor at (redacted) and has worked briefly with a family preservation worker. Although she used crack cocaine and heroin since the age of 13 she has been clean for 2 ½ years, since January 11, 2011. She had random drug testing for 2 years. She has been off Methadone for 1 year. She takes daily medication for depression. She was using drugs when D. was born but was not using drugs when pregnant with N.S.

She admitted she had been arrested several times before N. was born and was put in the hospital until she had the baby. [ 28 ] D. and N. attend the same daycare near their father’s home. It takes S.S. a 1 ½ hour bus ride to get N. there but it is important that the 2 children spend time together. [ 29 ] S.S. has had difficulty with having time with N.S. She finds her mother, J.S. and S. to be controlling, highly disrespectful and they arbitrarily stop the visits whenever things are going well with she and N.S. N.S. has told her that S. gives her time outs when N.S. says she wants to live with her mom.

S.S. admits that she was not in N.S.’s life at all until she was about 3 -3 1/2 years old. S.S. was heavily addicted to drugs during those years. When she was solidly in recovery she began to reconnect with N.S. by going to visit her at her mother’s house in Langley. S.S. found that very uncomfortable, she was not welcome. She spent approximately 10 weekend visits at her mother’s house over the last 2 years. Her visits with N.S. were supposed to be every other weekend, initially it went well. As N.S. started to get to know S.S. the visits were stopped.

She provided a list of visits (Exhibit 23) to illustrate how difficult it had been. It is up to S. and J.S., not L.S. whether the visits happen or not. S.S.’s relationship with D.P. [ 30 ] S.S. describes the relationship with D.P. as better now. They have worked on many issues, they continue to attend counseling, both together and apart and they have developed a process of knowing when to walk away, cool off and then come together to talk and solve the problem.

They are very aware that children should not be around arguments and they try to have that happen. [ 31 ] S.S. denies there is any physical abuse at this time, she admits there is verbal abuse, she testified about several incidents in 2012: 1. A telephone call from D.P., to pick up D. because he was at his girlfriends house. She found that inappropriate and called the Ministry.

It is no longer a problem as the girlfriend isn’t his any longer; 2. she denies that there was a phone call to her mother in December 2012 stating that D.P. was threatening to burn her on the stove; 4. she states that in January 2013 when the police arrived at D.P.’s place because a neighbor had telephoned about a fight it was a loud TV show not a fight between the two; 5. an incident March 23, 2013 at Superstore when she telephoned J.S. in a panic saying she had lost D.P. and she didn’t have keys to the car and it was raining. J.S. had come to pick them up, and by that time D.P. had returned. All was fine.

He had taken a time out to cool down; 6. an incident 2 weeks ago, when her youngest daughter N. had a seizure and she was in hospital with her for 2 days, D.P. had come to the hospital on the second day, he was intoxicated and was told to leave, which he did. [ 32 ] S.S. is strong and able to co-parent her 3 children. She will do whatever it takes to have her family together again. A.S. [ 33 ] A.S. is a friend of S.S.’s from daycare, she met her 1 ½ years ago, she has 3 children of her own, 13, 5 and 1½. All the children go to the same daycare.

She sees S.S. several times a week: dinner on Wednesday, Saturday at the community kitchen. P.T. [ 34 ] P.T. is the half brother to S.S. He has seen both parents at family events and outings. He is very impressed S.S. has straightened out and is now acting responsibly and he has no concerns about her parenting. S.L. [ 35 ] S.L. is a support worker with (redacted). She describes S.S. as an exceptional mother whose main motivation is her children. She describes S.S. as dedicated to her role as a mother and continues to demonstrate her ability to meet her children’s needs and move towards a successful future.

Since living at (redacted) S.S. has been accessing support, advocacy, referrals and community resources. She pays her rent on time, her apartment is looked after and she takes great pride in her home. S.L. describes S.S. as some what of a mentor to some of the others in the building. She is strong with her sobriety. THE GRANDMOTHER’S CASE H.S. [ 36 ] H.S. is a cousin of S.S. She testified that during the time of S.’s wedding she noticed that N.S. was acting out and behaving

differently. She testified that N.S. had an obsession with breasts and was touching women’s breasts during one of the wedding events. She also testified that while shopping with N.S. in downtown Vancouver about 6-8 months ago, N.S. told her that her father had left her a week ago at that same corner (corner of Granville and Helmcken) unsupervised to go across the street to the adult store to get some change. S. [ 37 ] S. is married to J.S. Her relationship with her husband, J.S. and her mother-in-law, L.S. is a good one. She is very close to N.S. They have a mother daughter bond.

Her relationship with D.P. is not good because she feels attacked by D.P. Her relationship with S.S. is one-sided as she feels she does a lot for her and it is not acknowledged. She knows D.P. has bi-polar disorder and has a drinking problem. [ 38 ] N.S. has told S. that her parents keep asking her to come live with them which causes N.S. stress and anxiety and gives her nightmares. She has told S. that her father was drunk and vomited on the street on one occasion.

She has told S. how she is not fed food on time at times; how D. swears at her and hits her; how she has witnessed her parents fighting & swearing at each other; how she gets to sleep whenever she wants at her dad’s; and how she slept in the same bed in between her father and his friend. N.S. has told S. about the incident involving D.P. and his mother where D.P. pulled his mother’s hair and his mother drove them all to the police station. [ 39 ] S. testified that N.S. gets really upset and anxious from witnessing these incidents and at times does not wish to go see her parents as a result.

She said N.S. also comes back sick and hurt. She eats foods she is not supposed to at her father’s and then her stomach or her throat starts hurting. She also testified that N.S. is vocal and articulate and that if N.S. does not wish to go to her parents, then they will not force her to go. She said that N.S.’s diet is part of her healthy lifestyle and when her parents do not follow her diet, it is disrespectful to N.S. She testified that by raising N.S. with a healthy diet, it will help her make better choices in life for herself.

She testified that there are no consequences or time-outs for D. and N. when they are with their parents. [ 40 ] N.S. attends the same school that S. teaches at and N.S. loves her school and her teachers. She has been attending events at this school since she was about 8 months old. [ 41 ] S. testified that she, J.S. and L.S. have been there for N.S. from day one and have raised her with love, compassion and patience. They wish her to grow up happy, healthy and content.

Although D.P. and S.S. have taken various courses in parenting and addiction and relationships, they have failed to apply the lessons learned and are not able to co-parent. [ 42 ] She testified that her husband will often act as a mediator and tries to discuss issues that have come up with respect to N.S. with her parents. L.S. [ 43 ] L.S. testified that she is concerned about N.S.’s safety when she goes to visit her mother and father. She has been told by both N.S. and S.S. about issues between S.S. and D.P. She has been told that D.P. abuses S.S.

Recent examples of abuse that S.S. has reported to L.S. have been; 1. In November 2012, D.P. threatened to put S.S.’s face on the burner and put her in a choke hold; 2. sometime recently, D.P. physically assaulted her by kicking her back, hitting her jaw; 3. sometime between January and March 2013, D.P. and S.S. have been fighting and D.P. was calling her names; 4.

S.S. has reported to her mother about D.P.’s drinking on several occasions; 5. in the recent past, S.S. has also told her mother not to let D.P. have access because he has abused her. [ 44 ] N.S. has told L.S. that sometimes she does not get fed when she goes to her father’s. Sometimes her food has come back not eaten.

N.S. has also told her about sleeping in the bed between her father and another woman. [ 45 ] The instability of N.S.’s parent’s relationship including occurrences of abuse and situations arising as a result of D.P.’s drinking are some of the reasons why L.S. simply does not feel that it is safe for N.S. to go see her mother and father. J.S. [ 46 ] J.S. testified that he is a prominent male figure in N.S.’s life. He does a lot for her.

Whenever issues come up regarding N.S. feeling anxious, or N.S. feeling upset, or N.S. peeing herself, or N.S. breaking down in a store he contacts the parents to talk to them about how to resolve these issues and to discuss what could be causing her to behave this way. It appears that D.P. acknowledges the concerns but then the same issues come up again. He is concerned about the violence that N.S. witnesses between her parents. He has witnessed violence between D.P. and S.S. as recently as April 5, 2013. He is also concerned about the violence that N.S. is subjected to by D.P.

He finds the unstable and abusive relationship between her parents, and D.P.’s drinking all concerns which put him in a role where he has to protect N.S.

[ 47 ] When D. kicked N.S. in the groin so hard that she doubled over, the parents did not do anything about that. S.S.’s response was she doesn’t know what to do and how many time outs can they give. [ 48 ] D.P. has missed visits and blames that on he and L.S. and S. [ 49 ] J.S. suggests that N.S.’s time with her parents be supervised to ensure she is not subjected to violence and abuse. He suggested that the parents also attend counselling. VIEWS OF THE CHILD LETTER [ 50 ] A Views of the Child letter was filed April 26, 2013.

The child’s views [ 51 ] N.S. is happy living where she is with J.S., S., Gran (L.S.) she likes all the people she lives with. She likes her teacher, (redacted), she likes her school, and she likes her mother, father. N.S. would like to spend more time with her father than she does at present although N.S. expressed a preference for spending over nights at her father’s home rather than at her mother’s home. She was clear in both her wish to live with her mother and her father if she can also live with J.S. and S.

It is important to N.S. that she continues at (redacted) School. [ 52 ] When asked if she thought she saw her father too much or too little she said too much, I want to see him too much. When asked if she meant that she wanted to spend more time with him she said yes. When asked if she thought she saw her mother too much or too little, N.S. said too little. N.S. said she doesn’t want to go to her mother’s house because there is dirt all over the floor and toys all over the floor, she says it is D. and N., but really it is her.

DISCUSSION [ 53 ] On March 13, 2013 at the pre-trial conference neither a custody and access report nor a child views letter had been applied for. I ordered a full S 15 custody and access report to be prepared by a family justice counselor. Unfortunately that will take until January 2014 to complete. As well, I ordered a Child Views letter which was provided on the 3 rd day of trial. As a result the Orders that I make at this stage are interim only I do not have sufficient evidence to determine more than first steps.

As well, these parties are very far apart in their understanding of what is in N.S.’s best interests. For now, this extended family needs slow, steady, successful steps in order to foster respect and trust and understanding of each other so that N.S.’s life can expand to include a healthy stable relationship with her mother and father and grandmother and uncle and aunt. [ 54 ] Much of the trial focused on criticisms by one side of N.S.’s family of the other side of her family. Much was not substantiated with satisfactory proof. The relationship among the adults is highly conflicted.

The text messages between parties (Exhibit 20 Tab 1 & 2) illustrate the intensity of the conflict. The issue over N.S.’s organic diet as well illustrates the level of conflict. There is no respect, understanding, compassion or acceptance voiced by either side of the other and yet N.S. has managed to go back and forth between houses, loves everyone. She wants to stay where she is, in the same school and have lots of time with her dad. She is more hesitant with her mom and is clear she is not ready for overnights there. Her mom recognizes that and her mom has been visiting with her while N.S. is at her dads.

The parents [ 55 ] D.P. and S.S. are a well intentioned mother and father with a history of addiction and domestic violence who have each taken many constructive steps towards health, stability and good parenting. Each parent has accepted responsibility and has made a commitment to moving forward. Each parent has a support system in place and safety plans available in order to co-parent their 3 children. I am told that the Ministry has no concerns with either parent.

I did not have the benefit of evidence from a social worker who had worked with either parent, it would have been helpful for this hearing and for a final determination. The caregivers [ 56 ] N.S.’s grandmother, aunt and uncle each describe the mother and father’s abandonment of N.S. 6 years ago and their love and care of N.S. since then. They are to be highly commended for their good care of N.S. The effect of addiction and domestic violence by N.S.’s parents on her caregivers has understandably caused anger, resentment and mistrust in them.

These feelings are easily triggered by ongoing difficulties between the parents. I list several examples: 1. The “slip” 6 weeks ago by N.S.’s father of 6 – 7 beers and 2 day relapse; 2. the text the caregivers received December 14, 2012 with N.S. having drunk a half bottle of Tylenol left open by S.S. and needing to be in hospital which was not denied at trial; 3.

N.S.’s hearing her father say he hated S. and how upset N.S. was by that; 4. the fight between mother and father at the coffee shop when J.S. and the children were present. [ 57 ] As a result, L.S. continues to find the parents not able to properly care for N.S. There is no question even after the mediation agreement reached December 21, 2011 (Exhibit 2) there has been continual non compliance by N.S.’s grandmother of time with her parents.

Although I agree there continue to be concerns over alcohol misuse by D.P., difficulties in the parent’s relationship and hesitation on N.S.’s part at spending time with her mother only, the concerns do not mean the parents are not able to spend time with their daughter. The Ministry has been involved with each of these parents and have returned one of their children to each of them at this

point without terms of supervision. N.S. wants to and is entitled to be with all of her family regularly and safely. I disagree with the grandmother’s proposal that the visiting time should be supervised and one weekend a month. I disagree with the mother’s proposal that there be a transitioning plan with primary care to her to evolve over the next year. The proposal is premature.

I agree partially with the father’s proposal. [ 58 ] Based on all I have heard I am satisfied that the current allegations made by N.S.’s grandmother, aunt and uncle, do not warrant denial of regular unsupervised time for N.S. with her parents and her siblings. The denial of visits regularly and for long periods of time, most recently, since March 23, 2013, cannot continue. J.S. as mediator is not an independent satisfactory mechanism to solve disputes. The Ministry has assessed D.P. and S.S.’s parenting of their other two children and have returned them for primary care.

N.S.’s grandmother can take some comfort in their assessment. [ 59 ] N.S.’s family needs to grow slowly and carefully into a healthy expanded family. BEST INTERESTS [ 60 ] In making this interim order with respect to guardianship and parenting arrangements, I have considered N.S.’s best interests only.

To determine that I have considered N.S.’s needs and circumstances as listed in s. 37(2) of the FLA and have assessed the family violence considerations listed in s. 638 of the FLA . [ 61 ] I know the father was convicted of assault in January 2007, I know there was another charge in April 2007 which was not pursued. I am told there have been no further charges. I accept the relationship is on and off and better now with both parents admitting to ongoing difficulties: The father has completed 2 anger management programs, attended individual and couples counseling.

The mother has attended similar counseling and parenting courses. They each appear very aware of their limitations, very willing to have a safety plan in place, and in no denial with regards to need for continual support and progress in the relationship. They do not live together. I have heard no evidence of physical violence directed to N.S. The Ministry has returned D. to D.P.’s primary care and N. to S.S.’s primary care. Given all of these circumstances, I am satisfied N.S. can spend time with each of her parents.

GUARDIANSHIP [ 62 ] At this interim stage D.P., parent, does not meet the requirement under s. 39(3) of the FLA because he has never lived with N.S. L.S. does not meet the requirements because she is not a parent. S.S., appears to satisfy the definition of guardian in s. 39 of the FLA, she is N.S.’s parent and lived with her very briefly after she was born. S.S. then spent 3 ½ years in a heavily drug addicted lifestyle.

Given these circumstances I find that it is in N.S.’s best interest under s. 37(2) b, c, d, e, f, g, i, of the FLA to make an interim order of guardianship to S.S., D.P., and L.S. for a period of 90 days. All 3 parties are to comply with the requirements provided for in Rules 18.1 Family Court Rules – the filing of Criminal Record and Ministry searches. A review date will be set within 90 days from the date of this judgment for the filing of the affidavit material.

At the review date, providing the required affidavits have been filed, a date for the final hearing after January 2014 (expected date for receipt of the FJC report) can be set and applications to extend the interim guardianship order to the conclusion of that hearing can be made. The time frame will be helpful in allowing parenting time with each parent to settle somewhat. It will allow N.S. and her mother to become more re-connected and will allow more regular stable time for N.S. and her father.

It will also provide a time limited careful scheme for L.S. to rely on. [ 63 ] A case conference or application can be set before me in July 2013 and again in February or March 2014, once the s. 211 report is received. As well counsel are to set monthly meetings with the Family Justice Counsellor for the 3 parties to attend beginning on or around June 15, 2013, and continuing each 15 th of the month until further order of the court or written agreement of the parties, to discuss parenting time issues.

PARENTING TIME [ 64 ] Commencing this Friday, May 17, 2013, the mother and father will have parenting time with N.S., overnights to be at the father’s house only, every second weekend, unsupervised, from Friday at 6 pm until Sunday at 6 pm. The alternating weekend

schedule to continue until further order of the court or written agreement of the parties. The father and/or the mother will pick up and drop off N.S. at either the Richmond or the King George SkyTrain Station and will try to have a 3 rd party present. During this time with N.S., all 3 siblings can have contact with each other if that is what the parents decide. [ 65 ] On May 20, 2013, and July 1, 2013, and continuing on all other long weekend statutory holidays until further order of the court or written agreement of the parties, S.S. will have N.S. for the extra day.

The father will drop N.S. off at her mother’s house in the morning and then S.S. will arrange for N.S. to get home to Langley by 6 pm. [ 66 ] D.P.’s request for time with N.S. for a Camping Week July 26 - Aug 1 to be agreed to by the parties or can be discussed at the family case conference in July 2013.

Additional information including who will attend is required. [ 67 ] D.P.’s request for time with N.S. at the (redacted) August 27 – 31, 2013, is granted. [ 68 ] Any other additional parenting time as agreed in writing between the parties. [ 69 ] D.P. will not consume alcohol or other intoxicating substance during any time that he spends in the presence of N.S. [ 70 ] D.P. will continue to attend AA meetings at least twice weekly. [ 71 ] S.S. will not consume any non-prescription drugs or any intoxicating substance during any time in which she spends in the presence of N.S. [ 72 ] All communication by email or text with regard to parenting issues.

TO SUMMARIZE The following is the Interim Order, being made today: 1. Under s. 51(

a) of the Family Law Act and Rule 18(1),(2),(3), S.S., D.P. and L.S. are appointed Interim guardians (“the Guardians”) of N.S. for a period of 90 days; 2. S.S., D.P. and L.S. will have the parenting responsibilities set out in s. 41 of the Act which stipulates their making the day to day decisions affecting the child and having day to day care of the child and supervision of the child, including decisions around the child’s food; 3.

Parenting arrangements under s. 40 of the Act are as follows: Commencing this Friday, May 17, 2013, the mother and father will have time with N.S., overnights to be at the father’s house only, every second weekend, unsupervised from Friday at 6 pm until Sunday at 6 pm. The alternating weekend

schedule to continue until further order of the court or written agreement of the parties. The father and/or the mother will pick up and drop off N.S. at either the Richmond or the King George SkyTrain Station and will try to have a 3 rd party present. During this time with N.S., all 3 siblings can have contact with each other if that is what the parents decide; On May 20, 2013, and July 1, 2013, and continuing on all other long weekend statutory holidays until further order of the court or written agreement of the parties, S.S. will have N.S. for the extra daytime.

The father will drop N.S. off at her mother’s house in the morning and then S.S. will arrange for N.S. to get home to Langley by 6 pm. D.P.’s request for time with N.S. at the (redacted) August 27 – 31, 2013, is granted; Any other additional parenting time as agreed between the parties. 4. Under s. 64(1) the three parties, S.S., D.P., L.S., shall not remove N.S. from the Province of British Columbia without written consent of the parties or a further Court Order; 5. All communication between the parties is to be by email or text with regard to parenting issues; 6. Under s. 224.1(

a) counsel are to set monthly meetings with the FJC for the 3 parties to attend beginning on or around June 15, 2013 and continuing each 15 th of the month, until further court order or written agreement of the parties; 7. D.P. shall not consume any alcohol within the meaning of

section 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , during or for 24 hours before having parenting time with N.S.; 8. S.S. shall not consume any controlled substance within the meaning of

section 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , during or for 24 hours before having parenting time with N.S. _________________________ R. Gallagher Provincial Court Judge