Citation: J.L. v. L.D. Date: 20130515 2013 BCPC 0201 File No: 11242 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: J.L. APPLICANT AND: L.D. RESPONDENT ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. BROWN Counsel for the Applicant: S.D. Robertson

Counsel for the Respondent: M. Crimp Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Dates of Hearing: April 2, 3, 5, 2013 Date of Order: May 15, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT : These are my reasons for judgment in the matter of J.L. v. L.D. , Court File 11242. INTRODUCTION [ 2 ] This case involves two girls, J., who is nine, and M., who is now 11. J. is the natural child of the mother, L.D., and the father, J.L.

M. is L.D.’s daughter from her prior relationship, but she had known J.L. as her father since birth. [ 3 ] J.L. currently lives with his common-law spouse, T.K., and together they have a daughter, S., who is three years old. [ 4 ] L.D. has two younger children, A., who is about three, and P., who is about two. As will be explained more fully, L.D. has transferred her care and control of all four of her children to her mother, J.D. (hereinafter "Grandmother D."), by direction of the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Children and Family Services Society.

L.D. has current struggles with drug addiction and other issues. [ 5 ] The current order governing parenting arrangements is that of Judge Harris granted September 7th, 2010. That order provides that L.D. and J.L. have joint custody and joint guardianship of J. and M. They are to share time with the children on an alternating week basis. I should say at the outset that s. 251 of the Family Law Act provides that L.D. and J.L. would each be guardians under the new legislation with parenting time and parenting responsibilities as set out in the existing order.

However, since the time the order was granted significant changes have occurred. [ 6 ] First, the mother has encountered difficulties requiring Ministry intervention and the transferring of care of the children to Grandmother D.; in fact, the mother is only permitted supervised access with the children in Grandmother D.'s home. This access does not include overnights. [ 7 ] Secondly, since about the summer or early fall of 2012 M. has stopped having any parenting time with J.L.

She learned from her mother that he was not her biological father, and that fact plus other considerations have contributed to her decision not to see J.L. J. still alternates her time between the parents on a week on/week off basis. [ 8 ] There are really two issues in this case:

(1) Pursuant to s. 47 of the Family Law Act, has there been a change in the needs or circumstances of the children since the making of the September 7, 2010 order such that a change in the order is required?

(2) If a change in the order is required, what parenting arrangement is in the best interests of both J. and M.?

Section 37 of the Family Law Act sets out the best interests test. [ 9 ] J.L. takes the position that given the change in circumstances he should be the only guardian for J., or should at least have the majority of the parenting responsibilities for J. More significantly, he seeks the majority of parenting time for J, with the mother having time on alternating weekends and Tuesday evenings. The mother's parenting time or contact would have to be supervised. J.L. acknowledges that his parenting time with M. would have to be at her request. [ 10 ] L.D. takes the position that the September 7th, 2010 order need not be changed or that the current

schedule can be maintained under a new Family Law Act order. Although she acknowledges her current difficulties, she says that s. 42(2) of the Family Law Act allows her parenting time to be subject to an agreement such as the one directed by the Ministry in this case. As well, s. 45(3) allows for her parenting time to be supervised by the grandmother. [ 11 ] I should add that a custody and access report was prepared by Family Justice Counsellor Pam Cripps on January 30th, 2013, and that report takes into account the views of the children.

BACKGROUND [ 12 ] J.L. was the first witness to give evidence in this matter, and he is a finishing carpenter living in Langley, B.C. He has a Métis and Iroquois heritage. He explained his five-year relationship with L.D. which he says ended in 2006. It was a tumultuous relationship, which included verbal and even physical altercations. After separation his access was limited at first, but it moved to alternating weeks in 2010 when he took the matter to court.

In the summer of 2012 or 2011, he says the children were withheld from him for a few weeks. [ 13 ] J.L. also explained that M. has not seen him since late October 2012. He believes L.D. has told M. he was not her natural father and this precipitated the end to any visitation. [ 14 ] While I am of the view that M. may have other reasons for terminating visits with J.L. (such as her conflict with T.K.), I do find it unfortunate that L.D. chose to discuss M.'s parentage without consulting or involving J.L. [ 15 ] J.L. described M. as an introverted young girl who is very mature for her age.

He has tried to make eye contact with her at school, but M. avoids such contact. [ 16 ] J.L. described J. as energetic, outspoken and smart. He is concerned that J. has "seen a lot" regarding her mother's drug

problems. He also said that J. requires some time to calm down when transitioning from the week at Grandmother D.'s to his week. In his view, he and J. are really close and she is also close to three-year-old S. [ 17 ] J.L. described in some detail his living arrangements with T.K. and her parents. His basement suite is certainly suitable for J., who has her own room. [ 18 ] J.L. also described a close relationship between T.K. and J. He also never saw a problem between M. and T.K. [ 19 ] J.L. outlined his methods of discipline, including time-outs. He denies hitting or swearing at the children.

He also explained the activities he had for J., including now soccer in Aldergrove. [ 20 ] J.'s school is 15 minutes from his house. J. is in Grade 4 and is having some problems with her focus upon school work. He believes Grandmother D. is having trouble maintaining J.'s attendance and he also was not made aware of J.'s counselling appointments which take her out of school. [ 21 ] J.L. described his relationship with his spouse, T.K., as very good.

They have been in a six-year relationship, and they use the same form of discipline. [ 22 ] J.L.’s major concerns with L.D. now include her being with the wrong people, doing the wrong things. These other people include drug dealers and persons with criminal backgrounds. L.D. has not overcome her difficulties with drug addiction. He has some limited understanding of the Ministry's involvement and the fact that Grandmother D. has taken over L.D.’s care-giving responsibilities. [ 23 ] J.L. does have concerns with Grandmother D. also. He believes there is black mould in her house and the house is generally dirty.

He also feels there are too many people coming and going from the house. Grandmother D. is also not very communicative with him; for example, he did not know J. needed eyeglasses. As well, he feels M. is not well groomed or well dressed at Grandmother D.'s house. J. also has had a problem with lice. [ 24 ] J.L. denies any problems with his temper and he denies not being active with J. He also denies any problem with alcohol. [ 25 ] Generally speaking, J.L. is of the view that the week on/week off arrangement is hard on J. as there are two very different sets of rules in each household.

As well, Grandmother D. has limited communication with him on any matters affecting J. As another example, he was not informed of J. having bronchitis. He also did not agree with Grandmother D. paying J. $2 if she got her spelling all correct. [ 26 ] Social Worker C.A. also gave evidence in this case. She confirmed that the Ministry is not allowing L.D. to see any of her children unsupervised. She also explained that the Ministry facilitated a s. 8 agreement under the CFCSA whereby L.D.'s care and control of the children was transferred to Grandmother D.

J.L. was not a party to this agreement despite being a guardian of M. and J. The Ministry is involved with L.D. because of her addiction to crystal meth and her past history of being associated with violent men. [ 27 ] The Ministry's current s. 8 agreement expires mid May 2013, and I should just say I have been advised today that it has been extended. The Ministry will reassess things at that time and subsequently.

There is a possibility of L.D. moving in with Grandmother D. at some point. [ 28 ] The Ministry disclosure was marked Exhibit 1 in this proceeding and it reveals several ongoing concerns with the mother. In the past L.D. had had mental health issues and self-destructive behaviour. She was at one time involved with one J.F., who is said to be a white Supremacist and faced robbery charges. Again, drug use by the mother was a constant concern. [ 29 ] C.A. also discussed the "chicken bucket incident". This was a concern that J.L. s spouse had hit J. with a plastic bucket used to feed the chickens.

Ultimately the incident was viewed by the Ministry as either accidental or inappropriate discipline. I do not view this incident as particularly serious, except to say that a rift seemed to develop between M. and T.K. Also, the Ministry did consider J.L. to be difficult, but I understand he was just recovering from an operation. [ 30 ] I will not dwell on the Ministry's concerns with L.D. because they are essentially admitted.

Social Worker C.A. was clear that L.D. needs to go to drug treatment for no less than three months before unsupervised access could be considered. [ 31 ] When asked why the Ministry did not place either J. or M. with J.L., the social worker did explain that the children had a bond with Grandmother D. and it was important for the four children and Ms. D. to be together as much as possible.

However, I am of the view that it would have been far preferable to have J.L. involved in the s. 8 agreement as he was a guardian. [ 32 ] J.L.’s spouse, T.K., testified and confirmed the living arrangements in the basement suite of her parents' home. She confirmed M. no longer comes to their home and she no longer has a relationship with her. She says J. continues to come every other week and she is a happy, outgoing child. T.K. spoke of J.'s routine and discipline techniques for the child, which did not include spanking or use of derogatory language.

T.K. does not have a relationship with Grandmother D., which is unfortunate. She also described the chicken bucket incident, and I refer to my comments above. T.K. was surprised M. appeared fearful of her. She has never seen J.L. be verbally aggressive with any children. She feels J. is missing out on the best years of her childhood and that Grandmother D. needs to focus on her own daughter, L.D. [ 33 ] The mother, L.D., testified that she is a mother of four children, including J. and M. She lived with her mother, Grandmother D., until the summer of 2012 when the Ministry required her to leave the home.

She freely acknowledged her current drug use and the abusive relationships she had. She admitted that J. and M. had witnessed domestic violence. [ 34 ] L.D. hopes to get into a private recovery home soon. In the meantime she has executed a s. 8 agreement whereby Grandmother D. does the parenting. She visits the children almost daily, but cannot spend the night at her mother's home.

[ 35 ] L.D. explained some of the reasons why she told M. that L.D. was not her natural father. Apparently M. had already been expressing an unwillingness to visit with J.L. and she felt she did not have the same bond with him as J. had. On the spur of the moment L.D. told M. that J.L. was not her natural father, and I sense that even L.D. realized she should have consulted with J.L. first before having this discussion with M. [ 36 ] L.D. outlined the many activities and services provided for J. and M.. The girls attend an Aboriginal culture course on alternating Tuesdays and they have Big Sisters after school.

They have counselling with Children Who Witness Violence and within their school. They also go swimming and were previously in Taekwondo. My general sense is that there is poor communication between the parents about these activities and services. [ 37 ] L.D. also testified as to inappropriate discussions J.L. was having with the children. She also said that she was not suicidal last year. [ 38 ] For L.D., the present parenting time

schedule is best for the girls. A. often goes to her paternal grandmother on weekends and M. often goes to friends on the weekends; therefore, it is often during the week when J. spends time with M. and A. Overall, L.D. feels it would be disturbing to change J.'s current schedule. J.'s attitude is improving. Also, J.'s opinion matters and she does not want to change the current schedule. [ 39 ] During cross-examination, L.D. admitted she had been living on the streets prior to her living with a man named Ryan. She admitted that she did not consult with J.L. about the s. 8 agreement with Grandmother D.

She also conceded having used crystal meth very recently. As well, she admitted to withholding the children in August of 2011 when she felt the children did not want to go to J.L.’s home. [ 40 ] Grandmother D. was the final witness. She lives in Aldergrove with M., A., P. and J. (on alternating weeks). She does teach beading twice per week and uses a nanny. L.D. came with J. and M. to her home five years ago and L.D. left the home on August 9th, 2012. [ 41 ] Grandmother D. delineated the daily routine for the children. The girls appear well cared for and have friends in the neighbourhood.

Grandmother D. confirmed that her daughter sees the children almost daily. The children's elementary school is two blocks away from Grandmother D.'s home. She explained that the girls are in an alternate school program and the other counselling referred to above. The children are also involved in an Aunty program and swimming. Grandmother D. also arranges the doctor appointments for the girls. [ 42 ] Grandmother D. testified that all the children contracted lice in July of 2012 and she went to great lengths to get rid of the lice.

For some reason J. had lice the longest of any of the four children. [ 43 ] In Grandmother D.'s view, J.'s last year has been full of improvement. J. is listening better and raises her voice less often. [ 44 ] M. has been expressing an unwillingness to go to J.L.'s since July of 2011; however, Grandmother D. forced her to go see him. M. finally stopped going in 2012 and even J.L. said she did not have to visit him if she did not wish to. [ 45 ] Grandmother D. does share different views on parenting than J.L. She sees nothing wrong with a small financial reward for good spelling.

She also says the girls complain that J.L. was not engaged with them and did not allow them to see their friends. Grandmother D. also heard the girls say that J.L. blamed them for their mother being in recovery and he made other negative comments. [ 46 ] Grandmother D. admitted she did not inform J.L. about J.'s eyeglasses because "it was her week", a rather unsatisfactory explanation. [ 47 ] Grandmother D. did feel J. would lash out if J.L. had the majority of the parenting time. She also described how sore J.'s lips had become in 2012 and said the problem resolved when her sister M. stopped seeing J.L.

Grandmother D. also was of the view that a short haircut and the chicken bucket incident contributed to the problem with J.'s lips. [ 48 ] Grandmother D. said that her home is a rental and she may be moving soon. She dealt with any mould problems using bleach. [ 49 ] During cross-examination, Grandmother D. did concede that she used a nanny about 16 hours per week. As well, she has little or no time with J. on many Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.

Grandmother D. also confirmed that her daughter is now visiting with the children daily, although it was less frequent before. [ 50 ] The final piece of evidence for me to consider is the custody and access report prepared by Ms. Cripps and filed February 15th, 2013. I read from the "Summary and Recommendations" at page 8 of that report: L.D. and J.L. have experienced a tumultuous relationship marred with violence and drug and alcohol addiction that has brought about the involvement from the Ministry of Children and Family Development in both homes.

M., who was raised by J.L. as a father figure, has been made aware that he is not her biological father and combined with her challenging relationship with T.K. she has chosen not to attend J.L.'s home any longer. J.L. is willing to remain in M.'s life as before, but he does not want to force her to come if she does not want to. J. has continued to spend time between her homes on an alternating basis. She has half-siblings in each home which she enjoys spending time with.

She has a more conflictual relationship with M. than the younger siblings, partly because of their divergent personalities and likely due to their similarities in age and gender, as is not uncommon. Given the children's compiled exposure to addictive and abusive behaviour from both parents and their respective partners, it is paramount that the children be raised in a less hostile environment in order to grow and develop into well adjusted and healthy adults.

While L.D.'s time with her children has been limited to supervised access under the direct care of the maternal grandmother, Grandmother D., it is important that the children continue to share time and a relationship with L.D. until such time she can resume her parental duties without concerns for the children's safety. It would seem that M. may not benefit from being forced to attend J.L.'s home; however, the opportunity and option should continue to be extended in the event she changes her mind.

In order to have continuity for school and to support her relationships with all caregivers and her siblings, J. should continue to share time between her two homes by either splitting the week between them, with J. spending Thursday after school until Monday morning with her dad and Monday after school until Thursday morning with her grandmother, or an alternating weekly

schedule as currently in place. [ 51 ] I must say that despite what was said above, I did not find there to be any extensive involvement of the Ministry in the father's home and there was no evidence that the father had current addictive behaviour. There was some evidence that the girls were concerned about J.L.’s temper. [ 52 ] I should also say that the split week option set out in the report seems to be a non-starter for either parent. CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES [ 53 ] In my view there has been a significant change in the needs or circumstances of J. and M. since the making of the September 7th, 2010 order.

First, L.D. has had such great difficulties with drug abuse that the Ministry required her care of the children to be transferred to Grandmother D. under a s. 8 agreement. Secondly, M. has chosen not to see J.L. [ 54 ] I am satisfied under s. 47 of the Family Law Act that the parenting arrangements for J. and M. must be changed because of these new circumstances. Simply put, the September 7th, 2010 order is now a legal fiction.

L.D. is only allowed supervised visits with her children and J.L. does not see M. at all. [ 55 ] The more difficult issue is deciding upon a parenting arrangement that meets the best interests of both girls. PARENTING ARRANGEMENT AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GIRLS [ 56 ] As outlined above, the father is seeking to have most of the parenting responsibilities for J. and most of the parenting time. He acknowledges that M. should only have parenting time with him in accordance with her wishes. The mother, on the other hand, seeks a FLA order that does not really change the current

schedule for J. [ 57 ] In considering the various parenting arrangements, I must ascertain what is in the girls' best interests in accordance with s. 37 of the Family Law Act . [ 58 ] Under s. 37(2)(

a) I should first examine the girls' health and emotional well-being. Right now neither J. nor M. has any serious problems with their health. J. is having an ongoing struggle with lice, but her problem with her lips has improved. I agree with J.L.’s counsel that it is not good for the girls to be exposed to the mother's drug abuse or the behaviour of her past abusive partners; however, under the current regime imposed by the Ministry the children are not exposed to those problems because of Grandmother D.'s role in the s. 8 agreement.

Moreover, the girls are going to counselling, such as the Children Who Witness Violence program, and the other services I outlined above. It also appears that J.'s overall behaviour has improved within the current schedule. [ 59 ] Under s. 37(2)(b), I must take into account the children's views, unless otherwise inappropriate to do so. According to the custody and access report, which was completed January 30th, 2013, M. remains adamant that she does not wish to visit J.L. s home. She felt T.K. was mean to her. See page 4 of the report.

This is unfortunate, but I trust all parties will do their best to encourage time between J.L. and M. For the time being, I agree with Ms. Cripps that M. should not be forced to see J.L. [ 60 ] J.'s views are set out on page 4 of the custody and access report. She likes her current

schedule the way it is now. She enjoys spending time in each home and with both parents and her grandmother. I acknowledge that J. is too young at age nine to be determining what is in her own best interest and it is up to parents or the court to make these determinations. That said J.'s views are a factor which I must take into account. [ 61 ] I also must examine the nature and strength of the girls' relationships with significant other persons. In this case, J. has a strong relationship with all her siblings. Concerning the father's home, J. acknowledges S. misses her when she spends the week away.

See page 5 of the custody and access report. She also enjoys spending time with A. and P in Grandmother D's home. She does have a more conflictual relationship with M. It is also clear that J. misses her mother, L.D., and has had a strong relationship with Grandmother D. over the past five years.

On the father's side, J. appears to have a good relationship with T.K. [ 62 ] I understand that the case law provides no presumption against splitting siblings and that is only one factor to be accounted for; however, in the present case I do find that the present arrangement maximizes J.'s contact with the father's side, including S., T.K., and the mother's side, in particular, Grandmother D., and the three other children. [ 63 ] When analyzing the history of the girls' care under s. 37(2)(

d) of the Act, I note that the week on/week off

schedule has been in place since September of 2010, and even though Grandmother D. has become the main caregiver for the girls during the mother's week since August of 2012, the girls have actually been in the grandmother's home for the last five years. [ 64 ] The real concern is stability as set out in s. 37(2)(e). There can be no doubt that L.D. is in an unstable situation right now. She has been abusing drugs and has exposed the children to domestic violence, but the Ministry has intervened and caused the grandmother to be the main caregiver in place of the mother.

The grandmother is a stabilizing force in what would otherwise be a chaotic situation. Notwithstanding that J.L. should have been more involved with the Ministry intervention, the intervention has nevertheless been appropriate for both girls. I realize a s. 8 agreement under the CFCSA is voluntary, but I am confident that if the mother were to terminate or not renew the agreement the Ministry, the grandmother or the father would immediately take appropriate measures; in fact,

my order can be phrased so as to ensure stability within the current arrangement until the mother has remedied her problems. [ 65 ] When examining parenting abilities under s. 37(2)(

f) of the new Act, I again have no doubt that L.D. currently cannot diligently exercise her parenting responsibilities or parenting time. She needs residential treatment. However, as stated above, the grandmother has filled the void. An order needs to be structured to accord with the new reality. I appreciate that Grandmother D. is not a party, but it is in the children's best interests that her role be preserved and any order should do just that.

I also appreciate that there are many hours when Grandmother D. uses a nanny, but it is important to preserve J.'s time in the grandmother's entire household, which includes three siblings and her mother at least in the day. [ 66 ] I have little issue with J.L.’s parenting ability. Something has been made of his temper and about some comments he has passed on to the children. I am certain he will ensure that he and T.K. only avail themselves of the discipline techniques he referred to in his direct evidence. [ 67 ] Section 37(2)(

g) of the FLA speaks of the impact of family violence. I share the father's concern about some of the mother's boyfriends and the impact they could have on the children; however, the Ministry has set up the s. 8 CFCSA agreement bearing these concerns in mind. The social worker did not have protection concerns for the girls so long as the agreement was followed and the mother did not have unsupervised contact. I can see this is a somewhat unique way of overcoming a protection concern, but it is working in these circumstances [ 68 ] Any parenting arrangements should also consider the ability of the guardians to co-operate on issues affecting the children. See s. 37(2)(

i) of the FLA. [ 69 ] I am concerned that J.L. was not consulted about the following: (1) the s. 8 agreement with the grandmother; (2) the discussion with M. about him not being her natural father;

(3) J.'s eyeglasses and other health issues. That said I suspect the father may have been difficult to communicate with at times and any order I make must endeavour to improve communication between the parties. [ 70 ] I want to make a final comment about the picture of J. marked as Exhibit 2. It was produced to show the problems she was having with her lips, but I see something else. I see a smiling young girl with hope in her eyes. Everyone involved must remember that they are here for J. and M.'s well being.

ORDER [ 71 ] Based on the above discussion, my order is as set out below. [ 72 ] Insofar as parenting time is concerned, I have attempted to maintain the current parenting time for J., recognizing the increased involvement of the grandmother and the currently diminished involvement of the mother. Insofar as parenting responsibilities are concerned, I have given the father the final say concerning J., bearing in mind the mother's current limitations and the requirement that he maintain the child's counselling.

The parenting responsibilities for J. are a modified form of the Joyce Model, whereas the parenting responsibilities for M. are simply shared. I recognize J.L. may not wish to be as involved with M. at the present time, but the order allows for his involvement. [ 73 ] Based on the above discussion my order is as follows: The order of the Honourable Judge R.P. Harris, granted September 7, 2010, is varied as follows:

PREAMBLE

(1) Upon the court being advised of the name and birth date of each child is as follows: J.L.L., who will be known as "J.", born September 10, 2003; M.A.D., who will be known as "M", born March 7, 2002;

(2) And, upon being satisfied that L.D. and J.L. continue to be guardians of the children under the Family Law Act . PARENTING RESPONSIBILITIES [ 74 ] The next orders involve Parenting Responsibilities:

(3) L.D. and J.L. shall share all the following parenting responsibilities for M. as set out in s. 41 of the Family Law Act: (

a) making day-to-day decisions affecting the child and having day-to-day care, control and supervision of the child; (

b) making decisions respecting where the child will reside; (

c) making decisions with respect to whom the child will live and associate;

(

d) making decisions respecting the child's education and participation in extracurricular activities, including the nature, extent and location; (

e) making decisions respecting the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including the child's aboriginal identity; (

f) subject to 17 of the Infants Act , giving, refusing or withdrawing consent to medical, dental and other health-related treatments for the child; (

g) applying for a passport, licence, permit, benefit, privilege or other thing for the child; (

h) giving, refusing or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required; (

i) receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive; (

j) requesting and receiving from third parties health, education or other information respecting the child; (

k) subject to any applicable provincial legislation, (

i) starting, defending, compromising or settling any proceeding relating to the child; and, (ii) identifying, advancing and protecting the child's legal and financial interests; (

l) exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development.

(4) Each guardian will advise the other guardian of any matters of a significant nature affecting M.

(5) Each guardian will consult the other guardian about any important decisions that must be made for M. and will try to reach agreement concerning these important decisions.

(6) L.D. and J. L. shall exercise all parenting responsibilities under s. 41 for J. on the following terms: (

a) each guardian will have the obligation to advise the other of any matters of a significant nature affecting J.; (

b) each guardian will have the obligation to discuss with the other guardian any significant decisions that have to be made concerning J., including significant decisions about the heath (except emergency decisions), education, religious instruction and general welfare; (

c) the guardians will have the obligation to discuss significant decisions with each other and the obligation to try to reach agreement on these decisions; (

d) in the event that the guardians cannot reach agreement on a significant decision despite their best efforts, J. L. will be entitled to make these decisions and L.D. will have the right to apply for directions on any decisions she considers contrary to the best interests of J. under s. 49 of the Family Law Act ; and, (

e) each guardian will have the right to obtain information concerning J. directly from third parties, including, but not limited to, teachers, counsellors, medical professionals and third party caregivers.

(7) Notwithstanding the above parenting responsibility orders for J. and M. and pursuant to s. 43 of the Family Law Act , the grandmother, Grandmother D., is authorized to exercise the parental responsibilities under s. 41(a), (c), (d), (

f) to (

j) or (

l) on L.D.’s behalf for so long as the Director under the CFCSA requires.

(8) In exercising parental responsibilities, both guardians shall ensure that the children are enrolled in their current counselling programs for so long as it is in their best interests to do so. [ 75 ] And then the next heading is regarding Parenting Time orders. PARENTING TIME

(9) Subject to the final order made below, L.D. shall have the majority of parenting time with M.

(10) J.L. shall have parenting time with M. in accordance with M.'s wishes, and all parties shall encourage this parenting time.

(11) Subject to the final order made below, L.D. and J.L. shall share parenting time with J. on an alternating week basis.

(12) L.D.'s parenting time with J. and M. shall be allocated to the grandmother, Grandmother D. , under s. 42 for so long as the Director under the CFCSA requires, and any parenting time exercised by L.D. shall be supervised by Grandmother D. or such other persons approved of by the Ministry for so long as the Director under the CFCSA requires pursuant to s. 45(3). [ 76 ] Now, I know those orders were a mouthful, so I am going to order a transcript of my reasons and my order today and have that available on the file. Unless there are any questions, those are my reasons. [ 77 ] MR.

ROBERTSON: Your Honour, just to clarify that last point, number 12 -- [ 78 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 79 ] MR. ROBERTSON: -- the order for supervision is an order for supervision subject to the Ministry basically. If the Ministry

says supervision is required supervision is required. [ 80 ] THE COURT: Yes, yes. [ 81 ] MR. ROBERTSON: So, it's not a separate order that there is supervision -- [ 82 ] THE COURT: No, it is any parenting time exercised by L.D. shall be supervised by Grandmother D. or such other person approved of by the Ministry for so long as the Director requires. I am leaving it up to the Director rather than the two parties. I can only assume that when they enter into a

section 8 agreement that they are fulfilling their mandate there. Of course, the father, if he feels they are not, can come back and ask for supervision even after the Ministry has felt it is no longer necessary. I am not making that an order; that is just a comment. [ 83 ] MR. ROBERTSON: Thank you. ______________________ G. Brown Provincial Court Judge