T.T.C. v. K.P.L.A. et al Date:, 2016 BCPC 199

Citation: T.T.C. v. K.P.L.A. et al Date: 20160624 2016 BCPC 199 File Nos: 11962; 11531 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 File No: 11962 BETWEEN: T.T.C. APPLICANT AND: K.P.L.A. RESPONDENT - and - File No: 11531 BETWEEN: K.C. T.T.C. APPLICANTS AND: K.P.L.A. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE E.M. BURDETT Counsel for T.T.C. (FILE NO. 11962) : Appearing in person

Appearing as Counsel for the Applicant for a limited purpose: Danika Heighes Counsel for K.P.L.A. Joy Bullick Counsel for K.C.: (FILE NO. 11531) Appearing in person Counsel for T.T.C.: Appearing in person Appearing as Counsel for the Applicant for a limited purpose: Danika Heighes Counsel for K.P.L.A. Joy Bullick Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Dates of Hearing: May 9-10, June 6-8, 2016 Date of Judgment: June 24, 2016 [ 1 ] These Applications concern K., born [omitted for publication]. K. is 10 years old. [ 2 ] Mr. C. is K.’s father. Ms. A. is K.’s mother. Mrs. C. is K.’s stepmother.

All three parties are guardians of K., pursuant to an Order made by consent on June 15, 2015. [ 3 ] The relief sought and issues to be determined are parenting time, allocation of parental responsibilities, and restrictions of third party M.B.’s contact with K. [ 4 ] Essentially, Ms. A. seeks equal parenting time with no restrictions on who may come in contact with K. Mr. and Mrs. C. seek to curtail Ms. A.’s parenting time to every other weekend, two 2-week periods in July and August, half of Spring Break and half of Christmas.

They argue that K. is at risk should she have any contact with M.B. [ 5 ] The parties have made 28 court appearances from August 12, 2009 until today, and 13 Orders have been made. Some of those Orders have been made by consent, but many have not. BACKGROUND [ 6 ] Mr. C. and Ms. A. have known each other since childhood. Their mothers were friends when both families lived in Sault Ste. Marie. Mr. C. and Ms. A. entered into a relationship in 2004 and moved to Kamloops in 2005. K. was born in Kamloops on [omitted for publication]. The parties lived with Mr. C.’s mother, Sarah C.

They separated on December 25, 2005 when Ms. A. moved out. At that time Mr. C. and his mother assumed the majority of the parenting responsibilities for K. Ms. A. had unfettered access to K., but she saw K. sporadically and at times did not see K. for two to three months at a time. [ 7 ] In 2007 Mr. C. drafted a custody agreement without the benefit of legal advice. He and Ms. A. met and both signed the agreement (Tab 2, Exhibit 9). Mr. C. then filed the agreement in Provincial Court. [ 8 ] The agreement set out the following. Mr. C. had sole custody of K. and her principal residence was to be with him.

Both parents were guardians and had agreed on a parenting plan. Mr. C. was to make all important decisions for the care of K., but Ms. A. was to be consulted. If one parent could not care for K., the other parent was to be given the opportunity to do so. Mr. C. was to claim the child tax benefit. The parties were to mediate if the plan no longer met K.’s best interests. [ 9 ] In late 2009 Mr. C. and Mrs. C. met. In January 2010, Mr. C. took a job working in security with the Olympics in Vancouver. He remained there until March 2010. K. stayed with her grandmother, Sarah C. Mr.

C. left Kamloops again in May 2010, this time to do military training in Gagetown. He was gone about 6 weeks. During this time Ms. A. saw K. frequently, who was still in the care of Sarah C. most of the time. [ 10 ] In May 2009 Mr. C. had filed an Application seeking sole custody, specified access to Ms. A. and child support. At that time he anticipated that he would be relocating to Borden, Ontario to further his military career. A consent order was entered into by the parties on June 1, 2010, which provided that Mr. C. was to have sole custody and that the parties would share guardianship, Ms.

A. was to have access every other weekend (should she relocate to Ontario as well), two weeks in July and August, Spring Break, Mother’s Day and one week at Christmas. Ms. A. was to pay child support and the parties were to share

Section 7 expenses relative to their incomes. [ 11 ] Ms. A., anticipating Mr. C.’s move, relocated to Toronto in July 2010. Mr. C.’s career plans were put on hold due to decisions made by the military. He did not move but remained in Kamloops. Ms. A. remained in Toronto, but for a brief Christmas visit to K. Ms. A. remained in Ontario until June 2011. Apart from the Christmas visit, Ms. A. saw K. via Skype two or three times during her time in Ontario. [ 12 ] Between March 2010 and September 2010, Mr. C. and Mrs. C.’s relationship became serious, and they made plans to integrate their families. Mrs.

C. has two children, S. now 17, and J., now 11. The two families moved in together in September 2010. [ 13 ] Mr. C. married Mrs. C. in 2011. In January 2011 he went to Edmonton to train for deployment to Afghanistan. Mrs. C. assumed all parenting responsibilities for K. Mr. C. was to be deployed May 30, 2011. Ms. A., learning that Mr. C. was going to be out of the country for approximately a year, became upset that K. was not to be placed in her care. She decided to return to Kamloops. [ 14 ] Shortly before his deployment, Mr. C. obtained an ex parte order on May 25, 2011, that K. was to remain in Kamloops; that

Mrs. C. was able to enforce his custodial rights in his absence; and that Ms. A.’s access was to take place in Kamloops. [ 15 ] Upon her return to Kamloops, Ms. A. retained counsel, but the matter was adjourned a number of months due to Mr. C.’s absence. [ 16 ] During this time, Ms. A. and Mrs. C. worked cooperatively, more or less, to ensure K. saw lots of her mother. K. spent weekends with Ms. A., and some extended time in August. [ 17 ] Ms. A. had a boyfriend named Andre during this time. Ms. A. spent a considerable period of time in Vancouver. She saw K. twice in September, and then Ms.

A. went on a trip to the Caribbean. She saw K. on Halloween, but not at all in November 2011. She saw K. at Christmas. [ 18 ] On January 11, 2012, the parties entered into an interim order by consent that essentially mirrored the June 2010 order, as well as providing Ms. A. access on Wednesdays after school. It restricted Ms. A.’s access to Kamloops unless the parties agreed otherwise. [ 19 ] In July 2012, Ms. A. arrived at Mr. and Mrs. C.’s residence to pick up K. She had not adhered to the agreed upon parenting schedule. Mr. C. met her outside the home and the two had an argument. At some point, Mrs.

C. emerged from the home and injected herself into the argument. Profanities were uttered. Tempers were lost. K. may have witnessed some of this dispute between her caregivers. [ 20 ] On August 3, 2012, Mr. C. filed an Application seeking to define parental responsibilities; to specify parenting time for Ms. A. and provide restrictions on that parenting time. He also sought a restraining order so that Ms. A. would not contact Mrs. C. nor attend within 50 feet of Mr. and Mrs.

C.’s residence. [ 21 ] On August 8, 2012, the parties entered into an interim consent order, agreeing that they both were to complete the Parenting After Separation course, and that they were to attend Family Justice counselling together to work on communication, access and parenting issues. They agreed to limit their communication to email or text. [ 22 ] During the next two years, Ms.

A. made a number of appearances associated with her failure to pay child support and the arrears which had accumulated. [ 23 ] In mid-May 2014, there was a complaint made to the Ministry of Children and Families (MCFD) that K. may have been sexually abused. From the date of the complaint until August 2014, Mr. C. unilaterally cancelled all of Ms. A.’s parenting time with K. The investigation took some time, and Ms. A. had daytime parenting with K. by the end of August. [ 24 ] On December 17, 2014, an Interim Order was made specifying daytime parenting time for Ms.

A. on Saturdays and Sundays in the Kamloops or Chase communities. Ms. A. was living in Chase at the time. [ 25 ] On June 19, 2015, an Interim Consent Order was entered into, providing overnight weekend access to Ms. A., joint guardianship for Ms. A., Mr. C. and Mrs. C.; sharing of information with respect to K.’s assessment at the IHCAN clinic, summer parenting time of two periods of 2 weeks for Ms. A., and a review of the parenting time in six months. [ 26 ] On November 2, 2015, Ms. A.’s application to reduce her child support arrears was dismissed and new orders for child support were made.

Income was imputed to Ms. A., and she was ordered to pay her share of K.’s counselling sessions. [ 27 ] In December 2015, Ms. A. met M.B., and commenced a relationship with him. [ 28 ] On January 15, 2016, the Order of June 19, 2015 was amended to increase Ms. A.’s parenting time to Thursdays after school until Monday morning. Any babysitter caring for K. was to be approved by Mr. or Mrs. C., and Ms. A.’s mother was not to provide care for K. for longer than two hours. [ 29 ] In February 2016, Mr.

C. found out M.B. had a long criminal record and complaints had been made about him being sexually inappropriate with children. He alerted MCFD and was advised not to allow K. to have any unsupervised access with M.B. [ 30 ] During the duration of these proceedings, Ms. A. has had daytime parenting time every second weekend with K., one day in a public place and the second day at her mother’s apartment. M.B. has not been allowed to be present. [ 31 ] Ms. A. is now working as a night auditor at a hotel. She has recently started a new job and will not be entitled to holidays for some time. [ 32 ] Mr.

C. now works at a mine near Kamloops and no longer is away for lengthy periods of time. EVIDENCE [ 33 ] I heard from ten witnesses during the course of this hearing. Generally I found most of the witnesses credible. However, I found Ms. A. to be an unreliable witness at times. Her evidence was frequently inconsistent, and she often changed her testimony between examination-in-chief and cross-examination. She was prone to exaggeration. She could not recall many incidents which were put to her in cross-examination. I have weighed her evidence carefully. [ 34 ] Mr.

C. was generally a reliable witness, however, I find that his antipathy towards Ms. A. has coloured his perception of some events. [ 35 ] In determining the issues of parenting time and parental responsibilities, section 37 (1) of the Family Law Act mandates that I must only consider the best interests of K:

(1) In making an agreement or order under this Part respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with a child, the parties and the court must consider the best interests of the child only.

(2) To determine what is in the best interests of a child, all of the child's needs and circumstances must be considered, including the following: (

a) the child's health and emotional well-being; (

b) the child's views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them; (

c) the nature and strength of the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child's life; (

d) the history of the child's care; (

e) the child's need for stability, given the child's age and stage of development; (

f) the ability of each person who is a guardian or seeks guardianship of the child, or who has or seeks parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact with the child, to exercise his or her responsibilities; (

g) the impact of any family violence on the child's safety, security or well-being, whether the family violence is directed toward the child or another family member; (

h) whether the actions of a person responsible for family violence indicate that the person may be impaired in his or her ability to care for the child and meet the child's needs; (

i) the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the child or other family members; (

j) any civil or criminal proceeding relevant to the child's safety, security or well-being.

(3) An agreement or order is not in the best interests of a child unless it protects, to the greatest extent possible, the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being.

(4) In making an order under this Part, a court may consider a person's conduct only if it substantially affects a factor set out in subsection (2), and only to the extent that it affects that factor. [ 36 ] The issue of family violence has arisen in this hearing. Consequently, I must also consider

section 38 of the Family Law Act : 38 For the purposes of section 37 (2) (

g) and (h) [best interests of child] , a court must consider all of the following: (

a) the nature and seriousness of the family violence; (

b) how recently the family violence occurred; (

c) the frequency of the family violence; (

d) whether any psychological or emotional abuse constitutes, or is evidence of, a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour directed at a family member; (

e) whether the family violence was directed toward the child; (

f) whether the child was exposed to family violence that was not directed toward the child; (

g) the harm to the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being as a result of the family violence; (

h) any steps the person responsible for the family violence has taken to prevent further family violence from occurring; (

i) any other relevant matter. K.’s health and emotional well-being [ 37 ] K. is a physically healthy 10 year old. [ 38 ] Mr. and Mrs. C. and Ms. A. have different views of K.’s strengths and challenges. Mr. and Mrs. C. arranged for K. to be assessed at the Interior Health Children’s Assessment Network (IHCAN) because of concerns they had regarding K.’s ability to sustain attention, follow routines and instructions, symptoms of anxiety and difficulty interacting with peers and forming friendships. Mr. C. was worried about whether K.’s difficulties were consistent with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Ms.

A. consumed some alcohol before she knew she was pregnant. [ 39 ] Ms. A. did not notice many of the issues that Mr. and Mrs. C. identified, nor did K.’s teachers. [ 40 ] The team diagnosis was that K. has some features of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (Inattentive type). Some recommendations were made to assist K. at school and at home. The psychosocial report noted that K. has experienced the absence of both of her parents - Mr. C. being away for long stretches of time due to his work and Ms. A. being absent for stretches of K.’s life. K. appears to be more anxious in Mr. and Mrs. C.’s home. Dr.

Swanson provided an number of recommendations at pages 11 and 12 of the

report which included: establish a close working relationship with the school; ensure K. experiences successes as well as focussing on tasks that are harder; increase structure to assist K. in managing the outside world, use of encouragement and positive reinforcement; setting realistic expectations, parental calmness and firmness; exercise; regular counselling, and encouragement of K. to participate in positive and pro-social areas. [ 41 ] K. is doing very well in school and was described by T.M., her grade 5 teacher, as bright, very engaged and one of her top students.

T.M. described K. as quite anxious, polite, and very friendly. K. is gifted in math. She can be a bit “scattered” at times and needs to keep on top of her organizational skills. K.H., K.’s grade 4 teacher, echoed T.M.’s observations - that K. was a very good student and is kind and respectful. In grade 4, K. was forgetful at times, and occasionally needed one-on-one assistance. Both teachers commended Mr. and Mrs. C. for the support they give K. at home in finishing schoolwork and doing homework assignments.

Both teachers testified that structure at home and good communication between home and school was essential to K.’s success. Neither teacher has ever had any parent teacher interviews with Ms. A. or any meaningful contact with her. K.’s views [ 42 ] Although a Views of the Child Report has not been prepared, social workers have spoken to K. I accept that she loves her mother, father and stepmother, and enjoys being with each of them. The nature and strength of K.’s relationships between herself and other significant people in her life [ 43 ] K. is blessed to have a number of people who love and care for her.

She has a strong and loving relationship with her father and stepmother. She has a loving relationship with her two stepbrothers, her paternal grandmother and Mrs. C.’s mother. K. loves her mother and her maternal grandmother and enjoys spending time with them. Ms. A. has had eight boyfriends since she separated from Mr. C., and it appears none have established a continuing relationship with K.M.B. has met K. five or six times, but at this point she does not have a relationship with him. The history of K.’s care [ 44 ] I do not accept Ms.

A.’s evidence that she was the primary caregiver for K. immediately after her separation from Mr. C. It is inconsistent with other parts of her testimony, inconsistent with Mr. C.’s testimony, and inconsistent with the documentary proof that was used to establish Mr. C.’s claim for the child tax credit. It is also inconsistent with the agreement signed by both parties. I find as a fact that after separation and until Mr. C. moved in with Mrs. C., he and his mother were the primary caregivers for K. During this time, both Mr. C. and Ms. A. were absent for extended periods of time from K.

It would have been useful to hear from Sarah C., K.’s grandmother and one of her primary caregivers during this time, but she was not called as a witness. Since Mr. and Mrs. C. have lived together, Mrs. C. has, at times, been K.’s primary caregiver, particularly when Mr. C. was in Afghanistan and Edmonton. I find as a fact that Ms. A.’s care of K. has been sporadic at times. During certain years, she saw little of K. Often when she did have parenting time, she dropped K. off with Sarah C. Sometimes she did not exercise the parenting time she did have. Recently she has been more consistent.

K.’s need for stability, given her age and development [ 45 ] Like any 10 year old, K. needs stability and consistency. Given some of her challenges and her history with both parents being absent for portions of her life, K. requires more stability and consistency. She is flourishing in school because of the routine and

schedule Mr. and Mrs. C. have created. The ability of each person who is a guardian to exercise his or her responsibilities [ 46 ] Mr. C., now that he is working in Kamloops, has been able to properly exercise his parenting responsibilities. Along with his wife, he has addressed K.’s educational needs. He has been diligent in ensuring that K. has been properly assessed, and for the most part, is following through with all the suggestions made by the IHCAN team. He has arranged meaningful extra-curricular activities for K., and ensured she has lots of contact with her extended family. At times, Mr.

C.’s parenting style is too rigid. An example is when K. does not eat her dinner. Mr. C. keeps her dinner and makes K. eat it for breakfast. This is far from the “encouragement and positive reinforcement” the IHCAN clinic has recommended and punitive rather than nurturing. Mr. C. also appears to have high expectations of K., which may at times be unrealistic. While K.’s results at school have been very good, more realistic expectations that target K.’s strengths may lessen her anxiety. [ 47 ] Mr. C. strives to be calm when dealing with Ms. A.

I accept that he has made a number of changes to parenting plans in the past to accommodate Ms. A.’s last minute changes and he has attempted to be flexible in order for K. to see her mother as much as possible. However, it is clear that Mr. C. has more or less run out of patience with Ms. A.’s lifestyle choices and her inconsistent exercise of parenting time. [ 48 ] Ms. A. participated in the IHCAN assessment and received a copy of the report. Ms. A. has many positive attributes as a parent, in that she loves playing with K. and having fun with her. K. loves spending time with her mother. Ms.

A.’s strengths do not lie in routine, structure, consistency or timeliness. She has not been able to adequately supervise K. to ensure her homework has been done. She has not arranged any extracurricular activities for K. Ms. A. has made no effort to become engaged with K.’s school by meeting with her teachers. She failed to show up for some parenting times and at other times, dropped K. off with a third party soon after picking her up. She has put her own interests ahead of K.’s on more than one occasion. One example of this was a field trip K. was scheduled to take with her 4 H Club to a veterinary clinic.

K. was very excited about the field trip. She was in Ms. A.’s care for the weekend. Ms. A. did not want to go and K. watched television instead of attending the field trip. A second example was a Halloween night. Ms. A. was to take K. out trick or treating. She did so, but only for half an hour before dropping K. off at Sarah C.’s because Ms. A. wanted to travel to Vancouver with friends. [ 49 ] Ms. A. has failed to pay child support in any meaningful way.

[ 50 ] Ms. A. has involved K. in her dispute with Mr. and Mrs. C. by making inappropriate remarks to K., which have caused K. to be upset. [ 51 ] At one point, Mr. and Mrs. C. and Ms. A. attended mediation with social worker Donna Lyn Fraser. Ms. Fraser was trying to get the parties to work together cooperatively to co-parent K. The mediation was not successful. Ms. Fraser testified that Ms. A. refused to acknowledge that it was in K.’s best interest to work together with Mrs. C. in parenting. Ms. Fraser was of the opinion that Ms. A. was unable to put K.’s best interests ahead of her own.

She recommended that Ms. A. take a parenting course and a respectful relationship course. [ 52 ] Ms. A. spends most of her free time with M.B. and would like to move in with him. M.B. would like to marry Ms. A. M.B. has a long criminal record which includes some crimes of violence. He is a recovered alcoholic and drug addict. Although he is to be commended on his sobriety, M.B. has a history of complaints which have been made against him concerning sexually inappropriate behaviour around children. Social worker Charmaine Reaney investigated those historical complaints.

At age 14, M.B. was sexually inappropriate with a sibling and cousin. In 2011, he was charged with five counts of sexual assault. These alleged offences involved a relationship he was in with a 15 year old girl. He was 30 at the time. Although M.B. was not convicted of these charges, he did acknowledge he was involved with the girl. M.B. has five children with three separate women. According to Ms. Reaney, M.B.’s access to some of his biological children must be supervised. Ms.

Reaney was of the opinion that given M.B.’s past trauma and his past behaviour, contact with K., who is a very trusting child, must be supervised. [ 53 ] Ms. Reaney discussed her concerns with Ms. A. and M.B. She felt that Ms. A. did not receive any suggestions about supervised access well. Ms. A. refuses to recognize the risk that M.B. poses to K. Ms. Reaney also has concerns that Ms. A. can supervise M.B. effectively, given she does not recognize the risk he poses. Ms.

Reaney suggested that if M.B. continues to want to be involved in K.’s life, he should obtain a forensic risk assessment from a psychologist or psychiatrist, which could provide valuable information in assessing whether he truly is a risk to K. [ 54 ] Ms. A. seeks to have equal parenting time with K. She has not provided any details as to how K. would be cared for when she is at work. She has suggested that she could hire a babysitter to care for K. overnight when she is at work. However, she has not provided any details as to the identity of the babysitter nor how she would pay for a babysitter.

As noted earlier, Ms. A. has been unable to make most of her child support payments, so it is unlikely she could afford to pay an overnight babysitter. Ms. A.’s mother is not able to care for K. overnight, as she is an epileptic and suffers seizures from time to time. [ 55 ] Ms. A. has just started a new job and will not have holidays for many months. She seeks to have K. for four weeks in the summer, but has not provided any realistic plans for K. during that time. [ 56 ] Mrs. C. has played an important role in K.’s life. For considerable periods of time when both Mr. C. and Ms. A. were not present, Mrs.

C. was the only parent in K.’s life. It is obvious Mrs. C. loves K. deeply. She has been involved in meeting with K.’s teachers and counsellors and has worked diligently to implement the recommendations of the IHCAN team. She has integrated K. into her family. Mrs. C.’s mother spends a great deal of time with K. at her 4H activities and in her horse riding activities. I also find that Mrs. C. has tried to ensure that K. see her mother as much as possible. Mrs. C. has acted as a buffer at times between Mr. C. and Ms.

A., and tried to ensure that the hostility between K.’s parents did not affect K.’s relationship with her mother. I accept Mrs. C.’s testimony that she does not want to replace Ms. A. as K.’s mother. Her desire is to co-parent with Ms. A., much like she co-parents her sons with her ex-husband and her husband. The impact of family violence on K.’s safety, security or well-being [ 57 ] Family violence is defined in

section 1 of the Family Law Act and includes psychological or emotional abuse of a family member, including intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, and in the case of a child, direct or indirect exposure to family violence. [ 58 ] Ms. A.’s position is that K. was exposed to threats in May 2012 when Mrs. C. confronted her outside Mr. and Mrs. C.’s home. While Mrs. C. acknowledges that she swore at Ms. A., it was her evidence that K. was inside the home and saw and heard nothing. I accept that she is remorseful and regrets her actions.

This one incident does not impair her ability to care for K. and meet her needs. [ 59 ] A social worker interviewed K. following this incident. K. told her that she did not witness the argument between Mrs. C. and Ms. A. Given this evidence, I cannot find, on the balance of probabilities, that K. was exposed to any family violence. The appropriateness of an arrangement that would require K.’s guardians to cooperate on issues affecting K, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety or well-being of K. [ 60 ] It is clear that K.’s guardians have struggled in the past to cooperate.

The confrontation between Mrs. C. and Ms. A. happened after a lengthy period of time when Mr. and Mrs. C. felt that Ms. A. was not acting in K.’s best interests and Ms. A. felt like she was not getting adequate parenting time. I find as a fact that Mr. and Mrs. C. do want to work cooperatively with Ms. A. Their willingness in the past to work with a mediator to resolve parenting issues is a clear example of this. Ms. A., on the other hand, consistently struggles to put K.’s best interests ahead of her own. She finds it difficult to cooperate with Mr. and Mrs. C. Mr. C. and Ms. A. distrust and dislike each other.

Ms. A. is jealous of Mrs. C. and feels like she has usurped her position as K.’s mother. Given all of these factors, at this point it is unrealistic to expect the guardians to work cooperatively together to parent K. Any parenting plan that requires substantial cooperation would likely continue the animosity between the guardians and could put K.’s emotional well-being at risk. What parenting arrangement is in K.’s best interests? [ 61 ] After assessing the strengths of each guardian, I find that K.’s needs are best met by Mr. C. He is able to ensure stability and consistency.

He is sensitive to K.’s challenges and has been diligent to ensure that she has the tools to flourish at school. K.’s principal residence is to be with Mr. and Mrs. C.

[ 62 ] The Order appointing Mr. C., Ms. A. and Mrs. C. guardians of K. is confirmed as a final Order. [ 63 ] It is in K.’s best interest to have parenting time with her mother when timeliness, routine, homework and a

schedule are less important. Consequently, Ms. A.’s parenting time is to be every second weekend from Friday after school until Sunday at 7 pm. If a professional development day or a statutory holiday falls on the Monday or Friday of Ms. A.’s weekend, her parenting time is increased to include this extra day. Ms. A. is also to have parenting time of two weeks in July and two weeks in August, provided Ms. A. is not working. Those two week periods are to be agreed upon between Mr. C. and Ms. A. no later than June 1 of each year, with the exception of 2016. In 2016, if Ms.

A. is working, K. is to remain in the care of Mr. C., and Ms. A. is to have an extra weekend in July and an extra weekend in August. Ms. A. is to have one week of parenting time during the Christmas break. Again, should she be working, K. is to remain with Mr. C. K. is to spend Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with Ms. A. on even numbered years and those days with Mr. C. on odd numbered years. Ms. A. is to have one week of parenting time during spring break, with the same proviso - that if she is working, K. is to remain in Mr. C.’s care. K. is to spend Mother’s Day with Ms. A. [ 64 ] Ms.

A. is to provide a letter to Mr. C. from her employer confirming her vacation, if so requested by Mr. C. [ 65 ] Ms. A. is to be substantially present with K. during all of her parenting time. Any babysitter must be preapproved by Mr. C., and Mr. C. is not to unreasonably withhold approval of that babysitter. [ 66 ] Ms.

A.’s mother is not to care for K. overnight and is not to care for K. for longer than two hours. [ 67 ] K. is to have no contact, directly or indirectly with M.B. until M.B. has undergone a forensic risk assessment, conducted by a qualified individual, and it has been determined that M.B. poses no risk to K. [ 68 ] Mr. C. is to have all of the parenting responsibilities enumerated in

section 41 of the Family Law Act . Ms. A., while K. is in her care, may exercise the parental responsibilities of making the day-to-day decisions affecting K.’s care, control and supervision. As well, Ms. A. may request and receive from third parties information regarding K.’s health and education. [ 69 ] As a guardian, Mrs. C. may exercise the parental responsibilities of making day- to-day decisions affecting K.’s care, control and supervision.

She may also make decisions respecting K.’s education and her participation in extracurricular activities. [ 70 ] Each guardian is to ensure that K. is not exposed to second hand smoke. K. is not to remain in a residence or vehicle if adults are present who are smoking. [ 71 ] For Ms. A.’s parenting time, K. is to be picked up and dropped off at a public location in Kamloops, agreed upon by the parties. All parties are to be on time for both the pick-up and drop-off. [ 72 ] Any changes to parenting times must be agreed to in writing (by text or email) by Mr. C. and Ms.

A. 24 hours in advance of the parenting time. If the parties cannot agree, the parenting time is to occur on the scheduled time. [ 73 ] Within six months, Mr. C. and Ms. A. must each enrol in and complete a respectful relationship course. Ms. A. is to enrol in and complete a parenting programme within twelve months. [ 74 ] If Ms. A. enters another relationship, she is to advise Mr. C. of the name of the individual before she introduces K. to that person. [ 75 ] No party may file any future applications to vary this final Order without first obtaining leave from the Court.

The parties must demonstrate that they have attended mediation and made their best effort to resolve any outstanding issues before seeking leave to file their Application. ______________________________________ The Honourable Judge E.M. Burdett