C.L.A. v. M.W.R. Date:, 2016 BCPC 307

Citation: C.L.A. v. M.W.R. Date: 20160608 2016 BCPC 307 File No: 13242 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: C.L.A. APPLICANT AND: M.W.R. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.I. SOLOMON Counsel for the Applicant: D. Maser

Counsel for the Respondent: Appearing on his own behalf Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Date of Hearing: April 8 and May 19, 2016 Date of Judgment: June 8, 2016 [ 1 ] The applicant mother, C.L.A. (hereinafter C.L.A. or the mother), applies to vary the order of this court dated November 28, 2014. In particular, she applies for the following: to change the primary residence of the child from the father to her, to give her equal parenting time, to give her equal say in s. 41(

d) FLA (choice of school), a variation of child support she is required to pay, and delete condition 6 (no contact with K.L.D.) (hereinafter K.L.D., her present partner). The application was filed on July 6, 2015. The respondent M.W.R. (hereinafter M.W.R. or the father) opposes the application due to ongoing concerns that put the child at risk while in the care of the mother. [ 2 ] There is one child of the marriage, M.C.M.R. (hereinafter the child), born [omitted for publication]. [ 3 ] The parties were married on March 15, 2008 and separated on July 9, 2009.

Upon separation they entered into a written agreement that was filed in family court that gave them joint custody and guardianship of the child, and they shared parenting time on an equal basis. [ 4 ] On April 9, 2014 the Director of the Ministry of Children and Family Development filed a presentation report in relation to the child, applying for a supervision order pursuant to s. 29.1 CFCSA . [ 5 ] The grounds for the director's belief that the child was in need of protection included the following: “The Ministry of children and family development became involved with C.L.A. due to domestic violence taking place within the home, chronic misuse of alcohol, and concerns around her overall mental health.

On April 5, 2014 the director received a report of a domestic dispute taking place between C.L.A. and her boyfriend K.L.D. The report indicates police were contacted as a physical altercation could be heard occurring within the residence. The parties wouldn't answer the door so police breached the door. C.L.A. was apparently hiding under the bed and K.L.D. was reportedly uncooperative with police. Police eventually located C.L.A. hiding under the bed and noted she had a large “goose egg” on her head that she claimed to have gotten at work. It is noted in the report that both parties had consumed alcohol.

K.L.D. was arrested and is charged with breaching a no contact order already in place due to a previous domestic incident between the couple. Additionally, the police report indicates that C.L.A. is not willing to cooperate at this time with the police investigation. During a previous domestic dispute which occurred on February 9, 2014 it was learned that K.L.D. had punched C.L.A. in the face. K.L.D. was arrested and received a no contact order with C.L.A. and the residence.

C.L.A. again was reported as uncooperative with the police investigation, denying that K.L.D. punched her and stated it was another person at the party who struck her. Alcohol was also involved during this incident. K.L.D. has also stated to police multiple times that he is a white supremacist, a subculture known to perpetuate violence and intimidation. Previous to these involvements, the director has had two previous involvements with C.L.A.

One in May 2013 with the concerns being around C.L.A.’s over consumption of alcohol, mental health concerns due to an attempted overdose on Welbutrin, and an allegation of a domestic dispute between herself and her then boyfriend T. The second involvement was in July 2012 which also centered on concerns of alcohol misuse and a domestic dispute between C.L.A. and then boyfriend, T. During this incident, C.L.A. stated she had engaged in AA meetings and had accepted a referral for counseling.

Given the ongoing concerns around domestic violence with C.L.A.’s home and her misuse of alcohol, the director completed a safety plan with C.L.A. to have the child stay with her biological father, M.W.R., until the terms of supervision could be put in place as a means to address the Director's current concerns around child's safety while in her mother's care.” [ 6 ] A supervision order was entered into that had 13 terms including: 1) C.L.A. shall not reside with K.L.D. 2) C.L.A. shall not allow access of the child to K.L.D. without the approval of the Director. 3) M.C.M.R. shall attend counseling around witnessing violence either through a counselor or program approved by the Director or the Children who witness violence program, at least once per week or on such a basis approved by the director. 4) The child shall be visible in the community through either school or day care attendance. 5) C.L.A. shall remain clean and sober while she has care and control of her child. 6) C.L.A. shall prohibit anyone under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol from attending or remaining at her residence. [ 7 ] The Director’s Presentation Report and Application for an Order were marked as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively on this hearing. [ 8 ] Due to the concerns raised by the Director, R.M.W. applied to change the written agreement to give him primary residence for the child and the majority of parenting time.

The hearing of that application was on November 28, 2014.

[9] After hearing evidence the court made a number of orders including: • both parties are guardians of the child and shall equally share parental responsibilities except that the father will haveresponsibilities set out in s. 41(

d) FLA; • the child shall reside primarily with the father but the mother will have unsupervised parenting time every second weekend and onalternating Wednesdays to Thursday mornings; • the mother shall not have contact with the child if she has consumed alcohol within the previous 24 hours; • the mother shall have no contact with the child if K.L.D. is present; the mother shall comply with supervision orders and anyreasonable direction of the ministry of children and families; • the mother shall pay child support to the father in the amount of the $337 per month based on an annual income of $37,000; and, • either party may apply for review of this order after June 30, 2015. [10] On her application C.L.A. says that the reasons for her application are as follows: “this was a temporary order due to safetyconcerns which are no longer applicable.” There is no indication on the order itself that it is a temporary order.

On that day a hearingwas held, evidence was taken, and at the conclusion an order was made. Nonetheless, the Order does contemplate an application forreview after June 30, 2015, and it is always the best interests of the child that is of foremost importance. [11] Pursuant to s. 47 FLA, on application, a court may change, suspend or terminate an order respecting parenting arrangements ifsatisfied that, since the making of the order, there's been a change in the needs and circumstances of the child, including because of achange in the circumstances of another person. [12] Although this

section does not adopt the language of a “material change in circumstances” our Court of Appeal in Boychuk v.Singleton, 2008 BCCA 355 at paras. 14-15 held that this test still applies to applications pursuant to s. 47 FLA. [13] Accordingly the legal test set out in Gordon v.

Goertz, (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 at para. 12 remainsapplicable: “Change alone is not enough; the change must have altered the child's needs or the ability of the parents to meet those needs in afundamental way… The question is whether the previous order might have been different had the circumstances now existing prevailedearlier.” (See Gilmour v. Herrick, 2013 BCSC 1591 and A.L.M. v. N.J.O., 2015 BCSC 70 for recent application of this test.) [14] M.W.R. served subpoenas on social worker Jodie Archer and domestic violence support worker Dana Calhoon to attend andgive evidence on this hearing.

For convenience of the witnesses they were called by the applicant as her first two witnesses. [15] Jodie Archer testified that she was the acting social worker on this file from December 2014 until it was closed in October 2015. She also reviewed the notes and reports of the previous social worker. In the course of her evidence she reviewed the reports referred toabove and marked as Exhibits 1 and 2 on this hearing. [16] Ms.

Archer testified that she had a concern that there was a breach of the supervision order as the child had disclosed that onone occasion K.L.D. was at home during the mother's parenting time. [17] Ms. Archer testified that the mother did attend counselling for alcohol and domestic violence and that she completedcounselling sessions with her partner K.L.D. as well. However there was a concern raised by the counsellor Dana Calhoon as to whetherthe mother was fully engaging in the sessions. [18] In August 2015 Ms. Archer interviewed the child at her school at the request of M.W.R.

M.W.R. was concerned that the childwas experiencing anger and sadness. [19] In the previous month the child reported to the father that the mother was upset by the court proceedings. The mother had aphoto of him that she had repeatedly stabbed in front of the child. Ms. Archer spoke to the child for 30 to 40 minutes in a private area. The child presented as sad and started to cry.

The child described the stabbing of the photograph of her father and advised that hermother had apologized saying she was angry. [20] The child talked about her mother's relationship with K.L.D. and the child expressed concern about the mother being assaultedagain if the mother stayed with him. The child didn't understand why the mother was staying with K.L.D. after he had hurt her. Thememory was still very vivid to her. The child mentioned seeing K.L.D. hit her mother in the face and head, and she described a punch. The mother denied the photo stabbing incident to Ms. Archer. [21] Ms.

Archer further testified that the child appeared to her to be more stable living with her father and she described the father asa loving, consistent and stable person who is very involved with his child and very aware of the child’s needs. [22] Dana Calhoon was the next witness. She is a domestic violence support worker employed by Mission community services. She has a diploma in social work and has been working with victims of domestic violence for approximately 3 years. She first met themother in 2014 and worked with her for approximately 6 months.

Sessions then recommenced in February 2015 and at that time sheworked with both the mother and K.L.D. At the end of the first set of sessions in 2014 she did not believe the mother had fully engagedin the programs and had concerns about the risks to the child. She testified that the mother denied and minimized the domestic violencethat had occurred and felt that she was being overprotective of K.L.D.

[ 23 ] In 2015 she met with both the mother and K.L.D. for more than 12 sessions. She believes that the mother had a better understanding about domestic violence during the sessions. However once again she noted that the police reports she read were in conflict with what the mother was telling her. She continued to be very protective of K.L.D. At the end of these sessions Ms. Calhoon felt the same. In her view, the mother continues to have anger issues and difficulty regulating emotions. She had expected more engagement and involvement.

She gave them lots of homework and they did very well in completing the work they were assigned. [ 24 ] Ms. Calhoon testified that she still has concerns about future domestic violence due to conflicting statements and is concerned that there was not full disclosure during the course of their sessions. [ 25 ] Ms. Calhoon's impression after more than 24 sessions was that the mother’s focus was more on protecting K.L.D. then it was on the best interest of the child. Regarding K.L.D., Ms. Calhoon thought he was more honest in the sessions and he described a horrific past and his involvement in hate groups.

He said he felt powerful and these groups gave him a sense of authority. He also said he had not been involved with these groups for a long period of time now. [ 26 ] C.L.A. was the next witness. She testified that she is 32 years old and lives in Mission, BC with K.L.D. She has no other children and she is employed full time as a shingle packer. She has been gainfully employed for a number of years; however, her income is estimated to be down from $37,000 per year to $30,000 per year due to a slowdown at work.

K.L.D. works at the same job for the last 18 months. [ 27 ] Her parenting time is every second Wednesday night to Thursday morning. On Thursday morning her mother takes the child to school. She also has the child every second weekend. She picks up the child Friday after school and her mother delivers the child to school on Monday mornings. Her mother lives three blocks away from her. The child is a seven years old, in grade 2, and attends a good school in Abbotsford.

At first she was concerned about the school but now she is very happy with it. [ 28 ] In addition to the specified time in the November 20, 2014 Court Order, M.W.R. agreed to parenting time for her over the spring break from March 11-18, 2016. She testified that Christmas parenting time went well and that they followed the routine from the original separation agreement. [ 29 ] The mother wants the original agreement reinstated as the child needs both parents equally and she has changed.

She believes the previous shared parenting arrangement worked very well and it’s in the best interests of the child to be reinstated. [ 30 ] Regarding summer parenting time the mother believes it should be split equally. [ 31 ] Regarding her past the mother says she was on two different anti-depressants in July 2012. She mixed alcohol with these antidepressants and this resulted in fights with her then boyfriend T. She agrees that she has a history of chronic misuse of alcohol and has suffered depression.

However, she is not on any medication since October 2013 and is no longer consuming alcohol. [ 32 ] Regarding the domestic violence incidents with K.L.D. she blames these incidents on consumption of alcohol. She says they were both intoxicated and she denies being assaulted by him. She says that the police misunderstood the circumstances of what occurred and the goose egg on her head was related to an accident at work and had nothing to do with K.L.D. She said she was found hiding under the bed by the police because there was banging on the door and K.L.D. suggested she should hide under the bed for her safety.

At that point in time they didn't know who was at the door or what was going on. They did not realize it was the police coming to investigate a complaint against them for a domestic incident in progress. [ 33 ] Due to a previous domestic dispute in February 2014 that she says was misinterpreted by the police and led to K.L.D. been charged with an assault against her when in fact it was another person that assaulted her, K.L.D. was on a no contact order. Due to the incident in April 2014, described above where she was hiding under the bed, he was arrested for a new assault and for breach of his bail conditions.

He then spent two weeks in jail and pled guilty to assaulting her. There was a no contact order in place until August 2014. She attributes both the February and April incidents to excessive alcohol consumption and her difficulties with anger management. [ 34 ] She further testified that she stopped seeing her previous boyfriend T. in April 2013 and started dating K.L.D. in July 2013. When she has parenting time with the child, K.L.D. stays with a co-worker or friend due to the no contact order in place.

Otherwise they live together. [ 35 ] The mother denies any breach of the conditions imposed by the Ministry or the court. She doesn't agree that K.L.D. was ever at the house when the child was there and doesn't agree that the child has any concerns about K.L.D. She says that she and K.L.D. have made significant life changes. They've moved residences to a better neighbourhood and no one who comes to their house is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. [ 36 ] The mother has attended many counselling sessions with Mark Douglas and she continues to see him and speak with him on a regular basis.

She has also seen a drug and alcohol counsellor and has taken at least three other courses including meditation for calmness and self-confidence building. She is no longer involved with drug and alcohol counselling or attending AA. [ 37 ] The mother testified that she is able to manage her own anger and deal with stressful situations in a healthier way. She is now able to step back and exercise better coping skills. She has a very close relationship with her mother and is able to talk to her on a daily basis about all issues. [ 38 ] Exhibit 5 consists of two brief letters from C.L.A.’s counsellor Mark Douglas.

His letterhead says child, youth, adult and family therapy. The letter of June 23, 2015 confirms that C.L.A. has been attending regular counselling appointments since June 20, 2014, and that she has been working on communication skills, and developing healthy coping tools.

The letter concludes with an opinion that C.L.A. has been making progress in her therapy and self-development. “She has improved her ability to communicate; to cope with her stress and healthier ways; and she has gained insight into her daughter's needs and has improved her parenting skills.” What these insights are or what parenting skills were improved is not stated.

[ 39 ] The second letter is dated April 5, 2016. It confirms that C.L.A. has attended regular counselling appointments to address domestic violence and to learn communication skills and effective parenting strategies. The letter concludes as follows: “She has made significant progress with her counselling goals and is no longer in need of further under this claim.” There are no specifics in this letter explaining the relationship between the counselling and how it has addressed domestic violence. Furthermore, there is no indication what insights into her child’s needs she has made. [ 40 ] Although Mr.

Douglas was not presented as a witness for cross-examination and his clinical records have not been filed, these letters do confirm that the mother has attended for counselling and is making efforts to address long standing alcohol abuse and mental health issues, and that bodes well for both her and the child. [ 41 ] The mother testified that she believes she is doing very well right now. She says there have been no domestic disputes with K.L.D. since April 2014. She disagrees with the assessments of Ms. Archer and Ms. Calhoon regarding future risks to the child being in her care.

She denies that the child ever witnessed physical violence between her and K.L.D. or that the child witnessed her stabbing a photograph of M.W.R. [ 42 ] The mother was asked to comment on Exhibit 3 which she confirmed to be the present Facebook page of K.L.D. The exhibit is a screenshot of the Facebook page taken by M.W.R. on April 7, 2016. The Facebook page has the name [omitted for publication] below a photograph of K.L.D. Above his photograph in large font are the words “Blue Eyed Devils” and “Retribution”.

And next to these words is a photograph of what appears to be a uniformed Nazi SS officer with an armband depicting a swastika.

C.L.A. testified that she did not know why the name [omitted for publication] was chosen for K.L.D.’s profile page and never really noticed the swastika before it was pointed out to her in court. [ 43 ] It was surprising to the court that C.L.A. seemed completely indifferent to K.L.D.’s Facebook page and his ongoing apparent connection to white supremacist ideology considering that was of significant concern to the Director in the presentation report of April 2014, and an ongoing concern of M.W.R. [ 44 ] One of the orders she is seeking on this application is the removal of the no contact condition between the child and K.L.D.

No evidence was led from C.L.A. or K.L.D. as to their present views on white supremacist ideology and the child’s potential exposure to these views. One would have thought that a disavowal of that ideology would be a pillar of this application in light of K.L.D.’s connection to white supremacist ideology was part of the concern that led to the primary residence of the child moving to the father as of November 28, 2014. [ 45 ] The mother was also shown three photographs of K.L.D. that were marked as Exhibit 7 on this hearing. These photographs were from 2013 after she met him.

These photographs were also before the court at the November 28, 2014 hearing. The first photograph depicts K.L.D. and C.L.A. with K.L.D. wearing a T-shirt that says “It’s A White Thing”. The second photograph also depicts K.L.D. and C.L.A. together and this time K.L.D. is wearing a black T-shirt with the words “Blood and Honour”. The third photographs depicts K.L.D. camping and sitting on a chair in front of a tent holding in his left hand a can and in his right hand a firearm or replica firearm pointed towards the sky.

M.W.R. testified that the T-shirts worn by K.L.D. express support for white supremacist ideology and I accept his evidence in this regard. [ 46 ] Once again C.L.A. was completely indifferent to the above noted photographs and did not take the opportunity to acknowledge or disavow the hateful ideology that is represented by the T-shirts worn by K.L.D. [ 47 ] C.D. was the next witness for the applicant. She is C.L.A.'s mother. She is actively involved with C.L.A. and the child. She explained they come from a family with a history of alcoholism and she has tried to teach C.L.A. to stay away from alcohol.

However, C.L.A. has had difficulty from time to time with alcohol consumption. She believes that C.L.A. has been making progress trying to fix her problems instead of hiding from them. They speak every day and they have a safety plan in place in case the child needs a safe place in the event of any incident that might arise. She has lived in the same house with her husband for the last 17 years. [ 48 ] The next witness on behalf of C.L.A. was her partner/spouse K.L.D. He testified that he does not go by any other surnames. He was shown Exhibit 3, his Facebook page with the name of [omitted for publication].

He says that this was a pretty old Facebook account that he had since 2009 and it is not the current one that he uses. This is contrary to the evidence of C.L.A. and contrary to the Facebook page evidence of exhibit 3 and exhibit 8. Exhibit 8 confirms that this Facebook page was updated with a new photo on February 29, 2016. K.L.D. added that he just made up a different last name [omitted for publication]. This is contrary to his subsequent evidence described below. [ 49 ] Regarding the photographs that form Exhibit 7, he says the firearm that is depicted in one of the photographs is a BB gun.

Regarding the picture of him wearing a T-shirt with the words “Blood and Honour” on it, he doesn't wear that anymore because it does not fit him. He says he is not involved with white supremacists groups since February 2010 when he returned his “prospect patch” and hasn't looked back since. At that time he was with a group called “[omitted for publication]”. [ 50 ] K.L.D. testified that he has a six years old son. The mother of that child had an issue with his involvement with white supremacist groups and gave him an ultimatum that if he did not give up those groups he could no longer see his son.

Accordingly he chose his son over those groups. He continues to see his son and pay child support. [ 51 ] His only criminal record is for the assault on C.L.A. in 2014. That night he was intoxicated and he was observed shoving C.L.A. by a police officer who made the observation through a window. The breach charge occurred in April 2014 due to a subsequent complaint and he was remanded in custody. He accepted a plea deal after two weeks in jail so he could get out of jail. He did not want to wait 60 days in custody for a trial. He was put on probation for 2 years with conditions.

The probation was shortened by the court to 18 months since he was doing well. [ 52 ] He is familiar with the November 20, 2014 court order. It was shown to him by C.L.A. He wishes to have contact with the child as there are no ministry concerns now. He says there is no possibility of further violence between him and C.L.A. because they both don't consume any alcohol. It is alcohol that triggers each other into an altercation. He says that he has not consumed any alcohol

since his bail order of January 2014. [ 53 ] Since the criminal proceedings of 2014 and while on probation he took substance abuse counselling and respectful relationship counselling. He says this counselling opened his eyes as to how common domestic violence is. He says he's now able to better communicate with C.L.A. and that they never really fought anyways. [ 54 ] In cross-examination he was asked why in 2013 he continued to wear T-shirts that promoted white supremacist ideology such as “blood and honour” and” it's a white thing” if he gave that up in 2010.

He answered that he was just wearing the shirt at the time and he didn't think he would be in this situation. He doesn't wear the shirts now as they don't fit him. [ 55 ] He was asked if he wore these t-shirts to pick up his son, and he responded he doesn't wear them anymore. He was then asked again if he wore those shirts to pick up his son, and he answered “probably not”. [ 56 ] He was then asked about the name “[omitted for publication”. He said he just made it up a long time ago. He then added that it was a name of a soldier from the SS.

He thought it would be interesting to use it as his last name at the time. He further added that he doesn't use the account anymore and probably should have deleted it. He didn't think it would come back to haunt him. This evidence is contrary to the evidence of C.L.A. and his Facebook page screenshots filed as Exhibits 3 and 8. [ 57 ] Surprisingly, as with the evidence of C.L.A., despite the opportunity, there was no acknowledgment of the concerns of the social worker and M.W.R. of the child being potentially exposed to white supremacist ideology, or a disavowal of such ideology.

I conclude that both C.L.A. and K.L.D. were not candid in their evidence about K.L.D.’s ongoing association with white supremacist groups and ideology. [ 58 ] Dana Calhoon, a domestic support worker, spent many sessions with the mother in 2014, and then with the mother and her partner K.L.D. in 2015. She believes that there wasn’t full disclosure by them regarding past domestic violence when compared to the police reports she reviewed.

Moreover, in her view the mother’s focus was more in protecting K.L.D. than in understanding the best interests of the child. [ 59 ] I do not accept the evidence of the mother that discounts the views of the child as expressed through the social worker Ms. Archer or through the father. The child was exposed to alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and more recently a violent incident where the mother repeatedly stabbed a photograph of the father.

This last incident occurred subsequent to many counselling sessions that addressed mental health issues. [ 60 ] Moreover I accept the evidence of M.W.R. as supported by a letter, attached to Exhibit 8, from M.K., the child’s grade 2 teacher, and school records, that the child is being well cared for by him and all her needs are being met. M.W.R. has taken her to the dentist when required, and enrolled her in extra-curricular activities.

He continues to have genuine concerns about the recovery of C.L.A. and believes it is not in the best interests of his daughter to be in the company of K.L.D. who assaulted C.L.A. and endorses a white supremacist ideology. [ 61 ] I am not satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances let alone a material change in circumstances to justify a change to the order of November 28, 2014.

I commend the mother and her partner for abstaining from alcohol and participating in important counselling sessions, however, I note that they were also abstaining from alcohol and attending counselling sessions in November 2014 when the Order was made. [ 62 ] The evidence presented by the mother at this hearing fails to address how it would be in her daughter’s best interests to spend more time with her and to do so in the company of her partner K.L.D.

The mother has suffered from chronic alcohol abuse, significant anger outbursts, domestic violence, and has a partner that continues to be associated to white supremacist groups or ideology that the mother appears indifferent to. There is no report or evidence from a qualified clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or other professional, assuring the court that the risks to the child have been reduced or that it would be in the child’s best interests to disrupt the status quo that has been established over the last 18 months. [ 63 ] In A.L.M. v.

N.J.O. 2015 BCSC 70 the court said the following at paragraphs 49 - 52 that in my view is applicable to the mother’s application herein: “[49] The applicant bears the burden of proving there has been a change in the needs or circumstances of the child… If the threshold is met, then the court must only consider the best interest of the child, as set out under s. 37(2) of the FLA , in making a varied order. [50] The respondent points to the fact that his circumstances have changed: that he is now in a new stable relationship; that he is working steadily; and that L.M.M. and his new partner have a very loving relationship.

He submits that the claimant has always known that he wants maximum parenting time with L.M.M. and that L.M.M. has expressed to him that she enjoys her time with him and wants to see him more. [51] While I have no doubt the respondent would like to spend more time with his daughter, I'm unable to find there has been any change in the needs and circumstances of L.M.M. which warrant a change in the 2014 McEwan order. The matters referred to by the respondent are primarily in his interests and not in the best interests of L.M.M.

Particularly, I do not accept his evidence that L.M.M. wishes to spend more time with him.

Having said that, I do not mean to infer she does not enjoy the time she does spend with the respondent. [52] I also conclude the claimant has not established there has been any material change in circumstances which would warrant a change in the times agreed to and is reflected in the 2014 McEwan Order.” [ 64 ] By my calculation the November 28, 2014 Order including the overnights every Wednesday that has become the practice, results in the mother having approximately 10 overnights per month, and some parenting time with child approximately 14 days per month.

In my view this a good balance, that maintains the strength of the child’s relationship with her mother, and it is in the child’s best interests for it to be maintained considering all of the factors in s. 37 FLA .

[ 65 ] Accordingly the application of the mother to change the primary residence, parenting time, equal say in s. 41(

d) FLA (education decisions), and deletion of order #6 (no contact with K.L.D.) is dismissed. [ 66 ] The application to vary child support is granted. Based on a guideline income of $31,696, child support is reduced to $286 per month. The variation is effective January 1, 2016. J.I. SOLOMON Provincial Court Judge