M. v. M. Date:, 2012 BCPC 163

Citation: M. v. M. Date: 20120515 2012 BCPC 0163 File No: 13452 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY RELATIONS ACT , R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 128 BETWEEN: K.D.M. APPLICANT AND: T.A.M. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.D. FRAME Appearing on their own behalf: Mr. K.M.

Appearing on their own behalf: Ms. T.M. Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Date of Hearing: April 12, 2012 Date of Judgment: May 15, 2012 [ 1 ] This is an application by K.D.M. for joint custody, joint guardianship, access and maintenance with respect to the child, A.R.M., born August 18, 2007. T.A.M. replied disagreeing with the applications for custody, access and maintenance and herself seeking custody, access and maintenance, as well as a restraining order. The application was filed August 24, 2010 and the reply filed March 24, 2011.

Subsequently, on January 11, 2012, the Ministry of Children and Family Development filed an application for a supervision order for three months. That application was originally opposed by both of the parents. The child was removed from Mr. M.’s care at the time. The removal followed on allegations by A. that her mother’s boyfriend, A.M., had touched her sexually. The Ministry set parameters for the child’s safety while in her father’s care.

Those terms were breached by both of the parents resulting in the removal of the child. [ 2 ] Both the Ministry’s application for the three month supervision order and this application for custody, guardianship, primary residence, access and child support came on for hearing together. The evidence taken on each hearing was admitted as evidence on the other.

At the conclusion, the Ministry obtained essentially a consent order for the three month supervision on the following terms: 1) K.M. will allow the Director access to his home at any time; 2) K.M. will attend to counselling with Hazel Slate one time per week as per Hazel’s availability; 3) A.M. is to be placed with an alternative caregiver approved by the Director.

It will be the parent’s responsibility that any alternative caregiver is made aware of the terms of the Order, specifically the restrictions of access between the mother and child and also the no access to A.M.; 4) Neither parent will care for A.M. while under the influence of drugs or alcohol; 5) The Director is to be notified of any change in address or contact information prior to either party relocating and that parent is to notify the Director of any additional individuals residing in the home; 6) K.

M. is to ensure contact between A. and T.M. is supervised at the discretion of the Director and that no access or communication is permitted between A. and A.M.; 7) K. M. is to maintain A.’s physical health to an acceptable community standard and will inform the Director of any medical or dental appointments that the child attends; 8) K.

M. is to follow through with A.’s referral for assessment by Child and Youth Mental Health and any services recommended through the assessment; 9) A. is not to be in the presence of both parents at the same time; 10) A.’s visits with T.M. are to take place at the home of her parents unless otherwise agreed by the Director; and 11) The Director may remove A. if there is non-compliance with one or more of these conditions. HISTORY: [ 3 ] The parties met approximately seven years ago when they were in a brief relationship. T.M. then moved to Alberta. When she returned to British Columbia, she and Mr.

M. entered into a relationship that lasted for three or four years. As a result of the relationship, A. was born on August 18, 2007. Although Mr. M. and Ms. M. were a couple, they had separate houses. They both lived in Chase at the time. Their relationship was fairly stable. They were raising the child together while T. was attending school to take nursing. Ms. M. also has a son named T. When A. was approximately 1 and ½ years old, their relationship broke down. Ms. M. began to see a mutual friend, A.M. She moved in with him in January, 2010 and A. stayed with her father. [ 4 ] Ms. M. was away for a time.

T. stayed with Mr. M. for that time. He was living with his mother at the time of the incidents leading to these proceedings. He has now moved to Alberta to live with his father’s family until these matters are resolved. [ 5 ] Mr. M. works out of town in the Revelstoke area. While he is away, his step-mother, D.M. T.M. or a day care would care for A. Mr. M. works a 12 hour day, leaving at 1:30 in the a.m. Sometimes he works closer to Chase and so his days are shorter. Ms. M. is presently on medical E.I. but otherwise works at the psychiatric unit as a psychiatric nurse at Royal Inland Hospital.

She is presently staying with her parents in Kamloops. There is a day care down the street from where she is, which A. has been to before. Ms. M. can take shifts to accommodate A.’s care. Mr. M. said that his day care plan if A. remains in Chase is to spend her days with Ms. D.M. If he moves to Revelstoke or takes A. with him when he works, there is a 24 hour day care catering to [omitted for posting] (of which he is one) where A. can stay. This would be Monday to Friday, returning to Chase on the weekends.

[ 6 ] Mr. M. also discussed the prospects of moving out to Ontario where he has family and can find reasonable job opportunities. I have advised the parties I would not be making a decision with respect to the mobility of this child. Should such prospects arise, the parties will need to make an application to the court before A. is moved anywhere. [ 7 ] The events which led to the Ministry involvement relate to A. and A.M. Mr. M. was taking A. to Ontario for a visit.

This was essentially the second disclosure A. had made to her father but was the one that precipitated action on his part. [ 8 ] In the first instance, they were in their own living room in Chase. A. had her fingers woven in a “church and steeple” form. Mr. M. asked her what she was doing. She said that she was putting her fingers “inside me”. He asked her what she was talking about. She climbed on him and did not say anything for a few minutes. A few minutes later, she said “well Him did”. Apparently that is what she calls Mr. A.M. At the time, Mr.

M. advised his lawyer and wrote it in his documents but did not take it any further. [ 9 ] While driving to Ontario, A. was colouring in the vehicle beside Mr. M. She said “I got a secret”. Mr. M. told her that she was not to keep secrets from her mommy and daddy. A. said that she had told her mom. Mr. M. asked her what she had told her. A. said Mr. A.M. put his fingers inside her. She said it was only one time and repeated this three times in a row. She told her father she was in the living room and that it hurt really really bad. She told her mom. Her mom and Mr.

A.M. got into a big argument, then her mother went into the bathroom to wash her face. After that, A., her mother and someone named S. went into the bedroom and cried. [ 10 ] Upon arriving in the hotel room, Mr. M. phoned the police and the Ministry to report the disclosure. The Ontario police put him onto the R.C.M.P. in British Columbia. Mr. M. also took A. to the doctor in Ontario. The doctor examined her but there was nothing conclusive observed. However, Mr.

M. said that when the doctor came in, his daughter froze and said “say nothing, say nothing, say nothing”. [ 11 ] The police and the Ministry made it clear to Mr. M. that he was not to talk to A. about the incident or bring it up. They did not discuss it further. Mr. M. took A. to the SCAN Clinic in Kamloops on his return. As soon as the clinician mentioned Mr. A.M.’s name, A. faced the corner and would say nothing further. That concluded the consultation. [ 12 ] The Ministry repeated again that Mr. M. and Ms. M. were not to discuss the incident with A. They also instructed Mr. M. to restrict Ms.

M.’s access. [ 13 ] As with many families, these circumstances became quite trying. Mr. A.M. was not permitted around A. Mr. M. was not to permit Ms. M. unsupervised around A. However, Mr. M. worked out of town and relied upon Ms. M. to provide child care. Ms. M. would be in the home daily while Mr. M. was out of town. [ 14 ] Ms. M. told Mr. M. she thought he was “making it all” up because he was jealous of Ms. M.’s relationship with Mr. A.M. [ 15 ] Ms. M. and Mr. M. got into an argument about A.’s disclosure. Ms. M. wanted to confront A. about whether the disclosed events actually happened. Mr. M. did not.

They asked A. together and a hostile argument ensued. A. was present. This resulted in A.’s removal by the Ministry. Mr. M. assures that this will not happen again. [ 16 ] There were two other ancillary issues raised by the parties. The Ministry raised the issue of A.’s head lice. They felt it was untreated. Mr. M. said that he treated her himself five times. If family court is any indication, this area of the province is rampant with head lice amongst young children. They often get repeat bouts of it during the lice cycle.

It is a significant challenge to parents who are often ill-equipped to deal with the rigours of lice eradication. I put no weight on the concern that A. had untreated head lice and accept Mr. M.’s evidence that he, like so many other parents, had to put significant efforts into ending his daughter’s infestation. [ 17 ] The second complaint was from Ms. M. about how filthy Mr. M.’s home was. Mr. M. made the point that if the house was so dirty she could have done something about it while she was in it every day caring for A..

He also queried why, if she was so concerned about his housekeeping and child care, she left A. and her son with him for six months while she was away. [ 18 ] On the other hand, Mr. M. is concerned that Ms. M.’s attitude toward A.’s disclosure will lead to her exposing A. to Mr. A.M. [ 19 ] They have each also cast allegations of drug use and mental health issues at each other. There seems to be no evidence to support either accusation. [ 20 ] A. is now with her father pending the expiry of the three month supervision order. [ 21 ] Mr.

M. made some comments with respect to the Ministry powers in the context of court orders. I accept that the Ministry does not have the same misapprehension that Mr. M. has. It would be useful for the parties, though, to understand that Ministry directions do not supersede court orders. What transpires is dependant on timing and who the parties are to a proceeding. Orders bind all parties to the respective proceedings. Mr. M. had attended a Case Conference with Ms. M. At that Case Conference, they reached a consent for Ms. M. to have access to A. for child care purposes. Mr.

M. said they had raised the Ministry concerns but the judge had told them he would deal with the Ministry. [ 22 ] Whatever transpired in that Family Case Conference, judges do not “deal with” the Ministry. If a court makes an order, it is binding upon all parties to those proceedings. The Ministry was not a party to the Family Relations Act proceedings. Mr. M. ought to have given the Ministry a copy of the order so that the Ministry could take the appropriate steps if it felt it was necessary.

The appropriate steps in that case would have been for the Ministry to advise him it was not acceptable in the context in the child protection plan for Ms. M. to have unsupervised access. From there, the Ministry would give directions to Ms. M. and Mr. M. If they did not comply with those child protection directions, the Ministry would have the option to remove and apply to the court for a protection order, as it did in this case. ORDERS SOUGHT:

[ 23 ] Since the filing of the application and the reply, the parties have changed their expectations to some degree with respect to any order I should make. [ 24 ] Mr. M. seeks an order for sole custody and sole guardianship. He seeks reasonable and generous access for Ms. M. to A., but supervised. He wants an order that keeps Mr. A.M. away from A. [ 25 ] Mr. M. also seeks child support and for an order that Ms. M. pay her proportionate share of the special and extraordinary expenses including day care, ballet and hockey. [ 26 ] Ms. M. seeks joint custody, joint guardianship, and primary residence with her.

Access would be reasonable and generous to Mr. M. She would accommodate Mr. M. taking A. to Ontario for family visits. She proposes doing exchanges through a third party to reduce the hostilities between them. Ms. M. also seeks an order for child support but feels a parent who enrols the child in an activity takes responsibility for the payment. BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD: [ 27 ] Pursuant to s. 24 of the Family Relations Act , the best interests of the child are paramount. The considerations under that

section are as follows: 24

(1) When making, varying or rescinding an order under this Part, a court must give paramount consideration to the best interests of the child and, in assessing those interests, must consider the following factors and give emphasis to each factor according to the child's needs and circumstances: (

a) the health and emotional well being of the child including any special needs for care and treatment; (

b) if appropriate, the views of the child; (

c) the love, affection and similar ties that exist between the child and other persons; (

d) education and training for the child; (

e) the capacity of each person to whom guardianship, custody or access rights and duties may be granted to exercise those rights and duties adequately.

(1.1) The references to "other persons" in subsection (1) (

c) and to "each person" in subsection (1) (

e) include parents, grandparents, other relatives of the child and persons who are not relatives of the child.

(2) If the guardianship of the estate of a child is at issue, a court must consider as an additional factor the material well being of the child.

(3) If the conduct of a person does not substantially affect a factor set out in subsection (1) or (2), the court must not consider that conduct in a proceeding respecting an order under this Part.

(4) If under subsection (3) the conduct of a person may be considered by a court, the court must consider the conduct only to the extent that the conduct affects a factor set out in subsection (1) or (2). Health and Emotional Wellbeing: [ 28 ] This is a case where the health and emotional wellbeing of the child is front and centre. A. has made an alarming disclosure. Her behaviour, for a four year old, in the context of the disclosure as well as her subsequent medical examination and SCAN Clinic attendance belie Ms. M.’s belief that Mr. M. has fabricated this allegation out of jealousy. Mr.

M. acknowledges and accepts A. must attend a sexual assault counsellor as well as Child and Youth Mental Health to address not only the apparent sexual assault but her extreme behaviour following disclosure. Mr. M. is prepared to get her to that counselling but has been in a veritable limbo with the intervention of the Ministry and the admonishments from both the police and the Ministry not to confront the child about these issues. He is left in a very precarious balance but is very mindful of A.’s needs. The Ministry requires that counselling is part of its supervision order.

It must be a priority for both parents. [ 29 ] Ms. M. said that she has been in contact with a sexual assault clinic. She has enrolled in a psycho-social group but because there was no disclosure by A., they said there were no courses at that time for her. There has been a disclosure. There have been behavioural changes. Ms. M. is not accepting that there could be very real harm to her daughter. She is attending counselling for her own benefit but is not doing what needs to be done for A. Ms. M. said that she does not want to put A. in sexual assault counselling until it is proved there has been a sexual assault.

It is beyond comprehension that she would prefer to do nothing - even in light of A.’s very concerning behaviour following the disclosure - than put A. in counselling. [ 30 ] A. seems to exhibit the behaviour of a child who has suffered a sexual assault. She has made a disclosure to her father that shocked and alarmed him. Her subsequent behaviour during the course of the investigation clearly shows that this child is very troubled. Mr. M. is the parent who is being proactive in this regard. Views of the Child: [ 31 ] A. is too young to express her views.

It is clear that both parents love A. and do the best that they can for her. They have worked to keep each parent involved despite the hostilities that have arisen not only from the breakdown in their own relationship, but from Ms. M.’s affair with Mr. A.M. They both have extended family and respect the value of those relationships being maintained regardless of where A. lives.

Love, Affection and Other Ties: [ 32 ] A. has family connections in Chase and Kamloops. They are close and valuable connections to her. Her closest friends, however, were living on the same street in Chase. They have since moved away and so there are not many close friendships yet developed for A. When A. stays with Ms. D.M., she also gets to play with her cousin M. and a few other familiar children on their street. Although A. does not yet know anybody in Revelstoke, the day care is structured and has more children attending it. The notion is that she would quickly adjust and make friends there. [ 33 ] Ms.

M., of course, has her parents in Kamloops. She reported that there were quite a few children in the day care A. attended who are A.’s age. There are also several children in her neighbourhood. It is unclear whether A. would have a continued association with her half brother, as he now lives in Edmonton. Presumably, that relationship can be preserved through either parent since Mr. M. cared for T. for so long. [ 34 ] Wherever A. goes, her friendships will be new based upon her day care placement. Her family ties will be preserved. She is young and is facing adjustments regardless of the outcome.

Education and Training: [ 35 ] A. is too young to attend school yet. Mr. M. has been proactive in sorting out not only where A. would go to school in Chase or Revelstoke, but also who would provide childcare to her before and after school while he works. [ 36 ] Similarly, Ms. M. has looked into day care options for A. and would presumably be similarly capable of identifying an appropriate school for her. Both sets of proposals are familiar to A. and would cause little disruption for her. The day care Ms. M. proposes is the one A. attended while living with Ms.

M.’s parents during the course of the Ministry’s placement with them pending the supervision order. Capacity of the Parents to Exercise Custody and Access: [ 37 ] There are presently a lot of hostilities between Mr. M. and Ms. M. There are outstanding allegations of drug use and mental health problems. Both seem agreed that direct communication is simply too hostile to be constructive at this time. [ 38 ] Mr. M. was directed to ensure that A. did not have unsupervised access to her mother.

He defied that direction albeit under the impression that he was permitted to do so by way of a family court order he obtained in these proceedings. He ought to have taken the order to the Ministry and ensured that it did not cause concerns for them. He also ought to have sought their input before he obtained the consent order in the first place. He did neither. On the other hand, he is largely compliant with the directions given by the police and the Ministry with respect to addressing the sexual assault allegation made by A. He has been proactive in her care and has, despite his hostilities with Ms.

M., endeavoured to ensure that she continues to have access. While this might be motivated largely by his need for child care, he also acknowledges that she loves A. [ 39 ] Ms. M. has put her own needs ahead of A. While she has obtained counselling for herself, she refuses to get counselling for A. without proof that the sexual assault actually occurred. This is motivated entirely by her desire to maintain a relationship with Mr. A.M. She was very circumspect in her evidence about the nature of that relationship today. She denied that she was living with Mr. A.M. but said they remained in contact.

Her evidence regarding the nature of that contact and of their relationship was almost insensible. Despite being specifically instructed not to discuss the disclosure with A., she was so determined to establish that it was not true she insisted on confronting her daughter anyway. This was despite the child exhibiting alarming behaviour following the disclosure. Ms. M. admitted that she was not seeing her daughter more because of her relationship with Mr. A.M. She says that she has never “negated” the allegations brought forward but is only trying to get to the truth.

She acknowledges that there should be no contact between A. and Mr. A.M. [ 40 ] Additionally, although Ms. M. was not to have unsupervised access with A., while A. was placed with her parents Ms. M. took A. downtown for something to eat. She took A. alone in clear contravention of the terms of the placement. Her excuse for this was incredible: her parents were stressed at the situation. She minimizes the event saying that they were in public.

It shows that she simply does not understand the Ministry’s concern is that she will confront A. about these allegations or attempt to manipulate this child’s perception of what happened. [ 41 ] Ms. M. has shown that she does not have the capacity to exercise the rights and duties of guardianship, custody or access to ensure the protection of A.’s best interests. Order for Custody, Guardianship and Access: [ 42 ] I order that Mr. M. have sole custody of A. At this point, the relations between Mr. M. and Ms. M. are sufficiently hostile that joint custody would be inappropriate.

Additionally, the parties are so clearly in conflict with respect to the approach that must be taken to A.’s disclosure, joint custody would result in an impasse. A.’s best interest will be best attended by Mr. M., particularly with respect to the sexual assault allegations and all of the counselling which must now take place. [ 43 ] In the long term, both of the parents have been and will continue to be capable of making the decisions necessary for the upbringing of A. I order that Mr. M. and Ms. M. have joint guardianship of A. on the Master Horn model with the additional term that Mr. M. shall advise Ms.

M. about all counselling A. engages in with respect to her disclosure of sexual assault allegations and the outcome of those counselling sessions as they become known to Mr. M. [ 44 ] Primary residency shall be with Mr. M. Ms. M. shall have reasonable and generous access to be supervised in accordance with the supervision order made in the Ministry proceedings under file number 14035, so long as a supervision order is in place. Access shall be supervised by a third party as agreed between the parties and subject to the approval of the Director in accordance with the supervision order.

[ 45 ] Access shall be arranged between Mr. M. and Ms. M. but the exchanges shall be done through a mutually agreed third party. This term recognizes that Mr. M. and Ms. M. are capable of arranging times and places for access to occur but that they should not be in each other’s presence, thereby exposing A. to further hostilities. [ 46 ] Neither parent shall permit A.M. to have any contact with A. [ 47 ] Neither parent shall move A. from Chase without the prior written permission of the other parent or further order of this court, except that Mr. M. may register A. in day care in Revelstoke.

I am seized of any application to change A.’s residence from Chase. CHILD SUPPORT: [ 48 ] Ms. M. did not provide full disclosure of her actual annual income. She works as a psychiatric nurse at the [omitted for posting]. She was on employment income for medical reasons until the beginning of May this year. Since then, she was to return to work doing eight hour shifts on a five week rotation. She earns $35.02 per hour and her cheque varies from $1,500.00 to $2,000.00. No financial statement was provided by either party. Based on the evidence before me, and assuming that Ms.

M. receives 24 cheques per annum with half at $1,500.00 and half at $2,000.00, her annual income is approximately $42,000.00. This is an imperfect calculation based upon imperfect evidence. However, both parties were self-represented and came ill-prepared to provide evidence regarding their income. Order for Child Support: [ 49 ] The Superintendent’s Guidelines with respect to a resident of British Columbia with an annual income of $42,000.00, is $383.00. I find that Ms. M. is a resident of British Columbia and that her income is $42,000.00 for these purposes. I order that she pay to Mr.

M. the sum of $383.00 per month commencing May 1, 2012 and on the first day of each month thereafter. Ms. M. shall provide to Mr. M. a copy of her income tax return by June 15, 2012, and a fully completed financial statement complete with all attachments by July 31, 2012. The support order I am making is an interim order which either party may apply to adjust in accordance with the financial disclosure. Such application must be made before me and on not less than 30 days notice to the other party.

SPECIAL AND EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES: [ 50 ] Section 7(1) and (2) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines provides as follows: 7

(1) In a child support order the court may, on either spouse’s request, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family’s spending pattern prior to the separation: (

a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the custodial parent’s employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment; (

b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child; (

c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100.00 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses; (

d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs; (

e) expenses for post-secondary education; and (

f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities. Definition of “extraordinary expenses”

(1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(

d) and ( f ), the term “extraordinary expenses” means

(

a) expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse’s income and the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate; or (

b) where paragraph (

a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account (

i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate, (ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities, (iii) any special needs and talents of the child or children, (iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and (

v) any other similar factor that the court considers relevant. Sharing of expense

(2) The guiding principle in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1) is that the expense is shared by the spouses in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any, from the child. [ 51 ] This

section sets the parameters for what is a special and extraordinary expense. Section 7(1)(

a) defines day care as a special or extraordinary expense. This is therefore an expense that the parents must share in proportion to their income pursuant to s. 7(2). [ 52 ] Should there be an expense attached to A.’s counselling as a result of the disclosure she has made, this will be an expense under s. 7(1)(b), as will the portion of the insurance premiums associated with her medical and dental plans in general. Mr. M. shall provide a copy of the receipt for any counselling services not covered by his insurance premiums or by the Ministry and Ms.

M. shall pay her proportion of those expenses not more than 30 days after Mr. M. provides a receipt to her. Neither party gave evidence with respect to whether A. was covered by both parties’ insurance plans. If both parties carry insurance premiums for A., the calculation may be set off. However, if only one party is paying insurance premiums for A., that party must provide proof of the premium amounts to the other party and the other party shall pay his or her proportionate share of them. [ 53 ] Section 7(1)(

f) deals with extraordinary expenses for extra-curricular activities. A. was not engaging, at her age, in any significant activities up to the point of separation. Since then, both parents have attempted to register A. in extra-curricular activities which have not come to fruition because of one party or the other not accommodating those activities. [ 54 ] Not all recreational activities are extraordinary. It is expected that child support will cover the lifestyle component of extra- curricular activities.

Had the parents stayed together, A. would have engaged in such activities as swimming, dance classes and skating. Both parents have adequate income to pay for such activities. Both are in agreement that A. should take swimming, dance classes and skating. With respect to those three activities, should Mr. M. register A. in them, then each party shall pay their proportionate share of those expenses. Any other activities the parent wishes A. to engage in will have to be paid for by the enrolling parent. [ 55 ] Mr.

M. has custody of A. and is responsible for her day-to-day care as well as getting her to and from activities. Certainly for so long as Ms. M.’s access is supervised, she will not be able to enrol A. in activities independently. Thereafter, Ms. M. will have to consult with Mr. M. about his ability to arrange for A. to attend any activities Ms. M. wishes to enrol her in so that the parties can ensure one or the other parent can get A. to that activity. [ 56 ] For the purposes of determining special and extraordinary expenses, Mr. M. has disclosed that his income is between $55,000.00 and the low $60,000.00’s.

It is dependent upon how much overtime he works. He is paid $29.00 per hour and grosses about $3,000.00 per cheque. It is sometimes a little less. His income fluctuates up and down every year. Order for Special and Extraordinary Expenses: [ 57 ] I find that Mr. M. is a resident of British Columbia with an annual income of $60,000.00. Mr. M.’s proportionate share of special and extraordinary expenses is 60%. Ms. M.’s is 40%.

[ 58 ] Again, Mr. M. did not provide a fully completed financial statement for the purposes of properly assessing his income. I order that Mr. M. shall provide to Ms. M. a copy of his completed income tax return no later than June 15, 2012 and a fully completed financial statement complete with all attachments by July 31, 2012. Either party is at liberty to apply to adjust the proportionate allocation of special or extraordinary expenses upon not less than 30 days notice to the other party. I am seized of such an application. ___________________________ S.D. Frame Provincial Court Judge