S.G. v. J.P. Date:, 2013 BCPC 126

Citation: S.G. v. J.P. Date: 20130524 2013 BCPC 0126 File No: 13748 Registry: Quesnel IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: S. G. APPLICANT AND: J. P. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. D. MORGAN Counsel for the Applicant: G. Petrisor Appearing on their own behalf: J. P. Place of Hearing: Quesnel , B.C.

Date of Hearing: May 6, May 7 and May 8, 2013 Date of Judgment: May 24, 2013 Introduction and Issue: [ 1 ] Ms. G and Mr. P are the biological parents of their nearly 9-year-old daughter, T, born [DOB]. The parties are mutual guardians under the Family Law Act , and have equal parenting time. [ 2 ] The issue to be resolved is whether T should move with her mother, stepfather and four year old half-brother and three year old half-sister, from Quesnel B.C. to Delta, B.C., or stay living in Quesnel with her father, father's fiancée, and her 9 year old step-sister and three year old half-brother.

Background: [ 3 ] The parties were not living together when T was born. It was not until approximately 2 months after T's birth that it was confirmed to Mr. P he was T's biological father. Shortly after that, he and Ms. G began living together in a common-law relationship. Unfortunately the relationship did not work out and the parties permanently separated. There is no evidence as to the date of separation; however it occurred at least by the time T was 3 to 4 years old given T was approximately 3 or 4 years old when Mr. P began a relationship with his current fiancée, Ms. K. He and Ms.

K met five years ago in Quesnel at a children's 'Strong Start' program that Mr. P was taking T to, and Ms. K was taking her equivalently aged, daughter, J, to. [ 4 ] Since the parties' separation, Mr. P's parenting time increased to the point where the parties have been equally sharing parenting time for the past several years. From the father's perspective, the mother was reluctant to agree to increases in his parenting time, compelling him to make several court applications. To both parties' credit, once in court, the parties have been able - until this application - to resolve matters by way of Consent Orders.

Mr. P's Circumstances: [ 5 ] Mr. P and his fiancée, Ms. K, live with their three-year-old son, Ms. K's eight-year-old daughter, J, and, for 50 percent of the time, the parties' eight-year-old daughter, T. Mr. P works full-time in a secure job as a haul truck driver for G. M. earning approximately $31 per hour. Ms. K is currently enrolled in a correspondence program through [removed for posting] to become an Education Assistant. She has completed her first year and will complete the program in June of 2014, at which point she hopes to obtain employment with the local school district.

The parties are not contemplating moving in the future. The couple are renting a 4 to 5 bedroom house situated in what they describe as a child friendly neighbourhood. The children in the neighbourhood ride their bikes up and down the street and play road hockey. T has her own bedroom that she assisted in decorating. [ 6 ] When T is living with her father, she has a structured "educational time" for approximately 20 minutes after getting home from school. During this time she and her step-sister, J, practice reading, writing or math skills. This is described by Ms. K as a relaxing, quiet time.

After that the children are free to play, clean up their rooms, etc. [ 7 ] T helps Ms. K on occasion with cooking and they make cupcakes together. Mr. P and Ms. K sing lullabies to the children and rub their backs at bedtime. They enjoy family activities such as sledding in the winter and going to the park in the summer. Mr. P and Ms. K describe themselves and their children as being outdoor people. [ 8 ] Most of Mr. P's extended family reside in Quesnel, and T has a good relationship with them. Ms. G's Circumstances: [ 9 ] Ms. G married her current spouse, Mr. G, on July 11, 2009.

They live with their four year old son, B, their three-year-old daughter, K, and have T living with them 50% of the time. They own their own five-bedroom home in Quesnel. T has her own bedroom that was painted the colour of her choice. She has a bunk bed, desk and dresser, toys and other personal belongings. [ 10 ] Ms. G is a stay-at-home mom. T's routine is described by Ms. G as follows: she wakes up at approximately 7 a.m. and has breakfast. Ms. G does her hair and drives her to school. She picks her up after school and they either go home or to extended family member's homes to visit. When at Ms.

G's residence, T will read, colour or draw "when she chooses to". When at her mother's residence T will play, bike ride, play hockey using the goal net, play house, or go to a friend's house. The family likes to camp together. [ 11 ] Most of Ms. G's extended family reside in Quesnel, and T has a good relationship with them. Ms. G's father, BT, lives in Quesnel and testified that he and T are very close and that he has always been a big part of her life. He says that as of late, when Mr. G has been out of town, Ms.

G brings the kids over to his place 2 to 3 times each week and they play with his other grandchildren. Mr. G's mother (T's step-grandmother) also lives in Quesnel. She and T have a close relationship, and she testified that she sees Ms. G and the children, including T, on an approximate weekly to week and-a-half, basis.

[ 12 ] Mr. G is currently a full-time athlete for the [removed for posting] Team. He has been living in Delta to train since December 2012. In 2004 he lost a leg in a car accident. After understandably going through a period of depression, he was motivated in 2006 after watching sledge hockey on television, and within a month began playing, and within a year was invited to tryout for the [removed for posting] Team. Although he did not make the team in 2007, he did make the team in 2008. The members of the [removed for posting] Team have to ‘try out’ to make the team on an annual basis. Mr.

G did not make the team in 2009, or 2010. However he again made the team in 2011 and 2012. He feels he did not make the team in 2009 and 2010 in part because after moving back to Quesnel at the end of the 2008 season and attempting to start a local [removed for posting] program to - in part - assist with his training, he found his training suffered given the limited number of local players. Consequently, he moved to Delta in December 2012, for training purposes. Mr. G will have to try out again to make the [removed for posting] Team this September.

Proposed Move: [ 13 ] Sometime before December, 2012, Mr. and Mrs. G decided they would move as a family unit to Delta BC. Ms. G spoke with Mr. P in November 2012 about her desire to move with T to Delta. Mr. P was opposed to the move. An Order was made preventing changing the child's residence from Quesnel, and the matter was set down for a hearing. Although the hearing did not begin until May 6, 2013, there were some resultant advantages in the delay, including ensuring T was able to complete the school year, and also allowing Mr. and Ms. G time to arrange for and set up appropriate accommodation in Delta.

Mr. and Ms. G have rented a four bedroom home on a 1/2 acre lot with a fenced backyard. There is a swing set and playhouse. T would have her own bedroom. Father's position: [ 14 ] Mr. P does not believe the move is in T's best interests. He points out that T has "loving" extended family on both sides who reside in the Quesnel area, and none of whom reside in or near Delta. Specifically, he points out that his father and father's girlfriend live in Quesnel, his brother and his family which includes four children of varying ages live in Quesnel, as does Ms. K's mother, Ms. G's parents, and Mr. G's mother. Ms.

G's older sister and two children, one of whom is a girl one year older than T, live in Prince George, which is approximately one hour driving time north of Quesnel. [ 15 ] He emphasizes that T has been residing with him 50% of the time "if not more". T lived with them most of March while Ms. G was in Delta setting up their new home. He says he and Ms. K provide a healthy and happy home environment, and that T is very close to her stepsister, J, who is of the same age, and would miss her. [ 16 ] Mr. P submits that it would be easier for Ms.

G to travel back to her hometown of Quesnel to have parenting time with T given she is not working and has more flexibility in her schedule. He believes it would also be less expensive for her because she has family members in Quesnel where she could stay. He says for him to travel to Delta would often require taking time off work to coincide with T's school schedule, and would require that he and T, and other members of his family, stay in a hotel and eat at restaurants. [ 17 ] Mr. P is particularly concerned about T's education. It was noticed in kindergarten and grade one that T struggled.

On the recommendation of a school official, the parents took T to her family physician who made a referral to paediatrician Dr. C. Dr. C diagnosed T with having Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). He recommended medication; however, both Mr. P and Ms. G had concerns and elected initially not to put T on medication. It was, however, noticed T's schooling became even more of a struggle to the point where she was having difficulties coping. [ 18 ] Ms. K says she and Mr. P took the initiative and spoke with Ms. G regarding putting T on the prescribed medication when T was in grade 3.

T's schooling significantly improved. In the spring of 2012 the parties noticed that T did not have much of an appetite and they believed it may have been a side effect of the medication. The parties agreed to take her off the medication, however, at some point, agreed she should be placed back on it. Ms. K testified the current medication, Concerta, is working very well with no side effects. She says Mr. P takes care of getting the prescriptions filled. It is her and Mr. P's perception that Ms.

G does not wholly accept the ADD diagnosis and, as a result, is not wholly motivated to ensure, and sometimes fails to ensure, that T takes her daily medication. They say this has been noticed and commented on by T’s educators. [ 19 ] T receives the assistance of a specialized education team. The [removed for posting] elementary school resource person, Ms. L, suggested that because T has some aboriginal ancestry she could qualify for a specially funded English as Second Dialect program called Great Leaps.

Although the ancestry was somewhat remote and apparently documentary proof of aboriginal ancestry was not obtained, the school nevertheless allowed T into the program. The result is that she now receives the assistance of two Learning Assistants, Ms. L and Ms. D. Other members of what the parents describe as T’s educational team are the ESD personnel: Ms. G, Ms. W, Ms. D, and Ms. T. [ 20 ] It is Mr. P and Ms. K's belief that they were the ones who took the necessary steps to ensure T received this specialized learning assistance. Documents summarizing three ‘major meetings’ of T's educational team show that Mr.

P and Ms. K have regularly attended these meetings. It is the father's perception that because the mother has not attended all of the meetings and was not instrumental in setting up T's specialized learning assistance, it is unlikely that Ms. G would be able to ensure T received similar learning assistance in Delta. Ms. K testified that even if similar assistance could be obtained in Delta, it would be difficult for T to transition and work with a new team. [ 21 ] Mr. P and Ms.

K say if T lives primarily with them, they will not change T's school from [removed for posting] to the school closer to their home where T's half sister, J, goes, because they want to maintain the specialized assistance T is currently receiving. [ 22 ] Mr. P says if T resides primarily with him, local extended family members on Ms. G's side would be more than welcome to take T for sleepovers and birthdays etc. He says his relationship with Ms. G's family is a civil one. To ensure T has time with her mother, Mr. P envisions T visiting her mother during school holidays and he and Ms.

G driving and meeting halfway for pickups and

drop-offs. Mr. P says any time Ms. G comes to Quesnel, T could stay with her. He proposes T spending one month with each parent during the summer holidays. [ 23 ] Ms. K testified that if T lived primarily in Quesnel with them that she would ensure Ms. G received all school records. She also confirms that Ms. G could Skype or call T at any time. She also confirms Ms. G's extended family could come and take T for visits and that she and Mr. P want Ms. G to remain involved in T's life as much as possible. [ 24 ] Mr. P says it was he who enrolled T in, and paid for, two sessions of gymnastics. He confirms that Ms.

G enrolled T in hockey. Unfortunately, it appears both parties made these decisions without full consultation with the other party. However, to the parties’ mutual credit, they supported T in both activities, and it appears they both now understand the importance of mutual consultation. Both parties confirm that T wants to take swimming lessons and that this is something that should happen no matter where she resides. Mother's position: [ 25 ] Ms.

G points out that she has had a larger overall role in parenting T, given that she was T's primary caregiver when T was very young, and has never had less than approximately 50% of the parenting time. [ 26 ] She says the reason for the move to Delta is three fold: to support her husband in his endeavours with the [removed for posting] Team; to take a medical office assistant training program that is unavailable in Quesnel; and, for what has become the primary reason, to access professional assistance for her four year old son, B's diagnosed speech aphroxia.

B's speech is significantly delayed, and although he is seeing a speech pathologist in Quesnel, the evidence establishes he would receive more comprehensive assistance in Delta. [ 27 ] Although Ms. G agrees that T is currently receiving very strong educational support from her specialized educational team, she says that the Children's Hospital has a program that strictly deals with ADD. However, Ms.

G testified that she was not familiar with the program because when she began to look into it she was told that because she was not a local resident her children were not eligible. [ 28 ] When asked by her counsel whether she accepted the diagnosis of T's ADD, Ms. G said she would like to get a second opinion.

She also confirmed that she doesn't like that her daughter is on medication but that she complies with the prescription and, although she has forgotten to ensure T takes her medication once or twice, she has never done so purposefully. [ 29 ] Regarding any inference of a lack of involvement with T's education, she confirms that she personally attended one of the three major meetings with T's educational team and that for the two meetings she did not attend, she subsequently arranged a meeting with Ms. L to receive information. She also attends parent-teacher interviews. Ms.

G says she was significantly involved with the referral to, and the meetings with, paediatrician Dr. C. Any medical or educational related meetings that she missed were because she received notice either too late or not at all. She took steps to ensure Dr. C's office would contact her regarding appointments. [ 30 ] Ms. G supports T's schooling by using flashcards, and using pennies and math sheets.

She also spoke with T's teacher about T's writing, and they decided T would begin using a diary and her entries would be written only to her teacher. [ 31 ] She confirms the home they have rented in Delta is large enough for the family and that T would have her own room. She did some renovations prior to Mr. G moving into the home. She emphasizes the home is situated on a large lot with a fenced backyard. [ 32 ] Ms. G says that if court allows T to move to Delta with her, she would first ensure T completed her school year in Quesnel.

She would agree with T spending six weeks of the summer with her father in Quesnel. She believes the parties should equally split parenting time during the Christmas holidays as they do presently. She says that during spring breaks she would bring T to Quesnel to stay with Mr. P. She expects there would be other in-person visits any time she came to Quesnel or Mr. P came to Delta. She also expects there will be ongoing contact through Skype, phone and mail. [ 33 ] If T is to reside in Quesnel with Mr. P, Ms.

G would like to have T for six weeks of the summer holidays and during spring breaks in addition to any time she came to Quesnel to visit, or when Mr. P came down to the lower mainland. She would also expect unlimited phone and Skype access. The Law: [ 34 ] The Family Law Act , Division 6 - 'Relocation' governs this proceeding.

Section 65 defines "relocation" as follows: 65

(1) In this Division, "relocation" means a change in the location of the residence of a child or child's guardian that can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on the child's relationship with (

a) a guardian, or (

b) one or more other persons having a significant role in the child's life.

(2) This Division applies if

(

a) a child's guardian plans to relocate himself or herself or the child, or both, and (

b) a written agreement or an order respecting parenting arrangements or contact with the child applies to the child. [ 35 ]

Section 66 relates to the requirement to give written notice of the planned relocation. In the present case, Ms. G gave Mr. P verbal notice of her plan to relocate in late 2012 when the Family Relations Act was still in effect. In this case, the lack of written notice did not prejudice Mr. P and is inconsequential. [ 36 ]

Section 67 requires the parties to make their best efforts to cooperate with one another for the purpose of resolving any issues relating to the proposed relocation. The

section also stipulates that it does not prevent a guardian from making an application under

section 69 for an order respecting relocation. In the present case the parties’ efforts to resolve the issue in a cooperative fashion have failed. Mr. P's application filed under the Family Relations Act for an order preventing the relocation of T is deemed to be an application pursuant to

section 69 of the Family Law Act. [ 37 ]

Section 68 provides that once the guardian gives notice of intended relocation of the child, the relocation may occur unless another guardian, within 30 days after receiving the notice, files an application for an order to prohibit the relocation. In this case Mr. P's application for an order to prohibit the relocation of T was filed when the Family Relations Act was still in effect and it is inconsequential whether or not that application was filed within the 30 day time limit now set out under

section 68 of the Family Law Act . In any event, an Interim Order was obtained pursuant to the Family Relations Act prohibiting changing the child's residence from Quesnel without further Order of the court. [ 38 ]

Section 69 reads as follows:

(1) In this section, "relocating guardian" means a guardian who plans to relocate a child.

(2) On application by a guardian, a court may make an order permitting or prohibiting the relocation of a child by the relocating guardian.

(3) Despite section 37(1) [best interests of child] , the court, in making an order under this section, must consider, in addition to the factors set out in section 37(2), the factors set out in subsection (4)(

a) of this section.

(4) If an application is made under this

section and the relocating guardian and another guardian do not have substantially equal parenting time with the child, (

a) the relocating guardian must satisfy the court that (

i) the proposed relocation is made in good faith, and (ii) the relocating guardian has proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the relationship between the child and the child's other guardians, persons who are entitled to contact with the child, and other persons who have a significant role in the child's life, and (

b) on the court being satisfied of the factors referred to in paragraph (a), the relocation must be considered to be the best interests of the child unless another guardian satisfies the court otherwise.

(5) If an application is made under this

section and the relocating guardian and another guardian have substantially equal parenting time with the child, the relocating guardian must satisfy the court (

a) of the factors described in subsection (4)(a), and (

b) that the relocation is in the best interests of the child. [Emphasis added]

(6) For the purposes of determining if the proposed relocation is made in good faith, the court must consider all relevant factors, including the following: (

a) the reasons for the proposed relocation; (

b) whether the proposed relocation is likely to enhance the general quality of life of the child and, if applicable, of the relocating guardian, including increasing emotional well-being or financial or educational opportunities; (

c) whether notice was given under

section 66; (

d) any restrictions on relocation contained in a written agreement or an order.

(7) In determining whether to make an order under this section, the court must not consider whether a guardian would still relocate if the child's relocation were not permitted. [ 39 ]

Section 37 of the Family Law Act sets out the requirement to consider the best interests of the child.

Section 37 reads as follows:

(1) In making an agreement or order under this Part respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with the 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 parent 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 the 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 the factors set out in subsection (2), and only to the extent that it affects that factor. Decision: [ 40 ] It is clear both parties love T very much and have her best interests at heart.

Any imbalance in regards to parental involvement regarding medical appointments or meetings with T's educational team, if in fact there is an imbalance, is reflective of the parties trust in each other's abilities as a parent to speak with professionals and make decisions in T's best interests, and is not reflective of any comparatively reduced interest or motivation in T's health, education and general well-being. [ 41 ] Given Ms. G and Mr. P have substantially equal parenting time of T, and pursuant to section 69(5) set out above, Ms.

G has the obligation of satisfying the court that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and that reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the relationship between the child and the child's other guardians, persons who are entitled to contact with the child, and other persons who have a significant role in child's life, have been made. [ 42 ] Ms. G also has the onus of satisfying the court that the relocation is in T's best interests. Good Faith: [ 43 ] I am satisfied that the proposed relocation is made in good faith. Ms. G is not motivated by a desire to restrict or decrease Mr.

P's parenting time, or by any other inappropriate reasons. Her original primary motivation for the relocation was to support her husband's once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to play for the [removed for posting] team. Mr. G believes that when his athletic career is over, his unique experience will assist him in obtaining employment as an ambassador and advocate for sports for the disabled. He is currently a volunteer for the [removed for posting] Committee.

He has given talks to high school students and has worked with recently injured Canadian soldiers in a program designed to introduce them to sporting opportunities for the disabled, including skiing and curling. [ 44 ] Ms. G's current primary motivation to relocate is to obtain assistance for her son, B, in overcoming his speech aphroxia. The specialized assistance he needs is not available to him in Quesnel, but is available to him in Delta. [ 45 ] Another valid motivation for the move is Ms. G’s desire to take a Medical Office Assistant program that is not available to her in Quesnel.

The program is 11 months and she believes it is flexible enough to allow her to study when Mr. G is home with the children. Preserve Relationships:

[ 46 ] I am also satisfied that the mother's proposed parenting time

schedule is a reasonable and workable arrangement to preserve the relationship between T and Mr. P. I'm also satisfied that given Ms. and Mr. G's extended family live primarily in Quesnel, and given their clear recognition of the importance of maintaining contact between T and her extended family, that T's relationship with her extended family would be preserved. Best Interests: [ 47 ] Both parties are competent and loving parents and are honestly motivated by what they believe to be in T's best interests.

The parties' spouses are also competent and loving persons who have assumed a significant parenting role in T's life while respecting what, in this case, is the primary role of the biological parents. It is a comfort to the court to know that T will be loved and properly nurtured by both parties and their spouses no matter where she primarily resides. [ 48 ] Consequently, many of the specifically enumerated and like factors set out in

section 37 of the Family Law Act , that relate to the parties' abilities to exercise parental responsibilities, need not be analyzed given the parties are equally capable and motivated parents. [ 49 ] However, I do find the mother has not established that relocating T from Quesnel to Delta is in T's best interests. The two considerations that lead to this conclusion are: 1. the nature and strength of T's relationships with her extended family, practically all of whom reside in Quesnel, where T was born and primarily raised, and; 2. the specialized educational assistance she is receiving. [ 50 ] Having found Ms.

G to have met the 'preserving of significant relationships' threshold set out in s. 69 (4)(a)(ii), does not foreclose the closer examination required in a 'best interests' analysis. [ 51 ] There was much evidence in regards to T's close relationships with extended family, most of whom reside in Quesnel, and none of whom live in the lower mainland.

I find the significantly reduced contact with her large extended family that T would experience if moved from Quesnel will be detrimental to T's emotional well-being. [ 52 ] I also find there is no evidence from which I can conclude the specialized educational assistance that T requires and is receiving through a local team of educational professionals could be duplicated in Delta.

It is clear T’s current educators were motivated to qualify her for the English as Second Dialect [ESD] program called 'Great Leaps', and thereby receive the specialized learning assistance that would otherwise be unavailable to her. [ 53 ] That assistance includes help in developing T's reading, writing and mathematical foundations skills. She receives assistance primarily from two learning assistants, Ms. L and Ms.

D, however, there are four other members of the ESD team that work towards ensuring T receives the assistance she needs. [ 54 ] Even if evidence were presented that a similar program was available to T in the Delta school system, it would nevertheless take time to establish the same quality working relationship she is currently enjoying with her local team of educational professionals. I note the parties are in agreement that T's current educational team is working well for her. [ 55 ] Another consideration regarding educational stability for T is the uncertainty associated with Mr. G’s athletic and career goals.

There is the possibility he will not make this year's [removed for posting] Team, and there is the certainty that, at some point in the not distant future, he will no longer be a member of the team. Mr. G says himself that he is getting ‘a little old’ to play for the [removed for posting] Team much longer. The next step in his career is uncertain. He does not know what his job will be or where it will be. [ 56 ] There is a more stability for T if she remains living in Quesnel with her father. Given her young age and educational challenges, the importance of stability looms large.

Summary of Decision: [ 57 ] Both parents are loving and capable parents, and are in stable relationships with loving and supportive partners. The current shared parenting regime has been very successful and beneficial for T.

Consequently, the determinative factors in deciding whether T should move with her mother to Delta, her stay in Quesnel with her father, are external to the parties’ parental abilities. [ 58 ] Given T's particular educational challenges and the establishment of an effective educational team at her current school in Quesnel, and the particular importance of stability for T, and also given her close relationships with extended family in Quesnel, it is not in T’s best interests to move from Quesnel to Delta. [ 59 ] It is important, notwithstanding the complications and expense of long distance road travel, that the parties ensure T has regular and significant contact with Ms.

G and her family. [ 60 ] The Registry staff will draft the Order set out below and send it to Mr. Petrisor for his approval as to form. ORDER:

Upon the Court being advised the name and birth date of the child is: TBT, [removed for posting]; the “Child”; And upon being satisfied that SG and JP are the guardians of the Child under section 31(1) of the Family Law Act , and by way of an Order dated September 17, 2008, granting the parties joint custody and joint guardianship under the Family Relations Act ; And after a hearing held on May 6, 7, and 8 th , 2013; This Court Orders That: 1. So long as both parties reside in the Quesnel, BC, area, they shall share parenting time of the Child on an approximately equal basis unless otherwise agreed; 2.

If one of the parties moves from the Quesnel, BC, area, the Child shall primarily reside with the party remaining in the Quesnel, BC, area; 3. If one of the parties, after having moved from Quesnel BC area, returns to reside in the Quesnel, BC, area, within 24 months after the move, the parties will resume sharing parenting time on an approximately equal basis unless otherwise agreed or ordered by the court; 4. If SG moves her residence from Quesnel to Delta BC, and unless otherwise agreed between the parties, her parenting time with the Child shall be as follows: a.

Six weeks during the Child's school summer vacation, to be split into two equal segments; b. a minimum of one week during Christmas holidays, the specific days to be agreed upon by the parties, so long as SG has the Child on Christmas Day in odd numbered years; c. the Child's school spring breaks; d. in the months where no other parenting time is occurring, no less than one weekend each month upon SG request provided she gives two weeks notice; e. at any time on SG’s request when SG is in Quesnel; f. such other parenting time as agreed between the parties; and g. un-limited Skype and telephone access. 5.

The parties will equally share the driving to facilitate the pickups and drop-offs of the Child. 6. Pickups and drop-offs will occur in Cache Creek BC, unless otherwise agreed.

7. The Child will continue to attend [removed for posting] Elementary School, during elementary school years, unless otherwise agreed. 8. Each guardian will advise the other guardian of any matters of a significant nature affecting the child. 9. Each guardian will consult the other guardian about any important decisions that must be made in respect of the child and will try to reach agreement concerning these important decisions. 10. Mr. P will facilitate generous contact between the Child and Ms. G’s extended family. ___________________________ R. D. Morgan Provincial Court Judge