E.I. v. A.I. Date:, 2015 BCPC 110

Citation: E.I. v. A.I. Date: 20150203 2015 BCPC 0110 File No: 13997 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: E.I. APPLICANT AND: A.I. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.D. FRAME Counsel for the Applicant: Ms. Brenda Muliner

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Desiree Acosta Appearing on his own behalf: A.I. Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 2, 2014 and January 22, 2015 Date of Judgment: February 3, 2015 [ 1 ] E.I. and A.I. are the parents of two girls, T.E. born [omitted for posting] and T.E.(1) on [omitted for posting]. The parents have competing applications before the court. E.I. wants A.I.’s parenting time to be supervised only.

A.I. wants to enforce the order made by Judge Marchand on December 17, 2013. [ 2 ] That order provides that A.I. shall have parenting time from Friday at 12:00 PM until Monday at 6:00 PM. A.I. was to pick up the children in Penticton on Fridays and E.I. was to pick up the children in Cache Creek on Mondays. The parties were also limited to communication via email and only about the children’s activities and welfare while in the other parent’s care. They were also required to inform each other by text, email or phone if they were to be late picking up the children.

They were further ordered to communicate with one another in a respectful manner only. Christmas access for that year was also determined and A.I. was given such further parenting time as agreed between the parties. [ 3 ] E.I. has now moved to the Osoyoos. She has not told A.I. where she is residing and has not kept him up to date with where the children are attending preschool. E.I. alleges that A.I. has been touching one of his daughters inappropriately and wants supervised access until that issue is resolved. A.I. says there is no basis to the allegations and that E.I. is coaching the daughters.

There are also allegations about the constant fighting between the two, A.I. fighting with E.I.’s new partner M.T., and inadequate care while the children are in A.I.’s care. [ 4 ] This is an interim order only. As such, I will not be making findings of fact that will bind the trial judge. The evidence taken on an interim application is truncated, often resulting in rough justice. This file has otherwise been transferred to Penticton for all purposes. [ 5 ] E.I. relates a long history of difficulties in the relationship.

She is presently a 27-year-old woman who has another child by M.T. and stays home as a homemaker. M.T. works full-time at the [omitted for posting] in Oliver and Osoyoos. E.I. is originally from Chu Chua. [ 6 ] E.I. and A.I. lived in Squamish, British Columbia becoming engaged in 2008. They moved to Quesnel in 2009. Thereafter, they moved from place to place ultimately moving back to Chu Chua. T.E.(1) was born on [omitted for posting]. [ 7 ] Eventually, E.I. was successful in getting a duplex for the family to move into on Chu Chua reserve which they lived in from May 2010 to November 2010.

She and A.I. were not getting along. She said he was aggressive toward her and she often felt she was being isolated from her family. She felt uncomfortable in their home so she would take T.E.(1) and go to her mother’s place. [ 8 ] E.I. described incidents of aggression and dysfunction in the relationship over time. She said that A.I. would yell at her or corner her. Once she was backed into a chair and he was hitting the chair while she was on it. His yelling would scare her.

She would make every attempt to keep him in the room to keep him away from T.E.(1) during these incidents. [ 9 ] A.I. denies the aggression on his part but concedes they argued a lot. He said that if arguments escalated, E.I. would call the police. When their arguments escalated, she would also threaten to take the children away from him and he would never see them again. He denied ever backing her into a room or cornering her in any manner. Once or twice, he would block the doorway so that she could not take his child or children and leave.

A.I. denied that he ever used his size to intimidate E.I. but did concede that if she screamed in his face he would in hers. He denied that he ever physically assaulted E.I. but did say there was an occasion when she pulled a knife on him. [ 10 ] E.I. said that there were people around her home on the reserve who would have parties. A.I. would occasionally join in with consuming alcohol and marijuana. She was not sure if other drugs were involved. E.I. herself does not presently drink or smoke marijuana.

E.I. said that while they were living together in Chu Chua, there were times that she would tell A.I. she wanted him to stay home with her and T.E.(1). Instead, he would go out smoking marijuana with his friends. She complained that he would not come home and they would be sitting at home alone. E.I. and A.I. would argue over this because he would come home stoned. [ 11 ] A.I. acknowledged that there was some partying going on when they were together. However, he said that she would join him.

He also cited some occasions when she drank to excess, which resulted in altercations between them, one of them being the incident with the knife. He denied that he had ever done drugs in the presence of his children. He said he only smoked marijuana in the past. [ 12 ] In November 2010, A.I. left her home and moved to either Merritt or Cache Creek. E.I. said that he had a history of beginning jobs and quitting or getting fired. In this time, E.I. said that she attempted to set up visits to Merritt. She would text or email A.I.

There were also telephone calls but E.I. said that these would often turn to an accusatory tone or to A.I. attempting to resurrect the relationship. Sometimes A.I. would hang up on her. E.I. told A.I. on these occasions that if his attitude was this aggressive, and she did not know how she could send the child to him. [ 13 ] E.I. went to Merritt three times. She found that his accommodation there was not suitable. There was no bed for her daughter. There was a crowded storage room and alcoholics residing in the home. One of those residents tended to be violent based on reports from A.I. to E.I.

There was alcohol and marijuana use in the home. E.I. felt it was not appropriate for T.E.(1) to stay the night. [ 14 ] On one occasion for an exchange, E.I. refused to leave T.E.(1) behind because of the people that A.I. came with for the pickup.

On that occasion, he slammed the car door and nearly caught T.E.(1)’s foot in it. [ 15 ] On another occasion, E.I. felt that if she was present she could look after T.E.(1). She went to Merritt and stayed the night. She found it was not a suitable environment. One of the women who lived in the home was very drunk and started banging on the door and yelling. E.I. decided early the next morning to leave with T.E.(1). [ 16 ] While it was not the focus of this hearing, there was not much evidence from A.I. about what his living accommodations encompass.

He did not speak about the circumstances E.I. observed in the past Merritt home. [ 17 ] He acknowledged that he only had one bed originally. He would have the girls sleep in that bed and he would sleep on the couch. He now has bunk beds for them. He acknowledged that he is sympathetic to people who are in difficulties with the law or down on their luck. He said his father had a drug problem and he related to their circumstances. He feels he can be their friends until they “done me wrong”. He denied that he does drugs.

A.I. must accept that it is his responsibility to ensure the safety of the children at all times. That means he cannot have drug addicts or alcoholics living in or dropping in to his accommodations. It is an unsuitable environment for the children. People in these circumstances do not always respect boundaries when children are on access visits. [ 18 ] E.I. also said that when A.I. left, he took the only vehicle they had. It was November. She said the A.I. was aware that T.E.(1) and she would need the vehicle to get around.

It is a two-hour walk to town from their home in Chu Chua and they had no other means of transportation if T.E.(1) got sick or needed anything. There is no public transportation. A.I. took the vehicle to Merritt. He was under the influence of alcohol and his vehicle was impounded. Because he was required to install a breath test device in his vehicle, he was without a license. As a result, E.I. had to rely on family and friends to see if anyone was going to town. She tried to get A.I. to return the vehicle to her, but he had no money to get it out of the impound.

While this may well be an example of how inconsiderate A.I. was toward E.I. and how he failed to take into consideration the needs of his children, these are no longer circumstances under which either E.I. or A.I. labour. [ 19 ] At one point, A.I. moved to Salmon Arm to work for an Internet connection company. E.I. felt he was doing better. He was making contributions toward T.E.(1)’s support. They decided to give their relationship another try. They found a home together. It was infested with mice and was up for foreclosure. A.I. lost his job and they were “living poor”.

They were living on food from the food bank. E.I. said that A.I. would hold a job for no longer than a week or two. Because of that, the living conditions, and all of fighting, she decided that the circumstances were not suitable for her and T.E.(1). In this time, she said that A.I. became aggressive again. He would yell at her and swear at her. He would corner her and not let her leave the room.

He would follow her from room to room and argue with her even though she would ask him not to. [ 20 ] When E.I. decided to leave A.I., she set her alarm for 4 o’clock in the morning so that A.I. could not prevent her from leaving. Instead, he became aware and held T.E.(1) in his arms to keep E.I. from going. E.I. said she had to convince A.I. over a long night and day that they had to leave the home because of the mistreatment. Eventually, E.I. got T.E.(1) into the car seat and locked the door. A.I. became angry and shoved a keepsake of T.E.(1)’s in the back window and tried to unlock the door.

T.E.(1) became frightened. E.I. told him he was scaring T.E.(1) and please let them drive away. He lay on the vehicle on the window. When that did not work, he went in front the vehicle. Eventually, he moved out of the way and E.I. was able to leave. A.I. does not dispute that some variation of this event occurred. He explained that he was concerned E.I. would take his child and never let him see her again. This is not an explanation. It does not justify A.I.’s actions. It is alarming behaviour, to say the least. [ 21 ] At this time, E.I. was pregnant with T.E.

There were some attempts by the parents to raise the girls together. A.I. got a basement suite in Brocklehurst and offered to have E.I. stay there while she was pregnant. E.I. was not comfortable with this arrangement because it was still A.I.’s place. E.I. had her mother assist with A.I. talking to T.E.(1) on the telephone. Her mother also offered to have A.I. come into her home to visit with T.E.(1). E.I. would leave on those occasions because she was not comfortable being in the same home with A.I. [ 22 ] E.I. related an argument that erupted in the vehicle on the way home. E.I. said this happened often.

On this occasion, E.I. was driving. A.I. was swearing at her and screaming obscenities. E.I. pleaded that T.E.(1) was in the backseat, that E.I. was pregnant and that she was in pain. E.I. said that she had learned from experience that he would do this when they were driving, and the arguments would get so heated that he would get physically abusive. A.I. did not so much dispute that they argued in the vehicle, but said that they argued at the side of the road. [ 23 ] E.I. did eventually move into the rental with A.I. She was there until a month after T.E.’s birth.

During the time that she was in the home with him, they fought. One of the arguments was over him playing a videogame with a stripper in it while T.E.(1) lay on the bed next to him. E.I. took the child from the room. [ 24 ] E.I. said that A.I.’s behaviour became more aggressive in this time. She said he would take T.E.(1) into a dark bathroom for timeouts. He would resist E.I. trying to take her out of the bathroom. E.I. said T.E.(1) would be screaming and scared in the bathroom. E.I. said that T.E.(1) would get a lot of timeouts, up to five in one day. She felt that this was harsh for a two-year-old.

E.I. also used timeouts to punish T.E.(1), but would check on her and make sure she was going to sleep instead of crying. As a result of the discipline and environment in the home, E.I. said T.E.(1) began peeing and soiling the pillows on the bed. This was out of character for T.E.(1). A.I. denied locking T.E.(1) in a dark bathroom. He said the light would be on. He said that if his child had five temper tantrums, then he would give her five timeouts. However, they were not for long.

A timeout is not necessarily a harsh form of discipline, but to shut a child in a bathroom and refuse to let her out is disturbing. [ 25 ] On another occasion, E.I. and A.I. had an argument. E.I. took the children into the bedroom. They were crying. A.I. was at the door and she was telling him to go away. She was fearful so she called the RCMP. She wanted the police to ask him to leave. They did not do so and she returned to her mother’s home once again. A.I. said that E.I. would call the police whenever their fights escalated. However, he denied that there was any reason for it.

Certainly calling the police and the Ministry of Child and Family Development over every family argument is inappropriate. [ 26 ] The RCMP came on another occasion and A.I. shut the officer’s foot in the door. E.I. persuaded him to calm down and advised

him that it would not look good if he was being aggressive. A.I. went out to the police and they ended up leaving. A.I. admitted he was at least confrontational with one officer because she was rude to him. [ 27 ] There were a number of occasions where E.I. described the police coming out over the years. She described some instances of physical altercations and some instances of yelling. There were instances of A.I. behaving aggressively and dangerously while she was driving the vehicle. Sometimes they would be on highway driving highway speeds.

On one occasion he grabbed her arm and steering wheel while she was driving. A.I. denied this and said they were parked during that argument. [ 28 ] E.I. described instances when A.I. would take the child and not return her; when he would corner E.I. and not allow her to leave; and occasions when E.I. was compelled to report her concerns to the RCMP in Salmon Arm, Kamloops and Barriere. There were also occasions when E.I. said that she did not report assaults to the RCMP.

Again, A.I. said that E.I. resorted to calling the RCMP whenever their arguments escalated, but there was no cause to do so. [ 29 ] E.I. was also concerned about A.I.’s substance abuse. He had a problem, she claimed, with cocaine and marijuana in the past. To this day, she is not satisfied that he has stopped using either. She was also concerned that the mood swings he had when he was using these drugs would scare the girls. A.I. denies that he uses any hard drugs, that he has any alcohol issues or that he smokes marijuana with the children around.

He is presently employed with a company that requires him to do random urine tests regularly. These have all come back clean. [ 30 ] In short, while E.I. and A.I. were together, E.I. describes a chaotic, unpredictable and violent environment. Since E.I. and A.I. parted ways, E.I. has reported some troubling disclosures from T.E.(1). [ 31 ] These disclosures have caused E.I. to cast her mind back to other memories of a troubling nature from when she was together with A.I. In one instance, E.I. was taking a shower. Ordinarily, she showered with the child. A.I. was going to join them in the shower.

E.I. observed that he had an erection which she found strange with their child standing so close. A.I. has no recollection of this incident. He is upset by the suggestion that he was aroused by being in the shower with his child. His counsel suggested to E.I. that it may have been because E.I. was also in the shower. In any event, it is clear that showering with T.E.(1) and T.E. is no longer appropriate regardless of the cause of the arousal. [ 32 ] This came in conjunction with E.I.’s report of disclosures from T.E.(1).

The first disclosure was in August 2013 after picking up T.E. and T.E.(1) from a visit with their father. Once they were in the vehicle and driving, T.E.(1) announced that “Somebody put something inside me”. When E.I. asked her who, she hid her face and said she did not know. T.E.(1) said “I’m all dirty mom”. Her mother asked her why. T.E.(1) continue to hide under her hands. She said “Dad put his fingers inside me”. E.I. took her child to the hospital immediately. E.I. also went to the RCMP.

The RCMP directed her to go to the Kamloops detachment and told her to also report to the Ministry of Child and Family Development. [ 33 ] E.I. said it took a month and a half to get in to see the Kamloops RCMP. Constable Kirpan interviewed T.E.(1). T.E.(1) told her that it was bath time when the incident occurred. Constable Kirpan dismissed this as a bath time incident. She told E.I. that she could follow up with the Ministry if she chose. [ 34 ] E.I. observed changes in T.E.(1)’s behaviour after returning from this incident. She said T.E.(1) hid in her closet and began changing privately.

She would go to the bathroom and shut the door on her mother. She would tell her mother that she could not be in the bathroom with her. These are understandably changes that would trouble any parent. Children eventually do outgrow the need to have their parents present and wish for more independence. However, this appears to have been a rather sudden change in behaviour. [ 35 ] A.I. said that the incident revolved around T.E.(1) soiling her pants. He changed her in the bathroom, sat her in the tub and cleaned the poop from her private parts. He said that is the extent of what transpired.

This would be a complete explanation, particularly if A.I. did not typically bathe T.E.(1). It would also explain why T.E.(1) described herself as dirty and why she disclosed where she had been touched. However, the degree of invasiveness on the cleaning, if that is all that it entailed, was too much. [ 36 ] E.I. also had difficulty with A.I.’s discipline both during and following their relationship. On one occasion, while they were having a visit at Riverside Park, T.E.(1) wandered off on A.I. He angered quickly and told her if she did not listen he would put her in the truck for a timeout.

He picked her up while she was screaming and crying. A.I. put T.E.(1) in his vehicle. E.I. said the truck was hot and the air-conditioning was not running. She took T.E.(1) out of the truck right away feeling that it was not a suitable punishment. A.I. said T.E.(1) was in her car seat and the engine was running for the air conditioning. [ 37 ] The next disclosure was in February 2014. T.E.(1) came back from a visit and let her mother know that she had a rash. She was still in pull-ups and her mother noticed that there was a rash. She also thought she saw bruise.

She was alarmed and asked T.E.(1) how everything went on the visit. T.E.(1) was fidgety and put her hands to her pull up. E.I. asked her why she was doing that. She said “Daddy touched my ‘gina”. E.I. asked T.E.(1) if he was cleaning her. T.E.(1) said she had been on the bed. When she was asked what happened, T.E.(1) motioned to her genitals and said that her father touched her vagina. She motioned in a stroking fashion on her mother’s hand. Again, E.I. called the Ministry of Child and Family Development. A.I. denied that any such touching occurred.

He believes that T.E.(1) is responding to the attention she got on the first occasion. He believes that his daughter is trying to get all of the exciting attention she got last time with a visit to the hospital, the police and the Ministry. I find that an astonishing explanation. [ 38 ] This time the girls were both examined. E.I. was advised that if there was only touching, there would be no evidence. They were directed to a sexual intervention program which T.E.(1) attended a few times.

However, E.I. was pregnant with her new child; they were involved with court proceedings; there was traveling; and T.E.(1) had daycare. It became difficult keep up with the routine of the program. This is unfortunate. It would have been of valuable assistance to determine whether T.E.(1) was being exposed to sexual abuse. [ 39 ] Dr. Statham’s report has been filed in these proceedings. It confirms E.I.’s advice that if there had been touching there would be no physical evidence. The report was inconclusive.

Unfortunately, the social workers with the Ministry of Child and Family Development took this to mean that there was no sexual interference. They wrote a rather stern and inappropriate letter to E.I. warning her from pursuing any further invasive physical investigations. This followed a third disclosure.

[ 40 ] On the third incident, T.E.(1) had come back from her father’s again. On this occasion, M.T. told E.I. that T.E.(1) told him something she should talk to T.E.(1) about. This time, E.I. recorded the conversation. T.E.(1) told M.T. that what her father did in the tub was not right. T.E.(1) told her mother that “well someone put something… Dad put his fingers inside me”. She pointed to her genital area. She said “He pushed his fingers in me and I said ouch”. She took T.E.(1) back to see Dr. Statham again believing there would be physical signs of this.

There were superficial tears near T.E.(1)’s anus but no other signs of interference. [ 41 ] Constable Evans gave evidence at this hearing. Constable Evans’ involvement was to review what came from Penticton detachment and some medical reports. Upon review of the reports indicating no physical evidence, a warned statement was taken from A.I. The police were satisfied with the outcome of that statement. Interviews with the children did not produce any disclosure. The Ministry of Child and Family Development was also contacted. The SCAN clinic in Kamloops performed an examination on T.E.(1).

It also provided no evidence of a sexual assault. Constable Evans explained that a charge can only proceed if the police are satisfied that the charge can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If they are not entirely sure, the file will be sent to Crown anyway. Ultimately, the Crown decides if there is a substantial likelihood of conviction. No charges were recommended. [ 42 ] There have also been altercations between E.I. and her partner and A.I. and his family during the exchanges. She describes behaviour on the part of his mother that is inappropriate.

This includes tossing the children’s bags by the vehicle during exchanges. E.I. also expressed concern about the past history of A.I.’s family including the dysfunction between his parents and his mother’s purported cocaine use. There are also hostilities between M.T. and A.I. On one occasion, A.I. tossed a car seat at M.T., cutting him in the forehead. On another occasion, M.T. and A.I. had a disagreement about M.T. calling A.I. “A.” instead of “Dad” to the girls. There is a dispute about whether or not A.I. swore at M.T. A.I. said he told M.T. that the children do not need to call him “A.”.

A.I. is entirely correct. It is A.I. the children should be calling “Dad”, not M.T. [ 43 ] Apart from the events that E.I. reported as first-hand observer, she also testified about admissions made by A.I. regarding his past. This included associations with drug dealers, physical altercations with firearms, and cocaine use. Again, A.I. denies any violent history or criminal record beyond a driving offence and a mischief offence when he was younger. [ 44 ] There were some inconsistencies in E.I.’s evidence revealed in cross-examination.

These are best left for the trial judge on hearing all of the evidence and corroborating ancillary witnesses. Suffice it to say that the cross examination has left some queries about exaggeration in E.I.’s evidence. She was, however, largely unshaken in the overall testimony that this is a hostile, volatile and dangerous combination when E.I. and A.I. are together.

This is an entirely unsuitable environment for the children. [ 45 ] Perhaps the most benign aspect of this case is the frustration A.I. has that E.I. would persist in providing a back-and-forth bag with her daughters not trusting that A.I. would have appropriate food or clothing for the children. A.I. maintained that he had all of the bedding, changes of clothes and other necessary grocery and pharmacy items to properly care for the children.

It was an inconvenience for him to receive these materials from E.I. as well and was entirely unnecessary. [ 46 ] With respect to the allegations of sexual assault of T.E.(1), this too must be resolved by the trial judge and presumably by experts in this field. In the interim, I must satisfy myself whether there is a sufficient basis for the concern to require that any interim access be supervised. I remain concerned that the RCMP investigation through the three detachments involved appeared to be unconnected or at least inadequately combined.

Disclosure of all of these files will be essential for the trial judge. One of the parties will have to apply for full disclosure of all these records. I am equally concerned, particularly given the letter from the Director of Child and Family Services, that the Ministry has equally failed to combine notes or properly investigate this matter. Everyone is relying upon very superficial investigations to substantiate closing files. The social workers made a negative finding based entirely on an inconclusive report.

Disclosure of the Director files will be essential for the trial judge as well. [ 47 ] Of equal concern are the constant investigations, physical and otherwise to which the girls, particularly T.E.(1), are being subjected. If there is no valid basis to these allegations, this is extremely harmful to them. [ 48 ] I must also satisfy myself about whether A.I. has a sufficient control of his temper that he can act as an appropriate caregiver and disciplinarian of his daughters while in his care. Even if I only consider A.I.’s evidence regarding his manner of disciplining his daughters, his methods are inappropriate.

It is never all right to lock a child in a vehicle, hold her down or shut her in a bathroom as a form of discipline when she’s having a temper tantrum. However embarrassing or exhausting it may be to have a child breaking out into temper tantrums, this method of discipline will not resolve anything. [ 49 ] There have also been some frustrations about telephone “access”. A time and telephone number were provided to A.I. for the purposes of having telephone conversations with his daughters. E.I. maintains that she went to her mother’s several times at the appointed hour and A.I. never called.

Nor were there any messages. A.I. says that he telephoned the numbers and left messages that were never returned. It cannot be both. It will be easy enough for the trial judge to resolve through review of the phone records whether or not any phone calls were placed to the telephone number. It will be easy enough to resolve on a review of those records whether A.I. was calling at the appointed hour or at some other time.

In the meantime, it is incumbent upon the parties to ensure that the daughters have contact with both parents, no matter how inconvenient that may be to either parent. [ 50 ] E.I. has a number of concerns which may ultimately be substantiated by the trial judge including A.I.’s anger issues; his disciplinary measures; his alcohol and drug use; his peers; and the possible sexual interference with one or more of her daughters. A.I. equally has concerns that E.I. is not conducting herself as an appropriate guardian. They are entitled to have fulsome contact with their father.

He is entitled to know where they are going to school, where they are living and how to reach them at any time. On the other hand, E.I. needs the satisfaction of knowing that A.I. will not come to her home uninvited or call her at his whim. [ 51 ] I am not satisfied that the order Judge Marchand made December 17, 2013 should be terminated in the interim. I am satisfied, however, that certain conduct orders should be put in place to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the children. All terms contained in the order of Judge Marchand set out in paragraphs 1 through 4 and 6 are repeated in this order.

These further orders are made:

a) A.I. shall arrange to have his mother or another adult third party present, who is not consuming any alcohol or drugs not prescribed for them by a physician, to remain with him while he has the children in his care.

b) A.I. shall not bathe the children while they are in his care. If they require bathing, he shall arrange to have another adult female who has not been consuming alcohol or drugs attend to bathing the children.

c) A.I. shall ensure that the children are sleeping in their own beds and not with him.

d) A.I. shall ensure that no other person residing with him is consuming alcohol or drugs not prescribed for them by a physician so long as the children are with him.

e) E.I. shall not permit M.T. to engage with A.I. during the exchanges.

f) A.I. shall not permit his mother to engage with E.I. or M.T. during the exchanges.

g) Neither E.I. nor M.T. shall refer to A.I. as “A.” in front of the girls, but shall refer to him as “Dad”. Neither E.I. nor M.T. shall permit the children to call A.I. “A.” or to call M.T. “Dad”.

h) E.I. shall forthwith inform A.I. of the address of the home of the girls and of the preschool of the girls and shall not change their address or their preschool without notice to A.I. Should E.I. wish to change the children’s residence from Oliver or Osoyoos, she shall provide the proper notice to A.I. under the Family Law Act .

i) E.I. shall forthwith provide to A.I. a telephone number where he may contact the children in accordance with the order of Judge Marchand made July 9, 2014. A.I. shall call not sooner than nor later than the appointed time for each telephone contact.

j) My order of July 2, 2014 is terminated in its entirety. [ 52 ] I note that a number of applications have been made with respect to obtaining police and Ministry records. It is the responsibility of the parties to review those records produced to ensure that all files relating to their various allegations have been obtained and disclosed in full. __________________________________ S.D. Frame Provincial Court Judge