C.C. v. R.V. Date:, 2016 BCPC 477

Citation: C.C. v. R.V. Date: 20160725 2016 BCPC 477 File No: 142286 Registry: Sechelt IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: C.C. APPLICANT AND: R.V. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE B. CRAIG Counsel for the Applicant: C. Carta & A. Ziakris

Counsel for the Respondent: S. Narbonne, then Self-Represented Place of Hearing: Sechelt , B.C. Dates of Hearing: April 5, 6, 7, June 14, 15, & 16, 2016 Date of Judgment: July 25, 2016 Introduction [ 1 ] C.C. and R.V. are the parents of two girls; 11 year old M.(1) and 10 year old M.(2). They married in 2003 and separated in January of 2013. They have been engaged in almost constant legal proceedings since their separation. There is no question that both parents love their daughters dearly and are well-loved in return. However, they have become consumed in their dispute over the parenting of their children.

The conflict between Ms. C.C. and Mr. R.V. has caused considerable anxiety for M.(1) and M.(2), who are caught in the middle. The tensions have extended to family members of both parents, who have also been caught up in the conflict. [ 2 ] Ms. C.C. and Mr. R.V. had a seven day trial in late 2013 to settle a number of their issues, including the division of parenting time. On July 29, 2014, Judge Milne ordered that Ms. C.C. continue as the primary caregiver of the children, and that Mr.

R.V. have parenting time for approximately 30% of the time. [ 3 ] Just over a year after Judge Milne’s decision, the parties brought applications to vary the orders made in the decision. Those applications were heard by me over the course of a six day trial. [ 4 ] Ms. C.C. seeks an order permitting her to relocate with the children to Redmond, Oregon. She recently married P.R., who lives in Redmond. Ms. C.C. wants to move to there with the children to live with Mr. P.R. If the relocation application is not granted, Ms. C.C. seeks to reduce Mr. R.V.’s parenting time. [ 5 ] Mr.

R.V. wants the children to stay living in Sechelt. He has applied for an order prohibiting Ms. C.C. from moving the children to Oregon. Mr. R.V. seeks an equal division of parenting time. He has changed his job shift to allow him to spend more time with his daughters. Mr. R.V. also seeks a variation in his child support payments; to reflect his lower income, and to take into account his increased parenting time if his application is allowed. [ 6 ] In the course of these reasons, I will determine the immediate issues related to the relocation application, parenting time, and child support.

I will also provide some direction to the parties on the matters they must address to assist in minimizing the ongoing conflict. [ 7 ] I heard evidence from five witnesses at trial. Ms. C.C., Mr. P.R., and L.P. (Mr. R.V.’s former fiancée), testified in the Applicant’s case. Mr. R.V. and his daughter D.V. testified in the Respondent’s case. By consent, Mr. R.V. also filed three affidavits from friends and family. Relocation Application - Legal Framework [ 8 ] The legal requirements that must be satisfied for a parent seeking to relocate the children are set out in detail in the Family Law Act (“the Act” ).

The Act sets out different legal presumptions, depending upon whether or not the parents share substantially equal parenting time. The parties agree that Mr. R.V. does not have substantially equal parenting time and the applicable

section is s. 69(4). That

section reads as follows: 69(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 in the best interests of the child unless another guardian satisfies the court otherwise. [ 9 ] Under this section, if Ms. C.C. satisfies the Court that the proposed move is made in good faith, and that reasonable and workable arrangements are in place to preserve Mr. R.V.’s relationship with his children, then there is a presumption that the move is in the best interests of the children: C.N.B. v.

B.D.G , 2014 BCSC 780 at para. 78 . [ 10 ] If one or both of these criteria of good faith and workable arrangements are not met, there is no presumption that the move is in the best interests of the children and I must go on to assess whether it would be in the best interests of the children to allow Ms. C.C. to move with them to Redmond. Issues on Relocation Application [ 11 ] The issues I must decide on the relocation application are as follows:

1) Is the proposed relocation made in good faith? 2) Has Ms. C.C. proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the girls’ relationships with Mr. R.V. and other persons who have a significant role in the girls’ lives? 3) Is the relocation in the girls’ best interests? Issue 1: Is the proposed relocation made in good faith? [ 12 ] The first question that must be addressed is whether Ms. C.C. has satisfied the Court that the relocation she proposes has been made in good faith. Good faith was described by Kent J. in Pepin v.

McCormack , 2014 BCSC 2230 , by Kent J. as follows: Good faith is a subjectively held state of mind. It involves an assessment of whether the reasons asserted by [the relocating parent] for the proposed relocation are the real reasons for the move. If so, and if the court determines on an objective basis that relocation will likely enhance [the child's] general quality of life, then the decision to relocate will normally be found to have been made in good faith. (At para. 69.) [ 13 ] A determination of good faith involves a consideration of all relevant factors.

These factors are set out in the legislation and have been addressed in the case law. Section 69(6) of the Act states:

(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. [ 14 ] I will address each of these factors in turn. A. Reasons for the proposed relocation [ 15 ] An analysis of the reason for the relocation is subjective and objective in nature. Subjectively, the good faith provision was designed to prevent relocations where “the moving guardian is trying to move in order to undermine or limit the child’s relationship with the other guardian”. Objectively, the court must be satisfied that the reasons for seeking to relocate are reasonable. L.J.R. v.

S.W.R., 2013 BCJ No. 1645 at para. 73(a) ; Family Law Act Transition Guide , Continuing Legal Education Society of B.C., August, 2012, page 3-100. [ 16 ] Ms. C.C. testified that she wishes to move with the children so that she can pursue her relationship with Mr. P.R., whom she has recently married. She wants the girls to live with her and Mr. P.R. at his home in Redmond, Oregon. Ms. C.C. met Mr. P.R. at an online website ChristianMingle in May of 2013.

They met in person in September of 2014 and have had a long-distance relationship since, seeing each other approximately once per month, for several days at a time to one period of two weeks duration. [ 17 ] Ms. C.C. filed her application to relocate in September of 2015. The parties were engaged in December of 2015 and married on December 31, 2015. [ 18 ] It was clear from the evidence of Ms. C.C. and Mr. P.R. at trial that they have a committed and close relationship. Mr. P.R. comes across as sincere and honourable. He is fully supportive of Ms. C.C. and cares deeply for her and her daughters. [ 19 ] Mr.

R.V. does not dispute the sincerity of Ms. C.C.’s relationship with Mr. P.R. He acknowledges that Mr. P.R. “seems to be a good guy” and that the girls are fond of him. He argues, however, that, when Ms. C.C. chose to enter into a relationship with someone living in a different country, she did so for her own purposes, without regard for her children’s needs. Mr. R.V. says Ms. C.C.’s application to move the girls to Redmond is simply another

chapter in her ongoing campaign to undermine his relationship with his girls, and alienate the girls from him. Mr. R.V. claims that, since the separation, Ms. C.C. has made a number of false and inflammatory allegations against him, in an attempt to gain full control over the children and minimize his role in their lives. [ 20 ] A number of instances of such conduct were canvassed at trial. I must address these allegations in order to determine whether Ms. C.C.’s application to relocate is made in good faith.

I will address the incidents in chronological order. [ 21 ] When the parties first separated in January of 2013, the girls were 8 and 6 years old. For the first several weeks after separation, the parents shared their parenting time with the children equally. Despite this arrangement, on March 18, 2013, Ms. C.C. made an ex- parte application for a Protection Order, sole guardianship, sole parenting responsibilities, and for an order that Mr. R.V.’s parenting time be supervised. Mr. R.V. showed up in Court opposing the application and the orders were not granted. [ 22 ] It was suggested to Ms.

C.C. in cross-examination that she made this application ex-parte only after Mr. R.V. told her he wanted to continue the regime of shared parenting of the children. Ms. C.C. testified that she did not give notice to Mr. R.V. because she was afraid of Mr. R.V.’s response to her application. She also said she was concerned that Mr. R.V.’s issues with anger and substance abuse would return when he returned to work after having had some time off. [ 23 ] I was not persuaded by Ms. C.C.’s evidence about her reasons for making this application without notice to Mr. R.V. Her expressed fear of Mr.

R.V. and concern over his anger and substance abuse were not consistent with her behaviour when the parties first

separated. Mr. R.V. had the children with him for half of the time for several weeks after separation without incident. I do not believe Ms. C.C. would have agreed to this if she was truly concerned about Mr. R.V.’s anger or addiction issues. Ms. C.C. did not come across as someone who would give in easily to anyone, particularly Mr. R.V. [ 24 ] I believe Ms. C.C. brought her application without notice to Mr. R.V. in an attempt to obtain a strategical advantage over him in their dispute over parenting time with the children. This was the first of many battles that were to come in the warfare between Ms.

C.C. and Mr. R.V. My finding regarding Ms. C.C.’s motive is based upon Ms. C.C.’s actions at the time, and her subsequent conduct. [ 25 ] After Ms. C.C. was unsuccessful with her ex-parte application, she went to the police with allegations that Mr. R.V. had been abusive to her in the marriage, and that he had issues with substance abuse. An Information was laid for a peace bond under s. 810 of the Criminal Code . Mr. R.V. was arrested and released on bail with a condition that he was not to have any contact with Ms. C.C. Although Mr.

R.V. had been seeing the children on a 50/50 basis leading up to this, after the peace bond Information was laid, Ms. C.C. did not allow Mr. R.V. to have any contact with his children. This continued for the next three weeks and only ended when Mr. R.V. brought an application in court for parenting time with his children. [ 26 ] The Crown did not proceed with the application for a peace bond. After obtaining advice from her family lawyer, Ms. C.C. did not proceed with her application for a Protection Order. [ 27 ] Ms.

C.C. testified at trial that she went to the police with allegations of abuse because she had been encouraged in counselling to bring forward all of the issues she had with Mr. R.V. in their marriage. She said Mr. R.V.’s abuse of her in the marriage and drug and alcohol addiction were “major concerns that affected the well-being of the children”. [ 28 ] I do not believe that Ms. C.C. would have agreed that Mr. R.V. have equal parenting time with the children for the first several weeks post-separation if she had “major concerns” about Mr. R.V. that affected the well-being of the children. It was clear from Ms.

C.C.’s evidence that Mr. R.V. had participated in a recovery program through his church related to his use of alcohol. She agreed that Mr. R.V. had done well in the program. With respect to Ms. C.C.’s reference in her evidence to drug addiction, there was no evidence at trial of any drug use by Mr. R.V. [ 29 ] On the information before me, I do not believe Ms. C.C.’s complaints to the police were made out of a concern for the well- being of the children at the time. Instead, I believe they were a further attempt by Ms. C.C. to gain the upper hand in her dispute with Mr.

R.V. over the parenting of the children. [ 30 ] On August 28, 2013, a trial before Judge Milne was commenced to determine the issues that arose from the separation of the parties. That trial lasted for seven days, scheduled throughout the balance of 2013 and concluding on January 16, 2014. Judge Milne reserved judgment, and a decision was not rendered until July 29, 2014. [ 31 ] In the meantime, through 2013 and into 2014, while the decision was outstanding, Ms. C.C. made a number of complaints against Mr. R.V. with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Ms.

C.C. said she made these allegations because her girls had made complaints and a number of issues were “brought up and unresolved”. Ms. C.C. agreed in cross-examination that Mr. R.V. was exonerated by the Ministry of every complaint. [ 32 ] Mr. R.V. testified that Ms. C.C. and members of her family made many allegations against him in this time period. He said Ministry officials attended repeatedly to his home to check up on the allegations, but never found anything wrong. [ 33 ] Ms. C.C. also made at least one further complaint to the police in this time period.

She testified that, in an incident around Christmas-time, she had called the police to report that Mr. R.V. was drinking alcohol, acting angrily and aggressively, and upsetting the girls. She agreed in cross-examination that, when the police investigated her complaint, it became clear that she had “misinterpreted” why the girls were upset. She also agreed that Mr. R.V. had not, in fact, been drinking alcohol. [ 34 ] Mr. R.V. testified, and I accept, that Ms. C.C. had told the police that M.(2) was afraid of her father and was crying on the telephone. In reality, M.(2) was crying because Ms.

C.C. had refused to return a missing part of the Christmas tree when the girls had called her asking about it. [ 35 ] On June 25, 2014, approximately one month before Judge Milne delivered his Reasons for Judgment, Ms. C.C. brought another ex-parte application for a Protection Order, this time for an order prohibiting Mr. R.V. from contact with her and her parents. That order was granted by Judge Milne on an interim basis. Ms. C.C. was ordered to give notice of her application to Mr. R.V. A hearing of the application proceeded on July 3, 2014.

Judge Challenger dismissed the application as being “completely unfounded”. Mr. R.V. was granted make-up parenting time. Ms. C.C. was ordered not to bring any further applications without permission of Judge Milne until his decision was rendered. [ 36 ] In cross-examination before me, Ms. C.C. testified that Judge Challenger had “overlooked” or “misinterpreted” some evidence in an affidavit. Ms. C.C. also blamed Judge Challenger for not hearing evidence at the hearing. Ms. C.C. is incorrect in this assertion. It was clear from the record of proceedings for the hearing that Judge Challenger heard evidence from Ms.

C.C., as well as Ms. C.C.’s father, before dismissing the application. [ 37 ] On July 29, 2014 Judge Milne’s written Reasons for Judgment were completed. In those reasons, Judge Milne stated that Ms. C.C.’s application for a Protection Order from June 25, 2014 and her concerns expressed therein were “found to be entirely her own doing”. [ 38 ] At the trial before Judge Milne, Ms. C.C. had made a number of allegations of violence by Mr. R.V. She had also alleged that the girls were afraid of Mr. R.V. because of his anger.

Judge Milne found that “these parents argued and shouted and were physical with each other”, and that Mr. R.V. had punched a hole in the wall. He held that these incidents were due to Mr. R.V.’s “short temper and past alcohol abuse”. Judge Milne held that this “appears to have ended a number of years ago, which coincides with his abating alcohol use”. He held that Mr. R.V. had never directed his violence at the children. He concluded that Mr. R.V. would benefit at a future court

application if he completed an anger management course, but he dismissed Ms. C.C.’s application for an order that Mr. R.V. attend such a course. [ 39 ] Judge Milne made a number of orders, including ordering that Ms. C.C. continue to have the primary parenting time with the children, and Mr. R.V. continue to have almost 1/3 of the parenting time. Mr. R.V.’s parenting time was to be exercised between his shift rotations, and included one month in the summer and one-half of Christmas and Spring Breaks. [ 40 ] In March of 2015, Mr.

R.V.’s work shift changed to a different rotation which allowed him to spend more time with his daughters. He asked Ms. C.C. if she would agree to a shared parenting schedule. She did not agree. On June 1, 2015, Mr. R.V. brought an application to increase his parenting time to 50% of the time. [ 41 ] Ms. C.C. filed her Reply on September 8, 2015. In that Reply, Ms. C.C. sought an order permitting her to relocate with the girls to Oregon. She was not married to Mr. P.R. at the time, nor was she even engaged. [ 42 ] Ms. C.C. sought an alternative order reducing Mr.

R.V.’s parenting time, if her relocation application was not allowed. In her submissions filed at the time of the application, Ms. C.C. made a number of allegations against Mr. R.V. regarding his character and his ability to parent his children. Most of these allegations were not raised at the trial before me. In cross-examination, Ms. C.C. stated that she believed Mr. R.V.’s parenting time should be reduced to every second weekend. She did not give any valid reason to reduce Mr. R.V.’s parenting time. [ 43 ] At trial, Ms. C.C. continued with her allegations that Mr. R.V. had a problem controlling his anger.

Because Ms. C.C. refused to have any face-to-face contact with Mr. R.V., their only means of communication regarding the care of the children was through email. Ms. C.C. made repeated accusations that Mr. R.V. had sent her “angry”, “demanding”, and “mean” email messages about various different issues. [ 44 ] I made it clear in the course of Ms. C.C.’s evidence that it would be more helpful to me to see the emails complained of, rather than just hear her evidence about their tone and contents. In addition, in cross-examination, Ms. C.C. was invited to bring copies of the emails she had described in her evidence.

She did not provide these emails. [ 45 ] The email exchanges that were filed at trial did not support Ms. C.C.’s allegation that Mr. R.V. could not control his anger. On occasion, Mr. R.V. expresses frustration in an email. But the emails did not support Ms. C.C.’s depiction. In some instances, Ms. C.C.’s evidence was directly contradicted. For example, the “mean” messages she said he had sent about the girls communicating with Mr. P.R. on Skype were not mean at all. They were an expression of concern for the safety of the girls communicating with someone Ms.

C.C. had recently met online, and had not even met in person yet. [ 46 ] There is no question that Mr. R.V. has had issues with anger in the past. This was addressed in the decision of Judge Milne. According to Mr. R.V.’s former fiancée, Ms. L.P., Mr. R.V. has “gotten a lot better” dealing with his anger, but “there is still room for improvement”. I do not believe that Mr. R.V.’s anger is to the extent that Ms. C.C. alleges. His anger and frustration with Ms. C.C. related to the family court proceedings are understandable. I expect this would not be an issue if he did not have to deal with Ms.

C.C.’s ongoing inflammatory allegations. In addition, on the evidence before me that I accept, Mr. R.V.’s anger does not impair his ability to parent his children. [ 47 ] It is clear to me that there have been a series of allegations made by Ms. C.C. against Mr. R.V. since separation that have not been made in good faith.

These include: • Two separate ex-parte applications for Protection Orders, both of which were ultimately unsubstantiated; • Complaints to the police on at least two separate occasions; the first was not pursued by the Crown, and the second was found to be untrue; • Numerous complaints to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, for which Mr. R.V. was exonerated; • Ms. C.C. appears to have exaggerated the extent of Mr. R.V.’s anger and violence at trial before Judge Milne, given Judge Milne’s findings; • Ms. C.C.’s application for relocation was made on the heels of Mr.

R.V.’s application to increase his parenting time. The timing of this application suggests it was made in retaliation for Mr. R.V.’s application, as opposed to what is best for the children. It was brought at a time when Ms. C.C. was not married or engaged to Mr. P.R.; • Ms. C.C.’s alternative application to reduce Mr. R.V.’s parenting time to every second weekend is without foundation. The filed application contained many inflammatory allegations that were not pursued at trial. This also suggests retaliation, as opposed to what is best for the children; • At the trial before me, Ms.

C.C. exaggerated, at least, if not falsified, her evidence about Mr. R.V.’s anger in his email communications. [ 48 ] In my view, these allegations demonstrate a concerted and ongoing attempt by Ms. C.C. to gain the upper hand in her dispute with Mr. R.V. and limit his time with his children. When Ms. C.C. uses false or exaggerated attacks on Mr. R.V.’s character and parenting abilities to attempt to limit his time with his children, she undermines Mr. R.V.’s relationship with his children. [ 49 ] This behaviour is not supportive of a finding of good faith by Ms. C.C.

It suggests a litigant who is more focussed winning in court, than on seeking what is in the best interests of the children. It suggests that Ms. C.C.’s application to relocate the children is yet another attempt by Ms. C.C. to gain primary control over the children, to the exclusion of Mr. R.V.

Conclusion on Reasons for Relocation [ 50 ] In conclusion, I find that Ms. C.C.’s reasons for the proposed relocation are two-fold: • Ms. C.C. sincerely wishes to pursue her relationship with Mr. P.R. and establish a new home with him and the girls. This reason is indicative of good faith; • Ms. C.C.’s relocation application is also motivated by an attempt to distance her and the children from Mr. R.V.’s reach. It is part of a pattern of Ms. C.C. making unsubstantiated allegations in an ongoing attempt to maintain primary control over the parenting of her children, to the exclusion of their father.

This is indicative of bad faith. B. Is the proposed relocation likely to enhance the general quality of life of the children, and the relocating guardian? [ 51 ] In determining whether a proposed relocation is made in good faith, I must also consider how the children’s lives would be affected. Specifically, under s. 69(6)(

b) of the Act, I must address: (

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. [ 52 ] Ms. C.C. and Mr. P.R. gave detailed evidence about the considerable planning they have done for the girls’ education, health care, and extracurricular activities, if Ms. C.C. is permitted to move the girls. This planning demonstrated the sincerity of Ms. C.C. and Mr. P.R. in attempting to establish a stable and nurturing family environment for the children. [ 53 ] Mr.

R.V. argues that Ms. C.C.’s plans for the children in Redmond have many uncertainties. He says the plans are based upon predictions about Ms. C.C.’s future with Mr. P.R., which has yet to be put to the true test. In addition, Mr.

R.V. argues that the evidence does not establish that the children’s emotional well-being, or financial or educational opportunities, would be increased if they moved to Redmond. [ 54 ] The evidence regarding the quality of life the children would experience, if the relocation is permitted include a number of positive aspects, a number of negative aspects, and some aspects that are difficult to predict. I will address this evidence under separate headings. Emotional Well-Being [ 55 ] It is clear from the evidence that Ms.

C.C.’s emotional well-being would be enhanced if she were permitted to relocate to Oregon with the children. She would be able to live with her new husband and enjoy his love and support. [ 56 ] Ms. C.C.’s relationship with Mr. P.R. to date has been a long-distance relationship that is still relatively new. It has yet to be tested by living together day-to-day, particularly with the challenges of a blended family. I recognize this is an uncertainty, but Ms. C.C. and Mr. P.R. are committed to each other. They married with the full understanding of the challenges they face. Mr.

P.R. testified that he understood when he married Ms. C.C. that she may not be allowed to move the girls to live with him. [ 57 ] While Ms. C.C. would benefit from the support of Mr. P.R. if living in Redmond, the emotional support she presently receives from her parents and immediate family that live on the Sunshine Coast, would likely suffer somewhat from the distance. Ms. C.C. does not have any connection to Oregon beyond her relationship to Mr. P.R. Mr.

P.R. testified that he is required to travel out of town for his work on average one week per month, but sometimes for two or three weeks in a month. [ 58 ] As for the children, they would benefit from any increased well-being of their mother. In addition, while in Oregon, they would not have to suffer as much day-to-day anxiety from the ongoing conflict between their parents and members of their parents’ families. Ms. C.C., Ms. L.P. and Mr.

R.V. all testified about the anxiety felt by the girls, particularly M.(2), at the prospect of running into the other parent, or a member of the other parents’ family, while with a parent out in the community on the Sunshine Coast. [ 59 ] Having said that, the girls would have to face considerable stress and anxiety associated with having their father living a significant distance away from them. Mr. R.V. plays a significant role in the lives of his children. According to Ms. C.C.’s parenting proposal, the children would only see their father 51 days per year.

They would, undoubtedly, miss their father a lot. [ 60 ] In addition, in order to see their father, the girls would have to travel for many hours several times per year. This would be tiresome and stressful for the girls.

The stress would be compounded by the anxiety they would undoubtedly feel in association with the transition between parents at the Canada/U.S. border crossing, an unfamiliar and impersonal location. [ 61 ] A further concern regarding the well-being of the children if they were relocated is the fact that they would lose the support of the many members of both their parents’ families that live on the Sunshine Coast. In addition, they would lose their friends at school and on the Sunshine Coast and will have to make new friends.

This is a significant factor that I intend to address in more detail later in my reasons for judgment. [ 62 ] The loss of friends and family in the community would be mitigated to some extent by the fact that the girls have formed relationships with Mr. P.R. and his children. Mr. P.R. testified that he has seen the girls in person seven to ten times for visits ranging from a couple of days to a two-week visit. It was clear from the evidence of Ms. C.C. and Mr. P.R. that the girls have formed a good relationship with Mr. P.R. He has been a positive influence on the children and their mother. [ 63 ] Mr.

P.R. has two children from a previous marriage that live with him 50% of the time; a 10 year old daughter and 14 year old son. From all accounts, M.(1) and M.(2) get along well with Mr. P.R.’s two children. Mr. R.V. acknowledged that the girls are both quite fond of Mr. P.R. and his two children. Although the strength of these relationships has yet to be tested by any length of co- habitation, I expect Mr. P.R.’s children would be a positive source of support to the girls.

Financial Opportunities [ 64 ] Ms. C.C. argued that the quality of life for her and the girls would be enhanced by the greater financial security she would enjoy if she and the children are able to live with Mr. P.R. in Redmond. Mr. P.R. has a steady job with an annual salary of $100,000, as well as net investment income from a rental property of about $8,000 per year. [ 65 ] Ms. C.C. currently earns a limited income from part-time seasonal work as a make-up artist. She testified that there are limited opportunities for employment where she is living in Gibsons. I do not find Ms.

C.C.’s evidence about the employment opportunities on the Sunshine Coast reliable. Judge Milne held that Ms. C.C. had not taken any concrete steps to obtain employment, other than applying for work at two dental offices. He stated that Ms. C.C. was readily employable and available to work now that the children were both in school full-time. Ms. C.C. has not made any real efforts to obtain employment since Judge Milne’s decision was handed down in July of 2014. She testified before me that the jobs she is qualified for are low pay and take time away from her children.

She did not explain how this applied when her children are in school for much of the day. I place little weight on Ms. C.C.’s evidence about the employment opportunities on the Sunshine Coast. [ 66 ] If Ms. C.C. is allowed to move with the children to Redmond, she plans to be a stay-at-home mother and volunteer at the children’s school. Mr. P.R. is in favour of this plan. [ 67 ] Although Mr. P.R. has a good income, he also has significant monthly expenses related to his children’s tuition and health-care costs. Mr.

P.R. testified that he currently brings home approximately $7,000 per month, and has living expenses of $6,000 per month. He said he does not have much in the way of savings at this time. It was clear from Mr. P.R.’s evidence that the family expenses would increase if Ms. C.C. and her children move in with him. [ 68 ] Mr. P.R. currently pays $1,000 per month for his children’s tuition at a private Christian school. If the relocation is allowed, the costs of tuition would go up, but not double. Mr.

P.R. testified that he would receive some financial assistance if he was paying tuition for four children, and some relief on the cost if Ms. C.C. volunteers at the school. [ 69 ] Mr. P.R. currently pays $529 per month for health care for himself and his children. This does include costs for emergency room care. Mr. P.R. testified that he also must pay additional amounts for visits to the doctor. The health care costs would increase if Ms. C.C. and the girls relocated. Mr.

P.R. believed he would get some government assistance for the cost of health care if he was paying for a family of six people, but he could not say how much assistance he would receive. [ 70 ] Mr. P.R.’s health care would not cover costs for health care for the children when they left the United States to spend time with their father. Additional coverage would have to be purchased. Mr. P.R.’s coverage would also not cover the cost for M.(1)’s orthodontics. [ 71 ] Both parents would also have to pay for the costs associated with travel in taking the girls to their parenting time with Mr. R.V.

This is not an insignificant expense, particularly when hotel costs for Mr. R.V.’s weekends with the children in the United States are factored in. [ 72 ] Mr. P.R. was unable to forecast the exact costs of maintaining a household with Ms. C.C. and the girls, but acknowledged that finances would be tight. He was committed, nevertheless, to make things work, including sacrificing some of his leisure activities. [ 73 ] Given the uncertainty in the evidence about what the expenses for tuition and health care would be if Ms. C.C. and the girls lived with Mr.

P.R., it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions on the financial benefits of relocation. The girls would be moving from a country with minimal costs related to health care to one with significant costs. They would be attending a school with tuition costs, as opposed to the public school they currently attend. Having said that, Mr. P.R. makes a good income at a steady job. And, the proposal that Ms.

C.C. volunteer at the school to save money on tuition costs is not unreasonable. [ 74 ] On the whole of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the financial opportunities are any better in Redmond than in the Sunshine Coast. However, I am satisfied that Ms. C.C. and the girls would likely benefit from greater financial security if the relocation was permitted. Educational Opportunities [ 75 ] If Ms. C.C. is permitted to move the children to Redmond, they would attend at the same private Christian school that Mr. P.R.’s children currently attend. Mr.

P.R. testified that he is very happy with the school and believed it to be one of the top-rated high schools, or Christian high schools, in the country. He testified that the education at the school is centred on core Christian values and the teachings of the Bible. Mr. P.R. agreed that the children would not receive any education on Canadian subjects at the school. [ 76 ] Both girls are currently struggling with some subjects at the school they are attending on the Sunshine Coast, particularly reading. Mr.

R.V. pointed out that their teachers and the school are aware of these struggles and have been working with the girls to help them improve. [ 77 ] Ms. C.C. blamed the girls’ struggles at school on Mr. R.V. She said he does not read or do school work with his children during his parenting time. She filed one page out of M.(1)’s reading log to show that Mr. R.V. had not read with her during a short time period. Ms. C.C. also criticized Mr. R.V. for not agreeing to pay for a tutor to help the girls with their school work. Ms.

C.C. believed that the girls would benefit from the superior education they would receive at the private school in Redmond, and from her ability to spend more time helping them with their homework. [ 78 ] Mr. R.V. testified that he regularly reads with the children and described some of the books they read together. He was not familiar with the page from the reading log filed at trial. When Ms. C.C. asked Mr. R.V. if he would agree to hire a tutor for the girls, he offered to help them with their school work as a way of spending more time with them. Mr.

R.V. questioned why he was to blame for the children’s difficulties with their school work, when they spend much more of their time with Ms. C.C.

[ 79 ] I agree that Ms. C.C. should not be blaming Mr. R.V. for the struggles the girls have been having in school. M.(1) is quoted in the Hear the Child Report as saying she receives “a lot” of help from both parents with her reading. In addition, Ms. C.C. has been the primary caregiver of the girls since birth. She has had substantially more parenting time with the girls while they have been in school. She has been minimally employed, at least in the past several years, and has been more available to help with school work. It is not fair of her to blame Mr.

R.V. for the girls falling behind in some subjects at school. [ 80 ] There is no objective evidence before the Court as to the benefits of an education at the private school in Redmond as opposed to the education the girls are presently receiving. For the purposes of this decision, I am prepared to accept that the girls would receive a higher quality of education at a private school, in which the parents pay for the education of their children, than they would receive at a public school. C. Was notice given under

Section 66? [ 81 ] In this case, Ms. C.C. gave proper notice under s. 66 of the Act . Good faith also requires both parties to use their best efforts to resolve any issues relating to the proposed relocation: L.J.R. v. S.W.R. , [2013] B.C.J. No. 1645 . I was not told of any efforts made by the parties to resolve this dispute. Given the history of this matter, I do not believe the parties would have been able to resolve the issue of relocation and I do not count this as a factor relevant to my decision. D.

Are there any restrictions on relocation contained in a written agreement or order? [ 82 ] In his decision of July 29, 2014, Judge Milne made an order that neither party will relocate from the Sunshine Coast without the consent of the other or a court order. Ms. C.C. has complied with this condition by filing her application to relocate with the Court. E. Other Factors [ 83 ] Mr. R.V. argues that Ms. C.C. has effectively already relocated before the Court has approved of a relocation; she married Mr.

P.R. several months after her application was filed, she told the girls’ to pick out which bedrooms they wanted in Mr. P.R.’s house, and she told teachers at the school that the girls were moving. [ 84 ] The fact that a relocating parent has moved forward with relocation plans before a hearing of the evidence must be considered by the Court, but it does not automatically demonstrate a lack of good faith: Hanson v. Ferguson , 2015 BCSC 588 at paras. 43-45 . [ 85 ] Ms. C.C. and Mr. P.R. both testified about arrangements that have been, or will be, made if the relocation is allowed.

It was clear to me that these plans were contingent upon the outcome of these proceedings and were not made in bad faith. [ 86 ] Ms. C.C. testified that she will not move to Redmond if she is not permitted to move with the girls. Under s. 69(7) of the Act , the Court is prohibited from taking this into account. This prohibition is protective of Ms. C.C.’s position. It is designed to address the concerns expressed by Saunders JA in Hejzlar v.

Mitchell-Hejzlar , 2011 BCCA 230 about the troublesome consequence of approaching the question of relocation with preference for the status quo and of putting the relocating guardian into a "double bind": Hansen v. Ferguson , at para. 24 . Conclusion on Whether the Proposed Relocation Has Been Made in Good Faith [ 87 ] A determination on whether Ms. C.C. has made this application for relocation in good faith requires a balancing of the various factors. This is not an easy determination in this case. Some of the factors militate in favour of a finding of good faith, while others militate against such a finding.

When I take all of the factors into account, I find that the factors against good faith outweigh the factors in favour. Ms. C.C. has not satisfied me that the application to relocate the children had been made in good faith. Issue 2: Has Ms. C.C. Proposed Reasonable and Workable Arrangements? [ 88 ] The next question I must address is whether Ms. C.C. has proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the girls’ relationships with Mr.

R.V. and other persons who have a significant role in the girls’ lives. [ 89 ] It is important to recognize two points that have been made in the case law before proceeding on this analysis. First, it is clear that this assessment must be made in the context of the location of the proposed move. In other words, I must consider whether the arrangements proposed by Ms. C.C. are reasonable and workable, given the distance between the Sunshine Coast and Redmond: L.J.R. v.

S.W.R., supra , at para. 68. [ 90 ] Secondly, the question is whether the proposed arrangements are reasonable and workable in preserving the girls’ relationship with their father, as opposed to enhancing it: T.C. v. S.C. , 2013 BCPC 217 at para. 86 . [ 91 ] Ms. C.C. has proposed the following parenting

schedule for Mr. R.V. if the relocation is allowed: • 8 days at Spring Break • Two periods in the summer - one for 21 days and one for 17 days; • One week at Christmas Break; • Three long weekends in Oregon or Washington State, the dates to be agreed to by the parties; • Further weekends which are agreed to by the parties; • Ms. C.C.’s parents are to have the children for 8 hours of Mr. R.V.’s time at Christmas and Spring Break;

• Ms. C.C.’s parents are to have the children for 8 hours on one day, and 24 hours on another day, of Mr. R.V.’s time during both summer periods. [ 92 ] The travel time from Redmond to the Sunshine Coast is approximately ten hours. Mr. P.R. believed it could be done in less time, but the maps filed by Ms. C.C. indicate a travel time of ten hours. The trip involves crossing the border from the United States to Canada and taking a ferry from West Vancouver to the Sunshine Coast.

The ten hours of travel does not factor in the extra time that would be taken up waiting at the border and waiting in ferry line-ups. [ 93 ] Given the distance between the locations, the arrangements for Mr. R.V.’s parenting time are not unreasonable, with one exception. It is completely unreasonable for Ms. C.C. to suggest that Mr. R.V. share part of this parenting time with Ms. C.C.’s parents when the girls come to see him. Not only would this take away from Mr. R.V.’s time with his daughters, but it would create anxiety for the girls during their time with their father.

There is considerable hostility between Ms. C.C.’s parents and Mr. R.V. Ms. C.C. complained, at length, at trial about the anxiety felt by the girls from the conflict between the parents. She said the girls were particularly anxious when they encountered members of the other parent’s family in the community while with one parent. It was disingenuous of her to suggest such an arrangement. [ 94 ] Although I believe the arrangements for parenting time are not unreasonable, overall, given the distance involved, I have real concerns about whether these arrangements are workable.

This assessment must be made in the context of the history between the parties. The travel involved, the exchanges at the Canada/U.S. border, and Mr. R.V.’s weekend visits in the U.S. all require a level of cooperation between the parties that has yet to be seen since their separation. The suggestion that the parties could agree on three long weekends, let alone other weekends, is unrealistic. [ 95 ] In addition, the requirement for travel for Mr. R.V.’s parenting time would be costly for both parents. Mr.

R.V. would also have to pay for accommodation for him and the children for his weekend visits in the United States. [ 96 ] More significantly, I believe that the need for travel between the two locations would be a significant source of hardship and stress for the children. The girls would have to make this 20 hour round trip at least four times per year; for Spring Break, twice in the summer, and at Christmas Break. In addition, they would have to travel to Oregon or Washington State on at least three weekends of the year and stay with their father at a hotel, as opposed to in the comfort of their home.

I do not believe this arrangement would preserve the girls’ relationship with Mr. R.V. I believe it would be a source of tension that would negatively affect, and undermine, their relationship with their father. [ 97 ] I also believe that the proposed arrangements would not preserve the girls’ relationships with other persons who have a significant role in their lives. The girls have an extended community of support on the Sunshine Coast from both parents’ families. These relationships would suffer if the girls moved to Redmond.

I intend to address this factor in more detail under my assessment of what is in the best interests of the children. [ 98 ] The foregoing considerations militate against a finding that Ms. C.C. has proposed workable arrangements to preserve the girls’ relationships with Mr. R.V. and other significant persons in their lives.

Issue 3: Is the relocation in the girls’ best interests? [ 99 ] Although I have found that the proposed relocation does not satisfy the requirements for good faith, and that workable arrangements to preserve the father’s relationship with the girls have not been proposed, I must still go on to consider whether the proposed relocation would be in the best interests of the children. This was described by Madame Justice Fisher in Hadjioannou v.

Hadjioannou , 2013 BCSC 1682 as follows: … Clearly, if the relocating parent fails to satisfy the court that the proposed move is made in good faith, or that reasonable and workable arrangements have been made to preserve the child's relationship with the other parent, the proposed relocation may not be in the child's best interest.

There may, however, be cases where the opposite conclusion may be reached and the court should not be foreclosed from assessing all factors as they pertain to the child's best interest. [ 100 ] The factors to consider in determining what is in the best interests of the children are set out in s. 37(2) of the Act . I will consider each of the relevant factors in turn. (

a) The children's health and emotional well-being [ 101 ] Both children currently enjoy good physical health. M.(1) had some health issues in the past, but they appear to have largely resolved. [ 102 ] With respect to their emotional well-being, I have addressed this factor in detail already. Although there would be some aspects of relocating to Redmond that would enhance the children’s emotional well-being, I believe that, on the whole of the evidence, a move would be more detrimental than beneficial. (

b) The children’s views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them [ 103 ] M.(1)’s views about the proposed relocation were put in evidence through a Hear the Child Report (“the Report”). The parties agreed that M.(2) was too young and would not be interviewed for the Report. The Report was prepared by Arlene Henry, Q.C. Ms. Henry interviewed M.(1) three times: in person for two hours for the first interview, then over the telephone for the second and third interviews. M.(1) made it very clear to Ms. Henry in all of these interviews that she does not want to move to Redmond.

Although she is clearly fond of Mr. P.R. and his two children and likes Redmond, she does not want to leave her father, friends, and family on the Sunshine Coast. [ 104 ] When asked about moving to Redmond, M.(1) told Ms. Henry “I don’t want to leave because of family and some of my friends”

and “I really don’t want to move”. She repeated this sentiment in each of her interviews. She said she did not want to leave her dad and that she would “really miss” her dad. She repeated this in her interviews. She said she does not currently get enough time with her dad and would like to move to a week on/week off

schedule shared between her parents. [ 105 ] M.(1) also told Ms. Henry that she loves her teacher. She named her four best friends, and added that she was also good friends with her cousin, A. (Mr. R.V.’s niece). She described her “sister” D.V. as “awesome”. [ 106 ] Ms. C.C. suggested in her evidence that the only reason M.(1) said she did not want to move to Redmond, was because her father told her what to say in the interview. Ms. C.C. testified that M.(1) told her that her father had discussed the report with her before she was interviewed and told her what to say. Ms.

C.C. also said M.(1) told her that she had not been truthful in the report, and that she could never tell the truth to her father because it would hurt him too much. [ 107 ] Due to my concerns with Ms. C.C.’s credibility, I view this evidence with scepticism. It is not supported by the Report, or by evidence from other witnesses: • Ms. C.C. contacted Ms. Henry to advise her of this conversation with M.(1) after the second interview. As a result, Ms. Henry conducted the third interview specifically to ensure that the information provided by M.(1) reflected her own views, without influence from either parent.

That interview, like the second interview, was conducted on the telephone while M.(1) was in Ms. C.C.’s home. M. (1) confirmed the information she previously provided; • Ms. L.P. testified that M.(1) told her she wanted to live with her father on the Sunshine Coast; and • Mr. R.V. testified that he explained the purpose of the Report with M.(1), but did not tell her what to say. [ 108 ] I believe that, if M.(1) did make some, or all, of these comments to Ms. C.C., she said this so that Ms. C.C. would not be hurt when she learned that M.(1) had told Ms. Henry that she did not want to move. The disclosure Ms.

C.C. alleges, was made by M.(1) while at her mother’s house, just after she learned that the Report was soon to be released to her parents. It would be understandable for M.(1) to be upset by a feeling of disloyalty to her mother, and attempt to soften the blow. It is not uncommon for children who are caught in the middle of a conflict between two parents to tell their parents what they want to hear. (

c) The nature and strength of the relationships between the children and significant persons in the children's lives: Relationship with their father: [ 109 ] It is clear from the evidence at trial that the children have close and positive relationships with both parents. Their relationship with their father would be affected significantly if they were moved to Redmond. [ 110 ] Ms. C.C. testified that she believes that the proposed relocation would improve the relationship the girls had with their father.

She acknowledges that they would have significantly less time together, but argues that it would be of better quality than the time they presently spend with their father, because there would be less conflict. [ 111 ] I do not agree. Under Ms. C.C.’s proposal, Mr. R.V. would have to share some of his parenting time with her parents. This would increase the potential for conflict, not decrease it. In addition, most of the girls’ visits with Mr. R.V. would be bracketed by ten hours of travel for the girls, with border line-ups and ferry line-ups. This would not be a positive start or end to any visit.

The weekend visits would have to be arranged between the parents, another source of increased conflict. They would occur at some unknown location, as opposed to the comfort of the girls’ home with their father. The suggestion by Ms. C.C. that the girls’ time with their father would be of better quality shows her failure to understand the needs of her children. It also shows a failure to respect Mr. R.V.’s time with the children. Relationship with other family members: [ 112 ] M.(1) and M.(2) are very close to Ms. C.C.’s parents and grandmother, all of whom live on the same two-and-a-half acre property as Ms. C.C.

The girls also spend time in the summer and on holidays with other members of Ms. C.C.’s family, including her sister and her two daughters in Langley, her brother in Langley, and another sister who lives in Kelowna with her husband and son. [ 113 ] M.(1) and M.(2) are also very close to Mr. R.V.’s sister, S., and her husband and two children. During Mr. R.V.’s parenting time, S. picks up the girls from school and cares for them until Mr. R.V. picks them up on his way home from work an hour later. Mr. R.V.’s parents moved to the Sunshine Coast in 2007 to be closer to their grandchildren.

His mother is very involved with the children and has a good relationship with them. [ 114 ] The girls are also very close to their step-sister D.V. D.V. is Mr. R.V.’s daughter from another marriage. She lived with Mr. R.V. and Ms. C.C. and the girls before the parties separated. M.(1) described her as her sister. D.V. has since moved from the Sunshine Coast, but travels back regularly. She has stayed in close touch with the girls. She testified at trial of the closeness of their relationship.

No one denied that D.V. was an important person in the girls’ lives. [ 115 ] The relationships the girls enjoy with all of these family members would suffer if they were moved to Redmond. I do not believe that email and Skype contact is an adequate replacement for the day-to-day contact the girls currently have with family on the Sunshine Coast. [ 116 ] It was clear from the evidence that there was tension between the two families. It was also clear that the children are anxious about this tension. Ms.

C.C. testified that moving the girls to Redmond would remove them from what was described by counsel as “a community of conflict”. While I agree that the potential for the girls to witness the conflict would be reduced if they were moved away from the Sunshine Coast, I do not believe that is the appropriate solution. The conflict would still exist. The girls would have to deal with it every time they came to see their father. That would unfairly tarnish their time with their father. In my view the parties must

learn how to reduce the conflict with each other, and keep the children and other family members out of the conflict. (

d) The history of the children’s care [ 117 ] For most of the time since birth, the children have remained in the primary care of their mother. Mr. R.V. had shared parenting for several weeks after separation. Since then, he has had approximately 30% of the time with the children. He has played a significant role in their lives. He has been trying to play a bigger role in caring for the children for several years. Ms. C.C. has opposed this. It was clear from Judge Milne’s decision that he was satisfied that both parents were able to care for the children. I am also satisfied that both parents are capable of properly caring for the children. (

e) The children's need for stability given the child's age and stage of development [ 118 ] M.(1) and M.(2)’s sense of stability has suffered from the anxiety they have experienced from the ongoing conflict between their parents. Ms. C.C. claims that they would suffer less anxiety and enjoy more stability if they moved away from this conflict. Ms. C.C. also believes the children would enjoy the stability of living with her and Mr. P.R.

They would be in a two-parent home environment with a mother that stayed at home and volunteered at their school. [ 119 ] I agree that these are factors that would help provide stability for the children in Redmond. They would, however, come at a cost of disrupting the stability the girls have now and have enjoyed in their upbringing. They were born and raised on the Sunshine Coast with the security of family and friends close by.

I believe it would be detrimental to their need for stability to expect them to uproot their lives and move to another country, another town, in which they have no history, and no roots. [ 120 ] In his decision, Judge Milne held: [36] The child’s need for stability: both these children have significant family attachments, school relationships and neither parent has immediate plans to change those factors. It is in their best interest to ensure their full time residence is not moved from the Sunshine Coast without the consent of the other parent or a court order. (

f) The ability of each person who is a guardian to exercise his or her responsibilities [ 121 ] Both parents have shown that they are capable of exercising their responsibilities as a parent. If the children are moved to Redmond, it will be much more difficult for Mr. R.V. to share in the parental responsibilities. He would have less time with the children, and will have to spend significant time and money travelling to pick up the children, or to meet them in the United States for his visits. (

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

h) 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 [ 122 ] Counsel for Ms. C.C. argued that the conflict between the parties has created a “community of conflict” that is emotionally and psychologically damaging to the children. He argued that both parents contributed to this conflict and became focussed on the ongoing litigation. He argued that the only way to prevent further damage to the children was to allow Ms. C.C. to move them to Redmond. [ 123 ] Mr.

R.V. candidly acknowledged in his evidence that he played a role in the conflict. He said he should have acted better. He would like to find a way for him and Ms. C.C. to improve in their communication, and to improve the relations between the families. Mr. R.V. suggested that he and Ms. C.C. and her parents could go to counselling together to help them sort out how to reduce the conflict. [ 124 ] With respect to family violence, Mr. R.V. argued that Ms. C.C.’s false allegations against him amount to family violence. Counsel for Ms.

C.C. agreed that repeated unsubstantiated allegations by one parent to another parent can amount to family violence. [ 125 ] As set out earlier in my reasons, Ms. C.C. has made a number of unsubstantiated allegations against Mr. R.V. These allegations are a form of emotional abuse. I believe these allegations have been the driving force behind the escalation of the conflict. Mr. R.V. has had to defend himself from Ms. C.C.’s unjustified blame repeatedly since soon after separation. On one occasion Ms. C.C.’s father called the police against Mr. R.V. and joined Ms. C.C.’s application for a Protection Order.

That application was held to be “completely unfounded”. [ 126 ] In her evidence before me, Ms. C.C. did not accept any responsibility for her role in the conflict between the parties. She was set on blaming Mr. R.V. I have already held that I do not accept this evidence. Ms. C.C. needs to understand the role she has played in her conflict with Mr. R.V. Her failure to understand this has escalated the conflict and harmed the children psychologically and emotionally. [ 127 ] Ms. C.C. has now been put on notice of this Court’s view of her actions, and its effect on the children.

If she continues with this sort of behaviour, she risks the Court finding that her ability to care for, and meet the needs of, the children is impaired under s. 37(2)(

h) of the Act . (

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 [ 128 ] As mentioned earlier in my judgment, the arrangements suggested by Ms. C.C. in the proposed relocation plan are not workable. They require co-operation that the parents have not previously been able to manage. The parents’ inability to co-operate in the past has affected the security and well-being of the children.

[ 129 ] Since Judge Milne’s decision of less than two years ago, a number of issues have arisen wherein the parties ought to have exercised their discretion in a reasonable manner and did not. For example, Ms. C.C. and Mr. R.V. were unable to agree on summer parenting time when it was not clearly set out by Judge Milne in his judgment. This was despite the fact that they had agreed on this issue at the trial. [ 130 ] Ms. C.C. has not demonstrated any ability to be reasonable or flexible with Mr. R.V.’s parenting time. Ms. L.P. testified that Ms.

C.C. is difficult to deal with, refuses to compromise, and takes the position that it is “her way or the highway”. There were a number of examples of this in the evidence. [ 131 ] In one instance, Ms. C.C. refused to allow Mr. R.V. to have Father’s Day with the children, despite the fact that she had told the children they could spend the day with their father. Ms. C.C. testified that she retracted this offer once she realized that Father’s Day was not specified in the Court Order. Her retraction was upsetting to the children.

It showed a lack of regard for the best interests of the children and undermined their relationship with their father. Even still at trial, Ms. C.C. showed no understanding of the impact such conduct would have on the children. [ 132 ] In another instance, Ms. C.C. took an overly technical

interpretation of the Court Order and refused to allow M.(1) to have time with her father when she was off school. Ms. C.C. testified that she eventually relented and allowed her to see her father, but this was only because M.(1) was “devastated”, “freaking out”, “very upset” and “afraid” of what her father’s response would be if she did not see him. I did not find this evidence credible. In the Hear the Child Report, M.(1)’s attachment to her father is clear. She wishes to spend more, not less time with him, and has no fear of him. [ 133 ] Another example is Ms.

C.C.’s refusal after Judge Milne’s decision to let Mr. R.V. take the children to their medical appointments. Ms. C.C. relied upon a

section in the judgment and Order that gave Ms. C.C. sole authority to refuse or consent to medical treatments. In my view, this is a misinterpretation of the judgment and the order. Neither shows any indication that Mr. R.V. is excluded from taking the children to their medical or dental appointments. In fact, there are several paragraphs in the judgment and the order that indicate that both parents have the authority to take the children to medical appointments.

Conclusion on Best Interests of the Children [ 134 ] When I take all of the foregoing factors into account, I conclude that it is not in the best interests of the children to allow Ms. C.C. to move them to Redmond. In my view, the children’s well-being would be better protected if they were to stay living on the Sunshine Coast. Parenting Time [ 135 ] Both parents testified that the current parenting

schedule is unworkable and must be varied. Mr. R.V. seeks an increase of his parenting time to a shared regime, with the children spending one week on and one week off with each parent. Ms. C.C. testified that she wanted Mr. R.V.’s parenting time reduced to every second weekend. In closing argument, her counsel varied this request to allow Mr. R.V. every two weekends out of three with the children. [ 136 ] I was not impressed by Ms. C.C.’s application to reduce Mr. R.V.’s parenting time. She did not provide any valid reason for the variation.

It appeared to me to be motivated out of spite, and a desire to maintain control over the children, to the exclusion of Mr. R.V. Ms. C.C. does not appear to fully appreciate the importance of Mr. R.V. in his children’s lives. Nor does she appear to have properly taken into account the needs of her children. [ 137 ] It was clear from the Hear the Child Report that M.(1) wants to spend more time with her father. She told Ms. Henry that she would prefer a week-on/week-off

schedule because it would provide her with longer time with each parent, and weekends with each parent. M.(1) also told Ms. Henry that her mother travels to Oregon often and M.(1) and M.(2) sometimes stay with Ms. C.C.’s parents. Although I do not wish to diminish the role of the grandparents, the father should get priority. The time the girls spend with their grandparents when Ms. C.C. is in Oregon is time that they could be with their father. [ 138 ] Mr. R.V. has been involved with his children since their birth. He had shared parenting time when the parties first separated without incident.

He has been involved in their care, their schooling, and has attempting to be involved in their health-care, but was excluded by Ms. C.C. He has arranged his work

schedule to accommodate spending more time with his daughters. [ 139 ] Mr. R.V.’s dedication to his children is demonstrated by the fact that he has not given up on his attempts to spend more time, and be more involved, with the girls. This is despite the fact that Ms. C.C. has subjected him to ongoing unsubstantiated allegations about his character and ability to parent. Mr. R.V.’s sincerity in improving relations with Ms. C.C. and her family was demonstrated by his willingness to attend counselling with them. [ 140 ] Ms. C.C.’s conduct, on the other hand, has been detrimental to Mr.

R.V. and to his relationship with the children. Ms. C.C.’s role in escalating the conflict has been harmful to the emotional well-being of the children. [ 141 ] When I take the factors previously mentioned under s. 37(2) of the Act into account, it is my view that it would be in the children’s best interests to spend more time with their father. I believe that a shared parenting regime of one week on/one week off for each parent would allow the girls to have quality time with each parent.

In my view, given their ages and stages of development, the children would have more stability if they spent a week at a time at each parent’s home. This would be a predictable

schedule which would allow the girls to establish a regular routine with each parent. [ 142 ] There is no reason the exchange of the children cannot be made by the parents. It should be made at the parents’ homes, unless an alternate location is agreed to by the parties. If the parties do not wish to communicate with each other at the exchanges, they do not need to. The girls are old enough to be picked up and dropped off without interaction between the parents. [ 143 ] Having said that, the parents have a responsibility to improve their civility with each other when in the presence of the children.

I intend to make orders to address their communication, but both parents must understand that a continuation of the conflict is harmful to M.(1) and M.(2). Both girls deserve to have a close and stable relationship with each parent. Hostility by one parent to the other is undermines that stability. [ 144 ] Ms. C.C.’s parents should no longer be a part of the exchange of the children. Their involvement has unnecessarily drawn them further into the conflict between the parties, and caused additional anxiety for the girls.

Child Support [ 145 ] Because I have varied the parenting time, I must adjust the child support payable by Mr. R.V. With an equal parenting schedule, the incomes for both parents must be considered. There was no issue that Mr. R.V. earns $63,000 per year. [ 146 ] The income of Ms. C.C. is not as straightforward. In his decision of July 29, 2014, Judge Milne fixed Ms. C.C.’s income at $10,000 per year. He stated that her income potential was higher than that, but allowed her a reasonable opportunity to get back into the job market.

He said this should be reviewed no later than July of 2015. [ 147 ] Since Judge Milne’s Order, Ms. C.C. has done little to find employment. If she was allowed to relocate, her plan was to be a stay-at-home mother and volunteer at the school. Although Ms. C.C. said she would not move to Redmond if her relocation application was denied, she did not testify about her plans beyond that. Likely, she will be spending at least some of her time travelling to Redmond to spend time with Mr. P.R. [ 148 ] It is understandable that Ms. C.C. will want to spend time with her husband. But, as pointed out by Mr.

R.V., she also has a financial obligation to contribute to the support of her children. [ 149 ] Ms. C.C. clearly has the ability to earn income through employment. She is also in a position to earn income from renting out part of her home. Ms. C.C. agreed that there is demand for rental properties on the Sunshine Coast. Mr. R.V. testified that Ms. C.C.’s home is 3,600 square feet. He suggested she could rent out the upper two floors for $2,000 per month and live in the basement with the children when she was in town. [ 150 ] While I do not believe it would be fair to Ms.

C.C. to expect her to live in the basement of her own home with her children, I do believe she has an ability to generate rental income. Mr. P.R. testified that, if Ms. C.C. was able to relocate with the children, they planned to split Ms. C.C.’s home so that there was a rental suite on the top and bottom floors. According to Mr. P.R., the income from the rentals would cover the cost of the mortgage on the home and generate a profit. [ 151 ] On the evidence before me, I believe Ms. C.C. is capable of earning at least $15,000 per year. This is a generously low amount, given Ms. C.C.’s abilities.

But I have kept it low to factor in the logistics of earning an income while maintaining a marriage with Mr. P.R. [ 152 ] When the incomes of both parties are taken into account, the net child support payable by Mr. R.V. is $732 per month. [ 153 ] The respective claims for a retroactive variation to the child support are dismissed. The higher income amount Mr. R.V. should have been paying for child support in 2015 is cancelled out by the lower income he received in 2016. Conclusion [ 154 ] In conclusion, I make the following Orders: 1) Ms.

C.C.’s application to relocate the children to Redmond, Oregon, is dismissed. 2) Mr. R.V.’s application for an Order prohibiting Ms. C.C. from relocating the children to Redmond, Oregon, is allowed. 3) Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Order of Judge Milne of July 29, 2014 are varied as follows: The parenting time with the children shall be shared equally by Ms. C.C. and Mr. R.V. on a week-on/week-off schedule, with the exception of the summer, Christmas, and Spring Break parenting time. 4) Each parent shall have one month of parenting time over the children’s summer holidays. The

schedule shall be arranged no later than May 1 of each year. Neither parent will book activities for the children during the summer parenting time of the other parent. 5) The parenting time for Christmas Break and Spring Break shall continue as set out in Judge Milne’s Order of July 29, 2014. 6) Paragraph 34 of the Order of July 29, 2014 is varied as follows: Mr. R.V. shall pay child support for the two children to Ms.

C.C. of $732 per month, commencing August 1, 2016 and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter so long as the children meet the definition of children under the Family Law Act , unless that amount is varied by the Court or with the consent of the parties. 7) The parents must communicate with each other in a polite and respectful manner.

Neither parent shall talk disrespectfully about the other parent in the presence of the children. 8) The parents shall not discuss their family dispute or court proceedings with the children, or in the presence of the children, with one exception: Both parents may explain the outcome of this Court’s decision to the children in a positive manner that is supportive of the children and their need for stability. 9) Paragraph 6 of the Order of July 29, 2014 is cancelled and replaced with the following: Either parent may attend with the children at any health-related appointments, and may give any necessary consent for any health-related treatments.

The parties must consult with each other and agree on any significant decisions regarding the children’s health.

10) Any part of this Order may be varied with the consent of the parents. 11) Counsel for Ms. C.C. shall draft this Order for my signature. The requirement for Mr. R.V.’s approval of the drafted Order is dispensed with. The Honourable Judge B. Craig Provincial Court of British Columbia