K. L. L. v D. J Date:, 2014 BCPC 85

Citation: K. L. L. v D. J Date: 20140227 2014 BCPC 0085 File No: 1444178 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: K. L. L. APPLICANT AND: D. J. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M. J. BRECKNELL Appearing on their own behalf: K. L. Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C.

Date of Judgment: February 27, 2014 [ 1 ] THE COURT: This is a series of applications brought in the matter of 1444178, the matter of K. L. v. D. J. [ 2 ] Ms. L. has sought a number of orders and declarations concerning the child, R. L. L., born November 3rd, 2013. [ 3 ] In the first application brought on January 6, 2014, she sought an Order for guardianship, child support and an order that the child not be removed from the City of Prince George by Mr. J. [ 4 ] In a subsequent Application, she sought a Protection Order.

That was filed on February 24th, 2014. [ 5 ] There is proof of service of both Applications in the file, so I conclude that Mr. J. has notice of both Applications, although the Protection Order Application was just served on him a few days ago. [ 6 ] Ms. L. has told the Court that those documents were served and in fact, Mr. J. has acknowledged service of them in various forms of communication with her. [ 7 ] I want to first deal with the issues arising from the January 6 Application. It is not necessary for Ms. L. to have an Order of the Court that she is the guardian of the child.

She is at law the guardian of the child, under s. 39 of the Family Law Act . So, what the Court does in these circumstances is, the Court simply notes that she appeared, notes the birth date and name of the child and acknowledges that she is the guardian. [ 8 ] It would appear, based on the evidence I have heard, that Mr. J. is not the guardian of the child, because he was not in the necessary position to be the guardian of the child at law, at the time the child was born; but I have only heard part of the case at this point. I have not heard from Mr.

J., and he may have a different view, once he realizes what is about to happen to him, as a result of this Order. So I am not making a finding that he is not a guardian, I am simply not saying anything about his status. I am simply recognizing that Ms. L. is the guardian of the child. [ 9 ] I am going to make a further Order Madam Clerk, that the child, R., shall reside with Ms. L. [ 10 ] Because I have made no finding as to Mr.

J.'s position, as either a guardian or only a person entitled to contact, and that he is not here to say anything about what he wants, I am not making any Orders regarding his contact with the child. In fact, at this point in time, I am going to be granting a Protection Order in a few moments that will prohibit him from having contact with Ms. L. and the child, until further Court Order. [ 11 ] With regard to the issue of child support, Ms. L. has told me that Mr.

J. collects some form of government payments amounting to $22,000 a year, and that from her knowledge of him he has other employment available to him, and in fact does participate in other employment. [ 12 ] He has not filed a Financial Statement, leaving the Court with little information from him as to what his earnings are, or what his capacity to pay child support is, but he definitely is earning some money, and has some obligations to pay child support, in my view.

Those obligations clearly arise, at least from the time he was served with the Court materials, and certainly from the time the child was born, because there is no evidence from him that he is not the father of the child. [ 13 ] I am going to impute an income to Mr. J., Madam Clerk, and I am going to impute an income to him of $42,500.00, which is $20,000.00 approximately over what Ms. L. says he is collecting from government sources.

That would result in him providing child support for R. in the amount of $387.00 per month and I am going to make that Order effective February 1st, 2014, which is the first of the month following the date in which he was served with the Application. [ 14 ] The second Application concerns a request for a Protection Order. A Protection Order can only be granted in certain circumstances to certain people. From Ms.

L.'s evidence, she does not qualify as a spouse under the definition of "family member," under s. 1 of the Family Law Ac t; but under the definition of "family member," sub-paragraph (b), also describes that a "family member" is, "A person with whom the person is living, or has lived, in a marriage-like relationship." [ 15 ] Well, clearly Ms. L. fits that category, because on Ms. L.'s evidence, they lived in a marriage-like relationship. There is no requirement under Part (

b) of the definition for it to be of a specific period of time. She was quite specific that he is the only person that she enjoyed conjugal relations with, and that in itself is a hallmark of a marriage-like relationship. That then makes her a "family member" and him a "family member". [ 16 ] I then have to consider whether the evidence she has given me amounts to "family violence" and that definition provides as follows: (

a) physical abuse of a family member, including forced confinement or depravation of the necessities of life, [but] not including the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or others from harm, (

b) sexual abuse of a family member, (

c) attempts to physically or sexually abuse a family member, (

d) psychological or emotional abuse of a family member, including: (

i) intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property,

(ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or prevention of, a family member's financial or personal autonomy, (iii) stalking or following of the family member, and (

v) intentional damage to property... [ 17 ] There has been some family violence here, in my view. Ms. L. has provided me with sufficient evidence for me to conclude that there has been physical abuse. She says that he put his hands on her once.

That would be at the minor end of the scale, to be fair, but clearly in my view she has made out on her evidence the issue of psychological or emotional abuse, including intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, I say, both based on the evidence she gave orally, and the evidence contained in her affidavit, in which she sets out some of the threats he made against her. [ 18 ] There is a decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court that urges courts to use a very broad definition when it comes to the concept of family violence.

In fact, that court talked about the use of derogatory language as being a form of family violence, and clearly if I was to follow that decision specifically, Ms. L. has made that out as well, given the nature and the manner in which Mr. J., and apparently his ex-girlfriend, has communicated with her, in what can only be described as very derogatory ways. [ 19 ] Having now established that there is family violence, the Court must consider whether or not Ms. L. has satisfied the Court that there needs to be Protection Orders granted.

She has, in my view, convinced me in this case that some Protection Orders are necessary. She is an at-risk family member, and I have come to the conclusion that there has to be some restraint on Mr. J.'s contact with Ms. L. and the child, at least for the next several weeks, or months. I will get to the details of that in a moment. [ 20 ] I am going to make an Order, Madam Clerk, a Protection Order, under s. 183. I am going to make an Order that Mr. J. is forbidden from communicating, directly or indirectly, with Ms.

L. or the child, except that he may communicate with her by email at her email address of -- now, Ms. L., which is the address you have left open to him? [ 21 ] K. L.: Redacted for the purposes of publication. [ 22 ] THE COURT: Okay. Do you have that, Madam Clerk? Redacted for the purposes of publication. [ 23 ] K. L.: Yeah. [ 24 ] THE COURT: -- @hotmail.com. [ 25 ] K. L.: Redacted for the purposes of publication. [ 26 ] THE COURT: Okay. Redacted for the purposes of publication. [ 27 ] THE CLERK: Redacted for the purposes of publication. [ 28 ] K.

L.: .com, yeah. [ 29 ] THE COURT: Okay. [ 30 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 31 ] THE COURT: I am also going to make an Order prohibiting Mr. J. from attending at any residence, school or place of employment of Ms. L., and specifically that he has not to attend at, redacted for the purposes of publication, P. G., British Columbia. [ 32 ] In making those Orders I have considered the following, under s. 184, the history of family violence. The fact that it is repetitive.

The fact that it is psychological and emotional, and is evidence of a pattern of course of a controlling behaviour. [ 33 ] The Order I am going to make under s. 183, Madam Clerk, will be for a period of four months, expiring on June 27th, 2014, unless it is extended or varied prior to that date. [ 34 ] I am granting Ms. L. liberty to apply to extend the Protection Order, if it becomes necessary and I am granting Mr. J. liberty to apply to vary or set aside the Protection Order on 10 days written notice to Ms. L. [ 35 ] Ms. L., please stand up. Is there anything else that you are seeking today?

Oh, there is him not taking the child out of -- he has not to have any contact with the child, but just to make it absolutely clear, Madam Clerk. [ 36 ] There will be an Order that Mr. J., and anybody under his authority and control, is not permitted to remove the child, R., from the City of P. G., without further order of the Court. [ 37 ] So, if he does grab the child, not only is he in breach by having the child in his possession, but if he leaves the City he is in violation of that part of the Order as well. (REASONS CONCLUDED)