L.A.G. v. C.-R.R.G. Date:, 2016 BCPC 333

Citation: L.A.G. v. C.-R.R.G. Date: 20160913 2016 BCPC 333 File No: 15-4889 Registry: Williams Lake IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: L.A.G. APPLICANT AND: C.-R.R.G. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE E. L. BAYLIFF Appearing on their own behalf: L.A.G. Counsel for the Respondent: D. Patterson Place of Hearing: Williams Lake , B.C.

Date of Hearing: August 15 - 18, 2016 Date of Judgment: September 13, 2016 [ 1 ] Mr. L.A.G. (“L.G.” or “Mr. G.”) and Ms. C.-R.R.G. (“C.-R.R.G.” or “Ms. G.”) are ages 29 and 27 respectively. They are the parents of a daughter, M.R.G. (“M.”), born {omitted for publishing}, and a son, L.J.G. (“L.”), born {omitted for publishing}. M. is now 6 years old and about to enter Grade 1. L. is now 3 years old. [ 2 ] L.G. and C.-R.R.G. began dating in late 2004, when he was in grade 12 and she was in grade 10. For the first 5 years they had an “on again, off again” relationship.

This evolved into co-habitation starting in 2009, the birth of their two children in 2010 and 2013, and marriage on September 13th, 2014. Just over a year after they were married, they separated. This was on November 4 th , 2015, some 11 years after their relationship started. It appears that their separation is a permanent one. [ 3 ] The primary issue is re-location. Ms. G. wishes to re-locate, with the children, to Kamloops, B.C. where her family lives. Kamloops is about 3 ½ hours south of Williams Lake. Mr.

G., who has a good job in Williams Lake and close family connections here, is opposed to such a move because it will result in him seeing the children much less often than he currently does - perhaps as little as 4 days a month - whereas he currently sees them on about 13 to 15 days each month. [ 4 ] For the reasons which follow I have decided to permit Ms. G. to re-locate the children to Kamloops. Other details regarding parenting arrangements, child and spousal support are found in

summary form in my draft Order attached as Appendix A to this decision. [ 5 ] I released my decision on the issue of re-location on September 2 nd , 2016 so that M. (and Ms. G.) could start their school years in Kamloops rather than in Williams Lake. I will now set out my detailed reasons for that decision as well as my decision on the other matters in issue. I will begin with a review of the law. THE LAW [ 6 ] The Family Law Act of B.C. (“ FLA” ) sets out two possible approaches to a case involving re-location.

There is Division 2 [Parenting Arrangements] , s. 46 [Changes to child’s residence if no agreement or order]. And there is Division 6 [Re-location] , ss. 65 to 71. [ 7 ] Authority is divided on whether an interim order, such as the one made in this case on February 11 th , 2016, constitutes a “written agreement or order respecting parenting arrangements…” sufficient to oust Division 2, s. 46 and make Division 6 applicable. In L.J.R. v. S.W.R., 2013 BCSC 1344 , the court found that an interim order did qualify as a “written agreement or order respecting parenting arrangements”. In S.J.F. v.

R.M.N., 2013 BCSC 1812 , on the other hand, Justice Punnett concluded that an interim order, made in the context of an initial application for an order respecting parenting arrangements under s. 45, did not so qualify. See para. 49. It appears that the Court of Appeal has not ruled on this issue though Smith, D.M., J.A. recently commented on the conflicting jurisprudence. See Fotsch v. Begin, 2015 BCCA 403 at para 58 . [ 8 ] In my view, the reasoning in Justice Punnett’s decision, S.J.F. v.

R.M.N. , is to be preferred, particularly in a case such as this where there is an initial application to define parenting arrangements in the context of one parent seeking to re-locate with the children. The interim order was not in place at the time the issue of re-location was raised. It does not represent any sort of determination of where the best interests of the children lie as it concerns parenting arrangements and re-location. The interim order only came about as a temporary “fix” until the trial could be held. The facts of this case bring it squarely within s. 46 of Division 2 and I will turn to that

section now. [ 9 ]

Section 46 reads as follows: “

(1) This

section applies if all of the following circumstances exist: (

a) no written agreement or order respecting parenting arrangements applies in respect of a child; (

b) an application is made for an order described in section 45(1)(

a) or (b) [orders respecting parenting arrangements]; (

c) the child’s guardian plans to change the location of that child’s residence and the change can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on that child’s relationship with another guardian.

(2) To determine the parenting arrangements that would be in the best interests of the child in the circumstances set out in subsection (1) of this section, the court (

a) must consider, in addition to the factors set out in section 37(2) [best interests of child], the reasons for the change in the location of the child’s residence , and (

b) must not consider whether the guardian who is planning to move would do so without the child .” [emphasis added] [ 10 ] I will begin with a brief overview of the positions of Mr. G. and Ms. G. before moving on to my analysis of, first, the best interests of the children and, second, the reason for the proposed re-location by Ms. G. [ 11 ] As well, I note that s. 46(2)(

b) requires that I must not consider whether Ms. G. would re-locate to Kamloops without the children. I will comply with that stricture in my analysis.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES - Mr. G: [ 12 ] Mr. G. represented himself at the trial. He passionately asserted that he is a loving, hard-working, involved father who wants more time with his children rather than less. He would like the court to order a “50/50” shared parenting arrangement, with the children remaining here in Williams Lake. [ 13 ] If the court permits Ms. G. to re-locate with the children to Kamloops the reality is that M. and L. will see their father for only about 4 days a month rather than the 13 to 15 days that would be possible if they remained in Williams Lake. [ 14 ] Mr.

G. wants to coach his son in hockey and take his daughter riding; he wants the children to continue to have the benefit of his love, guidance and companionship on a day to day basis rather than simply as a “phone Dad” and a “weekend Dad”. [ 15 ] The children have spent all their lives in Williams Lake and Mr. G. asserts that all of their principal connections are here except for their maternal grandmother. They currently get to see both sides of their family but if they move away to Kamloops their main connection will be with Ms.

G.’s side of the family and they will lose out on a strong relationship with their paternal family. [ 16 ] Mr. G. acknowledges that financially it might be somewhat easier if Ms. G. were living with her mother in Kamloops - rent free and with free, and stable, child care. However, he argues that they can get by financially if Ms. G. remains in Williams Lake, particularly if she would get out and find a job. He asserts that she has not really been trying to find a job since going on stress leave following their separation.

He points out that the Administrative Assistant’s course she wishes to take is available here in Williams Lake so this is not a reason to move to Kamloops. As for her desire for the emotional support of her own family during these first few years after the breakdown of their marriage, Mr. G. says that Ms. G’s mother could come up and spend time with her in Williams Lake and that Ms. G. has friends here who can serve as a support. [ 17 ] Overall, Mr. G. argues that the proposed re-location to Kamloops is motivated more by what Ms.

G. perceives to be in her best interests rather than because it is in the children’s best interests. As well, he points to some instances of resentful, spiteful behavior by Ms. G. in the months since their separation, and argues that the court can infer that her reason for wanting to re-locate to Kamloops is, in part, to cause him pain by taking the children away from him. - Ms. G.: [ 18 ] Counsel for Ms. G. argues that the parenting arrangements which will best serve the interests of the children are that they remain in the primary care of Ms. G. and that Ms.

G. re-locate with the children to Kamloops. [ 19 ] If permitted to re-locate the children, Ms. G’s plan is to live with her parents for at least the next year and to focus on completing the Administrative Assistant’s training at TRU. Her parents will allow her and the children to live with them, rent-free. Her mother, Ms. R., does not work outside of the home so the plan is that Ms. R. will provide free child care while Ms. G. focusses on her studies. Ultimately, Ms. G’s goal is to start her own career in the Kamloops area so that she can build a good life for herself and the children. [ 20 ] Counsel for Ms.

G. argues that the emotional and financial realities of this family in the wake of their separation dictate the re- location and parenting arrangements proposed by Ms. G. He argues that if Ms. G. remains in Williams Lake the family - Mr. G., Ms. G. and the two children - will remain “stuck” in a cycle of poverty, debt, unhappiness and instability. Mr. G. cannot realistically afford to pay child support plus spousal support as well as meet his own costs of living. He is going deeper and deeper into debt. Yet, Ms. G. cannot begin to pull her weight financially until she can improve her education.

That entails having stable child care as well as emotional support so that she can focus on her studies, and get back into the work force with decent paying, stable employment. He argues that when all the circumstances of this family are considered, it is clear that the interests of M. and L. are actually best served by allowing Ms. G. to re-locate the children to Kamloops. [ 21 ] As for the reasons for the proposed move, he asks the court to reject the inference of spitefulness urged by Mr. G. and find that the reasons are simply those stated - Ms.

G.’s need for emotional and financial support, which, in the long run, will serve the best interests of M. and L., as well those of Mr. G. [ 22 ] Having outlined the positions of the parties I will turn now to my analysis of the evidence in accordance with s. 46. ANALYSIS 1. Best Interests of the Children (s. 37(2)) (

a) The Childrens’ Health and Emotional Well-Being

[ 23 ] By all accounts M. and L. are healthy children with no special needs. [ 24 ] As it concerns their emotional well-being, there is evidence that her parents’ break up and re-partnering has caused M. some distress and confusion. Mr. G. has observed this and tried to arrange some counselling for M. He complained that Ms. G. refused to participate in the counselling. He said that as a child of divorce himself, he has some understanding of the stress it can cause to a child. Ms. G. acknowledges that M. “is struggling, as she has only ever known us [Mr.

G. and herself] together, but I did not feel [counselling] was necessary.” [ 25 ] There is evidence that M. has been telling each of her parents what each wants to hear - she has told Mr. G. that she wants to stay with him and to be in Williams Lake; she has told Ms. G. that she loves Kamloops and would like to go there. This is evidence that M. is emotionally torn by the conflict between her parents. [ 26 ] Both Mr. G. and Ms. G. entered into new, dating type relationships within a few months of their separation and both have introduced their new partners to the children. [ 27 ] Mr.

G’s girl-friend, A.L., lives in Williams Lake and, since meeting the children in February, she has played an active

part in their care when Mr. G. has them. It is clear that A.L. is well-intentioned and that her relationship with the children is generally a happy and positive one. A.L. testified that M. has said to her on more than one occasion: “My Mom hates you. My Mom doesn’t want you to be my friend. I wish you and my Mom could be friends.” I accept the truthfulness of what A.L. says. Clearly, M. is aware that her mother, Ms.

G., is jealous and resentful of A.L. and it is equally clear that M. is feeling caught in the middle - she knows her father wants her to like A.L.; she also knows that her mother doesn’t want her to like A.L. [ 28 ] Ms. G’s resentment of A.L. came to a head during the movie theatre incident which occurred sometime earlier this year. It was Mr. G’s time with the children. He and A.L. decided that A.L. should take M. to the movie “Finding Dory”. Ms. G. heard of this plan and went to the movie theatre, encountering M. and A.L. in the ticket line up.

She announced to A.L. that she would be taking M. to the movie and that A.L. could leave. A.L. acted responsibly and did so. However, the outing was not a success as M. complained so much of a stomach and/or headache that Ms. G. had to leave with her early, before the movie was finished. Under questioning by her lawyer Ms. G. admitted that, with the wisdom of hindsight, “I feel this may not have been the best way to handle the situation”. However, on cross examination by Mr. G., and even when I questioned her, she insisted that she did not believe M. had been stressed by the incident.

After leaving the movie theatre, Ms. G. delivered M. to B.G., the childrens’ paternal grandmother. Ms. G. was very emotional and talked with B.G. for some time. Seeing their mother’s emotion, the children clung to her when she went to leave. Mr. G. was contacted and agreed that, given their distress, the children could go with Ms. G. that evening. [ 29 ] These events provide further evidence that the children’s emotional well-being is being affected by the conflict between their parents and, in this instance, specifically, by Ms.

G.’s resentment of A.L. and her emotional state in the wake of the separation. [ 30 ] Ms. G. has also re-partnered. Her boyfriend, whose first name is K., lives in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan. He has two young children in that community and I gather that the mother of his children also lives in, or near, Lloydminster. Ms. G. has introduced K. to M. and L. but, because of the distance, K. has not had the same chance to be involved with the children as if he lived closer. Mr.

G. has met K. and commented that K. seemed like a good person and he felt comfortable with having K. around the children. [ 31 ] I specifically asked Ms. G. if she contemplated re-locating with the children to Saskatchewan in order to pursue her relationship with K. Ms. G. testified that she had no such plans and that her relationship with K. “was not that serious.” She said that her focus for now was on getting a post-secondary education so that she could get good paying, stable work and provide for herself and the children. (

b) The Children’s Views, Unless it Would be Inappropriate to Consider Them [ 32 ] At ages 6 and 3, respectively, M. and L. are far too young to be saddled with the responsibility of expressing considered views on their parenting arrangements or re-location. (

c) The Nature and Strength of the Relationships Between the Children and Significant Persons in Their Lives [ 33 ] M. and L. are fortunate in having a large and involved extended family on both the paternal and the maternal side. [ 34 ] In Williams Lake, in addition to Mr. G. and his girl-friend, A.L., there is the children’s paternal grand-mother, Ms. B.G. and her partner, T. B.G. was the main child care provider for this family before Mr. G. and Ms. G. separated last November. Between 4 and 6 days a month she would care for the children on afternoons when the parents’ shifts overlapped.

She also took the children for a day or overnight if requested. I gather that she did not charge Mr. G. and Ms. G. for providing child care in the past, and she insists that she would not do so in the future. [ 35 ] Ms. G. was hurt when B.G. served her with court papers on behalf of Mr. G. last November and she stopped responding to B.G.’s texts. However, I was encouraged to hear that Ms. G. spent some time talking with B.G. when she dropped M. off following the movie theatre incident. And, seeing Ms.

G.’s emotional state, and that M. and L. were also upset, B.G. took sensible and helpful steps to arrange things with Mr. G. so that the children could spend that night with Ms. G. [ 36 ] B.G. has clearly been an important figure for all members of this young family. It will certainly be in M. and L.’s best interests if Ms. G. is able to maintain a generous and good relationship with B.G. going forward. [ 37 ] Also in Williams Lake there is Mr. G.’s brother, J. and his wife and two young children.

M. and L. are close to the same age as their cousins and, if they remain in Williams Lake, they will attend the same school.

[ 38 ] Mr. G’s father and step-mother live in Williams Lake. I gather that they have not been as involved with the children as the paternal grand-mother, B.G. However, T.G., Mr. G.’s step-mother, testified that they would be willing to assist with providing free child care if the children remain in Williams Lake. [ 39 ] As well, in Williams Lake, M. has various friends from her Kindergarten year and from her parents’ contacts, such as the daughter of one of Ms. G’s friends. There is also A.L.’s father, who the children have come to know in the past 6 months.

He has a rural property and the children enjoy their visits to his place. [ 40 ] In Kamloops the children’s principal connection is their maternal grandmother, S.R. Mr. and Mrs. R. lived in the Williams Lake area from 1992 to 2005. It was during their final year in this area that their daughter, C.-R.R.R. (now Ms. G.) first met and began a relationship with Mr. G, while both were still in high school. In 2005 the R. family moved to a semi-rural area just east of Kamloops and C.-R.R.R. (now Ms. G.) finished her final two years of high school in the Kamloops area. Mr.

R. spends much of his time away at work in Prince George. S.R. lives at their property near Kamloops along with their youngest son, Ms. G’s younger brother, who, I gather, is in his early 20’s and employed. S.R. does not work outside of the home. There are two older siblings - a son in the Navy and a daughter in the Lower Mainland, attending B.C.I.T. [ 41 ] S.R.’s elderly mother (the children’s maternal great-grandmother) also lives in the Kamloops area. [ 42 ] Up until now, S.R. has seen her grand-children, M. and L. about once a month or once every two months for a weekend or sometimes as long as a week.

S.R. has several horses as well as dogs, cats and fish and M. and L. clearly have enjoyed their visits to her home. [ 43 ] In Kamloops there are also a number of relatives on Mr. G.’s side - including at least two of his aunts or uncles, a number of his cousins and a grandfather (great-grandfather to the children). However, Mr. G. testified that he is not particularly close with any of these relatives and I gather that they have not had much, if any, contact with the children to date. Mr.

G. expressed doubt that any of them would be willing to host him, along with M. and L., on any sort of regular basis if he has to travel to Kamloops to exercise his parenting time. (

d) History of the Children’s Care [ 44 ] Mr. G. and Ms. G. have tried as much as possible to care for M. and L. themselves, without making use of other care givers or licensed day care. Ms. G. took a year of maternity leave after the birth of each child, which allowed her to stay home. When her first maternity leave ended in July, 2011 she did not return to work until sometime in the spring of 2012 and then only because Mr. G. was off work due to an injury to his shoulder and they were having difficulty making ends meet. During the time he was off work Mr. G. was the one to stay home with the children when Ms.

G. was at work though I gather Ms. G. mostly worked at night at the {omitted for publishing}, when the children were sleeping. [ 45 ] In the year or so prior to their separation last November, Mr. G. and Ms. G. made a point of working opposite shifts wherever possible so that one of them was always home with the children. Their motives were partly financial - they wanted to avoid paying for child-care - but they also believed that it is in the best interests of M. and L. to be cared for by family rather than by other people. On the few days in a month when their shifts overlapped for a couple of hours, Mr.

G’s mother, B.G., would come to their place and care for the children until the other parent could get home. [ 46 ] To date, M. and L. have lived in just one home; a rented house in Williams Lake. Mr. G. moved out on the date of separation leaving Ms. G. and the children in the home. Mr. G. currently rents a basement suite in the house of a friend. [ 47 ] The parenting time

schedule post-separation was set by the interim order of February 11 th , 2016. Mr. G. has parenting time with the children on alternating weekends and on Tuesdays and Thursdays of each week. The hours vary depending on whether he is on day shift or afternoon shift. Major holidays are shared. As a result of this schedule, Mr. G. has been able to see M. and L., on 13 to 17 days out of each month although, by my calculation, his parenting time has amounted to less than 40% of the time since on the Tuesdays and Thursdays he has parented the children for only part of each day. [ 48 ] Ms.

G. has had the children in her care the rest of the time. By my calculation she has had them in her care for a little more than 60% of the time. [ 49 ] The grandmothers - B.G. and S.R. - have been able to see the children during the parenting time allocated to Mr. G. or Ms. G., respectively. (

e) The Children’s Need for Stability [ 50 ] M. is 6 years old. L. is 3 years old. They have had a very stable life until this past year and it’s clear that they need stability in their lives going forward. (

f) The Ability of Each Guardian to Exercise His or Her Responsibilities [ 51 ] There is no question that both Mr. G. and Ms. G. are good parents. There are really only three issues - emotional strength, financial factors and the availability of child care.

- Emotional Strength [ 52 ] Ms. G. admits that one of the main reasons she seeks to re-locate with the children to Kamloops is so that she can receive the day to day emotional support of her mother and other members of her birth family. It is argued that without this support she is not going to be able to move on in her life emotionally, or career wise, and this will have a negative effect on the children as well as on her future, and on the future of Mr. G. [ 53 ] During their 11 year relationship Mr. G. and Ms. G. have broken up on several occasions. Each time Ms. G. returned to Kamloops.

It is clear that when she does not have the emotional support of Mr. G., Ms. G. has always been quite dependent on the support of her birth family. [ 54 ] Based on a doctor’s recommendation, Ms. G. took stress leave from her job as a desk clerk at the {omitted for publishing} in Williams Lake shortly after she and Mr. G. separated. She has never really returned to work since. Several reasons for her failure to return to work emerge from the evidence - lack of child care, the cost of child care in comparison to the minimum wage she could hope to earn, resentment of Mr.

G. and a desire to make him “pay” in the form of spousal support. As well, I am satisfied that Ms. G. was, and still is, grieving the loss of her relationship with Mr. G. and that her sense of self-worth is at a low ebb. I find that these emotional realities will make it hard for her to cope as a parent, a student, or in the work place for some time to come. [ 55 ] Mr. G. comes across as a strong, assertive man who is deeply devoted to his children. He is desperate to be an active, involved father. He seems to harbour little or no regret over the ending of his 11 year relationship with Ms. G.

Even though their separation is less than a year old and they were exchanging marriage vows less than 2 years ago, Mr. G. seems to have had no trouble putting all this behind him and moving on emotionally. He is enthusiastic about a new sort of relationship with Ms. G. - “working together for the good of the children”. Using a sports analogy (Mr. G. is a skilled hockey player) he put it this way: “sure, the marriage failed, but it does not mean the team folds.” He is puzzled and frustrated that Ms.

G. cannot seem to embrace this new and very different phase of their relationship as enthusiastically as he has. [ 56 ] Ms. G. also comes across as a devoted parent, though she seemed to feel less need to say so than Mr. G. - but this may have been due to the fact that Mr. G. was self-represented whereas Ms. G. had the assistance of counsel. Clearly, Ms. G. has been more emotionally affected by the separation than Mr. G. has. She has not found it so easy to let go of the emotions of the past. During examination in chief she came across as rather quiet and sad. During cross examination she responded to Mr.

G’s assertive rationality with a kind of tired stubbornness. She explained that she was not yet “comfortable” with such demonstrations of mature co-parenting as shared birthday parties for the children with new partners present, but said that, in time, she might be able to cope with such things. [ 57 ] Ms. G.’s distress over the separation has led her to do and say things that have had a negative effect on the children.

I am referring here to, among other things, the movie theatre incident and its emotional aftermath at B.G.’s home, as well as whatever conversation she had with, or within the hearing of, M., that led M. to say to A.L. that “My Mom hates you. My Mom doesn’t want you to be my friend.” [ 58 ] At one point in his cross-examination of Ms. G., Mr. G. asked her whether she didn’t feel that she should be stronger, as in emotionally stronger. It is true that many people in Ms. G.’s position would be stronger.

They would not feel an emotional need to move away from the community where their marriage had failed and make a new start in a different town based in the supportive environment of their parents’ home. However, I must judge this case based on the personalities in this case as revealed on the evidence in this case. On that evidence I find that Ms. G. does require the emotional support of her mother to help her cope at this point in her life. I find that if she were to re-locate with the children to her parents’ residence in Kamloops it would help her to be a happier person and a more successful person.

As a result, she would, in all likelihood, become a better parent, a better co-parent and she would once again be able to make a financial contribution to the family - all of which would, in all likelihood, lead to less stress, more stability and better opportunities for M. and L. as well as relieving some of the financial burden on Mr. G. - Financial Considerations [ 59 ] Mr. G. and Ms. G. were getting by financially prior to their separation. Mr. G. has a good job with a local {omitted for publishing}. He is starting to build some seniority, having been there now for 5 years.

Over the past three years his income has fluctuated between $62,000 and $67,000 a year. Ms. G. was employed at the {omitted for publishing}, making between $9,000 and $11,000 a year over the past three years. [ 60 ] Mr. and Ms. G.’s main problem financially is their consumer debt in the form of two car loans - one for a 2014 Ford F-150 pick- up truck used by Mr. G. and the other for a 2014 Chevy Cruze used by Ms. G. Unfortunately, the market value of each vehicle is now less than the money owing on each loan. The monthly payments for the truck total over $700 a month, and for the car about $250 a month.

Insurance for the two vehicles totals about $280 a month, for total vehicle costs, not including fuel and maintenance, of over $1,000 a month. [ 61 ] Since their separation it has been more difficult to make ends meet. Ms. G. has not really worked outside of the home since their separation, leaving Mr. G. as the sole provider for the family. [ 62 ] In addition to now having his own living expenses, plus the loan and insurance payments on the truck, Mr. G. has been paying child support to Ms. G. at the Guideline amount of $940.00 a month. (Mr.

G. makes the loan payments and insurance payments for the Chevy Cruze on behalf of Ms. G. and, by agreement, deducts these costs from child support - thus, it is actually Ms. G. and the children who are making the payments on the Chevy Cruze.) Mr. G. has also been paying interim spousal support to Ms. G. of $535.00 a month. Until July he was also paying Ms. G.’s cell phone bill of about $60 a month.

[ 63 ] As of January, 2016, when he completed his Financial Statement, Mr. G. documented a “Line of Credit” loan from the bank in the amount of $5,000 which he obtained to cover “living expenses since separation” as well as credit card debt of $1,700, also for “living expenses”. I was not told of the current balances owing as of the date of trial in August, but Mr. G. did say that his fixed costs included minimum monthly payments for credit card and line of credit debt so I infer these debts still exist. [ 64 ] Mr.

G. testified that his monthly take home pay totals roughly $3,416.00 and that this is very often somewhat less than his fixed costs for debt, child support, spousal support and his own essential living expenses. [ 65 ] It is clear that, as things currently stand, this young, separated family is falling behind financially. [ 66 ] Ms. G. has recognized for some time that she will need to take post-secondary education in order to break out of the minimum wage, part-time sort of employment she has had since completing high school.

In the fall of 2015, shortly before the separation, she took a step in that direction by signing up for an on-line course in Medical Terminology. However, she did not complete that program, finding it difficult to fulfill the course requirements while also caring for the children and working at her job at the {omitted for publishing}. [ 67 ] I think it is fair to say that Mr. G. feels Ms. G. did not really apply herself to the on-line course, just as she has not really tried very hard to get employment since their separation. [ 68 ] One of the reasons Ms.

G. puts forward for her re-location to Kamloops with the children is that, with her mother’s help caring for the children and maintaining the house hold, she will be better able to focus on her schooling and this will benefit the children, herself and Mr. G. in that it will result in her getting better paying, more stable employment in the future. To that end she has registered for the Administrative Assistants course at T.R.U. in Kamloops and, if the court permits the re-location, will start that course on September 6 th . [ 69 ] Ms.

G. admits that she could take the same course at the university here in Williams Lake. However, she asserts that based on her prior experience of trying to balance her responsibilities as a mother and an employee with the demands of schooling, she is not likely to be successful unless she has both the emotional and physical support of her parents (‘physical support’ in terms of stable, free child care and room and board). [ 70 ] The issue of child care has been a somewhat contentious one between the parties so I will deal with the evidence on that point under a separate heading. - Child Care [ 71 ] Mr.

G. has called evidence from three people - his mother, B.G., his step-mother, T.G., and his girl-friend, A.L. - all of whom the children know well and all of whom stated to the court their commitment to providing free child care for M. and L. right here in Williams Lake. Mr. G. emphasizes that if he is not available to care for the children because of work, Ms. G. would have, at a minimum, these three, good options for free child care here in Williams Lake while she focused on her studies or went to work.

He argues forcefully that child care is not a legitimate reason for re-location in this case. [ 72 ] I agree that each of the people Mr. G. puts forward would be perfectly capable of providing child care for M. and L. Until the date of separation Ms. B.G., the children’s paternal grandmother had, in fact, more often cared for M. and L. than Ms. S.R., their maternal grandmother in Kamloops. [ 73 ] However, each of the people put forward by Mr. G. is employed in work other than child care whereas Ms. S.R. is not employed outside of the home. [ 74 ] Ms.

B.G. works between 8 am and 12 noon, five days a week, as a property manager at a housing complex in Williams Lake. A.L. works at a coffee shop and Ms. T.G. is in the process of becoming trained to sell insurance by telephone from her home. [ 75 ] Ms. B.G. insists that her employer would have no problem with her caring for L. at her place of work (most days of the week, M. will be in school). In the afternoons she is finished work and can care for L. at home and then pick M. up from school and care for her also until Mr. G. or Ms. G. is able to come and get them.

She insists that she has never complained, and would never complain, about being tired, or about not being paid for her services. [ 76 ] Ms. S.R. is not employed outside the home and therefore, arguably, can devote more attention to the care of L. (and M. when she is not in school). As well, if I permit the re-location, S.R. would be caring for the children in the same house in which they would be living - in other words, they would be cared for at home rather than being transported daily to and from their child care location.

Having said that, millions of children are transported daily to child care locations and there may well be benefits to children when they are exposed early and often to locations other than their home. [ 77 ] I have concluded that the issue of child care is not determinative in this case. There is an excellent, free, child care option with one grandmother in Williams Lake. There is an excellent, free, child care option with the other grandmother in Kamloops. - Possible Re-Location by Mr. G. to Kamloops [ 78 ] In his written submissions Mr.

G. states that if the court permits re-location of the children to Kamloops then he will also move there so that he will be able to continue to see the children very regularly as has been the case in Williams Lake. [ 79 ] Mr. G. did express a similar intention when he testified at trial but, not surprisingly, since he was deeply opposed to the re-

location, he had not worked out any details - such as what employment and accommodation might be available, the cost of living in Kamloops and so on. [ 80 ] Mr. G. is a devoted father and his willingness to follow his children to Kamloops is further evidence of that. I would simply say that I hope Mr. G. will not rush into a move to Kamloops, perhaps as an angry reaction to my decision. He currently has a good job with a solid future. His relationship with A.L. is important and well worth preserving.

He has many ties in Williams Lake, not the least of which is his mother, B.G., who is willing and able to provide child care during his parenting time. For all these reasons he needs to plan such a move carefully and not rush into it. Conclusion - Best Interests of the Children [ 81 ] M. and L. are healthy children with two capable and loving parents and the solid support of a wide, extended family on both sides. [ 82 ] Although their father is a very committed, involved parent, their mother has been their primary caregiver.

This is mainly because their father has been working full time during most of their young lives, earning a living for the family. Their mother has also worked outside of the home, but less often than the father, and generally not on a full time basis. [ 83 ] Their mother has adjusted to the separation less successfully than their father. She has not returned to the work force and she has allowed her emotions to overtake her reason on occasion in ways that have had a negative effect on the emotional well-being of M. and perhaps also of L.

She longs to return to the emotionally and financially supportive environment of her birth family in Kamloops. She knows that she needs to improve her education if she is to build a future for herself and the children. But the evidence indicates she is unlikely to be successful in this regard without the support of her parents. [ 84 ] The family is struggling financially since the separation. There are now two households to support. Ms. G. needs to improve her education before she is going to be able to do much to contribute. Until that can happen Mr. G. is bearing the whole financial load. He is falling behind.

As matters stand he can only continue to pay child and spousal support, service the family debts, and pay his own basic living expenses by going further into debt. [ 85 ] The positive consequences of Ms. G.’s proposed re-location of herself and the children to her parents’ home in Kamloops can be expected to be: - greater emotional stability on the part of Ms. G. - less financial stress on Mr. G. because Ms. G.’s living expenses will be paid for by her parents - Ms.

G. is more likely to be successful at her studies and thus, more likely to be able to move forward in her life and contribute in a meaningful way to the support of herself and the children - less stress on M. and L. from being exposed to conflict between their parents and to their mother’s unhappiness - Mr. G.’s parenting time, though less than at present, is likely to be of better quality, without interruption or interference by Ms.

G., as has sometimes occurred in the 10 months since their separation. [ 86 ] The negative consequences of the proposed re-location will be: - M. and L. will see their father less often than has been possible when they were all living in Williams Lake. - M. and L. will have to spend up to 12 hours a month in a vehicle as they are transferred back and forth between Kamloops and Williams Lake. [ 87 ] In my view, the expected positive consequences of the proposed re-location to Kamloops outweigh the negative consequences, though perhaps only by a slim margin. [ 88 ] If Mr.

G. re-locates to Kamloops as well it will take care of these particular negative consequences. However, there could be other negative consequences - such as lower paying, less stable work for Mr. G., and a higher cost of living. 2. The Reasons for the Re-Location [ 89 ] Section 46(2) requires the court to also consider “the reasons for the change in the location of the child’s residence.” [ 90 ] Mr. G. suggests that Ms. G. is seeking to re-locate with the children to Kamloops as a way of “getting even” with him or hurting him. He points to a number of instances of spiteful, immature behavior on the part of Ms.

G. in the 10 months since their separation, including: (

i) cutting off all contact with B.G. even though she knows very well that B.G. cares passionately for her grandchildren, M. and L. and is a positive influence in their lives, (ii) not letting the children display a collage made at B.G.’s house, or play with toys bought for them by Mr. G. or A.L.,

(iii) the movie theatre incident, (iv) refusing to let Mr. G. have the children for a few extra hours when his work

schedule would allow it because she was jealous of his relationship with A.L., (

v) threatening to call the police if he did not drop the children off at her residence in strict compliance with the parenting time

schedule even though she was away visiting her boy-friend at the time (she had arranged for S.R. to drive all the way up from Kamloops to be there to receive the children), (vi) refusing to attend the children’s birthday parties arranged by his side of the family. [ 91 ] As I said earlier, there is ample evidence that Ms. G. has not adjusted to the separation as easily as Mr. G. The incidents he lists are examples of where she has allowed her pain, sadness and anger over the situation get the better of her reason and better instincts as a parent.

However, the evidence does not establish that her desire to re-locate with the children to Kamloops is motivated entirely, or even mainly, by spite. [ 92 ] First, Ms. G. spoke of her desire to re-locate very soon after the separation and before Mr. G. began dating A.L. I draw this inference from the fact that Mr. G. specifically referred to the issue in his Notice of Motion filed November 16 th , 2015. [ 93 ] Second, as mentioned earlier in my reasons, Ms. G. has always sought the emotional support of her own family when her relationship with Mr. G. has faltered.

In fact, even when their relationship was intact I understand, from something Mr. G. said in his evidence that Ms. G.’s preference would have been for the family to re-locate to Kamloops. [ 94 ] I find that Ms. G.’s stated reasons for wanting to move to Kamloops - for emotional support and for financial and physical support (child care, shared living expenses) - are practical and reasonable in all the circumstances. Although one of the consequences of such a move will be to decrease Mr. G.’s parenting time with the children (unless he also re-locates) the evidence does not establish that this is Ms.

G.’s motive. [ 95 ] For the reasons indicated I have decided that Ms. G. may re-locate with the children to Kamloops. That contentious issue having been decided, I will now turn to parental responsibilities and the allocation of parenting time. 3. Parenting Arrangements (

a) Parental Responsibilities [ 96 ] As paragraph 4 of my draft order indicates, the parental responsibilities (see s. 41 of the FLA) must be shared . It requires that Mr. G. and Ms. G. keep the other fully informed about anything effecting M. and L. and that they consult with each other on all major issues concerning the children and try to reach an agreement. Although there has been some conflict between them in the wake of their separation, the evidence indicates that they are likely to be successful in working together to make decisions concerning their children. (

b) Allocation of Parenting Time [ 97 ] The parenting time

schedule will hinge on whether Mr. G. also re-locates to Kamloops. Paragraph 5 of my order sets out the parenting arrangements if he continues to reside in Williams Lake and does not re-locate. Paragraph 6 sets out the parenting arrangements if he does re-locate to Kamloops. [ 98 ] I will now give my reasons for the allocation of parenting time as set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of my order, respectively. - Paragraph 5 of Draft Order: If Mr. G. Continues to Reside in Williams Lake [ 99 ] If Mr.

G. continues to reside in Williams Lake the main limitation on parenting time is the distance between Williams Lake and Kamloops and the burden of travel this will place on the children and their parents. Bearing this in mind, Mr. G. shall have parenting time during the school year on alternating weekends from 6 pm Friday to 6 pm Sunday.

I have chosen the time of 6 pm for transfer because of the children’s young ages and the need to get them to their destination in time for bed at about 8 pm. [ 100 ] If either Friday or Monday (or both) are statutory holidays then the transfer will occur on Thursday or Monday at 6 pm to allow Mr. G. to have the statutory holiday with the children. [ 101 ] Mr. G. may choose where he wishes to spend his alternating weekends with the children - Williams Lake, Kamloops, or elsewhere - the choice is his.

Obviously, if he decides to spend his parenting time in Kamloops, or in a location where he can conveniently pass through Kamloops on his way, then he must advise Ms. G. of this so that they can arrange a transfer point in Kamloops rather than in Clinton.

[ 102 ] Ms. G. had proposed that one of Mr. G.’s alternating weekends be required to be spent in Kamloops to reduce the amount of travelling for the children. I have rejected this submission. This re-location is going to be hard enough for Mr. G. as it is. I consulted Ms. G.’s emotional and financial needs in permitting the re-location. Mr. G.’s emotional and financial needs dictate that he be permitted to exercise his parenting time in the location of his choice.

And, I believe the burden on the children of travelling 2 weekends out of the month rather than 1 does not outweigh this consideration about what is fair to Mr. G. [ 103 ] As for the transfer point, it would appear that the intersection of Chasm Road with Highway 97 is approximately half way between downtown Williams Lake and downtown Kamloops. As I recall there is no public building or lighted area at that intersection.

I believe there is a sawmill close by but I have no knowledge of whether or not there is a lighted, snow plowed parking lot at the mill that might be suitable for transferring M. and L. from one vehicle to another. Mr. G. may wish to check this out and, if he considers it to be a safe, well lighted, snow-plowed area that is suitable for the transfer of the children he can advise Ms. G. and that can become the transfer point.

Until then, or in case it does not prove to be a satisfactory location, I have designated the Petro-Canada station at Clinton. [ 104 ] The transportation of the children to and from the transfer point may be done by Mr. G. and Ms. G. or by any person each may designate as their substitute. For example, Ms. G. could designate her mother, S.R., her boy-friend K., or any other person she considers fit, to drive the children to the transfer point. By the same token, Mr.

G. may designate his mother B.G., his girl-friend A.L., or any other person he considers fit. [ 105 ] My order also allocates a “third weekend” of parenting time to Mr. G. but, in recognition of the burden of travel on M. and L., I do require that this third weekend be spent in the Kamloops area. If Mr. G. wishes to come to Kamloops on this “third weekend” he should provide Ms.

G. with as much notice as possible and he should specify reasonable pick up and drop off times that take into account such things as his shift schedule, his need for sleep, the amount of time it will take him to drive to Kamloops, as well as the children’s schedules. He will have to see that the children keep any commitments they may have in Kamloops on the weekend, such as birthday parties and extra-curricular activities. I am envisioning that such “third weekend” might extend from Saturday to Monday, if Mr.

G. is working afternoons, in which case he could take M. to school on Monday morning before returning to Williams Lake. [ 106 ] As for major holidays, I have allocated all of Spring Break to Mr. G. as well as approximately two thirds of Christmas Break and Fall Break (if there is one in the Kamloops school district). This is to compensate Mr. G. and the children in some small way for the loss of the day to day parenting time that was possible while they all lived in Williams Lake. The long Summer Break is to be shared approximately equally according to whatever

schedule Mr. G. and Ms. G. think best, bearing in mind their own work

schedule and vacation plans, their commitments, the children’s need for contact with both their parents, opportunities and activities available to the children and other relevant factors. For example, it may be that Mr. G. and Ms. G. will decide that while M. and L. are under the age of 10, a “two week/two week”

schedule would be better for them during the summer break. However, if they cannot agree on some different

schedule then, as set out in my order, Mr. G. shall care for the children during the first half of the summer holiday and Ms. G. shall have them during the second half. - Paragraph 6 of Draft Order: If Mr. G. Changes His Residence to Kamloops [ 107 ] Mr. G.’s position at trial was that (

a) the children should not be re-located to Kamloops, and (

b) that he and Ms. G. should share in the care of their children on a “50/50” basis. He proposed, I believe, a one week/one week schedule. [ 108 ] If Mr. G. moves his residence to Kamloops now that I have permitted the re-location of the children, a shared care arrangement would be possible. However, I am not going to order such an arrangement at this time. There are too many unknowns. What sort of work will Mr. G. be able to find in Kamloops? Where will it be and what will his hours be? What sort of accommodation will he find and where will it be located in relation to M.’s school and Ms. G.’s residence?

Who will provide child care if he has the children 50% of the time? These young people ought not to expect that S.R. will provide free child care forever. [ 109 ] Because of all these unknowns, I have decided to put in place a parenting time

schedule that is similar to that set out in the interim order of February 11 th , 2016. It provides for mid-week parenting time on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or one overnight each Wednesday night if the parents find that preferable. It also provides for alternating weekends. The parents will have to fine tune the arrangements once Mr. G.’s work

schedule and place of residence in Kamloops are determined. [ 110 ] The major holidays will be divided equally as in the February 11 th , 2016 interim order. [ 111 ] As was evident from the review of Mr. G.’s diary during the trial, the parenting arrangements set out in the order of February 11 th had the effect of the children spending some period of time with Mr. G. on about half the days of the month. Thus, it comes close to achieving Mr. G.’s goal of “50/50” even though it arranges the time somewhat differently than the one week/one week

schedule he suggested. [ 112 ] However, if either Mr. G. or Ms. G. feel the

schedule I have set out in paragraph 6 is not satisfactory, they are at liberty to bring an application to court to change it. As noted, the focus of the trial was on (

a) the hotly contested issue of re-location of the children, and (

b) parenting arrangements assuming Mr. G. would continue to reside in Williams Lake. There was no evidence at trial touching on what parenting arrangements would be appropriate if Mr. G. moved to Kamloops. It will be important that any court reviewing paragraph 6 of my Order understand this. 4. Child Support

[ 113 ] Child support is governed by

Part 7, Division 2 of the Family Law Act of B.C. and by the Federal Child Support Guidelines . Generally speaking the factors that will determine the amount of child support payable, and by whom, are first, the allocation of parenting time between the parents, and second, the income of the payor parent. [ 114 ] I will base my child support order on the assumption that Ms. G. will have the care of the children for at least 60% of the time. This will certainly be the case if Mr. G. continues to reside in Williams Lake and Ms. G. re-locates with the children to Kamloops. Even if Mr.

G. moves to Kamloops and the allocation is that set out in paragraph 6 - in other words, something very close to what it has been in Williams Lake since the interim order of February 11 th , 2016 - Ms. G. will still have the care of the children for 60% of the time, by my calculation. Mr. G. will spend some time with the children on 14 to 16 days out of a month but many of those days will not be full, 24 hour days, and thus the overall allocation to Mr. G. will remain at something between 30 and 40%.

This means that child support will be payable by him at the Guideline amount. [ 115 ] I should add that even if parenting time were shared “50/50” on, say, a week on/week off basis, Mr. G. would still end up paying the full amount of child support (see s. 9 of the Guidelines) until such time as Ms. G. gets established in the work force in some decent paying, full time employment. At present she has no income that I am aware of other than the federal child benefits. [ 116 ] As Mr. G. will be the payor parent based on the parenting time allocation, I turn now to determination of his income. [ 117 ] Mr.

G.’s income has varied between $62,000 and $67,000 per year for the past three years.

I will therefore find that he has an income for Guideline purposes of half way between these two figures, which is $64,500.00. [ 118 ] The table amount of support payable for two children at that income is $979.00 per month which I will make payable in two equal instalments of $489.50 on the 1 st and the 15 th of each month starting on October 1 st and October 15 th , 2016 and continuing on the 1 st and the 15 th of each month thereafter. [ 119 ] In order that each parent can keep track of the amount payable under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and of how to proportion special and extra-ordinary expenses once those arise, I will require each parent to provide to the other parent a copy of their annual Canada Revenue Agency Notice of Assessment or Re-assessment by May 30 th annually, starting with May 30 th , 2017. 5.

Spousal Support [ 120 ] Mr. G. has been paying Ms. G. the sum of $535.00 per month pursuant to the interim order of February 11th, 2016. This was agreed at Family Case Conference and was stated to be on a “without prejudice” basis. [ 121 ]

Part 7, Division 4 of the Family Law Act of B.C. deals with spousal support. The court must decide first whether Ms. G. is entitled to spousal support bearing in mind the objectives set out in sections 160 and 161. If Ms. G. is entitled to spousal support the second issue is the amount and duration of such support (s. 162). [ 122 ] Mr. G. and Ms. G. began living together in early 2008. They lived together for about a year and got engaged to be married. However, early in 2009 “things got rocky” and Ms. G. moved out and returned to live with her parents in Kamloops.

She transferred her job at the Shoe Warehouse from Williams Lake to Kamloops. Six or eight months later, in the fall of 2009 Mr. G. and Ms. G. reconciled and shortly after that became pregnant with M. [ 123 ] Because they broke up for quite a period in 2009, I have decided that, for the purposes of determining entitlement to spousal support, the start date for this couple’s true spousal relationship is the late fall of 2009 when they became pregnant with their first child. Ms. G was 20 and Mr. G. was 22.

Their spousal relationship endured for 6 years after that, until their separation on November 4 th , 2015. - Entitlement [ 124 ]

Section 161 says that in determining entitlement to spousal support, the court must consider the following objectives: (

a) to recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the relationship…or the breakdown of that relationship [ 125 ] Mr. G. and Ms. G. gave somewhat inconsistent evidence on whether their spousal relationship was a “traditional” one, and if so, whether that was something they both chose. Mr. G. said that when Ms. G. did stay at home with the children he would come home from work and find that she expected him to do many of the household chores and assume the care of the child or children while she went out to visit friends. Ms.

G., on the other hand, described a truly “traditional” relationship in which she took care of the household chores, managed the family finances and did most of the child care, while Mr. G. went out to work and was the family “breadwinner”. [ 126 ] Ms. G. stayed home for two 1-year maternity leaves, during which, I assume, she received some amount of employment insurance. As well, she was off work for a further 6 to 8 months in late 2011, early 2012, and for the past, roughly 9 months in 2015 and 2016 in the wake of the couple’s separation. Thus, of their 6 years of spousal relationship, Ms.

G. has stayed home a little over 3 years in total. When Ms. G. did work outside the home, her employment was minimum wage and I believe also part time, as a desk clerk at the {omitted for publishing}, earning between $9,000 and $11,000 per annum.

[ 127 ] Ms. G. did not pursue any post-secondary education or trades training to help improve her economic situation until the fall of 2015 when she started an on-line course on Medical Terminology. She did not complete this course. She said she had a hard time coping with the course work as well as caring for the children, looking after the house and working part time at the {omitted for publishing}. [ 128 ] I find that the evidence does establish that Ms.

G. likely would have been more successful at improving her education and getting better paying work at an earlier stage in her life were it not for her relationship with Mr. G. and her duties as a parent. Put another way, she was, to some extent, “economically disadvantaged” by her spousal relationship and parental duties. [ 129 ] Mr. G. and Ms. G. have certainly both been economically disadvantaged by the breakdown of their relationship. There is less income and more expense than when they were a couple and Mr.

G., who is the spouse who has been trying to pay all the bills since the separation, is falling behind. There is less income because Ms. G. took stress leave from her job and has not returned to work. The expenses are greater because there are now two households to pay for rather than one. (

b) to apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of their child, beyond the duty to provide support for the child [ 130 ] As noted above, I find that the evidence establishes that Ms. G. probably would have taken steps to get better paying, full time work earlier in her life had she not been involved in giving birth to, and caring for, M. and L. (

c) to relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the relationship between the spouses [ 131 ] As noted above, Mr. G., in particular, has been suffering economic hardship as a result of the breakdown of the relationship because, on the same salary, he is now supporting two households rather than one. (

d) as far as practicable, to promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time [ 132 ] Ms. G. realizes that she must work towards becoming economically self-sufficient from Mr. G. within a reasonable period of time. [ 133 ] She has a realistic plan to do so. [ 134 ] It involves moving with the children to Kamloops and living rent-free at her parents’ residence for at least the first year. Her mother will assist with the day to day care of the children as well as with household chores and costs.

She believes that with this assistance she can focus on her studies and successfully complete the Administrative Assistant’s course at T.R.U. within the next year. She believes that with such qualification she will be better able to find stable, well paying, full time employment and start to build a life for herself and the children separate from the support of Mr. G. Conclusion - Entitlement to Spousal Support [ 135 ] Ms. G. has established that she is entitled to receive spousal support because I am satisfied that she has suffered some economic disadvantage from her relationship with Mr.

G. and her role as the primary care-giver of their children. [ 136 ] Having said that, Mr. G., in particular, has suffered economic disadvantage from the breakdown of the relationship. He has been trying to support two households with one salary and has been falling behind. [ 137 ] Ms. G. knows that she has to work on improving her education and on getting better paying, more stable work in the future in order to become economically self-sufficient within a reasonable time now that her spousal relationship with Mr. G. is over.

With the assistance of her parents she has come up with a reasonable plan to do so. - Amount and Duration of Spousal Support [ 138 ]

Section 162 defines the considerations when determining the amount and duration of spousal support: “The amount and duration of spousal support, if any, must be determined on consideration of the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including the following: (

a) the length of time the spouses lived together; (

b) the functions performed by each spouse during the period they lived together;

(

c) an agreement between the spouses, or an order, relating to the support of either spouse.” [ 139 ] The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines provide a framework for making this calculation and the DivorceMate software referred to by counsel for Ms. G. assists in providing sample calculations. [ 140 ] I have permitted Ms. G. to relocate with the children to Kamloops. Her parents have offered to have her and the children stay at their home in Kamloops rent-free and to provide free child care until she can get through her Administrative Assistant’s course and get back into the workforce.

It is expected that this will take about a year. [ 141 ] This was a 6 year spousal relationship. For a little more than half that time Ms. G. did not work outside the home. Mr. G. is currently going deeper and deeper into debt as he tries to continue to pay the couple’s debts, child support, the interim, “without prejudice” spousal support of $535/month he agreed to on February 11 th , 2016, plus his own living expenses. [ 142 ] In my view, bearing in mind the “conditions, means, needs and other circumstances” of both spouses at this time, it is appropriate to order that Mr.

G. not be required to pay spousal support for a period of one year, commencing October 1 st , 2016 and ending September 30 th , 2017. During that time Ms. G.’s needs will be met by her parents. Ms. G. and her parents intend to get the Chevy Cruze into their name and, as soon as Mr. G. is no longer responsible for the payments on that vehicle, plus insurance, Mr. G. will need to pay the full amount of child support owing each month. [ 143 ] As of the 1 st of October, 2017 Ms. G. can assess her situation as it concerns spousal support.

She will be at liberty to requisition the case back into court at that time for a review of the amount and duration of spousal support. Conclusion [ 144 ] For the reasons set out, I make the Order attached as Appendix A. _____________________________ E. L. Bayliff Provincial Court Judge G. v. G. Williams Lake Registry # 15-4889 Appendix A DRAFT FINAL ORDER THIS MATTER coming on for trial on August 15 th , 16 th , 17 th & 18 th , 2016 at Williams Lake, B.C.; AND UPON hearing the evidence and submissions; AND UPON receiving written submissions on August 25 th (from counsel for Ms. G.) and August 31 st (from Mr.

G.); THIS COURT ORDERS: 1. This Order replaces the Order of the 11 th of February, 2016;

2. L.A.G. (the “Father”) and C.-R.R.G. (the “Mother”) are deemed to be the guardians of “the Children”, M.R.G., born August 5 th , 2010 and L.J.G., born April 19 th , 2013, pursuant to s. 39 of the Family Law Act of B.C. (“ FLA”) ; 3. Pursuant to s. 46 of the FLA, the Mother shall be permitted to re-locate the children’s residence from Williams Lake, B.C. to Kamloops, B.C.; 4. Parental Responsibilities: During their parenting time each guardian shall have the parental responsibility of making day-to-day decisions affecting the Children and having day-to-day care, control and supervision of the Children.

The guardians shall share all other responsibilities with respect to the Children as follows: (

a) in the event of the death of a guardian, the surviving guardian will be the only guardian of the Children; (

b) each guardian will have the obligation to advise the other guardian of any matters of a significant nature affecting the Children; (

c) each guardian will have the obligation to discuss with the other guardian any significant decisions that have to be made concerning the Children, including significant decisions about the Childrens’ health (except emergency decisions), education, religious instruction and general welfare; (

d) the guardians will have the obligation to discuss significant decisions with each other and the obligation to try to reach agreement on those decisions; (

e) in the event that the guardians cannot reach agreement on a significant decision despite their best efforts, the Mother will be entitled to make those decisions and the Father will have the right to apply for directions on any decision he considers contrary to the best interests of the Children, under s. 49 of the FLA; and (

f) each guardian will have the right to obtain information concerning the child directly from third parties, including but not limited to, teachers, counsellors, medical professionals, and third party care-givers and, to facilitate this, each guardian must immediately advise the other guardian of the names and contact information of such third parties, when requested to do so. 5. Allocation of Parenting Time: If the Father maintains his residence in Williams Lake, he shall have parenting time with the Children as follows: (

a) Father’s regular weekend parenting time during the school year: (

i) on alternating weekends, from 6 pm Friday (or Thursday if Friday is a statutory holiday) to 6 pm Sunday (or Monday if Monday is a statutory holiday); (ii) such parenting time is to take place at a location of the Father’s choosing; (iii)unless the Father advises otherwise, transfer shall occur at the Petro Canada station in Clinton, B.C.; and (iv) each guardian may designate another person to drive the Children to or from the transfer location. (

b) Father’s third weekend in Kamloops: (

i) the Father may have parenting time on a third weekend of each month provided that it takes place in Kamloops; (ii) the Father shall provide the Mother with as much notice as possible of the date and time of pick up and drop off if he wishes to exercise parenting time on a third weekend in Kamloops;

(

c) two-thirds of every Fall Break (if there is one); (

d) every Spring Break; (

e) two-thirds of Christmas Break. With respect to the special days of Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, if the guardians do not agree on some alternate arrangement, the Father shall have the children for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in even numbered years beginning in 2016 and the Mother shall have the children for those days in odd numbered years; (

f) one-half of Summer Break. If the guardians do not agree on some alternate arrangement, the Father shall have the children each year for the 5 weeks commencing on the day following the last day of school and the Mother shall have the children for the remainder of the Summer Break; and (

g) such other parenting time as the guardians may agree upon. 6. Allocation of Parenting Time continued: If the Father changes his residence to the area of Kamloops, B.C., he shall have parenting time with the Children as follows: (

a) Father’s regular weekday parenting time: on Tuesdays and Thursdays for up to 4 hours at a time, or from after school on Wednesday to the start of school on Thursday or such other

schedule as may be agreed between the parties; (

b) Father’s regular alternating weekends: from 6 pm Friday (or Thursday if Friday is a statutory holiday) to 6 pm Sunday (or Monday if Monday is a statutory holiday) or such other

schedule as may be agreed between the parties; (

c) one-half of Fall Break (if there is one) and one-half of Spring Break; (

d) one-half of Christmas Break. With respect to the special days of Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, if the guardians do not agree on some alternate arrangement, the Father shall have the children for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in even numbered years beginning in 2016 and the Mother shall have the children for those days in odd numbered years; (

f) one-half of Summer Break. If the guardians do not agree on some alternate arrangement, the Father shall have the children each year for the 5 weeks commencing on the day following the last day of school and the Mother shall have the children for the remainder of the Summer Break; and (

g) such other parenting time as the guardians may agree upon. 7. The Mother shall have parenting time with the Children at all other times, unless otherwise agreed between the guardians. 8. Child Support : (

a) the Father is found to have a Guideline income of $64,500.00. He shall pay the table amount of child support to the Mother in the amount of $979.00 per month in two equal installments of $489.50 payable on the 1 st and the 15 th of each month beginning on October 1 st and 15 th , 2016 and continuing on the 1 st and 15 th of each and every month thereafter;

(

b) the Father and the Mother shall each provide the other with a copy of their Canada Revenue Agency Notice of Assessment or Re-assessment for the previous taxation year by May 30 th annually starting with May 30 th , 2017. This is for the purpose of monitoring the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to their situation. 9. Spousal Support : the Father’s obligation to pay spousal support is suspended for one year, until September 1 st , 2017. After that date the Mother is at liberty to requisition the matter back to court on any date prior to the 31 st of December, 2019 for a review of the issue of spousal support.