T.M.W. v. F.F.B., 2017 BCPC 440

Citation: T.M.W. v. F.F.B. 2017 BCPC 440 Date: 20171003 File No: 15036 Registry: Smithers IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: T.M.W. APPLICANT AND: F.F.B. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. T. DOULIS Counsel for the Applicant: Hudson, T. Counsel for the Respondent: Lyons, D. Place of Hearing: Smithers , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 3, 2017 Date of Judgment: October 3, 2017

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On August 31, 2017, after a five day hearing, I handed down my Reasons for Judgment in F.F.B. and T.M.W.’s contested application concerning parenting time and responsibilities for their daughter, A.M.W. I determined it was in A.M.W.’s best interests to live primarily with F.F.B.

I invited counsel’s further submissions on the inevitable transition from the existing shared parenting arrangement, T.M.W.’s parenting time and the impact of my decision on the various terms Judge Birnie’s March 7, 2016 order. [ 2 ] F.F.B. and T.M.W. and their counsel appeared before me on October 3, 2017, to address these issues. Issues: [ 3 ] The issue before the court is how parenting responsibilities for and parenting time of A.M.W. is to be allocated between F.F.B. and T.M.W. in light of my August 31, 2017 decision.

Events since August 31, 2017 [ 4 ] On September 11, 2017, F.F.B. filed an application seeking the following: a. an order pursuant to s. 37(2)(

f) and (g), 38, 183 and 185 of the Family Law Act for an interim order that A.M.W.’s overnight parenting with T.M.W. be suspended pending receipt of RCMP records; b. an order pursuant to s. 38, 183 and 185 of the Family Law Act , that T.M.W. not exercise any parenting time of A.M.W. in the presence of J.B., direct or indirect; and c. an order that the RCMP disclose its records from August 1, 2016 to the present involving T.M.W. and/or F.F.B. and/or A.M.W. [ 5 ] In support of his September 11, 2017 application, F.F.B. filed an affidavit sworn September 8, 2017, in which he stated: a. on Saturday, September 2, 2017, he received information via a police scanner of a domestic dispute ongoing between T.M.W. and her partner, J.B.; and b.

A.M.W. was present in T.M.W.’s home during this altercation. [ 6 ] F.F.B. says that when she returned to his home on September 5, 2017, A.M.W. told him about the September 2, 2017 incident. From A.M.W., F.F.B. learned: a. T.M.W. was talking on the phone with her mother who overheard J.B. yelling at T.M.W. and called the police; b. A.M.W. was sleeping when she woke in fear upon hearing T.M.W. and J.B. arguing; c. J.B. “barged through A.M.W.’s door and began yelling, screaming and swearing at A.M.W.” He called her a “little bitch” and told her “to get the “f” out of his house”; d.

T.M.W. did not intervene when J.B. was yelling at A.M.W. T.M.W. told A.M.W. not to tell the police about J.B. yelling and swearing; e. T.M.W. lied to the police who responded to the complaint; f. A.M.W. is very fearful of J.B. and says he needs to leave. [ 7 ] F.F.B. says that A.M.W. cried profusely while recounting the incident. T.M.W. has not discussed the incident with him. [ 8 ] T.M.W. has never filed an affidavit with respect to the September 2, 2017 incident. Mr. Lyons has advised the court, both on September 18, 2017 and October 3, 2017 that T.M.W. says nothing happened on September 2, 2017.

T.M.W. told him on that evening she was arguing with her mother on the telephone about J.B., who her mother dislikes. T.M.W.’s mother was intoxicated and said, “Well, I will just call the cops” and T.M.W. told her to “go ahead.” I gather the mother carried out her threat and the police arrived at T.M.W. and J.B.’s home. T.M.W. says “nothing happened.” [ 9 ] On September 18, 2017, F.F.B. and T.M.W., together with their respective counsels, Mr. Hudson and Mr. Lyons, appeared in Smithers Provincial Court before Regional Administrative Judge Brecknell for a hearing of F.F.B.’s September 11, 2017 application.

On that date, Mr. Lyons advised the court that T.M.W. consented to F.F.B.’s application for RCMP disclosure and opposed his application prohibiting T.M.W. having overnight parenting time or parenting time in J.B.’s presence. [ 10 ] On September 18, 2017, Regional Administrative Judge Brecknell ordered: a. the RCMP to disclose any records they had relating to complaints filed by, against, or involving F.F.B. or T.M.W. from February 4, 2016, to the present. b.

T.M.W. could exercise parenting time with A.M.W. in accordance with the existing parenting order as long as J.B. was not in the direct presence of A.M.W. or T.M.W. [The “existing parenting order” means Judge Birnie’s order of March 7, 2016.] [ 11 ] In his October 3, 2017 submissions, Mr. Lyons referred to a letter he had just received from T.M.W. The letter was one T.M.W. had received earlier from a social worker in the employ of the Ministry of Child and Family Services. The MCFD social worker

stated she had contacted the RCMP concerning the September 2, 2017 incident, and is satisfied “nothing happened.” Mr. Hudsonobjected to the admissibility of this correspondence on the basis he had never seen it and, in any event, the local MCFD has shown itselfbiased toward F.F.B. Mr. Hudson went on to submit that when F.F.B. contacted the Provincial MCFD help line about what A.M.W. toldhim of the September 2, 2017 incident, a social worker advised him against returning A.M.W. to T.M.W.’s care. When F.F.B. contactedthe Smithers MCFD office, he was told the police could come to his house and remove A.M.W.

The police have no such power absent acourt order. Mr. Lyons did not seek to have the letter entered into evidence. [12] It is trite law that submissions of counsel are not evidence and if disputed cannot be accepted as fact: R. v. Pahl, 2016 BCCA234 . Mr. Hudson submits the police records are to be preferred over the Smithers MCFD social worker’s views on theSeptember 2, 2017 incident. Nevertheless, I accept that T.M.W. denied anything happened on the evening of September 2, 2017, to thepolice and MCFD. This is corroborated by A.M.W.’s account of the incident as set out in F.F.B.’s affidavit.

And, although it is hearsayevidence, I accept that A.M.W. told F.F.B. of her perception and experience of the September 2, 2017 incident. [13] In considering the evidence before me of A.M.W.’s views of the family violence in T.M.W.’s household, I am mindful of Mr.Justice Smith’s comments in D.A.F. v R.D.F., 2017 BCSC 873 , [29] Turning to the merits of the application, s. 37 of the FLA requires the court to consider only the best interests of the child and lists anumber of factors the court must consider in determining what is in a child’s best interests.

One of those factors, referred toin s. 37(2)(b), is “the child’s views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them”. [30] Although the court is directed to consider a child’s views, determining what those views are is a difficult task, particularly as thesematters are most frequently decided on applications in chambers. It is almost always inappropriate for parties to directly involve evenolder children in the dispute by obtaining affidavits from them.

The court is often left with affidavits in which parents give conflictinghearsay evidence about what a child has or has not said to them, along with their opinions about the child’s motivation and true feelings. Both parties in this case have included evidence of that kind in their affidavits. [31] Faced with such evidence, it is difficult for the court to know if the child is telling each parent what the parent wants to hear or ifthe parents are each hearing what they want to hear regardless of what the child has actually said.

It is open to a judge to interview achild, but the judge may have neither the specific skills nor the time required to build the necessary rapport and conduct a productiveinterview with the child. [32] Those evidentiary difficulties are the primary reason that s. 211 gives the court the option of ordering a “Views of the ChildReport”.

It allows the court to hear the child’s views through a neutral professional who is properly qualified to elicit and assess thoseviews. [14] I do not believe it is in A.M.W.’s best interest to delay this matter further to facilitate the commission of a further s. 211 report. [15] Upon considering what evidence I do have and submissions of counsel, I accept A.M.W. does fear J.B. when he is angry. Position of F.F.B. [16] On October 3, 2017, I received written submissions from Mr. Hudson, particularizing F.F.B.’s position on how parenting timeof and parenting responsibilities for A.M.W. ought to be allocated.

F.F.B. advocated for the following parenting arrangement: a. T.M.W. is not to have any parenting time with A.M.W. in the presence of her sons, T.C. or D.C. This condition is based onparagraph 290 of my August 31, 2017 Reasons for Judgment which state: [290] T.M.W. has been subjected to family violence by her partners, M.C. and then J.B. Also T.C. and D.C. are prohibited from beingin A.M.W.’s presence unsupervised. They are both in MFCD care because T.M.W. was unable to cope with or control their violent andconfrontational behaviour. T.C. in particular was violent against T.M.W.

I do not see how T.M.W. can ensure A.M.W.’s safety whenT.C. and D.C. are visiting her, even if she does supervise them. b. T.M.W. may only exercise parenting time in the absence of J.B. Specifically, J.B. must not be directly present with A.M.W. orT.M.W. nor permitted to communicate with A.M.W. either directly or indirectly. F.F.B.’s request for this restriction is based onA.M.W.’s account of the incident which occurred in T.M.W.’s home on September 2, 2017, and A.M.W.’s generalized fear of J.B.

It isalso based on paragraphs 286 and 292 of my August 31, 2017, Reasons for Judgment which state: [286] Although she has a long history of caring for A.M.W., the police and MCFD records indicate this care was at times wanting.

T.M.W.’s ability to exercise her parental responsibilities is compromised by: a. her suspicion of and hostility toward F.F.B.; c. she is entirely dependent on a man who is prepared to use violence against her when angry; d. her alcohol abuse; e. she is dominated by J.B. who is hostile to F.F.B.; f. she is unwilling to place A.M.W.’s interests above her own, for example, T.M.W. would not attend the NHAB meetingsbecause she felt she would be blamed for A.M.W. having FASD; she does not respond to F.F.B.’s texts because they might be usedagainst her. . . . [292] T.M.W.’s passive acceptance of family violence is troubling.

It places both her and A.M.W. at risk. As T.M.W. herself admits,

she can protect neither herself nor A.M.W. from her partner’s family violence. Family violence is inherently destabilizing to a household, forcing children to try and function in its ensuing chaos. A.M.W. is too disabled to cope with such an environment. . . . [301] T.M.W. does not disclose to F.F.B. anything about her household and discourages A.M.W. from speaking of the family violence. g. T.M.W. will have each Thursday from after school at 2:00 p.m. until 6:45 p.m.; h. T.M.W. will have every second weekend from Friday after school until Sunday evening at 6:45 p.m., and if the weekend is a long weekend, then she shall have the extra parenting time; i. F.F.B.’s proposed parenting

schedule as set out above will be implemented immediately. j. Christmas Vacation. F.F.B. proposes he and T.M.W. share equally the Christmas vacation such that in odd years he will have A.M.W. from after school on the last day of school until the day that is one-half way through the Christmas break at noon and T.M.W. will have A.M.W. from 12:00 p.m. through to the day before school resumes at 12:00 p.m. In even years the

schedule will reverse. F.F.B. says he ought to have A.M.W. the first half of the Christmas vacation this year (2017) because last year he had no parenting time during the entire Christmas vacation. k. Spring Vacation. F.F.B. proposes that he and T.M.W. share the Spring vacation such that in even years he will have A.M.W. from after school on the last day of school until the day that is one-half way through the spring break at 12:00 p.m., and T.M.W. will have A.M.W. from 12:00 p.m. through to the day before school resumes at 12:00 p.m. In odd years the

schedule will reverse. l. Summer Vacation: F.F.B. proposes: i. T.M.W. have one week of uninterrupted parenting time with A.M.W. in July and again in August on 30 days written notice to F.F.B. ii. F.F.B. will have two uninterrupted weeks of parenting time on 30 days written notice to T.M.W.; iii. During the remainder of the summer holidays, T.M.W. will have A.M.W.: a. Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. until 6:45 p.m.; and b. Every second weekend from 9:00 a.m. on Friday until Sunday at 6:45 p.m.

F.F.B. says this allocation of parenting time during the summer vacation is appropriate because of A.M.W.’s learning disabilities, he has to continue A.M.W.’s Step Up education program during the school summer break. [ 17 ] As a result of the events which arose last year, F.F.B. seeks a police assist order pursuant to s. 183(3) of the Family Law Act . In the event T.M.W. refuses or fails to return A.M.W. to F.F.B.’s care, the police are directed to accompany F.F.B. to supervise A.M.W.’s return to his care.

F.F.B. says an order of this type is necessary because it is “emotionally, physically and financially exhausting for F.F.B. to have to continue to resort to the court process in order to secure compliance with this Court’s orders.” [ 18 ] As to modifications of Judge Birnie’s Order, Mr. Hudson submits: a. Orders set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6(c), 6(

h) and 6(i), 8 and 10 ought to be cancelled in their entirety; b. Orders set out in paragraphs 4, 6(a), 6(b), 6(d), 6(e), 6(f), 6(

g) and paragraph 11 will remain and continue; c. the order set out in paragraph 3 will be varied to state that T.M.W. will have A.M.W. on her birthday and Mother’s day from after school until 6:45 or if it is on a weekend, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m.; d. the order set out in paragraph 7 will be varied to include the word “text”; and e. the orders set out in paragraph 9 will be varied to state: F.F.B. will exercise sole parental responsibility save and except that when T.M.W. has A.M.W. she may: i. give, refuse or withdraw consent to medical, dental and other health-related treatments for A.M.W. in the event of a medical emergency; and ii. request and receive from third parties health, education or other information respecting A.M.W.

F.F.B. justifies his proposed allocation of parenting time on my August 31, 2017 Reason for Judgment, including my comments at paragraphs 298, 312 and 314: [298] As the court history reveals, F.F.B. and T.M.W.’s ability to communicate and cooperate for A.M.W.’s best interests is marginal to non-existent. . . . [312] I am left with the impression that T.M.W. complies with the terms of the court orders when it suits her. F.F.B. is forced to return

to court to secure her compliance, at which times T.M.W. consents to an order resolving the issue, and the process repeats itself. . . . [314] I believe that A.M.W. is adversely impacted by the factors set out above. A.M.W. needs security, stability and consistency which are undermined by family violence and her parents’ inability or refusal to cooperate and communicate in her best interests. [ 19 ] F.F.B. says his proposed parenting regime is necessary given A.M.W.’s diagnosis of FASD, ADHD and other learning disorders.

F.F.B. says that with the assistance of his wife and his parents, he can best provide A.M.W. with the security, stability and consistency necessary to provide her the opportunity to thrive and grow to the greatest extent possible and ensure her disabilities limit her as little as possible. Position of T.M.W. [ 20 ] T.M.W.’s first position with respect to the matters before the court is the parenting regime as set out in Judge Birnie’s March 7, 2016 order ought to remain intact. Mr. Lyons submits that A.M.W. has lived most of her life with T.M.W.

It would be destabilizing and traumatizing to A.M.W. to replace the current parenting time with one in which she would spend significantly less time with her mother. Such a regime is contrary to the Northern Health Assessment Authority’s determination of A.M.W.’s needs for consistency and stability. [ 21 ] T.M.W.’s second position that if she is to have less parenting time with A.M.W. than provided under Judge Birnie’s March 7, 2016 order, then it should not be significantly less. Mr. Lyons submits that the current week on week off

schedule could be modified by having A.M.W. have overnights with T.M.W. during the work week but day visits only during the weekend. This would mean that on her Friday and Saturday parenting times, T.M.W. would return A.M.W. to F.F.B.’s for the evening. Such an arrangement would minimize A.M.W.’s risk of exposure to family violence in T.M.W.’s home, because the violence typically occurs on Friday or Saturday night. J.B. works at his cleaning business in the evenings during the work week and therefore there is little chance of domestic violence at that time. [ 22 ] Mr.

Lyons also recommended this second option could be fortified with a conduct order directing J.B. is to leave the home immediately in the event of any future family violence. In such case, the conduct order could become a protection order. [ 23 ] T.M.W.’s third and fall-back position is F.F.B. ought to have as much parenting time as possible and any new parenting arrangement ought to be introduced gradually over two or more months.

Analysis: [ 24 ] I find that F.F.B.’s proposal for parenting time is too restrictive and that T.M.W.’s proposals are inconsistent with my August 31, 2017 decision that A.M.W.’s primary residence be with F.F.B. [ 25 ] With respect to F.F.B.’s proposal, I have the following concerns: a. There are less restrictive measures than limiting T.M.W.’s parenting time with A.M.W. to times when neither T.C. nor D.C. are present; b. I am not satisfied the evidence before me supports a blanket prohibition on T.M.W. having parenting time with A.M.W. if J.B. is present; c.

T.M.W. ought to have regular parenting time with A.M.W. two days per week, at least for a transitional period; and d. F.F.B. ought to attempt to consult with T.M.W. about significant parenting responsibilities before making the decision. [ 26 ] With respect to T.M.W.’s proposal, I have the following concerns: a. to maintain the current parenting arrangement of one week on and one week off is incompatible with my August 31, 2017 decision that A.M.W.’s primary residence be with F.F.B.; b. to simply tweak the one week on and one week off

schedule to reduce the potential for domestic violence in T.M.W.’s household suggests domestic violence was the only reason for my August 31, 2017 decision that A.M.W.’s primary residence be with F.F.B.. There were many factors giving rise to this decision, including T.M.W.’s refusal or inability to communicate or cooperate with F.F.B. in A.M.W.’s best interest; c. as J.B. is not a party to these proceedings, I cannot make a conduct or protection order against him; d. the options do not adequately reduce the opportunities for conflict between F.F.B. and T.M.W.; and e.

T.M.W.’s volatile domestic situation with J.B. militates against a lengthy transition period; [ 27 ] In my view, stability cannot be forged in a crucible of instability. I cannot accept the premise that continuing the status quo, despite its risk and dysfunction, is nevertheless desirable because it is, after all, continuous. Surely this is not the structured and stable environment A.M.W.’s health care providers envisioned. [ 28 ] As a child suffering from ADHD and FASD, A.M.W.’s needs are complex.

There is a heightened need for A.M.W.’s parents to communicate effectively with respect to her medical treatment, support services, education and activities. Her well-being depends on effective-decision making. As Dr. Strauss testified, conflict is particularly harmful to A.M.W. It is also confusing and frustrating to A.M.W.’s various s ervice providers to know who can make decisions on her behalf.

[ 29 ] F.F.B. and T.M.W. cannot or will not cooperate or communicate in A.M.W.’s best interest. F.F.B. cannot effectively communicate with T.M.W. when she refuses to respond to his reasonable inquiries. T.M.W. will not effectively communicate with F.F.B. because she believes he will use her response against her. F.F.B. is exhausted having to seek judicial intervention to compel T.M.W.’s cooperation; T.M.W. is exhausted at being repeatedly forced to explain herself to a judge and ordered to cooperate with F.F.B.

This dynamic militates against maximizing A.M.W.’s parenting time with both parents. [ 30 ] For the reasons set out in my August 31, 2017 decision, I am of the view that F.F.B. is the parent better able to meet A.M.W.’s special needs through decisive, informed and consistent parenting in a peaceful household. Consequently, A.M.W. will reside primarily with F.F.B. This means F.F.B. will have the majority of the parenting time with A.M.W. and the final say in those parenting responsibilities to which he and T.M.W. cannot agree in a timely manner.

Disposition [ 31 ] For simplicities sake I am going to cancel Judge Birnie’s March 7, 2016 order and replace it with the following orders: Orders with respect to regular parenting time: 1. Except as provided for in the

schedule below, A.M.W.’s primary residence will be with her father, F.F.B.; 2. F.F.B. will have the majority of the parenting time with A.M.W.; 3.

Except as provided elsewhere in this order, T.M.W., will have parenting time with A.M.W. as follows: a. each Thursday after school until 6:45 p.m.; b. for a transitional period, every Sunday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. when T.M.W. is not having weekend parenting time with A.M.W. pursuant to this schedule; c. every second weekend from Friday after school until Sunday evening at 6:45 p.m., and if the day preceding or following the weekend includes a statutory holiday or professional development day, then T.M.W.’s parenting time will include that extra day; and d. on such other dates and times as F.F.B. and T.M.W. may in writing agree.

Orders with respect to holidays and special days: 4. Christmas Vacation. F.F.B. and T.M.W. will share parenting time of A.M.W. during the Christmas school break. In the odd years commencing and including 2017, F.F.B. will have A.M.W. from after school on the last day of school until the day that is one-half way through the Christmas break at 12:00 p.m. and T.M.W. will have A.M.W. from 12:00 p.m. through to the day before school resumes at 12:00 p.m. In even years the

schedule will reverse. 5. Spring Vacation. F.F.B. and T.M.W. will share parenting time of A.M.W. in the school spring break such that in even years he will have A.M.W. from after school on the last day of school until the day that is one-half way through the spring break at 12:00 p.m., and T.M.W. will have A.M.W. from 12:00 p.m. through to the day before school resumes at 12:00 p.m. In odd years the

schedule will reverse. 6. Summer Vacation: T.M.W. will have one week of uninterrupted parenting time with A.M.W. in July and again in August on 30 days written notice to F.F.B.; a. F.F.B. will have two uninterrupted weeks of parenting time on 30 days written notice to T.M.W.; b. During the remainder of the summer holidays, T.M.W. will have A.M.W.: i. Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. until 6:45 p.m.; and ii. Every second weekend from 9:00 a.m. on Friday until Sunday at 6:45 p.m. 7.

Special Days: T.M.W. shall have A.M.W. on her birthday and Mother’s Day from after school until 6:45 or if it on a weekend, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. 8. A.M.W.’s Birthday: F.F.B. and T.M.W. will share A.M.W.’s birthday each year such that T.M.W. has parenting time with A.M.W. from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and F.F.B. has parenting time with A.M.W. from 3:00 p.m. onward, unless A.M.W.’s birthday falls on a school day in which case the parent that does not have A.M.W. in his or her care will have A.M.W. from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 and A.M.W. will then be returned to the parent that has care of A.M.W. Conduct Orders 9.

Neither F.F.B. nor T.M.W. will permit the use of alcohol or drugs in the presence of A.M.W., including taking her to any gatherings where alcohol is consumed and will ensure A.M.W. is not in the presence of anyone under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. 10. F.F.B. and T.M.W. will ensure that A.M.W. is supervised by a responsible adult at all times. 11. T.M.W. is not to leave A.M.W. in J.B.’s sole care. 12. T.M.W. will have no overnight parenting time with A.M.W. on Friday or Saturday if J.B. is presence. If J.B. is present, T.M.W.

must return A.M.W. to F.F.B. by 7:30 p.m. 13. T.M.W. will not have parenting time with A.M.W. in the presence of T.C. or D.C. except in the company of a third party adult reasonably acceptable to F.F.B.; 14. F.F.B. and T.M.W. will allow A.M.W. to bring her toys and possessions back and forth between their homes as she chooses provided that if she takes a possession that is normally kept at one home to the other she will take it back with her at the end of the visit; 15.

F.F.B. and T.M.W. will be civil and respectful at pick-ups and drop offs, and neither will take photographs or video recordings at these times; 16. If A.M.W. makes an allegation of physical abuse in the presence of either F.F.B. or T.M.W., the receiving parent will report the allegations to the RCMP, and will advise the other parent of the allegation. Neither parent will speak to A.M.W. about the allegation; 17. F.F.B. will ensure A.M.W. continues to attend counselling; 18.

Neither F.F.B. nor T.M.W. will speak negatively about the other in the presence of A.M.W., or in such circumstances where it is likely the comments will become known to A.M.W. Communication orders 19. F.F.B. and T.M.W. will communicate in writing, including by text messaging or email, except in the event of an emergency with respect to A.M.W., in which case they may communicate as required. Orders with respect to allocating parenting responsibilities 20. F.F.B. will have sole parenting responsibilities with respect A.M.W.’s medical, dental and educational needs; 21.

F.F.B. must consult with T.M.W. about important decisions relating to A.M.W.’s medical, dental and educational needs. If they cannot agree or T.M.W. does not respond to his inquiries in a timely manner, then F.F.B. can make the decision and T.M.W. may apply to court for a review of that decision under s. 49 of the Family Law Act ; 22. F.F.B. and T.M.W. will share and discuss all other significant parenting responsibilities. If they cannot agree, then F.F.B. will make the decision and T.M.W. may apply to court for a review of that decision under s. 49 of the Family Law Act; 23.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this order to the contrary, T.M.W. may: a. subject to

section 17 of the Infants Act, give, refuse or withdraw consent to medical, dental and other health-related treatments for A.M.W. in the event of an actual medical emergency; and b. request and receive from third parties A.M.W.’s health, education or other information. Orders for police enforcement 24.

Upon being satisfied that a person, including T.M.W., has wrongfully withheld A.M.W. from the guardian entitled to parenting time with A.M.W., this Court orders under section 231(5) of the FLA that a police officer, including any member of the RCMP, apprehend A.M.W. and take her to the guardian entitled to parenting time; 25. For the purpose of locating and apprehending A.M.W. in accordance with this order under section 231(6) of the FLA , a police officer, including any member of the RCMP, may enter and search any place he or she has reasonable and probable grounds to believe A.M.W. may be. Review 26.

F.F.B. or T.M.W. may ask the Court to clarify or review any term of this order on reasonable notice. “Judith Doulis” ________________________ J. T. Doulis Provincial Court Judge Province of British Columbia