M.A.A. v. T.J.S. Date:, 2018 BCPC 14

Citation: M.A.A. v. T.J.S. Date: 20180112 2018 BCPC 14 File No: 16-29286 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: M.A.A. APPLICANT AND: T.J.S. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE T. GOVE

Counsel for the Applicant: J. Bode Appearing on their own behalf: M. Arcena Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 12, 2018 Date of Judgment: January 12, 2018 [ 1 ] THE COURT: These proceedings are with respect to the parenting of a child whose name is T. He is now aged four and a half. He was born [omitted for publication]. His parents lived together with him until 2015 when his mother, Ms. A., brought her older son, M., now aged 11, from the Philippines to live with them. Mr.

S., who is not M.’s father, did not approve of M. joining the family, and the parents separated a month after M.'s arrival. [ 2 ] On May 26, 2017, the Honourable Judge Werier made a comprehensive order regarding parenting. Basically with respect to parenting time, T. is with his mother each week from Wednesday to Sunday and his father from Sunday to the following Wednesday. [ 3 ] Over the past year at least Mr. S. has been concerned about M.'s treatment of T. He believes that M. has physically or sexually abused his younger brother and that Ms. A. has not adequately supervised the boys together. Mr.

S. has reported his concerns and allegations to the Ministry of Child and Family Development on nine occasions and he has reported them to the Vancouver Police Department on three occasions. Investigations have been conducted by both of those agencies. T. has also been examined by Dr. Korn, a pediatric expert in abuse at B.C. Children's Hospital. He also regularly sees his family doctor. [ 4 ] None of the allegations have been substantiated. The MCFD has no concerns about T.'s wellbeing while in the care of Ms. A. and M. A letter of today's date confirms this.

There is no basis on which to make an order keeping M. away from T. Ms. A. has satisfied me that she recognizes the age differences that the boys have, meaning that they can play rough and that she needs to supervise them, and she is. [ 5 ] The orders that kept the boys apart made by my brother Judge Wingham ex parte and extended on January 4, 2018, are now ended. The protection order against M. is cancelled. [ 6 ] With regards to Mr. S.'s application to find Ms. A. in violation of Judge Werier's conduct order, he says that through her words and conduct she has turned T. against him.

The evidence does not establish this. There has been no violation of the conduct order. [ 7 ] Finally, as to parenting, he wants me to change Judge Werier's order until Ms. A. takes counselling. It appears that Ms. A. has accepted such support from the Ministry of Child and Family Development and has already a family preservation worker. It is Mr. S. from his evidence who thinks that he does not need any counselling. His conduct since May 2017 indicates otherwise. T. has been deprived of his mother for the past 12 days. [ 8 ] The May 26, 2017 order is reinstated with the following variations. Mr.

S. will return T. to Ms. A. by 7:00 p.m. tonight, January 12, 2018, where he will remain until Sunday, January 21, 2018, when Mr. S. will pick him up and the parenting regime will continue as per the May 26, 2017 order. (REASONS CONCLUDED)