Director v. C.G. and C.R. Date:, 2017 BCPC 151

Citation: Director v. C.G. and C.R. Date: 20170511 2017 BCPC 151 File No: 16042 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT , R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 46 AND THE CHILDREN: K.M.R.(1) , born [Omitted for publication] B.C.R., born [Omitted for publication] K.M.R.(2), born [Omitted for publication] K.A.G., born [Omitted for publication] BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE APPLICANT AND: C.G. PARENT AND: C.R. PARENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.D. FRAME

Counsel for the Director: Ms. Charlene Le Beau Counsel for the Parent, C.G.: Ms. Odette Dempsey-Caputo Appearing on his own behalf: C.R. Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 4, 2017 Date of Judgment: May 11, 2017 [ 1 ] This is an application by the Director for an interim order for custody of the two oldest children of C.G. and C.R., K.M.R.(1), born [omitted for publication] and B.C.R., born [omitted for publication]. There are three children of the union but one and a child of another relationship have been returned with a supervision order to C.G.

The elder two refuse to return home to their mother. [ 2 ] The Director inadvertently lost jurisdiction of the two older children in March 2017, resulting in a new removal. C.G. does not oppose the Director’s application for the two older children to be placed in the care of the Director on an interim basis pending the protection hearing. C.R. does oppose the application on the basis that he is a less-disruptive measure available to the Ministry and he wishes to have the children placed with him.

The Director commenced with the view that C.R. is not a parent apparently entitled to custody and therefore such a placement could not be made to C.R. [ 3 ] The Director now concedes C.R. is a parent entitled to custody. C.G. takes the position that he is not. In any event, the Director has protection concerns with respect to C.R. which must be addressed before the children can be placed with him. The children have expressed the view that they would like to go home to their father.

C.G. is opposed to the children going to their father, alleging physical and emotional abuse. [ 4 ] One of the concerns that the Director has with respect to placement at this time with C.R. is that in his new relationship, he has been convicted of assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats. This incident occurred in November 2015 and C.R. is now on probation. The incident was not trifling in nature. Evidently, he hit, punched, and strangled R.R. for hours.

It was only after they were leaving in his vehicle that she was able to escape by causing a minor accident and then waving down another vehicle for help. This is, particularly given the history of domestic violence between C.R. and C.G., and the history of domestic violence already to that point between C.R. and R.R., a significant concern.

It appears that C.R. was, throughout, indifferent to the exposure of the children to this domestic violence. [ 5 ] The concerns C.G. has relate primarily to emotional harm but also the fact that C.R. has not yet gone six months without police involvement related to domestic violence issues. C.G. alleges that he also has inappropriate conversations with the children and the two older children are exhibiting extremely concerning behaviour with regard to their attitude about their mother.

Also, C.G. is concerned that C.R. makes racist remarks regarding aboriginal people in front of his two children who are in fact aboriginal. [ 6 ] My brother Judge Cleaveley already heard a Family Law Act proceeding between the parties and rendered judgment on September 24, 2015. The issue before him was primary residence of the three children. At that time, the two oldest children were living with C.R. and his new wife, R.R. [ 7 ] The findings of Judge Cleaveley most pertinent to this presentation hearing are as follows: [12] The relationship between the parties has always been difficult.

C.R. recounted that beginning in 2003, they resided under the same roof, but never shared a bedroom up to their separation in 2014. C.G. said that their relationship was marred by her suffering emotional, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of C.R. C.G. testified that C.R. was twice charged with assaulting her while they lived in Alberta. On both occasions, C.G. had the charges dropped. C.G. also said that C.R. was physically abusive on at least one occasion in Lillooet. … [21] Over the summer of 2014 and into the early fall, there were dramatic changes in the R.G. household and relationship.

C.G. continued to drink to excess and she breached numerous MCFD safety plans; C.G. had other men into the family home and on two occasions the children saw C.G. having sex, including one time in the front yard; at some point in late August or early September, C.G. became pregnant; presently, C.G. does not know who the father is, but asserts that C.R. is one of three possible individuals (this is denied by C.R.); the parties ended their relationship and there is a conflict in the evidence regarding how this came about; C.R. asserts that it was by mutual agreement, and C.G. claims that on September 17, 2014, C.R. phoned and told her that he had a new girlfriend and that their relationship was over; on September 23, 2014, C.G. again went to detox and placed her children with her friend, P.W.; on October 21, 2014, C.R. married his girlfriend, R.B., in Edmonton; after returning from detox, C.G. and the children continued to live with P.W., and C.R., after having spent some time in Edmonton and Vancouver Island with his wife, returned to Lillooet and occupied the former family home; in early November, K.M.R.(1) and B.C.R. left C.G.’s care to live with their father, where they have continued to reside up to the present day; at about this time, C.G. left Lillooet and, after a brief stay at a women’s shelter in Lytton, moved to Kamloops with K.M.R.(2) in her care. [22] Before discussing the events which occurred after November 2014, I must address the issue of witness credibility because it looms large in the outcome of this case.

[23] Ms. Dempsey-Caputo, on behalf of C.G., argued that C.R.’s evidence was at times contradictory, inconsistent, and that I should prefer the evidence of C.G. over that of C.R. [24] I agree with this assessment. I prefer the evidence of C.G. over that of C.R. [25] I would also add that there were times when C.R. was giving his evidence when I believe he lied. [26] This credibility finding is based on the following: • C.R. testified that on approximately November 3, 2014, K.M.R.(1) and B.C.R., without any notice to him, came to his house and told him that they did not want to live with their mother any longer.

C.R. said that this was their decision alone. In cross- examination, C.R. said that the children may have come over after he called out to them. When pressed on this, C.R. could provide few details regarding this fundamental change. It is inconceivable to me that a parent could not recount with the exact precision such a significant change in the living arrangements of his two oldest children. • C.R. testified that he had no contact with K.M.R.(2) for nine months, from September 2014 to July 2015. This evidence is not true.

C.R. had parenting time at least on three occasions, and it is unbelievable to think that C.R. cannot recall if K.M.R.(2) was in his care over Father’s Day weekend of this year. • Since C.R. and R.R.’s marriage 11 months ago, there have been incidents of domestic violence between them, with corresponding criminal charges, and included in that is an allegation that R.R. uttered a threat in respect of K.M.R.(1).

In his evidence, C.R. greatly minimized the domestic violence in his home, the circumstances which led to each of them being charged, and the incident relating to his breach of a no-contact order in Whistler in July of 2015 which resulted in C.R. spending approximately one week in jail. • As a result of the domestic violence incidents, C.R. was interviewed by the Ministry and intimated that there was no need for a safety plan.

In cross-examination, C.R. testified that he refused to sign the safety plan put forward by the Ministry. • C.R. testified that he did not believe that C.G. has any personal possessions remaining at the family home. Not only is this preposterous after a 23-year relationship, there is no reason to misrepresent such an unimportant matter. • For reasons which I do not understand, C.R. hired a towing company to move C.G.’s vehicle from Lillooet to Kamloops.

In his evidence, C.R. misrepresented the dealership, the location of the dealership within Kamloops, and his recollection of informing C.G. that her vehicle was in Kamloops. In fact, C.G. only became aware of the vehicle being towed to Kamloops after several months and by the RCMP. • C.R. minimized his involvement in the demeaning text messages, photographs, and a video sent by K.M.R.(1) to C.G. • Similarly, C.R. understated his involvement in the creation of the Twitter account “Our mom is a drunk” which obviously mocks C.G. … [35] It is now C.R. who is caught up in an unstable, volatile situation.

On May 12, 2015, R.R. entered into a six-month peace bond which included protective conditions relating to both C.R. and K.M.R.(1). On September 8, 2015, approximately two weeks ago, C.R. entered into a one-year peace bond which included a protective condition relating to R.R. and a counselling condition. [36] To his credit, C.R. has begun anger management counselling.

C.R. also said that he and R.R. plan to attend couples counselling. [37] It is also fair to say that it is C.R.’s behaviour and the situation which is now attracting the attention of the Ministry and not C.G.’s. [38] Despite the R.G. relationship having ended over one year ago, C.R. has engaged in some very shocking behaviour towards C.G. [39] I very briefly touched on C.R.’s involvement in the demeaning text message, photographs, and the video sent by K.M.R.(2) to C.G. To expand on these matters, C.R. took a photograph of K.M.R.(1) holding a pair of C.G.’s panties which contained feces.

B.C.R. is seen laughing and holding his nose. At this point, I should add that when C.R. had C.G.’s vehicle towed to Kamloops, he tied these panties to the gearshift of her vehicle. There is also a photograph of C.G.’s face imposed on the head of an overstuffed giraffe (presumably a reference to C.G.’s weight) and another of C.G.’s face imposed in an Indian headdress (presumably a reference to K.M.R. (2)’s parentage). The video featuring K.M.R.

(1) B.C.R. singing mocks C.G. to the tune of the 12 Days of Christmas, although it is limited to seven days. The video contains references to C.G.’s true love giving her beer, whiskey, rum, fake witnesses, and two new boyfriends. In addition to this, C.R. permitted K.M.R.(1) to send emails containing very insulting remarks and rude language to C.G.

Similarly, the same can be said about the creation of the Twitter account. [40] C.R. failed to step in and put a stop to these extremely inappropriate communications. [41] His failure to do so was intentional, without justification, and undermined the relationship between C.G. and the two oldest children. [ 8 ] At paragraph 49, Judge Cleaveley found that the relevant factors for him were the family violence, the children’s health and emotional wellbeing, and their views. He found that C.R.’s “awful conduct” and to some extent that of R.R. had a negative impact on the children.

In addition, he found at paragraph 53: [53] It is almost inconceivable to understand the extent of the violence between the newlyweds, C.R. and R.R., in less than one year. K.M.R.(1), B.C.R., and K.M.R.(2) have witnessed their father and stepmother in acts of family violence, and K.M.R.(1) has commented on this. So has K.M.R.(2) in her own age-limited manner.

[54] I appreciate that C.R. and R.R. are involved in the lives of K.M.R.(1) and B.C.R., but these good deeds are far outweighed by the family violence and the impact on the children. This is especially the case when I consider the campaign by C.R. to poison the relationship between K.M.R.(1) and B.C.R. and their mother. There is no other way to describe the emails, the photographs, the video, and the Twitter account. [ 9 ] It was only two months after that decision was rendered that C.R. assaulted R.R. causing bodily harm and was placed on a probation order.

The Ministry remains concerned about the domestic violence in C.R.’s home and so did not view him as an appropriate placement for the two oldest children on the re-removal in March this year. The Ministry also considered the placement inappropriate given the extraordinary negative views the two oldest children expressed against their mother in March 2015.

This was clearly exhibited in the highly inappropriate communications Judge Cleaveley considered in his decision. [ 10 ] The Director concedes that C.R. has reconciled with R.R., taken Respectful Relationships mandated by probation, and is seeing a counsellor in Lillooet. The probation officer indicates that C.R. is eager and wants to be involved. He also wants to seek other services. Before the Director considers him a safe placement for the children, however, they need to see certain things achieved including signs of safety. In their view, services do not equate to safety.

I agree. [ 11 ] Given these considerable concerns identified by Judge Cleaveley, and despite C.R. being a guardian with parenting time, I am not satisfied that he is a parent apparently entitled to custody. It would be entirely contrary to Judge Cleaveley’s judgment and order to place the children with C.R. with all of the outstanding concerns still not addressed. [ 12 ] As I stated in British Columbia (Director of Child Family and Community Service) v. G.M.L. at paragraph 16, the cases around this issue determine what constitutes a parent apparently entitled to custody based on the specific facts of each case.

The specific facts of this case take me to the conclusion that C.R. is not a parent apparently entitled to custody, but quite the opposite. [ 13 ] C.R. is aware of the expectations of the Ministry. He may well ultimately achieve placement of the children with him. However, at the time of the removal in March this year, he was not a less disruptive measure, even if he were a parent apparently entitled to custody.

All of the outstanding concerns of both the Director and C.G. were as yet not addressed. [ 14 ] I am satisfied that the interim order is appropriate and make the order for interim custody of the two oldest children, K.M.R.(1) and B.C.R., pending the outcome of the protection hearing. Access by either parent shall be supervised at the discretion of the Director. [ 15 ] Apart from the signs of safety, C.R. must bear in mind that he does not have primary residence of the two older children.

He will have to bring a Family Law Act application to vary Judge Cleaveley’s order in the event that the Ministry decide to place the children with him. Considering the allegations that C.G. raised of ongoing domestic violence and the emotional abuse of the children, including racial slurs and his deliberate alienation of their mother from them, I would expect that the Director would address all of those concerns before such placement with C.R. is considered.

C.R. and C.G. should be prepared to address those concerns before the judge who hears their Family Law Act application if and when it is filed. [ 16 ] The parties will require a return date to commence the protection hearing. Absent agreement of the parties to fix another date, that will be June 14, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3A. ___________________________ S.D. Frame Provincial Court Judge