R.M. v. N.S., 2021 BCPC 370

Citation: R.M. v. N.S. 2021 BCPC 370 Date: 20210726 File No: 17620 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: R.M. APPLICANT AND: N.S. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.D. FRAME Counsel for the Applicant: S. Walter Counsel for the Respondent: K. Thorsteinson Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Dates of Hearing: January 25, 26, 27, 28, April 1, and April 21, 2021 Date of Judgment: July 26, 2021

[ 1 ] This is an application by R.M. for primary residence of a child born from his relationship with N.S. N.S. seeks an order making her sole guardian and granting her all the parental responsibilities, with supervised contact time to R.M. The child is E.S.M., born on [omitted for publication]. [ 2 ] E.S.M. prefers the name O. and so I shall refer to him by that name until I reach the formal orders. I will address this name issue because, as minor as it appears on the surface, it exemplifies the challenges his parents have with each other in meeting O.’s needs.

N.S. unilaterally allowed E.S.M. to change his name informally to O. She did not consult R.M. and did not tell him about the context, selection or importance of the name choice. Nor did she admit that she may have had some

part in picking the name. As a result, R.M. has struggled from time to time with remembering the name change. He is hurt that he was not involved in it and felt sentimental about the legal given name. When he slips, N.S. accuses him of not meeting O.’s needs and causing him distress. E.S., who was R.M.’s landlady at the time of the name change, described O. as being largely indifferent to people using his legal as opposed to preferred name.

No more need be said on the matter of his name except that N.S. did not act properly in her capacity as O.’s guardian and R.M. has not responded fairly. [ 3 ] O. has an undisputed diagnosis of autism and post-traumatic stress disorder. He has numerous supports, some of whom testified at this trial. [ 4 ] Both parents are deemed guardians. N.S. did not apply to remove R.M. as a guardian and I will not consider that relief. It would not be appropriate in the circumstances in any event. [ 5 ] R.M. claims N.S. is engaging in ongoing alienation in his relationship with O.S.M.

He claims she is not informing him of O.’s needs or treatments. N.S. claims she has stopped informing R.M. because he is dismissive and confrontational. She has enough to manage with O.’s needs and behaviours without having to battle R.M. at each step as well. [ 6 ] I find that the reality lies, as it often does, between the two positions. While N.S. has certainly not kept R.M. properly informed and involved, R.M.’s conduct is a significant factor leading to her conduct. The conflict between the parents has not been in the best interests of O.

It is resulting in an alienation of R.M.’s relationship with O., but the cause is not entirely N.S.’s actions. Most of it can relate to her frustration with R.M. and his poor reactions. Family History [ 7 ] When they met, R.M. was an American citizen who did not have residency in Canada. N.S. owned a home in Fort Langley and worked as a [omitted for publication]. She sponsored R.M. to move to Canada.

They married in 2010 and had their only child, O., that year. [ 8 ] After the parents married, N.S. sold her home in Fort Langley and purchased a home on the Sunshine Coast in [omitted for publication] where she also owned a cabin. [ 9 ] N.S. worked unpredictable hours as a midwife but had an office in their home. R.M. was tasked with care responsibilities for O. while N.S. worked. [ 10 ] N.S. purchased a colonics unit for the home so that R.M. could develop a practice in this therapy. It was not a successful business.

Considering that both parties work in fields dependant on a solid client base, the move to [omitted for publication] seems to have been very ill advised. [ 11 ] Because N.S. had sponsored R.M. into Canada, she was responsible for his cost of living and medical care. R.M. suffers from scoliosis which impacts his ability to work. He is now on a disability pension. He does expect to perform some work on a reduced level, though. [ 12 ] R.M. and N.S. separated in 2013. R.M. stayed in the family home and N.S. moved to her cabin with O. N.S. said she moved to the cabin because R.M. refused to leave the family home.

Neither party was financially stable. N.S. also continued to be responsible for R.M. as his sponsor. [ 13 ] Eventually, N.S. and O. moved back to the family home and R.M. moved to the cabin. Sometime after this, N.S. sold the cabin leaving R.M. homeless. [ 14 ] According to N.S., R.M. was living a transient lifestyle. N.S. said she facilitated parenting time with O. and R.M. This was primarily in her home and seemed to co-ordinate with her childcare needs.

She did not leave O. with R.M. overnight primarily because of his lack of stable housing. [ 15 ] According to R.M., he was only able to secure short-term accommodations by house-sitting or living in hotels. He also lived in his car. Although R.M. had some employment, he was not working consistently, could not access social assistance, and had no steady income. He worked as a security guard and did some mill shutdowns. [ 16 ] By court orders, the parties had shared parental responsibilities but it was not the reality. N.S. made the decisions and R.M. provided her with childcare.

It was certainly not a co-parenting relationship. [ 17 ] When O. was about three years old, there was an incident that O. has since perceived as a ‘choking event’. R.M. recalls an incident where he was deflecting O. but there was no choking. O. now largely dismisses this incident, but N.S. claims it is the root of O.’s post-traumatic stress disorder. I will address this more fully in due course.

[ 18 ] N.S.’s work took her to the Lower Mainland frequently. When this occurred, R.M. came along to care for O. N.S. eventually moved to the Lower Mainland for better work opportunities and supports. [ 19 ] During the transition, N.S. commuted with O. for work. R.M. claims N.S. did not give him proper notice of her intention to move. However, he consented to the relocation. R.M. lacked the financial resources to move with them, which impacted his parenting time. [ 20 ] By October 2018, the parties had moved to Kamloops.

Since moving, R.M. claims N.S. has made unilateral decisions regarding parenting time, schooling and health. When she informs R.M. about matters of importance, it is only after the fact. On reviewing the communications between the parties, it is clear that R.M. has not been appropriately responsive. He refutes N.S.’s reports, denied (until recently) the very significant challenges O. faces, and refuses to engage with supports N.S. has found for O. None of this is in the best interests of the child.

O.’s Autism and PTSD [ 21 ] O.’s occupational therapist, Leanna Godwin testified that whether or not this choking event occurred, O. perceives it as a traumatic event. This may not be entirely accurate, given that he was dismissive of the event when discussing it with Shannon Ritchie who wrote the s. 211 report. His mother and counsellors say this is masking behaviour because Ms. Ritchie is a stranger. However, he seems to be forthcoming about his relationship with his mother and his emotional dysregulation after parenting time with his father.

Why he would mask about one and not the others is not adequately explained. I find that O. has largely dismissed the event of his past, but N.S. continues to amplify it. This is much like O.’s view of people reverting to his legal name – it is much more of a concern for N.S. than it is for O. [ 22 ] N.S. says that since the incident, O. has reacted negatively to being alone with his father. R.M. says these reactions do not occur on his parenting time. Ms. Godwin says is because O. engages in masking behaviour. This may be accurate though I do not have satisfactory expert evidence on this point.

I also have nothing before me to assess N.S.’s parenting in relation to nurturing – or alienating – O.’s relationship with his father. [ 23 ] Part of the problem is that N.S. was retaining supports for O. and herself without including R.M. As a result, the supports have N.S.’s version of the nature of R.M.’s relationship with O.

In the end result, when O. has something positive or encouraging to say about his time with this father, the supports describe this as a masking behaviour, rather than a reflection of what might at least partly O.’s own views of his relationship. [ 24 ] On the other hand, R.M. has been very resistant to working with O.’s supports. He finds that the supports are not attuned to R.M.’s needs. To be clear, the supports are for O. and to support him in his valued relationships with both his parents and his community.

It is incumbent on both parents to work with those supports to enrich all of those relationships and to help O. navigate his environment. [ 25 ] O. told Ms. Ritchie: “basically I can contain my anger when I’m with my dad and when I get home I get angry, or mad, or rage, I guess”. He also said “I lash out when I get back to mom’s for maybe 5-10 minutes”. This does support N.S.’s concern that O. is reacting negatively to his parenting time with his father. However, I do not have adequate evidence before me to determine that this is the sole cause as opposed to anything in his home environment. [ 26 ] Ms.

Godwin testified that when O. is regulated and calm, he succeeds and develops. When he is dysregulated and stressed, he regresses and becomes unmanageable.

Given that R.M. has not been properly and fulsomely educated on the nature of O.’s diagnoses including his neurological processes, his symptoms and his behavioural expectations, it may well be that O. contains himself until he is in an environment where he is better managed and understood. [ 27 ] N.S. says that since August 2016 when O. is forced to have frequent, unsupervised, and unstructured time with R.M., he is extremely dysregulated. [ 28 ] In early 2017, O. began exhibiting behaviours such as teeth grinding, yelling out in the night, wetting the bed, and banging his head against the wall.

He also became aggressive towards other children. N.S. says these behaviours intensified both before and after parenting time, although she acknowledges they do not only occur after that parenting time. It is clear that O. requires considerable supports to manage any environment that is not carefully regulated for him. [ 29 ] N.S. also said R.M. lacked consistency in his parenting time, which she says is essential to O.’s success. When R.M. failed to exercise his parenting time, showed up late, or brought O. home early, it was dysregulating for O.

R.M.’s response for a considerable time was that O. needed more time with his father. This was a wholly inadequate response. What O. needed was for both of his parents to work together to help him manage his environment in a way that would lead to his success. R.M.’s inability to be consistent with his phone calls and parenting time as well as his planned schedules was very problematic for O. [ 30 ] R.M.’s phone calls with O. during this time were also inconsistent. This was also dysregulating for O. He needed precise timing and plans.

R.M. seemed unable to facilitate this. [ 31 ] In late 2017, N.S. hoped to have O. assessed by Child and Youth Mental Health in Surrey (“CYMH”). R.M. declined to provide consent. When N.S. pursued him for his consent, he refused, claiming O. just needed more time with his father. It took an application to the court to obtain his consent. [ 32 ] In early 2018, N.S. retained Dr. Jillian Heideke, a psychologist, counselling to support O. with anger, emotional reactivity, and aggressive behaviour. Dr. Heideke prepared a report identifying the help O. needs.

N.S. requested recommendations for supporting O.’s relationship with his father, in structuring visits, and in ensuring smooth transitions between the caregivers. R.M. met with Dr. Heideke twice but has not followed up since. R.M. summarized his consults as Dr. Heideke wanted to discuss O.’s hypersensitivities, and he wanted to “talk about time with Dad”. This was a significant missed opportunity to learn and was not in O.’s best interests. R.M. cannot

now complain that he is not included in O.’s therapy when he has himself been so focussed on his needs rather than O.’s. It exemplifies the ongoing challenge N.S. has had in dealing with R.M. [ 33 ] By September 2019, O. was expressing suicidal ideation. N.S. says this was a result of the behaviours surrounding the parenting time. On the advice of O.’s service providers, N.S. stopped facilitating this parenting time. Almost immediately, she observed O.’s distress subside and he became more regulated.

While I am unable on the evidence to assess the accuracy of that belief, I can observe that neither parent was taking the appropriate approach to ensure O. was receiving the benefits of parenting from both parents. Cutting R.M. out from his involvement with O. is not in O.’s best interests. Re-educating R.M. on the appropriate way to parent O. is in O.’s best interests. [ 34 ] I am also concerned about N.S.’s response to the psychiatric intervention and Ministry of Child and Family Services intervention when O. attempted suicide. She allowed Ms. M. to advocate on her behalf, which was entirely inappropriate.

N.S. and R.M. ought to have engaged with the services MCFD and the psychiatrist were offering rather than dismiss the treatment and support options offered. It was a missed opportunity for both of them, but mostly for O. [ 35 ] Judge Morgan granted an order in 2020 to address O.’s needs. R.M. was to provide the plan for the parenting time to N.S. in advance. He was also to discuss the plan with O. on a Zoom call the night before the visit. This was not to be just a general plan. O. required a specific plan without surprises or deviations. This is not a small matter for O.

While another child or children could cope with any kind of deviation in plans, O. is unable to do so. R.M. did not seem to appreciate this and may not entirely appreciate it to this day. [ 36 ] During the summer following the order, there were police incidents. N.S. says these occurred just before or after parenting time or Zoom calls. In a final police incident, O. was handcuffed and taken to Royal Inland Hospital, N.S. obtained an order to stop R.M.’s parenting time for three weeks.

N.S. testified that O. was more regulated during those three weeks. [ 37 ] Parenting time commenced again in September under the graduated

schedule ordered by Judge Morgan. R.M. missed multiple Zoom calls, changed plans at the last minute and apparently did not abide by Covid 19 protocols. This was very distressing for O. He made a suicide attempt on October 12, 2021. I do not have satisfactory evidence about all of the root causes of this attempt, but I am satisfied that R.M.’s inability to accommodate O.’s very precise needs was a contributing factor to O.’s dysregulation. [ 38 ] Following a hearing on October 28, 2021, R.M.’s parenting time was suspended. Thereafter his parenting time was supervised by Ms. Godwin. Ms.

Godwin and R.M. testified that it was helpful having her at the parenting time. O. told N.S. and Ms. Godwin that he liked having her there. Ms. Godwin testified that O. has relied on her for comfort during this parenting time. [ 39 ] Three hours is the maximum amount of time O. can tolerate at this time. Ms. Godwin said his stamina waned after about two or three hours. O.’s supports have to be attuned to this. [ 40 ] By contrast, N.S.’s brother, R.M.(1) sometimes minded O. for her with better outcomes. R.M.(1) is familiar O.’s needs based on his own experience.

He is a resource for N.S. and a responsive caregiver for O. [ 41 ] R.M. was unable to plan weekly three hour parenting time sessions to meet O.’s needs. This was despite a very specific court order to guide him, and N.S.’s input to help both R.M. and O. R.M. conceded that sometimes his plans were not specific enough. R.M. should have been taking advantage of the supervised parenting time with one of O.’s supports to learn how to parent amidst O.’s challenges. [ 42 ] Another issue for N.S. is that R.M. sometimes forgets to call his son by O. He reverts to O.’s legal name, E.S.M.

While this does not seem a particularly momentous thing, it clearly impacts N.S. and may have some impact on O. The concerning part of this is that N.S. claims O. picked this name after a discussion with her. He has not legally changed his name. None of this was discussed with R.M. He was given no voice in the matter at all. R.M. believes it is more an issue for N.S. whom he believes picked the name and influenced O. There may be some truth to this. A.S., who is a Family Justice worker in Kamloops, also provided board to R.M. when he first arrived in Kamloops. She has a child of O.’s age and they are friends.

When O. announced to A.S. that he had chosen this new name, she asked for his understanding if she occasionally made a mistake and called him by the wrong name. He seemed to be very agreeable to this and not troubled that he might be called E.S.M. It may be that N.S. is inflating the impact of this name and misnaming. [ 43 ] This is highlighted by an incident at a bowling alley which N.S. and E.S. reflect on entirely differently. N.S. was hoping to expand O.’s exposure to E.S.’s daughter. Her approach to this was concerning for E.S.

She did not feel it was appropriate to approach and ask her this in the absence of R.M. and in the presence of O. N.S. and O. both reacted poorly when E.S. put her off. It resulted in some considerable distress for O. N.S. blames E.S. for this and rejects E.S.’s description of N.S.’s reaction and presentation. I find that N.S. is so focussed on what she wants to achieve for O. that she does not consider her own presentation, her environment, or the wishes of others. [ 44 ] Ms. Godwin testified, however, that while it may seem an insignificant matter, it can lead to significant dysregulation for O.

If the professional supports recommend the parents accede to this request, then R.M. must do better to help. It is, though, something that could have been accommodated had the parents worked together as guardians must. [ 45 ] Following O.’s October 2020 suicide attempt, N.S. obtained a referral to Blair Armstrong, a behavioural consultant for R.M. N.S. obtained $500 from O.’s autism funding for this service. R.M. is comfortable with Mr. Armstrong but this is a drain on the resources available to O. The resources available to O. must be used for O., not for Mr. Armstrong for R.M.’s benefit or Ms.

M. for N.S.’s benefit. That does not mean to say R.M. cannot use Mr. Armstrong’s services or N.S. use Ms. M.’s services. They must either find separate funding for these services or only use O.’s funding for them if there is a surplus after his support needs are met. [ 46 ] Ms. Godwin, who has been working with O. for over two years, confirmed that she had offered her services to R.M. in the past but received little response. This changed when R.M.’s parenting time became supervised. She now works with him informally while supervising his parenting time.

[ 47 ] Ms. Sharkey also approached R.M. to assist him with O., but R.M. did not take the opportunity to work with her. Only following a court order to the effect that he contact O.’s service providers did R.M. do so. [ 48 ] R.M. believes that the service providers are biased against him because N.S. has misrepresented the nature and extent of his relationship with O. and involvement in O.’s life. I would characterize it more as misinformed than biased. [ 49 ] I cannot say the same for Ms. M. It does not appear that she appreciates her role as a support and does appear to take an adversarial advocacy role.

However, Ms. Sharkey testified that she frequently works with O. to strengthen the bond between his father, to prepare for visits and to be regulated after visits. Mr. Walter argued her evidence was biased and her opinions ill-informed by N.S.’s representations. There is some truth to that, but I accept she is a valuable resource for O. R.M. should be making the best use of O.’s supports in order to achieve the skills he needs to parent his child.

N.S. must correct her misrepresentations of an unengaged, violent parent so that those supports are better able to assist O. and R.M. [ 50 ] On the other hand, N.S. has made a great and appropriate effort to learn about autism and post-traumatic stress disorder. She enrols O. in enriching activities and identifies supports for him. N.S. has engaged everyone from psychologists to counsellors and therapists to meet O.’s needs. With the exception of Ms. M., these have been good supports for O.

She also arranged his online schooling when it became clear that the in-person school environment was not appropriate for O. [ 51 ] N.S. has also helped R.M. with parenting. She has set up Zoom calls, sent schedules to R.M., provided R.M. with gift ideas for O., provided advice on for planning parenting time, and tried to coach R.M. when parenting time has not gone well. This is not alienation. [ 52 ] Despite these efforts, there are times when O. does not want to attend parenting time or have a Zoom call. N.S. has told R.M. about O.’s rages and suicidal ideation. R.M. has not responded well.

To use counsel’s words, she has been met with vitriol and accusations of lying and manipulation. On one occasion, she reported to R.M. that O.’s rage was so bad that the police were called. R.M. responded that “she is a liar willing to emotionally compromise our son to continue this pathetic alienation”. This is not at all in O.’s best interests; nor is it true that she is lying or emotionally compromising their son. [ 53 ] R.M. lives in a one bedroom cabin on [omitted for publication] in [omitted for publication]. His plan for O. for overnights is that O. will sleep in R.M.’s room.

R.M. will sleep in the living room on a futon. R.M. agreed that this was not ideal but has also said that he likely would not likely move even if a two-bedroom place became available. This is not at all a suitable environment for someone with O.’s needs, and certainly is not appropriate in the long term. That R.M. is putting his aesthetic pleasure ahead of O.’s needs highlights the challenges N.S. has had co-parenting. [ 54 ] R.M. also has no wireless internet and no computer to accommodate O.’s schooling, online appointments, or other online needs. These are essential to O. [ 55 ] Ms.

Godwin testified that O.’s supports need to be able to recognize the signs of O.’s dysregulation and has attempted to teach these to R.M. He was initially receptive, but became less so as time went on. I expect this is going to be a long and protracted process as Ms. Godwin suggests. R.M. needs to engage in learning about O.’s needs and practice meeting them before he is able to parent O. on his own. [ 56 ] N.S. testified that Zoom calls appear to cause O. even more distress than supervised parenting time. Ms. Godwin opined that Zoom calls are not recommended for children with autism.

This is because the calls are too focused and intense. Weekly phone calls are recommended instead. Parenting Time [ 57 ] N.S. would like parenting time to occur on the second Thursday per month for two hours between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. This is wholly inadequate for R.M. to learn to parent O. and for O. to adjust to the parenting time. Weekly parenting time is conversely too much. The parenting time shall be on alternating Thursdays or such other day as may be agreed by the parents and the supervisor.

For the time being, the parenting time shall be for two hours between noon and 2:00 p.m. [ 58 ] R.M. shall also have parenting time with O. on Father’s Day, both O.’s birthday and R.M.’s birthday, and at Christmas at times agreed by the parties. If the parties cannot agree, the parenting time shall be between 12:00 p.m. and 2: p.m. on the specified day. [ 59 ] R.M. will continue to have supervised in-person parenting time. This is not for the protection of the child. It is for R.M. to be guided and O. to be comforted. The most ideal would be for this to occur during Ms. Godwin’s funded therapy time with O. Ms.

Godwin is an ideal supervisor but cannot continue to do it for free. If R.M. is unwilling to have his parenting time during O.’s therapy, then he will have to arrange a suitable supervisor with N.S. The supervisor must be one who can make O. comfortable and meet his needs, as well as guide R.M. R.M. will bear this expense if it is not part of O.’s therapy. [ 60 ] The parenting time may be increased over time on the advice of O.’s therapists and supports. If O. is having trouble with this amount of time, R.M. needs to recognize this and allow the parenting time to be cut short.

In extreme cases such as O. has experienced in the past, that parenting time may have to be cancelled for the week. R.M. must appreciate that when O.’s behaviours require parenting time to be cancelled, then there will not be make-up parenting time. [ 61 ] N.S. shall continue to assist R.M. in planning the parenting time until he has other supports who can meet O.’s needs, or develops successful planning skills of his own. [ 62 ] N.S. shall not cancel any of that parenting time except when O. is having similar emotional dysregulation as he has had in the past.

She must not misrepresent the reasons for cancelling parenting time to O. or to R.M. [ 63 ] R.M. has not been as structured as he needs to be. He shall give N.S. seven days’ notice confirming he will be engaging in his

parenting time so that she has adequate preparation time. Both parties shall then confirm the supervisor and the activity plan. [ 64 ] R.M. shall also have weekly parenting time by telephone on a day and at a time as agreed by N.S. If they cannot agree, then telephone parenting shall occur every Sunday at 12:00 noon. R.M. shall give N.S. not less than five days’ notice if that parenting time must be cancelled for any reason.

There will be no make-up telephone parenting time in those cases. [ 65 ] R.M. has not been kept informed as a guardian should be when O. has appointments, how his schooling will be done, what his diagnoses are and otherwise. N.S. has an obligation to inform R.M. before these decisions and appointments are made. On the other hand, R.M. has historically been unreceptive and unhelpful to the challenges faced by N.S. in obtaining supports for O. He must stop this negative approach and become more pro-active and supportive. [ 66 ] It is expected that R.M. will acquire the information and skills to properly support O.

In due course, this is expected to result in an increase in his parenting time and a cessation of supervised parenting time. This should be done after consulting with O.’s professional supports and with O. [ 67 ] O. also lives primarily with N.S. and she has the day-to-day care of him. That is not changing with this decision. It is appropriate in the circumstances that N.S. have all of the parental responsibilities with this amendment: N.S. shall advise R.M. in advance of making any doctor, dentist, counselling, psychology or any other appointments for O.

R.M. is entitled to attend these appointments and to obtain third party records or information as a guardian. [ 68 ] If R.M. opposes any form of treatment or educational decision respecting O., the parties must first attempt mediation of the decision through Family Justice Centre before any application is made to the court. If the treatment is exigent, N.S. may proceed with treatment unless R.M. files an application to the court to prevent the treatment. This does not affect any ongoing counselling, medical, dental or educational decisions already made and underway.

Child Support and Access [ 69 ] R.M. has paid $150 per month in child support since 2016. This accords with a Guideline income of $19,200. His actual income and obligation are borrowed from counsel’s chart but amended to reflect corrected income: YEAR GUIDELINE INCOME GUIDELINE AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID 2017 $28,211 $256.20 per month $150/$1,800 2018 $17,561 $121 per month $150/$1,800 2019 NOA missing $unknown $150/$1,800 2020 $27,388 $237 per month $150/$1,800 [ 70 ] N.S. claims child support arrears in the sum of $3,347.64.

However, this disregards the dire circumstances R.M. found himself in when they separated, N.S. sold the cabin he was living in and then N.S. moved twice, exacerbating R.M.’s costs of exercising his parenting time. Given those circumstances and R.M. limited means due to his medical condition, immigration status and lack of employment, I find it is not appropriate to award arrears except for 2020. [ 71 ] R.M.’s income for 2020 was $27,388. His child support obligations from January 1, 2020 are $237 per month until July 1, 2022. He has paid $150 per month.

This leaves arrears of $1,653 to and including July 1, 2021. R.M. shall provide N.S. his income tax returns and notices of assessment every year not later than June 1, commencing in 2022.

Child support shall be adjusted in accordance with R.M.’s line 150 income each year commencing July 1, 2022. [ 72 ] N.S. seeks retroactive expenses for dental fees, psychologist fees, optometry, swimming lessons, parkour, and chiropractic fees in the sum of $3,020.78 dating back to October 2016 as follows (chart also borrowed from counsel): YEAR TOTAL EXPENSES AMOUNT OWED BY R.M. 2016 $2,157.03 $1,208.75 2017 $303.00 $151.50 2018 $3,225.07 $1,612.53 2019 $96.00 $48.00 2020 $TBD $TBD TOTAL $5,781.11 -$2,890.56 [ 73 ] R.M. disagrees with these expenses because they were incurred without his consultation or agreement.

He does agree to pay any special or extraordinary expenses he has been consulted about and has agreed to. [ 74 ] With respect to the extracurricular activities, I award no part of that. These expenses are not special or extraordinary and are to be borne by the parent incurring them except in circumstances not before me. However, the chiropractic, psychologist, dental and optometry expenses are all appropriate and would be incurred whether R.M. agreed to them or not. [ 75 ] R.M. shall pay N.S. 50% of the past special and extraordinary expenses in these categories.

To the extent that those expenses are not yet determined for 2020, counsel for N.S. will provide a copy of all invoices for expenses claimed to counsel for R.M. If there continues to be a dispute about whether those expenses are contemplated by this order, counsel may request the matter be put back before me for consideration. [ 76 ] Going forward, N.S. must consult with R.M. and obtain his agreement to any special or extraordinary expenses she expects him to contribute to. This may include extracurricular activities if agreed.

They shall each be liable for 50% of those expenses incurred after all available subsidies are deducted. [ 77 ] If there is a special or extraordinary expense such as a psychologist, psychiatrist or other specialist that R.M. does not agree to

pay, then the parties shall first attempt to mediate a resolution through Family Justice Centre. Failing a resolution, N.S. may apply for an order that R.M. share in the expense, after providing supporting documentation indicating the need for it. I am not seized of those applications. [ 78 ] There has been some concern expressed by R.M. that N.S. will move back to the coast with O. N.S. denies this. N.S. is not permitted to change O.’s city of residence without the prior written consent of R.M. or order of the court. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge S.D. Frame Provincial Court of British Columbia