T.C. v. K.C., 2022 BCPC 195

Citation: T.C. v. K.C. 2022 BCPC 195 Date: 20220831 File No: 18467 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: T.C. APPLICANT AND: K.C. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L. BENNETT Appearing on her own behalf: T.C. Appearing on his own behalf: K.C. Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Dates of Hearing: May 25, 26, 2022 Date of Judgment: August 31, 2022

[ 1 ] These are my Reasons for Judgment in the matter of T.C. v. K.C. INTRODUCTION [ 2 ] By way of background T.C. is 42 years of age; K.C. is 54 years of age. They have one child together, C.A.C., who is two years of age. K.C. has no other children.

T.C. has two other children (ages 11 and 8) from a previous relationship, and they reside in the USA with their father. [ 3 ] The case concerns the best interests of C.A.C. [ 4 ] As a matter of housekeeping, T.C.’s original application indicates that C.A.C.’s birthday is [omitted for publication], and consequently C.A.C.’s birthdate has been recorded as [omitted for publication] in several court orders. In the court order of January 7, 2021, however, C.A.C.’s birthdate is recorded as [omitted for publication]. During her evidence, I asked T.C. to confirm C.A.C.’s birthdate.

She indicated that she noted C.A.C.’s birthdate incorrectly in her court applications, and clarified that his birthdate is [omitted for publication]. As such, I will use [omitted for publication] for the purpose of my order. [ 5 ] The parties had just over a two-year relationship. They started dating in the fall of 2018. T.C. became pregnant in 2019 and in February 2020, they moved in together. C.A.C. was born on [omitted for publication] and the parties separated in December 2020. [ 6 ] Following C.A.C.’s birth, the parties’ relationship was fraught with conflict and escalated emotions.

T.C. suffered from severe postpartum depression and understandably, that escalated their already turbulent relationship. Both parties allege that the other was physically, verbally and emotionally abusive. [ 7 ] Prior to their separation, the parties lived in a residence located on K.C.’s acreage in [omitted for publication], British Columbia, which is a rural community about 25 minutes east of Kamloops. Following separation, T.C. fled with C.A.C. to a women’s shelter located in Elk Valley, British Columbia. She did not tell K.C. where she went.

On December 30, 2020, T.C. filed an Application to Obtain an Order in the Cranbrook Court Registry in which she asked the court to make orders for guardianship, child support, spousal support and a protection order. K.C. filed a Reply indicating his disagreement with the orders sought, and he responded with his own application for contact time. Neither party was represented by counsel at the time. [ 8 ] Since that time, each party has filed further applications and this court has made a number of interim orders. T.C. filed a Notice of Motion on December 31, 2020 asking for a protection order against K.C.

The Honourable Judge Burnett presided over the hearing on January 7, 2021. Judge Burnett did not grant the protection order, and instead made an interim order which included the following terms: • The court is satisfied that the mother, T.C., and the father, K.C., are the guardians of the child under s. 39(1) of the Family Law Act ( FLA ). • Under s. 64(1) the mother shall not remove the child from British Columbia without the written consent of all guardians or further Court Order.

Written consent may be by email or text message. • Under s. 225, the father will have no communication with the mother except by way of email, text message or skype. [ 9 ] The evidence suggests that K.C. tried to encourage T.C. to return to the [omitted for publication] area after the order was granted. The communications did not go well and the relationship continued to deteriorate.

T.C. did not return to [omitted for publication] and instead, moved around within British Columbia. [ 10 ] Approximately nine months later, in September 2021, and without any notice or warning, T.C. moved with C.A.C. to Alberta despite the restriction set out in the order of January 7, 2021. For several weeks thereafter, K.C. did not know where T.C. was and although he was able to make contact with her, she refused to share C.A.C.’s whereabouts with him.

Her behaviour further magnified the tension in the relationship. [ 11 ] Throughout the remainder of 2021, the parties continued to file various applications for enforcement and/or protection out of various registries. Eventually, the file was transferred to Kamloops for all purposes. [ 12 ] On February 28, 2022, the parties attended a family management conference where the Honourable Judge Armstrong made an order that included K.C. having electronic communication with C.A.C. three times per week (T.C. was still in Alberta).

Judge Armstrong expanded the order a month later, on March 28, 2022, to include that K.C. would have parenting time for one week each month from Saturday to Saturday, in addition to electronic communication. [ 13 ] Notwithstanding the orders made, K.C. has had limited parenting time with C.A.C.

He argues that T.C. has withheld C.A.C. from him either by removing C.A.C. from the province contrary to the court order, by staying in Alberta for several months thereafter, by not sharing C.A.C.’s whereabouts while in Alberta, and/or by withholding C.A.C. even after further parenting-time orders were made. [ 14 ] T.C. acknowledges moving to Alberta contrary to Judge Burnett’s order. She argues that she was encouraged by social workers to do so given the family violence that K.C. subjected upon her.

T.C. says she has no family in British Columbia, and that she needed to go to Alberta to be closer to her supports. [ 15 ] T.C. also acknowledges withholding C.A.C. from K.C. on occasion, but argues that she did so out of necessity because she had concerns with C.A.C. being cared for by K.C.’s parents and/or by N.T. N.T. is K.C.’s cousin’s spouse, as well as his neighbourhood friend. T.C. alleges that all of these individuals abuse alcohol, that Mr. and Mrs. C. Sr. expose C.A.C. to violence, and that all are unsuitable caregivers.

T.C.’s position is that she told K.C. that he could have parenting time with C.A.C., provided he enrolled C.A.C. in

a licensed daycare for any periods when K.C. was unable to look after C.A.C. himself. [ 16 ] K.C. denies any issues with his proposed caregivers. Further, he says that registering C.A.C. in a licensed daycare is not practical given that he lives in a rural community, given the limited amount of time he has C.A.C., and given he has others who are able and willing to help him with C.A.C. if the need arises. [ 17 ] T.C. returned from Alberta just two days prior to the commencement of this trial and she now resides in [omitted for publication], British Columbia, which is a small community south of Penticton.

K.C. continues to reside in [omitted for publication], British Columbia. The two residences are approximately three hours apart. [ 18 ] There are no final orders yet in place on this matter. [ 19 ] T.C. asks the court to order that C.A.C.’s primary residence be with her in [omitted for publication]. She is open to K.C. having parenting time when he is not working, so that he can be the person primarily responsible for C.A.C. when he has him. She is agreeable to sharing parenting time over the holidays.

She asks for child support to correspond with K.C.’s Guideline income. [ 20 ] K.C. asks the court to order that C.A.C. live primarily with him. He agrees to T.C. having liberal and generous parenting time with C.A.C. Alternatively, K.C. is willing to share C.A.C.’s residence equally with T.C. He says that these are the only arrangements that will ensure his parenting time. [ 21 ] For reasons that I will expand upon throughout the course of these reasons, where the evidence of T.C. conflicts with the evidence of K.C., I prefer the evidence of K.C.

K.C.’s evidence was consistent throughout the two days of trial and his evidence was not prone to exaggeration, unlike T.C.’s evidence. T.C.’S CASE [ 22 ] As noted above, T.C. is 42 years of age. Aside from C.A.C. she has two other children (ages 11 and 8) from a previous relationship, and they reside in Colorado, USA with their father. [ 23 ] T.C. testified that when she met K.C., she was recovering from a stroke. She also referred throughout the trial to her hearing impairment. T.C. says she grew up deaf and only regained her hearing about four years ago.

I pause to note that notwithstanding her hearing impairment, T.C. was able to communicate throughout the trial and the court had no issues with interpreting her comments. T.C. was able to indicate when she had trouble hearing and when she did, the court and/or the witnesses repeated evidence or comments for her benefit. [ 24 ] T.C. testified that because of her hearing impairment, she has had to re-learn how to communicate.

She said that despite her best efforts, communication with K.C. has been difficult, at best, and she believes that K.C. would benefit from counselling. [ 25 ] T.C.’s evidence is that K.C.’s parents moved onto his property during the last stage of her pregnancy. She says they did not get along with each other, or with her, and that created additional conflict in the relationships. T.C. developed concerns with their drinking habits and added they were unwilling to follow social distancing and local health restrictions that were in place at the time. All of these factors concerned her, especially with a newborn.

T.C.’s evidence is that she was not comfortable with K.C.’s parents watching C.A.C. She says that when she voiced her opinion that only added to the conflict, as did the fact that she was suffering from postpartum depression. T.C. says she became the victim of significant verbal abuse from K.C.’s mother and the victim of verbal, physical and financial abuse from K.C. At one point in her evidence, she suggested that K.C. threatened to burn her belongings. [ 26 ] T.C. testified that she left the relationship because of the family conflict and violence.

She says the Ministry of Child and Family Development (“MCFD”) became involved and supported her decision to leave British Columbia. [ 27 ] T.C. called two witnesses, G.B. and Social Worker Caleb Lippmann. G.B. [ 28 ] G.B. is the owner of the property in [omitted for publication], British Columbia, where T.C. currently resides. He testified that he did not witness any of the physical or verbal abuse described by T.C. although he has witnessed, on occasion, both T.C. and K.C. arguing with each other. He gave evidence that he has no safety concerns for C.A.C. while in T.C.’s care.

Caleb Lippmann [ 29 ] Caleb Lippmann is a child protection social worker with MCFD. He testified that he became involved with the parties in August 2021. He said the file history included themes of conflict between the parties as well as multiple instances of RCMP involvement. However, and notwithstanding T.C.’s suggestion that the genesis of the conflict came from K.C., Social Worker Lippmann stated that in his view, the domestic violence concerns were with respect to T.C.’s behaviour. He also noted awareness with respect to mental-health concerns for T.C.

He was able to confirm that he did discuss mental-health support services in the Kamloops/[omitted for publication] area with T.C. and that she did express a willingness to engage. [ 30 ] In her questioning of Social Worker Lippmann, T.C. asked him if he could confirm that he encouraged her to leave British Columbia because of the domestic violence that she suffered at the hands of K.C. Social Worker Lippmann denied that suggestion. K.C. cross-examined Social Worker Lippmann on this same point, and again Social Worker Lippmann affirmed that he did not give permission to T.C. to leave.

He testified that he told T.C. to seek legal advice and confirmed that he had no jurisdiction to tell her whether to stay or not stay. [ 31 ] On re-direct, T.C. again tried to suggest to Social Worker Lippmann that he did in fact give her permission to leave. Again, Social Worker Lippmann’s evidence was clear that although they discussed her need for supports and services, he did not give

permission or otherwise tell T.C. she could leave British Columbia. His evidence was that there was never any agreement that he could have entered with T.C. about whether she could stay or leave. T.C.’s Evidence [ 32 ] T.C. did not raise any substantive concerns with respect to K.C. as a father or with respect to his ability to parent, save and except the safety concerns she has with respect to K.C.’s caregiver arrangements. [ 33 ] Specifically, T.C. testified that she opposes N.T. caring for C.A.C. N.T. is a neighbourhood friend and extended family member of K.C.

T.C. believes that N.T. drinks and drives with her children and she is not comfortable having C.A.C. in that environment. T.C. testified that this is one of her biggest concerns right now. She said that on the four occasions that she has met N.T., N.T. has consumed alcohol and driven home. T.C. said N.T. has no boundaries and that she prefers C.A.C. to be in a safe and structured daycare setting. [ 34 ] K.C. took issue with the allegations about N.T. and said he has no concerns at all with her ability to care for C.A.C.

He testified that N.T. is a full-time mother to two young children (one of which is similar in age to C.A.C.). She has a background in early childhood education, and a third child whom she cares for halftime. K.C. denies any knowledge that N.T. drinks and drives with her children and said that he has only ever observed her to have one beer before she drove. He says this is no different from what T.C. does. [ 35 ] K.C. testified, and T.C. affirmed, that T.C. had an altercation with N.T. wherein T.C. threatened to sue N.T. if anything happened to C.A.C. while he was in her care.

T.C. said she questioned why K.C. would have any person watch over C.A.C. “without liability insurance”. [ 36 ] With respect to C.A.C.’s paternal grandparents, T.C. says that Mrs. C. Sr. is 74 years of age and consumes hard liquor during the day. T.C. testified that Mrs. C. is verbally abusive towards K.C. Sr., and that whenever she (T.C.) tries to express her concerns to Mrs. C., Mrs. C. yells at her. T.C. also described Mrs. C.

Sr. as having biker affiliations and said that she is “. . . a wicked woman and I don’t feel that she has a place in C.A.C.’s life“. [ 37 ] Neither T.C. nor K.C. called upon N.T. or the grandparents to testify. Instead, K.C. relied on a letter written by N.T. (Exhibit 1), and both parties made reference to a series of text messages (Exhibit 9) that involve the grandparents. [ 38 ] Exhibit 1 is a letter written by N.T. that had been before the court previously; it is attached as Exhibit G to an affidavit sworn by K.C. on November 18, 2021. I am limited in the weight that I can give to this letter.

If K.C. wanted to rely on all of the comments made by N.T. in the letter, he ought to have called her as a witness. Not only would it have been helpful for the court to hear from N.T. directly, but it would also have given T.C. the opportunity to cross-examine N.T. [ 39 ] Turning to Exhibit 9, as noted that is a series of text messages between the parties. Within these text exchanges, T.C. referred to K.C.’s parents as “retards” and to Mrs. C. as “the old bitch”. In one text message T.C. stated “…That’s what your Mother needs to do. Kill herself – just die already”. K.C. replied, “You sound upset.

You are very bitter.” T.C. responded, “No we just all wish the bitch would die and or move away”. [ 40 ] In his cross-examination of T.C., K.C. suggested to T.C. that she could not be that concerned about either N.T. or his parents as caregivers because T.C. used them as caregivers herself. T.C. admitted to using Mrs. C. Sr. on at least one occasion, but said there was always conflict with Mrs. C. when she did so.

She also acknowledged relying on N.T., albeit to a lesser extent, in September/October 2021. [ 41 ] K.C. also referred to one of the undated text messages that make up Exhibit 9 wherein T.C. acknowledges that it is okay for the grandparents to look after C.A.C. Both parties concur that this text occurred after the Ministry came by to assess the situation. In the text message T.C. responded, “…there’s no concerns, C.A.C. hasn’t been exposed to anything.

Grandparents are helping look after C.A.C. – no one drinks etc. he’s safe”. [ 42 ] As I already alluded to, it is difficult for me to make any findings about the suitability of either N.T. or the paternal grandparents without hearing from them directly. Regardless, the concerns raised by T.C. are real to her and go to the heart of her parenting concerns with K.C.

For that reason, she testified that she wants to see C.A.C. in a proper daycare for any period of parenting time when K.C. is personally unable to care for C.A.C. himself. [ 43 ] The balance of T.C.’s evidence focused on the conflict between the parties during the relationship and the conflict that followed separation. T.C. gave evidence about involving the RCMP and/or the courts on multiple occasions and in particular, when the parties did not see eye-to-eye on matters involving C.A.C. [ 44 ] For instance, in July 2021, T.C. applied for a court order to get C.A.C. back from K.C. following a camping trip.

T.C. said she needed C.A.C. back because he had a long-awaited respiratory appointment and she felt it was important for C.A.C. to attend the appointment especially in the midst of the pandemic. [ 45 ] K.C. testified that he was not aware of the medical appointment and thought that C.A.C. was only supposed to attend for routine immunizations. He said that he and T.C. had a prior agreement that he would be able to take C.A.C. camping and that “the shots” would be rescheduled.

He said there was no need for T.C. to get the courts involved. [ 46 ] T.C. acknowledged that shortly after that incident, in September 2021, she moved with C.A.C. to Alberta. She remained in Alberta for about nine months. T.C. acknowledged that the move was contrary to the court order and that she did not want K.C. to know where she and C.A.C. were. [ 47 ] T.C. confirmed that she moved back from Alberta to [omitted for publication], British Columbia, just before the trial started. She resides on a farm on G.B.’s property, in a two-bedroom home.

There is an elementary school one block away from her residence and T.C. would like C.A.C. to attend there when he starts school.

[ 48 ] With regard to her employment background, T.C. is a trained [omitted for publication] and holds a casual position with Interior Health Authority at the [omitted for publication]. Currently, she is not working and has opted to stay home for now with C.A.C. She testified that she studied her real estate course last year (she did not indicate if she was successful in obtaining her real estate license). She also stated that currently she is partnered with G.B. and the two of them are trying to get an agricultural project off the ground.

She has no other family nearby – they are either in Alberta or in the USA. [ 49 ] T.C. testified that she just recently sold her condominium in [omitted for publication]. She said she has the financial means to stay at home for now. As for other income, she receives child support from K.C. in the amount of $423 per month. [ 50 ] T.C. clarified that she is no longer seeking spousal support or protection orders as against K.C. Her primary request is that C.A.C. live with her so that he has routine and stability.

She is not open to an equal-sharing arrangement. [ 51 ] T.C. is willing to allow K.C. to have one week out of the month with C.A.C. if he makes proper daycare arrangements. If he is not willing to do that, T.C. will agree to weekend parenting time only. She said she is willing to work around the days that K.C. has off work but wants K.C. to demonstrate that he will be the one spending time with C.A.C. She requests that K.C. not leave C.A.C. unattended with his family.

She is also agreeable to sharing the holidays and suggested that the parties do the exchange in Kelowna. [ 52 ] Additionally, T.C. asked the court to grant her permission to travel with C.A.C. to Alberta and to the USA so that she can introduce C.A.C. to her other children in Colorado, especially as C.A.C. has only met one of his siblings. [ 53 ] In her closing submissions, T.C. summarized her evidence by stating that there has been a lot of frustration, anger and tantrums in the parties’ relationship. Notwithstanding, she stated that she has a love for K.C. and she acknowledges that he loves and cares for C.A.C.

Exhibit 10 supports her comments; it is a Christmas card that T.C. gave K.C. for Christmas 2021. In it she wrote, “K., I love you with all my heart”, and then from C.A.C. she wrote, “You are loved so much. Thank you for all you’ve done, all that you are and being a great dad to me”. [ 54 ] T.C. concluded by stating that she wants to see a relationship established between C.A.C. and K.C., and she believes that the parties have the ability to control themselves and co-parent. Her evidence is that their ability to do so is even stronger if K.C.’s family is not involved.

K.C.’S CASE [ 55 ] K.C. called one witness, Sergeant Barry Kennedy of the [omitted for publication] RCMP. Sgt. Barry Kennedy [ 56 ] Sgt. Kennedy testified that he met the parties in December 2020 around the time of their separation. He recalled that K.C. made the initial call to the RCMP, citing concerns about T.C. behaving irrationally. Sgt. Kennedy responded to the call by going to the family home. He confirmed that T.C. was concerned that C.A.C. was at the home of K.C.’s parents. Sgt. Kennedy specifically recalls T.C. insisting that the new baby could not stay with the grandparents. [ 57 ] Sgt.

Kennedy gave evidence that over the years, T.C. has gone to the police (both in [omitted for publication], British Columbia and in [omitted for publication], Alberta) to report that K.C. has assaulted and/or threatened her. He stated that T.C. wanted her verbal reports documented but would not provide formal statements. Sgt. Kennedy testified that he did look into the allegations.

He stated that he never found any threats of violence made by K.C., and stated that the comments K.C. made were either in relation to him wanting to see his son, or in response to K.C.’s repetitive and overdue requests that T.C. remove the remainder of her personal items from his property. [ 58 ] Sgt. Kennedy confirmed that K.C. has never been the subject of an assault charge and further advised that on two or three occasions there have been charges against T.C. for assault on K.C.

He noted one of the charges arose out of Elk Valley, British Columbia (Crown dropped the charges) and the second charge arose out of [omitted for publication], British Columbia. Sgt. Kennedy noted that T.C. was arrested for the [omitted for publication] allegation but Crown ultimately elected not to proceed with the charge. [ 59 ] As a result of his involvement with the family, Sgt. Kennedy testified that he has seen C.A.C. with each of his parents. Sgt.

Kennedy’s evidence is that C.A.C. is happy and well adjusted with each parent and that the RCMP have no safety concerns. [ 60 ] In T.C.’s cross-examination of Sgt. Kennedy, she suggested that Sgt. Kennedy observed occasions where K.C. withheld C.A.C. from T.C., that K.C. is affiliated with the Hells Angels, and that K.C. did make various threats against her. Sgt. Kennedy’s response was that he has no knowledge of K.C. having any affiliation with organized crime, or of K.C. withholding C.A.C.

He reiterated that any alleged threats made by K.C. were either in relation to wanting to see his son, or in relation to K.C. wanting T.C. to remove her belongings from the property because it had been long overdue for her to remove them. [ 61 ] When cross-examined about the September 2021 assault charges against T.C., Sgt. Kennedy responded that the RCMP went to T.C.’s residence and observed enough to initiate assault charges against T.C. Sgt. Kennedy elaborated that K.C. did not want T.C. charged or arrested but the officers proceeded on their own initiative given what they had observed.

However, K.C. was not willing to testify and therefore Crown ultimately elected not to proceed. K.C.’s Evidence [ 62 ] K.C. became a father for the first time at age 52. He described T.C.’s pregnancy as unexpected, and described C.A.C. as “a gift in one way” given his stage in life.

He described the anticipation of being actively involved in his son’s life, and in being able to engage C.A.C. in the things the he loves to do himself, such as hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities. [ 63 ] His testified that he is unwilling to agree to any arrangement where C.A.C. lives primarily with T.C., because he believes that

arrangement will inhibit his ability to have a close relationship with C.A.C. He noted that currently he is supposed to have C.A.C. for a week at a time, but he does not even get that. [ 64 ] K.C. believes that T.C. wants to rekindle their relationship, and says that he is not interested in doing so. He believes that T.C. uses that against him by withholding C.A.C. from him. His evidence was that she will say and do anything to make him look “like a bad guy”, including making allegations of violence and gang affiliations.

He said that he does not stand for physical violence whatsoever. [ 65 ] K.C. testified that the parties have attempted to reconcile but it never works out, and that every time they had split up the police became involved. His evidence is that in the midst of all the conflict, he came to realize that the parties cannot be around each other and he acknowledges that the conflict is constant. [ 66 ] K.C. raised significant concern regarding T.C.’s lack of stability and stated that after their separation, she moved six times within British Columbia and three times in Alberta.

More specifically, he testified that after their separation, T.C. moved to [omitted for publication] for a little bit, then to [omitted for publication], then to [omitted for publication], then to [omitted for publication], back to [omitted for publication] and then to her condo in [omitted for publication].

He said she made all of those moves within six months, and that T.C. did not keep him appraised of her and C.A.C.’s whereabouts when she moved. [ 67 ] On review of the file history, I note that in an ex parte application filed on January 27, 2021 out of the Cranbrook Registry T.C. referred in her application to the fact that K.C. did not know her or C.A.C.’s whereabouts, even when she first left the relationship. [ 68 ] K.C. went on to testify that T.C. moved to Alberta in September 2021 after the assault allegations and without any warning or notice to him.

I pause here to note that the file history confirms that on October 1, 2021, T.C. file an Application about Priority Parenting Matter out of the Penticton Registry asking, among other things, for an Order that C.A.C. reside with her full time, in Alberta. [ 69 ] K.C. went on to testify that after T.C. moved to Alberta, she then moved around to three different residences. K.C.’s evidence is that he never knew where T.C. was at any given time and he made various efforts to locate her through her father and through various texts and emails.

His evidence was that sometimes T.C. responded back to him and sometimes she did not, but even when she responded, she still did not disclose her whereabouts. [ 70 ] T.C. denied none of the moves. [ 71 ] With respect to their ability to communicate, or lack of, K.C.’s evidence is that T.C. does not share other significant information with him as well, such as when C.A.C. tested positive for COVID. He said he knew C.A.C. was unwell at one point from what he could glean through his electronic visits. He said that he asked T.C. by phone, email, text and through FaceTime if C.A.C. had COVID.

He said the only response he received from T.C. was, “if you were there you’d know more” to which he responded, “I can’t be there because you are in Alberta”. [ 72 ] With respect to the issues that T.C. has with his mother, K.C. testified that his parents are elderly (in their 70s) and retired and that the conflict between T.C. and his parents is nothing new.

He testified that he does not share T.C.’s concerns regarding his parents and that he has no concerns for C.A.C.’s safety if C.A.C. is in their care. [ 73 ] With respect to the allegations of alcohol abuse by his parents, K.C. also testified that he also does not share those concerns, but to satisfy T.C. he did tell his parents that he does not want them drinking around C.A.C. [ 74 ] In

summary, while T.C. argues that her concerns about K.C.’s choice of caregivers are valid, K.C.’s response is that they are not. He says if her concerns were valid, he would be addressing them. [ 75 ] K.C. is a self-employed commercial flooring installer. He works up to 40 hours per week and says his hours and days of work are flexible. His evidence is that he relies on his parents for childcare assistance in emergencies only. He says that he has other people that work for him and he has the ability to show up on site, give orders/directions, and then leave.

He said his work is flexible enough that he could bring C.A.C. to work with him if he had to “for short periods for routine stuff”. [ 76 ] K.C. resides in a newer four-bedroom, doublewide modular home on the 15-acre property that he owns in [omitted for publication]. He says that C.A.C. has a crib at his home, unlike the situation at T.C.’s home. He says that T.C. never had a crib because she moves so much. T.C. responded that she does not have a crib because she has never needed one, as her and C.A.C. co-sleep. [ 77 ] K.C. has lived at the same property for 14 years.

His parents live on his property as well, in a separate residence with its own access. [ 78 ] The nearest elementary school to [omitted for publication] is located in [omitted for publication] or Kamloops. [ 79 ] K.C. summarized his position by stating that he is concerned that if C.A.C. lives primarily with T.C., he will not get to see him and he believes that T.C. will continue to manipulate his parenting time, especially when she becomes upset or frustrated with him. [ 80 ] K.C. gave a very recent example that occurred just before the start of this trial.

K.C. explained that he assisted T.C. with her move back from Alberta to [omitted for publication] in May 2022. He testified that before he left, T.C. attempted to discuss reconciliation or settlement. He was not interested, and returned to [omitted for publication]. When he arrived home after work the next day, he phoned T.C. to speak with C.A.C. He said he tried to call several times but there was no response. Later on that evening, at around 5:30-6:00 pm, T.C. called K.C. in hysterics and said, “Your son just drowned – fuck off and leave me alone”.

K.C. says he immediately called T.C. back but there was no answer. He panicked and called 911. A short time later, K.C. received a call from the RCMP and they advised that his son was fine. [ 81 ] In response to these events, T.C. admitted that she made the phone call and said words to the effect that C.A.C. had drowned or almost drowned. She then admitted to hanging up and shutting off her phone. She testified that she was stressed about court and the fact

that she and K.C. just had a failed discussion about how to settle things before court. [ 82 ] K.C. appeared extremely shaken and visibly upset when he testified about this phone call. He asked, “Why would a person do that?” and described the call as “down right mean”. He testified that this was just another example of T.C. manipulating him in response to the failed attempt to reconcile and settle things before the start of this trial. [ 83 ] K.C.’s evidence is that he has done his best to abide by all of the court orders that have been in place but he has not received any reciprocation.

He opposes T.C.’s suggestion that he is trying to take C.A.C. from her and insists that his request for primary residence is simply a consequence of the current arrangement not working, as it leaves T.C. in control. [ 84 ] There were several times throughout T.C.’s cross-examination of K.C. when it was evident that T.C. just wanted to argue with K.C. over who did what and who said what during the parties’ relationship. None of this line of questioning or the evidence given in response was helpful to the issues that I have to decide, and I had to redirect T.C. several times.

K.C. became clearly frustrated during cross-examination and on more than one occasion said to the court “I can’t do this anymore”, (referencing the argument that T.C. was trying to engage in with him). [ 85 ] Notwithstanding his frustration to the questions asked in cross-examination, I was impressed by K.C.’s ability to answer the questions asked of him without casting T.C. in a negative light.

K.C. acknowledged that T.C. is not a bad mother, that she takes care of C.A.C., and that he does not want to take C.A.C. from her. [ 86 ] At another point during his cross-examination, T.C. asked K.C. if she ever abused her other children or did anything to hurt them. K.C.’s response was interesting, in that he responded by telling T.C. that she did not want him to answer that question. T.C. insisted that she wanted him to answer. K.C. again insisted that he would not answer. T.C. continued to push for an answer. K.C. finally gave a very guarded response.

He stated that there is a reason why T.C. does not have her eldest daughter and why she goes to counselling. He suggested that “something bad” happened between T.C.’s daughter and the fellow that T.C. was with at the time. That “something”, he said, resulted in criminal charges. K.C. would not elaborate and refused to comment further because, he said, it would hurt T.C.’s case. [ 87 ] I was also impressed by K.C.’s ability to take the high road on something like this.

His reaction and responses to the questions asked demonstrate to me that his position on these matters is not motivated by malice, but rather out of genuine concern for C.A.C.’s best interests. It also demonstrates to me that K.C. has the ability to recognize when not to engage. [ 88 ] K.C. admits to having a role to play in the conflict between the parties. He admits to speaking poorly to T.C. on occasion and to becoming angry with her at times. At the end of the day, however, K.C. stated that all he wants is to have quality time with C.A.C.

His evidence was that any anger or poor choice of words on his part was just his natural response when T.C. would not allow parenting time to happen. To quote his evidence, “I’ve been chasing my son all over British Columbia just to see him – I’ve done everything to see my son and you’ve done everything to keep him from me – that’s why we are here . . . I want him to have a stable home . . . he hasn’t had a crib. I’ve had him at my house twice in over a year”. [ 89 ] K.C. provided the following timeline of his parenting time with C.A.C. since the parties separated in December 2020: a.

Between December 2020 and August 2021, he saw C.A.C. maybe twice per month when T.C. came through town; b. In August 2021, he had C.A.C. for 3½ weeks when T.C. went to Colorado to see her children; c. In or around September 2021, Ms. C. left to Alberta. K.C. did not know where C.A.C. was. That resulted in more court applications. K.C. did not see C.A.C. until Christmas 2021 and that was only because of an order granted by the Honourable Judge Dickey on December 15, 2021. That order allowed for parenting time between December 27, 2021 to January 3, 2022. d.

Following his Christmas visits, K.C. never saw C.A.C. again (in person) until Judge Armstrong made a further order for in-person parenting time on March 28, 2022. That order gave K.C. parenting time for one week each month commencing Saturday April 9, 2022. e. K.C. had his week with C.A.C. in April, but there was no visit in May despite the new order. K.C. said C.A.C. had bumped his head and T.C. cancelled the May visit but told him that he could make up his parenting time “over Father’s Day weekend”.

At the time of this trial, the parties had not yet discussed any other parenting time other than Father’s Day weekend, and so K.C. had no knowledge whether he was also going to have his court-ordered week of parenting time in June 2022. [ 90 ] On the issue of child support, the parties agree that K.C. has paid child support in the amount of $423 per month since March 2022.

Both parties acknowledged that this amount was agreed upon informally between their respective former counsel and that it is consistent with the $45,000 Guideline income that is reflected in K.C.’s financial statement filed on May 18, 2021. [ 91 ] As of the date of trial, neither party had filed an up-to-date financial statement, provided evidence of their 2021 income, or provided evidence of their current income. At the conclusion of the evidence, I ordered that both parties exchange up-to-date financial statements by July 15, 2022.

ISSUES [ 92 ] The issues I must decide include guardianship, parenting time, parental responsibilities and child support. LEGAL PRINCIPLES [ 93 ] In any proceeding involving parenting arrangements, the focus of the court must be on the best interests of the child.

Section 37 of the Family Law Act provides as follows: Best interests of child

(1) In making an agreement or order under this Part respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with a child, the parties and the court must consider the best interests of the child only.

(2) To determine what is in the best interests of a child, all of the child's needs and circumstances must be considered, including the following: (

a) the child's health and emotional well-being; (

b) the child's views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them; (

c) the nature and strength of the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child's life; (

d) the history of the child's care; (

e) the child's need for stability, given the child's age and stage of development; (

f) the ability of each person who is a guardian or seeks guardianship of the child, or who has or seeks parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact with the child, to exercise his or her responsibilities; (

g) the impact of any family violence on the child's safety, security or well-being, whether the family violence is directed toward the child or another family member; (

h) whether the actions of a person responsible for family violence indicate that the person may be impaired in his or her ability to care for the child and meet the child's needs; (

i) the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the child or other family members; (

j) any civil or criminal proceeding relevant to the child's safety, security or well-being.

(3) An agreement or order is not in the best interests of a child unless it protects, to the greatest extent possible, the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being.

(4) In making an order under this Part, a court may consider a person's conduct only if it substantially affects a factor set out in subsection (2), and only to the extent that it affects that factor. [ 94 ] Said another way, the law requires me to focus only on what is best for C.A.C. and not on what is best for either K.C. or T.C. [ 95 ] My role is to decide what arrangement will best address all of C.A.C.’s needs and circumstances and what arrangement will most enable him to grow into a healthy, well-adjusted child.

In coming to my decision, I must keep in mind that T.C.’s concerns about K.C.’s backup childcare arrangements are valid to her. As such, they must not be lightly set aside and they are entitled to serious consideration. [ 96 ] I must also keep in mind K.C.’s concerns about the need to play a full and active role in C.A.C.’s life and his concerns that the opportunity to do so is likely to be impacted if T.C. has the majority of parenting time and/or the majority of parenting responsibilities.

Application of the Relevant s. 37(2) Factors The child’s health and emotional well-being [ 97 ] C.A.C. has experienced some minor health issues, including COVID, over the last two years. By all accounts, however, he is a happy, healthy child who is closely connected to both parents. [ 98 ] Both parties agree that C.A.C. is happy and content while in the care of the other. Neither party, to their credit, has said that the other has any personal parenting shortfalls.

Despite T.C.’s suggestion that K.C. has gang affiliation and that he has been abusive towards her, she acknowledged as recently as this past Christmas that she still loves K.C. and that he is a great father to C.A.C. Her only real concern is who K.C. leaves C.A.C. with when he is unable to parent him himself. [ 99 ] With respect to C.A.C.’s emotional well-being, the parties separated when C.A.C. was six months of age and it is unlikely that he recalls any of their conflict.

Again, by all accounts he is happy and well adjusted both physically and emotionally. [ 100 ] On the evidence that I have heard, I conclude that both parties are also capable of managing any minor and common health issues should they arise, and also that both are capable of ensuring that C.A.C.’s emotional needs are met.

The nature and strength of the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child's life [ 101 ] Based on the evidence of the parties, and their respective witnesses, I have no doubt that T.C. and K.C. both have a close bond with C.A.C. [ 102 ] T.C. was C.A.C.’s primary caregiver during the first six months of his life and she has continued in that role since the parties separated. [ 103 ] C.A.C. has no other family on T.C.’s side in British Columbia. All of T.C.’s extended family are in Alberta and her two other children (ages 11 and 8) are in Colorado, USA.

T.C. told the court that C.A.C. has only met one of his siblings. [ 104 ] I am equally satisfied that C.A.C. has a close bond with K.C. and his family. The evidence of K.C. is that C.A.C. is closely

bonded with Mr. and Mrs. C. Sr. who reside at the same property as K.C. This proximity helps to facilitate the grandparents care ofC.A.C. at times when K.C. needs some short-term assistance, and provides a stable and loving environment for C.A.C. [105] C.A.C. also has a great grandmother on his father’s side in [omitted for publication], British Columbia, and three paternal unclesin British Columbia, two of whom he is close to. [106] C.A.C. also has a relationship with N.T. and her family, all of whom are extended family members of K.C.

The history of the child's care [107] The parties agree that for the first six months after C.A.C.’s birth, T.C. was primarily responsible for his care.

Since separation,T.C. has continued to be primarily responsible for C.A.C.’s care and K.C. has had only limited parenting time, but not for lack of trying. [108] T.C. allowed K.C. to see C.A.C. on very limited terms and from the onset of these proceedings, K.C. has sought increasedparenting time with C.A.C. [109] Notwithstanding that, to date, T.C. has had the majority of parenting time with C.A.C. since his birth; I am satisfied that he willadjust well to any changes to the parenting time schedule, and that it is in his best interests to have K.C. more significantly involved inhis life.

The child's need for stability, given the child's age and stage of development [110] There were no suggestions made by T.C. that K.C. is incapable of providing structure and routine for C.A.C. To the contrary, T.C.only entrusts C.A.C. to K.C.’s personal care. [111] Nonetheless, T.C. argues that she has always been C.A.C.’s primary caregiver and believes that should continue because she is offwork and available to maintain that role. She argues that she has a stable residence, and suggests that her home in [omitted forpublication] is the best place for C.A.C. given his young age.

With respect to C.A.C.’s young age, I point out that the tender yearsdoctrine was set aside many years ago and no longer applies: Young v Young, (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 at 35-36. [112] With regard to the stability of her home, T.C. says her home in [omitted for publication] will provide C.A.C. with the most stableenvironment because there is a school located a block away that C.A.C. can attend in a few years. [113] I have difficulty accepting the stability of T.C.’s residence because in the year leading up to trial, T.C. moved nine times. Six ofthose moves were in British Columbia and three were in Alberta.

When she moved, she did not keep K.C. appraised of C.A.C.’swhereabouts. Further, T.C. relocated to Alberta in September 2021, contrary to a court order, and only recently moved back to [omittedfor publication] in the days before trial. Therefore, it is too early to tell how much stability her home in [omitted for publication] willoffer. [114] Meanwhile, K.C. has maintained the same residence for 14 years.

His parents reside on the same property as him, and hisproposed alternate caregiver, N.T., lives in his neighbourhood and is an extended family member. [115] On the issue regarding the suitability of the caregivers, I will add that I have carefully considered T.C.’s concerns, but foundnothing in the evidence to support her allegations. [116] K.C. has had the same self-employment for several years. He has not expressed any intentions of relocating. [117] At this stage, C.A.C. is already accustomed to regular parenting time with K.C., and has been spending regular time with K.C.since my interim order.

Given C.A.C.’s need for stability, his age, and stage of development, a routine that minimizes back and forth andone that involves a regular and predictable schedule, without disruption, will best serve his interests. It is also in C.A.C.’s best intereststhat he have a stable residence. I find that K.C. is best suited to provide for these needs and in a better position than T.C. to serveC.A.C.’s interests.

The ability of each person who is a guardian or seeks guardianship of the child, or who has or seeks parental responsibilities,parenting time or contact with the child, to exercise his or her responsibilities [118] Both parties have the ability to parent C.A.C., but their ability to properly exercise their parental responsibilities, especially inregards to parenting time, is not equal. [119] I have already alluded to the fact that, throughout the course of this trial, the parties became easily agitated with each other.

I hadthe opportunity to observe, after two days of evidence, that even the smallest disagreement over a word choice was enough to escalatetheir emotions and set the parties off against one another. [120] In my view, T.C. instigates the conflict. She does this in a variety of ways and, in part, through her communication style. Duringthe trial, T.C. would make a comment or ask a question of K.C. K.C. responded with an answer and would say something, or perhapseven use a word that T.C. did not agree with. T.C. focused on K.C.’s word choice and began arguing with K.C.

The arguments quicklyturned historical and focused on past events. K.C., rather than remaining forward-focused, regularly fell victim to the conflict andbecame frustrated and angered. The parties then were lost in argument and in the process lost all focus on C.A.C. This appears to be theircommunication style, and it is extremely unhealthy and does not serve C.A.C.’s best interests. [121] This pattern repeated itself several times throughout the course of the trial, and as I alluded to earlier, I had to interject and redirectthe parties several times.

From what I observed, K.C. did make a genuine effort to try to focus his evidence on C.A.C., but he becameeasily flustered by the nature and approach of T.C.’s questions, particularly when they were focused on past events and/or wereirrelevant to C.A.C.

[ 122 ] Notwithstanding their ongoing frustrations with each other, the parties each need to be able to put their differences aside and do what is required and expected of them when it comes to C.A.C. They need to be able, regardless of their own differences, to put C.A.C.’s best interests first. K.C., in my view, has demonstrated that he is more capable than T.C. of taking on this role. [ 123 ] K.C. has made it clear that if C.A.C. were to live with him, he would be open to T.C. having liberal and generous parenting time with C.A.C. I have no reason to disbelieve that K.C. would live up to that.

K.C. demonstrated a genuine effort to try to disengage in pointless argument and he went out of his way to cast T.C. in a positive light. He refused to accept T.C.’s suggestions that he views her hearing loss as an impediment, and he refused to disclose evidence about her that would have cast her in a negative light. His sole concern is that she does not facilitate parenting time. [ 124 ] I cannot say the same about T.C.

I have concerns regarding her ability and willingness to ensure that C.A.C. has a fulsome relationship with K.C., particularly if she is in control. [ 125 ] With respect to their personal schedules and ability to parent, T.C. is not working at this time, and she does not know when she will return to work. She says that she has the most time to offer to C.A.C. at this stage of his development. That may be true given that K.C. works full time. However, K.C. is self-employed and says that he has the flexibility to adjust his work

schedule around his parenting schedule. He has suggested as well that there may be times when it is appropriate for him to bring C.A.C. with him to the work site. He suggested that he has the ability to show up to a job site, direct his employees, and then leave, and that C.A.C. could accompany him for such routine outings. Accordingly, any childcare that K.C. does require will likely be minimal, and can be covered through appropriate arrangements with his parents and/or N.T. [ 126 ] If C.A.C. Iives primarily with K.C., he will go to school either in [omitted for publication], or in Kamloops.

Kamloops is located about [omitted for publication] and [omitted for publication] is located about [omitted for publication]. Children that reside in [omitted for publication] have to attend one community or the other for schooling, unless they are home-schooled. [ 127 ] If C.A.C. lives primarily with T.C., his school (when the time comes) will be walking distance from T.C.’s residence, but that is only if T.C. does not relocate again. If T.C. returns to work, C.A.C. may require an alternate care provider.

T.C. has not made references to any other friends or acquaintances in her community who would be able to assist with that. The impact of any family violence on the child's safety, security or well-being, whether the family violence is directed toward the child or another family member [ 128 ] T.C.’s evidence contains various allegations of family violence by K.C. The evidence has confirmed none of the allegations, although there are at least two confirmed allegations of family violence stemming by T.C. toward K.C.

The police laid charges against T.C. with respect to one of the allegations, but the Crown did not proceed because K.C. was not willing to cooperate with the prosecution. [ 129 ] When all is said and done, there is little basis in the evidence to cause me to be concerned regarding the impact of any family violence. To the contrary, T.C. confirmed, as recently as last Christmas, that she has an ongoing affection for K.C. and that he is a great father to C.A.C.

K.C. has no concerns regarding T.C., aside from her tendency to interfere with his parenting time. [ 130 ] Having carefully considered the allegations of violence, I am unable to conclude that this is a factor that applies in this case.

The appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the child or other family members [ 131 ] I am satisfied that both T.C. and K.C. are capable of cooperating with one another on some issues relating to C.A.C. I say this because the one thing they do agree on is how much they love and care for C.A.C., and how they both want what is best for him.

I am not concerned that cooperating with one another will increase risks to the safety, security, or well-being of C.A.C. or other family members. [ 132 ] I am concerned, however, that situations will arise where notwithstanding their best efforts to cooperate, the parties are going to find themselves having very different views on significant decisions that need to be made, and those decisions may include, among other things, who is an appropriate caregiver and where C.A.C. should go to school. When these issues arise, the parties have an obligation to discuss these issues, and to try to reach an agreement.

If they cannot agree, despite their best efforts, one party will need to make the decision because the evidence suggests that they will not be able to reach an agreement amongst themselves. Failing the ability of one party to make a decision, I anticipate that these two parents will find themselves unnecessarily returning to court countless times in the years ahead. DECISION [ 133 ] In

summary, these parties had a short, unhealthy relationship characterized by anger, arguments, MCFD involvement, RCMP involvement, and allegations of violence. [ 134 ] The conflict, punctuated by T.C.’s disappearance from British Columbia after separation and notwithstanding a court order that restricted her from leaving the province, escalated the conflict even further and caused a significant amount of stress to an already fragile relationship. [ 135 ] At C.A.C.’s young age, it is unlikely that he recalls the conflict that has taken place.

Nonetheless, I hope the parties appreciate and understand that as C.A.C. gets older, he will no doubt recognize and feel any ongoing conflict if it continues. [ 136 ] Notwithstanding their ongoing conflict, I am satisfied that C.A.C. has two loving, caring parents and that each is, on their own, capable of caring for C.A.C. on a day-to-day basis. I am also satisfied that both parents acknowledge that the other has a significant role

to play in C.A.C.’s life and that each wants the other to be involved in C.A.C.’s life. [ 137 ] The challenge that I have, however, is that the parties disagree on the extent that the other should be involved, and T.C. has consistently demonstrated that she is unable, or unwilling, to allow K.C. to be actively involved in C.A.C.’s life. [ 138 ] The other challenge that I have is that the parties now live three hours apart. As such, any order that I make needs to minimize transitions, create certainty and predictability, while still allowing each parent to play a full and active role in C.A.C.’s life.

The order I make must also facilitate the involvement of C.A.C.’s extended family, including his two siblings who live in the USA. [ 139 ] T.C. wants an order in place that would limit the time K.C. has with C.A.C. to weekends only. As I have alluded to, her concern is that K.C. works full time and therefore cannot be available full time to care for C.A.C., which means that C.A.C. would be left with third-party caregivers.

T.C. has concerns regarding the choice of K.C.’s third-party caregivers and does not feel that any of them are suitable to ensure that C.A.C. is safe. [ 140 ] K.C. wants an order in place that designates him as C.A.C.’s primary caregiver, or alternatively, an equal caregiver. He believes those are the only options that will ensure his parenting time. In response to the caregiver concerns, he says that he would only use his parents in an emergency and that his default caregiver would be N.T.

He says his work is flexible and that he intends to be C.A.C.’s primary caregiver when he has him. [ 141 ] Before I make my order, I draw attention to the interim without prejudice order that I made at the conclusion of the evidence on May 26, 2022. That order expanded on K.C.’s parenting time pending a final decision. It imposed no restrictions on K.C.’s parents and/or N.T.’s ability to care for C.A.C., provided that any third party caregivers did not consume alcohol while C.A.C. was in their care. [ 142 ] T.C. was not happy with that order. She was visibly upset and expressed her dissatisfaction to the court.

She stated that she wanted to apply to set aside my interim order as it interfered with her human rights as a mother. [ 143 ] T.C.’s comments and her reaction to my interim order affirm my concern that T.C. has little regard for court orders.

Her comments and reaction also affirm my concern that T.C. would have little regard for any parenting input that K.C. might have, especially if it differs from hers. [ 144 ] The only way to minimize the potential for ongoing conflict, and to ensure that both parents are regularly and actively involved in C.A.C.’s life, is to impose a parenting regime that is not left to T.C.’s control. [ 145 ] I am mindful that C.A.C. is starting kindergarten in a few years and that the parenting

schedule that I am about to order will not be sustainable if the parties continue to reside in different communities once C.A.C. starts school. My hope is that the parties will use the next few years to work on and improve their co-parenting and communication skills so that they can make any necessary modifications, when the time comes, by agreement. If they cannot reach an agreement regarding a new parenting

schedule before C.A.C. starts school, the court may have to decide that issue as well, and the sole consideration will continue to be what is best for C.A.C. TERMS OF ORDER [ 146 ] I make the following final orders: 1. Upon the court being advised that the name and birth date of each child is as follows: C.A.C., born [omitted for publication] (the “child”). 2. T.C. and K.C. are the guardians of the child under s. 39(3) of the Family Law Act . 3. Parental Responsibilities must be exercised as follows: a.

T.C. and K.C. will have the obligation to advise each other of any matters of a significant nature affecting the child; b. T.C. and K.C. will have the obligation to discuss with each other any significant decisions that have to be made concerning the child, including significant decisions about the health (except emergency decisions), education, religious instruction and general welfare; c. T.C. and K.C. will have the obligation to discuss significant decisions with each other and the obligation to try to reach agreement on those decisions; d.

In the event that T.C. and K.C. cannot reach agreement on a significant decision despite their best efforts, K.C. will be entitled to make those decisions and T.C. will have the right to apply for directions on any decision considered to be contrary to the best interests of the child, under s.49 of the Family Law Act . Prior to filing applying for directions, T.C. must first seek leave of the court. 4.

Commencing on the first Saturday in October, 2022, the parties will share parenting time equally between them on an alternating weekly schedule, which will be from Saturday to Saturday, unless they agree in writing to a different weekly rotation. 5. Pursuant to s. 64(1) of the Family Law Act , T.C. shall not change the residence of the child from [omitted for publication], British Columbia without the written consent of [omitted for publication], or further court order. 6.

Unless the parties otherwise agree in writing, pick up and drop off will occur at the McDonald’s restaurant located at 1938 Kane Road, Kelowna, at 1:00 pm. 7. Each party will facilitate FaceTime/Skype or other electronic communication between the child and the other parent on Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday before 10:00 am, or at any other times agreed to in writing between the parties. 8. The parties will share parenting time over Christmas holidays and other special occasions equally as agreed in writing.

9. Regardless of the schedule, T.C. will have the child each and every Mother’s Day. 10. Regardless of the schedule, K.C. will have the child each and every Father’s Day. 11. The parties are at liberty to adjust the above schedule, and to

schedule any other parenting time provided that both parties consent to any changes in advance and in writing. 12. The parenting time

schedule will remain in place until September 2024 at which time the parties may seek to review it in anticipation of the child starting kindergarten in fall 2025. If, by January 2025, the parties are unable to agree as to what T.C.’s parenting time will be once the child starts school, they shall attend and participate in mediation either through the Family Justice Centre, or privately with any costs to be shared equally. If the issue of ongoing parenting time cannot be resolved at mediation, either is at liberty to apply to the court. 13. Pursuant to s. 224(1)(

b) of the Family Law Act , both parents shall, at their individual expense, enrol and participate in counselling with a counsellor of their choice with the focus being to improve their co-parenting skills and communication. The obligation for each parent to attend counselling ends when each parent has provided confirmation to the other of at least six concluded sessions (any counselling done prior to these Reasons for Judgement is not to be included).

Although it will not form part of the order, I encourage the parents to continue such counselling beyond the six sessions if and as recommended by their counsellor. 14. Neither parent shall allow third-party caregivers to consume alcohol while caring for the child. 15. Either party is at liberty to take the child outside of British Columbia during his or her parenting time, provided that such travel does not interfere with the other parent’s parenting time unless both parents agree in writing in advance of the travel.

Further, prior to any travel, the travelling parent shall provide the other with a travel itinerary and contact information for the child for the entire duration of the trip. 16. The parties shall cooperate with each other in the provision of passports, consents to travel, visas, and other necessary documents as may be required to allow the child to travel. When not in use, the child’s passport will be held by K.C. 17.

The parties shall: a. put the best interest of the child before their own interests; b. encourage the child to have a good relationship with the other parent and speak to the child about the other parent and that parent’s partner in a positive and respectful manner; and c. make a real effort to maintain polite, respectful communications with each other, refraining from any negative or hostile criticism, communication or argument in front of the child. 18.

The parties shall not: a. question the child about the other parent or time spent with the other parent beyond simple conversational questions; b. discuss with the child any inappropriate adult, court or legal matters; or c. blame, criticize or disparage the other parent to the child. 19. The parties shall encourage their respective families to refrain from any negative comments about the other parent and his or her extended family, and from discussions in front of the child concerning family issues or litigation. 20.

As part of my interim order on May 26, 2022, I had ordered that both parties file and exchange updated financial statements by July 15, 2022. From my review of this file, it does not appear that either party has complied. Accordingly, I order that both parties shall complete, file with the Registry of this court, and exchange a sworn Financial Statement in Form 4 of the Provincial Court Family Rules, including all attachments set out on page two of Form 4, by November 1, 2022. 21. T.C.’s employment plans may change as a result of this order.

With that in mind, and in consideration of the fact that the parties will share parenting time equally, and given the lack of up to date financial disclosure, K.C.’s child support obligations as set out in the interim order of May 26, 2022 are cancelled. If they cannot otherwise agree on the appropriate child support obligations going forward, either party will be at liberty to apply to review the issue of child support after they have exchanged full financial disclosure, and after T.C. provides K.C. with any updates to her employment plans. 22.

By consent, T.C.’s claims for spousal support and protection orders are dismissed. 23. Lastly, I am directing the court registry to prepare a court order encompassing the above noted terms, and to provide a filed copy of the order to each of the parties. 24. I am no longer seized of this matter. ________________________________ The Honourable Judge L. Bennett

Provincial Court of British Columbia