C.M.B. v. L.W.S. Date:, 2016 BCPC 417

Citation: C.M.B. v. L.W.S. Date: 20161213 2016 BCPC 417 File No: 20846 Registry: Dawson Creek IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: C. M. B. APPLICANT AND: L. W. S. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M. J. BRECKNELL Counsel for the Applicant: C. Lee Counsel for the Respondent: R. Nielsen Place of Hearing: Dawson Creek , B.C.

Date of Hearing: October 26 and 27, 2016 Date of Judgment: December 13, 2016 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on February 14, 2017. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Applicant, C.M.B. (Ms. B.), and the Respondent, L.W.S. (Mr.

S.) (collectively the Parties), have been unable to resolve the many disputes they have between them including, but not limited to, how parenting time and parental responsibilities should be allocated with regard to their three Children, O.S.K.B. born (omitted for publication) (O.), J.L.R.B. born (omitted for publication) (J.), and I.K.B.B. born (omitted for publication) (I.) (collectively the Children). [ 2 ] Due to the nature of the disagreements between the Parties about the Children, the Court ordered a full

Section 211 Report on April 22, 2015 which was completed and filed on April 28, 2016 (the Report). Neither of the Parties is asking the Court to implement the Report entirely; each seeks a parenting time and parental responsibility regime different from the Report’s recommendations. FAMILY HISTORY [ 3 ] The Parties met in 2007 in Dawson Creek. At the time Ms. B. was about 29 and Mr. S. was about 50. The Parties resided together infrequently and sporadically for several years ending in 2012. [ 4 ] In addition to the Children, Mr. S. has a son from a previous relationship, C., who is approximately 10 years old. Ms.

B. has five other children from previous relationships who were permanently removed from her care by the Ministry of Children and Families (MCFD) prior to her meeting Mr. S. LITIGATION HISTORY [ 5 ] On June 15, 2008, the Minister under the Employment and Assistance Act , on behalf of Ms. B., filed an Application to Obtain an Order for child support for O. That Application was delayed by many months because Mr. S. initially refused or neglected to attend Court or provide financial information. [ 6 ] On July 10, 2009, Mr.

S. filed a Financial Statement claiming that he had been unemployed since September 15, 2008. [ 7 ] On August 9, 2009, the Court imputed income to Mr. S. of $11,000 and ordered him to pay child support to Ms. B. for O. in the amount of $50 per month. [ 8 ] On February 1, 2012, Mr. S. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking guardianship and custody of O. [ 9 ] On February 28, 2012, Ms. B. filed a Reply opposing Mr. S.’s Application and making her own request for guardianship and custody of O. [ 10 ] On August 9, 2012, Mr.

S. filed an amended Application to include J. [ 11 ] On August 16, 2012, the Court granted an Interim Order by Consent giving Mr. S. and Ms. B. joint guardianship and custody of O. and J., with their primary residence to be with Mr. S. Ms. B. was granted reasonable access to the Children, supervised at the reasonable discretion of Mr. S. Mr. S. was ordered not to change the residence of the Children outside of 100 km radius of Dawson Creek without Ms. B.’s written consent or further court order and that Mr.

S. should notify the Director of MCFD of any change of residence or custody of O. and J. [ 12 ] On December 2, 2014, Mr. S. filed a Notice of Motion seeking to have the file transferred from the Prince George Registry to the Dawson Creek Registry. [ 13 ] On December 24, 2014, Mr. S. filed a Notice of Motion to enforce the August 16, 2012 Order which granted primary residence of the Children to him. [ 14 ] On December 24, 2014, Mr. S. filed an Affidavit in support of his Notice of Motion which included the following information:

a) Ms. B. had past drug issues which required the involvement of the MCFD and that they had removed other Children from her care for that reason;

b) in 2013, he allowed the Children to return to Ms. B. because he believed she had cleaned up from her drug use, he was working away from Dawson Creek and his residence had no plumbing;

c) by March 2014, he believed that Ms. B. was back to using drugs and alcohol because he had smelled alcohol on her breath and had been informed by people in Dawson Creek of her drug use and, as such, the Children were in an unsafe environment;

d) he is semi-retired and works only in Dawson Creek where he has a suitable residence. [ 15 ] On January 6, 2015, Ms. B. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking guardianship, parenting time, and parental responsibilities for the Children and a Protection Order.

[ 16 ] On January 6, 2015, Ms. B. filed an Affidavit which included the following information:

a) Mr. S. advised her that he was moving the Children to Prince Edward Island;

b) Mr. S. had a Court Order granting him primary residence of the Children, but they have been with her since 2012;

c) she has been addressing her drug issues through long-term counselling. [ 17 ] On January 7, 2015, Ms. B. filed a Notice of Motion seeking service of documents by the RCMP, a transfer of the file from the Prince George Registry to the Dawson Creek Registry and a Protection Order. [ 18 ] On January 30, 2015, Ms. B. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking the same relief as her Application of January 6, 2015, but also seeking child support including extraordinary expenses and a non-removal order. [ 19 ] On January 30, 2015, Ms.

B. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an order returning the Children to her care. [ 20 ] On February 2, 2015, Ms. B. filed an Affidavit which includes the following information:

a) she met Mr. S. in 2007, but they never really resided together for any lengthy period of time and their relationship ended in 2012;

b) during their relationship Mr. S. supplied her with illegal drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes and was verbally and emotionally abusive towards her;

c) she and Mr. S. were separated throughout most of her pregnancy with O. and for a long time after O.'s birth;

d) Mr. S. was not J.’s biological father but he had threatened and stalked both her and J.’s biological father;

e) for a two year period before 2011 she did not see Mr. S. at all;

f) she lived in a variety of places in British Columbia between 2009 and 2012, returning to Dawson Creek in 2011;

g) MCFD had been involved in her life for many years but she tried to get her life back on track when she returned to Dawson Creek;

h) she had several drug tests performed in 2013 and all were negative for illegal drug use;

i) a mediation session among MCFD, her and Mr. S. in July 2012 resulted in an agreement for the two of them to share joint guardianship and joint custody of the Children, with the Children’s primary residence being with Mr. S. at that time;

j) in November 2012, Mr. S. returned the Children to her care. After that Mr. S. did not visit the Children for approximately one year. The Children resided with her with infrequent visits from Mr. S. until early 2015 when Mr. S. refused to return them after a visit;

k) Mr. S. regularly threatens her by texts, harasses her, and stalks her. This behaviour increased after he asked her to move to Nova Scotia with him and she refused;

l) Mr. S. also harassed, followed, and threatened many of her friends who came to visit her at her home;

m) in November 2014, there was a Family Case Planning Conference facilitated by MCFD which are usually only conducted in protection cases. There were a number of topics discussed and some agreements reached concerning the care of the Children and the behaviours of Mr. S. and her towards each other;

n) although she had years of drug abuse, she has been free of drugs for several years, receiving services from MCFD and attending Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous;

o) that after Mr. S. had the care of the Children for a weekend in late January, he refused to return them to her care and treated her abusively when she and a member of her church attended his home to seek the return of the Children. [ 21 ] On February 4, 2015, the Court granted a Without Prejudice Interim Consent Order giving Ms. B. primary care of the Children with Mr. S. having the Children every weekend, that the Children be exchanged at Ms. B.’s residence during which time there would be no communication between the Parties. [ 22 ] On February 23, 2015, Mr. S. filed a Reply in which he disagreed with Ms.

B.’s Application, sought an order that he was a Guardian to the Children pursuant to section 39 (3)(

c) of the Family Law Act ( FLA ), denied stalking Ms. B., claimed undue hardship pursuant to

section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines ) and claimed child support for the Children. [ 23 ] On April 22, 2015, at a Family Case Conference, the Parties agreed that a hair strand drug test be performed on each of them and the Court ordered a

Section 211 FLA Full Report. [ 24 ] On May 18, 2016, at a Family Case Conference, the Parties were ordered to take the Parenting After Separation course. Ms. B. took the required course but Mr. S. did not. Mr. S. was ordered to file a Financial Statement by July 1, 2016. Mr. S. did not comply with that Order. [ 25 ] On September 21, 2016, the Court ordered that both Parties file Financial Statements by October 21, 2016.

[ 26 ] On October 20, 2016, Ms. B. filed a Financial Statement indicating that she had been on social assistance as a person with disabilities for many years and was receiving the Child Tax Credit. [ 27 ] October 27, 2016, Mr. S. filed a Financial Statement indicating that he had been unemployed since December 2015 and was collecting social assistance. EVIDENCE Applicant [ 28 ] Ms. B.’s evidence at the trial can be summarized as follows:

a) when she first met Mr. S., she was a drug addict and he was a drug dealer. Her preferred drug of choice was crack cocaine. Mr. S. regularly provided drugs to her including during her pregnancy with I.;

b) she did agree with O. and J. being with Mr. S. in 2012 because she was still dealing with her drug issues. There was a possibility that the Children would be apprehended by MCFD if Mr. S. had not stepped forward and they remained with him for several months;

c) Mr. S. agreed to return the Children to her after I. was born because he was living in primitive circumstances and agreed that the Children were better off with her;

d) she did mislead the Court in 2015 when she said she wasn't doing drugs when in fact she had been doing drugs in the recent past but not when the Children were with her. That was the reason for the positive hair strand drug test results. She agreed at that time Mr. S. was right to be concerned but those concerns are not present now because she has not done drugs for over two years;

e) she regularly attends counselling, a healing circle, church support groups, and a positive discipline class for the Children to assist her in maintaining sobriety and improving her parenting skills;

f) the Children have had a persistent hair lice problems dating back over 1-1/2 years. They regularly return from Mr. S.'s residence infested with lice which she has had to repeatedly try to address with no cooperation from Mr. S. In this regard, Mr. S. is failing in his duty as a parent particularly when the Children returned to her last summer after a month with him they were infested with lice and bugs;

g) the Children are not regularly bathed by Mr. S. and he does not maintain proper oral hygiene or hair brushing for them because he complains that it messes up his bathroom;

h) the Children tell her that they are bored at Mr. S.'s home because there is little to do, very few toys to play with, and they spend a lot of time playing computer games or watching television;

i) the Children tell her that Mr. S. does not regularly cook for them and they are often hungry at his home. She has had to send snacks with the Children for several months when they are to be with Mr. S. to ensure that they will not be hungry;

j) she objects to the exchange of the Children at her home because of the way Mr. S. treats her when he comes to her home. She would like the exchange of the Children to occur either at the school or at a public place depending on the situation;

k) Mr. S. regularly swears at the Children both at the exchange location and in his home. He shouts at the Children and he calls Ms. B. disgusting names both in texts and in front of her and the Children. The Children tell her that he makes rude comments about her to them when they are with him;

l) she has been vulgar to Mr. S. in the past but has stopped that behaviour and just wants Mr. S. to stop as well and leave her alone;

m) Mr. S. treats the Children differently. He gives preferential treatment to I. over O. and J. and he permits C. to treat J. differently than O. and I. by excluding her from joint play;

n) C. treats J. very unfairly. He has threatened to light her on fire with a lighter, threatened her with knives and won't include her in the play with the other Children. J. does not want to go to visit with Mr. S. anymore and is sad when she returns from such visits;

o) J. knows that Mr. S. is not her biological father having been told either by him or C. and J. is made fun of by C. for that reason;

p) Mr. S. leaves the Children unattended at times both during the day and at night by locking them in the house and also leaves them unattended in his vehicle when he is running errands;

q) she understands that Mr. S. loves the Children but he lacks the necessary parenting skills to properly care for them and O. and J. do not enjoy their present amount of time with him although I. does;

r) she provided three alternate reasons why O. stopped going to karate namely;

i) O. didn't like the punching and kicking involved; ii) Mr. S. stopped taking O. because he was mad at Ms. B.; iii) Mr. S. kept coming around her home and screamed at her sister-in-law so she put a stop to it by taking O. out of karate;

s) Mr. S. would benefit by attending some parenting classes and by taking the Positive Discipline course offered on a weekly basis and funded through Northern Health Authority;

t) MCFD has regularly come to her home and has spoken to the Children about drug and alcohol use in the home. The social workers have not expressed any concerns to her about such activities;

u) she makes all of the Children's medical, dental, and other appointments and attends those appointments with them. When it comes to such care, Mr. S. was, on one occasion, very intrusive and uncooperative when J. required oral surgery. He disrupted the hospital staff by insisting that J. be ready to go with him at the beginning of his parenting time but then at the last minute declined to take her for that time saying he had no money for gasoline. On several occasions after the Children have been at Mr. S.'s residence she has had to take them to the doctor for a variety of symptoms and illnesses;

v) Mr. S. still regularly follows her around Dawson Creek in a stalking fashion. She does not want him around her or anywhere near her home;

w) she does not want to communicate with Mr. S. either in person or by text because he swears at her and tries to engage her in conversations about topics not related to the Children. She would prefer to communicate only by email;

x) the present

schedule of parenting time for the Children is not in their best interest because O. and J. miss out on weekend events such as sleepovers or parties with their friends. The

schedule for her and the Children from Monday through Friday is very busy with I. being involved in activities with her practically every day of the week and all of the Children in judo on Tuesdays and Thursdays which they started in September 2016;

y) she has never asked Mr. S. to take the Children to judo or to take I. to preschool any of his other activities;

z) Mr. S.'s proposal of alternating weekly parenting time would not work because it would be too disruptive to the Children's

schedule and routines, she is not convinced that Mr. S. would get I. to all of his scheduled activities and events, Mr. S. does not maintain the Children with clean clothing, proper hygiene and regular meals and he would not be able to get O. and J. to school on time. [ 29 ] Ms. B.’s brother Mr. W.’s evidence can be summarized as follows:

a) he visits Ms. B. three or four times per week from one to three hours at various times of the day;

b) he knows Mr. S. and knew him to supply Ms. B. with illegal drugs when they met and afterward;

c) Ms. B. is very good with the Children, ensuring they are properly housed and fed and that they partake in many special activities;

d) Ms. B. is not now consuming illegal drugs and has not for some time because she is very healthy;

e) he has never seen Mr. S. with the Children other than at pick-ups and drop-offs when Mr. S. is controlling, unpleasant, rude and upset, and swearing at the Children if they are not ready to go as soon as he arrives;

f) O. has told him that she is bored while visiting Mr. S. and all they do is play computer games;

g) O. told him that Mr. S. gave the Children and C. a box of knives and a Zippo lighter to play with and C. used the lighter to light toilet paper on fire;

h) J. is singled out and treated differently than her siblings by Mr. S. and C. because she is not Mr. S.’s biological child as reported to him by Ms. B. and O.;

i) J. and O. told him that at a recent weekend visit with Mr. S., C. threatened to light J. on fire and when he found out, Mr. S. sent C. to his room;

j) the Children return home after a visit with Mr. S. in the same clothes they left in and they often have lice in their hair which Ms. B. has to deal with;

k) approximately a month before the hearing dates, he saw Mr. S. driving his vehicle in the early morning hours when he was caring for the Children and the Children were not with him;

l) approximately one week before the hearing, he saw Mr. S. in his vehicle at a local gas station and took photos of Mr. S. making a “hand to hand” transaction with a person in another vehicle. Respondent [ 30 ] Mr. S.’s evidence at the trial can be summarized as follows:

a) he did give Ms. B. drugs when they first met but over time he tried to wean her off the drugs like he had attempted to do with a previous spouse (C.'s mother);

b) despite his attempts to help Ms. B. with her drug issues, she continued to bring drugs into the home until he told her to leave and when she left, she took up with other men who supplied her with drugs, including her most recent partner who is a known drug dealer;

c) he was convicted in 2008 of drug trafficking and spent five months in prison and has not been engaged in drug trafficking since. Although he drank alcohol in the past, he has not had a drink for over 25 years;

d) although Ms. B. had agreed that O. and J. should reside with him in 2012, he returned them to her care because he was living at a residence without any plumbing which is not good for them and Ms. B. had convinced him that she had cleaned up from her drug use which proved not to be true;

e) he has often reported Ms. B. to MCFD because he continues to be concerned about her drug use when the Children are with her. For quite some time MCFD did nothing but eventually he and Ms. B. agreed to take a hair strand drug test which showed him to be negative and her to be positive for drugs;

f) J. believes he is her biological father. C. knows nothing of the true situation and does not isolate J. for this or any other reason. J. is not mistreated by C. All of the Children play well together but they are siblings and disputes do arise from time to time. J. is not treated differently by him than the other Children except perhaps by getting some special treatment;

g) he does not yell or swear at the Children either at the exchange location or when they are with him in his home. They are a happy family; a big nest of love;

h) Ms. B. does yell and scream at him quite often trying to get a rise out of him but he remains calm. She also leaves vulgar voicemails on his phone from time to time;

i) he does not call Ms. B. any vulgar names and he does not speak poorly of her to the Children. She is their mother and deserves their respect. The Children tell him that Ms. B. yells and swears at them a lot but he's never heard her do that;

j) O. and J. tell him often, including recently, that Ms. B. and her boyfriend often fight, yell, and swear at each other. He has seen Ms. B.'s boyfriend at her home very recently. That boyfriend is a known drug dealer;

k) he has an appropriate home for the Children. It has three bedrooms with a fenced yard and fireplace in the backyard. He is building a dojo in his garage for karate training;

l) his home was fully stocked with food and he maintains different snacks for each of the Children. The family eats together because it is an important bonding time;

m) he did not give C. a lighter for his birthday. To leave a child with such an item would be very dangerous. He keeps the lighter in a high location in the kitchen where C. can't get at it. He has spoken to C. about Ms. B.'s allegations concerning the lighter and C. denied both using a lighter and threatening to burn J. with one. He does not allow C. to play with knives when the Children are in his care;

n) O. enjoyed karate and participated in it for two years. She was an excellent student often being used as a good example by the instructor. She was taken out of karate by Ms. B. just before testing for a higher belt. C. continued karate, took the necessary test, and got the higher belt. O. seems sad that she couldn't take the test. Ms. B. never discussed with him her plan to remove O. from karate. He would like to get O. back into that sport if she wishes to return to it;

o) he has been off work and unable to participate in karate fully due to two injuries over the last 18 months;

p) when O. says she is bored at his residence, it is largely because he does not take the Children to fast food restaurants and shopping regularly because he cannot afford that. J. has never told him that she is bored at his home and seems happy. I. is excellent in the house all the time;

q) I. is slowly getting potty trained but tells him that Ms. B. spanks him if he defecates in his pants and when he does so at Mr. S.'s home, he becomes upset and begs Mr. S. not to spank him;

r) he helps O. and J. with their schoolwork and is involved with their teachers at the school but would like to become even more involved including attending parent/teacher meetings;

s) if the Children resided with him during school days, he would drive O. and J. to school because he does that now for C.;

t) he used to give people rides for cash in the past but stopped that over a year ago except for taking his brother to work on a couple of occasions. He does not leave the Children unattended either at his home or in his vehicle;

u) in the past he has followed a person from a local crack shack to Ms. B.'s home. He reported that incident to MCFD but they expressed no concern;

v) he has repeatedly taken steps to address the lice issue which has been spread around O. and J.’s school several times in the past. He took all the steps recommended by the school and the health authority, including utilizing the appropriate shampoo, lice combs, laundering bedding and clothing. He even took shampoo and a lice comb to Ms. B.'s home to assist her;

w) recently MCFD social workers came to his home concerning allegations that he had been drinking and that C. had threatened to burn J. He has been sober for over 25 years. The social worker interviewed C. alone and advised him that there was no issue and everything was fine;

x) he never stopped trying to see the Children in the past for any reason. Ms. B. has interfered with his parenting time with the Children on many occasions in the past and recently;

z) he never refused to take the Children when Ms. B. needed respite even if MCFD thought he couldn't or wouldn't; aa) he is behind in his mortgage payments but remains confident he can make the necessary arrangements to re-instate the mortgage. If he cannot, he may have to sell and rent like Ms. B. does. He has called MCFD numerous times in the past because he is concerned about Ms. B.'s drug abuse and does not want such behaviour around the Children. He does not trust Ms. B. on that issue; bb) he has a computer but no internet connection. As such, he can only text Ms. B.

cc) he would like to see a requirement that he and Ms. B. take hair strand drug testing to confirm his suspicions or substantiate Ms. B.'s contention that she no longer uses drugs; dd) he was not at the local gas station on the day alleged by Ms. B.'s brother Mr. W. FAMILY LAW ACT

SECTION 211 FULL REPORT [ 31 ] The

Section 211 Full Report (the Report) was prepared by Leon Grootendorst, Family Justice Counsellor, and filed on April 28, 2016. It dealt with only O. and J., presumably because I. was too young to participate due to his age. Meetings, interviews and home visits were conducted in early March 2016, so the information is relatively current. [ 32 ] A considerable amount of the information given to the Report’s author by Ms. B. and Mr. S. was detailed in their evidence before the Court and will not be repeated here. [ 33 ] A

summary of Mr. S.’s information to the author not referred to in his oral evidence includes:

a) if Ms. B. made changes to our lifestyle to prove she was drug and alcohol free and showed that she has the Children’s best interests at heart, he would “back off”;

b) he acknowledges he has had a dark past but has put his nefarious lifestyle and behaviour behind them and now focuses on the Children;

c) an attempted reconciliation with Ms. B. in 2012 failed because she returned to a corrupt lifestyle of smoking, drinking, stealing, and fighting. [ 34 ] A

summary of Ms. B.’s information to the author not referred to in her oral evidence includes:

a) she suffers from liver disease and her doctor has warned her that continued drug or alcohol consumption could be lethal;

b) Mr. S. has assaulted her boyfriends in the past, he has two outstanding assault charges but he has never physically assaulted her;

c) Mr. S. has limited experience in parenting and does little with the Children when they are with him. [ 35 ] The Report author also consulted with a variety of third parties. Those persons and a

summary of what they told the author includes:

a) Jeanette Tough - Ms. Tough is a counsellor with the Aboriginal Family Services who sees Ms. B. and the Children. She has had both direct and indirect contact and involvement with the Parties and the Children over 15 years. She says the Children have a good relationship with both parents and expressed no issues or concerns regarding the care of the Children. She sees Ms. B. and I. four times per week. She describes Ms. B. as having come a long way and being dedicated to be a good and loving parent. She expressed concern about Mr. S.’s stalking of Ms.

B. but also describes him as a good father who parents the Children as best he can. He has only had regular involvement with the Children for approximately two years and could benefit from some parenting classes.

b) J.E. and Colette Bourque - Ms. E. is the principal of, and Ms. Bourque is the social worker for, the school where O. and J. attend. They confirmed that they have regular contact with Ms. B. and that both O. and J. do well in school, have positive social interactions with other Children, have very good attendance and seemed happy and content. They each described Ms. B. and Mr. S. as good parents and expressed no concerns about either of them. However, the high degree of acrimony between the Parties is having a negative effect on the Children which leads Ms.

E. to conclude they will be unable to co-parent but if they have respect for the privacy and personal affairs of the other and maintain their focus on the Children, they may be able to coexist as parents.

c) Kathleen Kennedy - Ms. Kennedy is a community services manager with MCFD who related an extensive involvement of MCFD with both Parties; Mr. S. as a drug dealer and Ms. B. as having a history of drug addiction. She did note that MCFD does not make it a general practice to request hair strand drug testing because it doesn’t always reflect the current parenting behaviour and may lead to false positives. There is no MCFD file open at this time with regard to either Ms. B. or Mr. S. and MCFD has no current concerns regarding either of the Parties ability to safely care for the Children. [ 36 ] The author also included the views of O. and J. which can be summarized as follows:

a) O. - She is a happy and friendly girl, enjoys school and gets good grades. She attends karate with Mr. S. and C. and enjoys participating in that sport and is good at it. She expressed fondness and contentment with residing in Ms. B.’s residence and has a close relationship with both her mother and her siblings. She is aware of Ms. B.’s past drug use and expressed relief that it no longer occurs. She clearly expressed her desire to continue to reside with Ms. B. and visit Mr. S. on weekends but that she misses attending church with her mother on Sunday.

b) J. - She is a sweet and friendly girl but due to her age she was unable to articulate her views as well as her older sister. She enjoys attending school. She said she loves Ms. B. and enjoys time with her. She said she did not want to reduce the amount of time she spends with Ms. B. and wants to continue with the existing schedule. She said she is content to continue to have time with Mr. S. on the weekends but indicated that C. is not always nice to her. [ 37 ] The author’s observations of the Children, the Parties, and their homes, as well as his recommendations can be summarized as follows:

a) both homes are satisfactory for the Children and both Parties have a positive parental relationship with O. and J. However, there exists a higher degree of discord and tumultuousness in Mr. S.’s home compared to Ms. B.’s home. The Children appeared more relaxed and comfortable to Ms. B. home;

b) that Ms. B. and Mr. S. are the parents and guardians to the Children and each should have full parental responsibilities while the Children are in their care;

c) that the Children reside primarily with Ms. B. and that on all but the first weekend of the month Mr. S. shall have them from Friday after school until Monday morning when he will deliver O. and J. to school and return I. to Ms. B.’s care;

d) Ms. B. will have the Children in her care the first weekend of each month;

e) O. and J. may attend church on Sunday afternoons with Ms. B. if they desire;

f) Mr. S. shall continue to take O. and any of the other siblings who are registered in karate to that activity;

g) each Party shall avoid any direct correspondence with each other during exchanges, and if correspondence is unavoidable, will refrain from discussing any issues during exchanges;

h) each of the Parties will communicate by phone or text and refrain from any unnecessary in person contact with the other. Communication shall be limited to parenting related information only;

i) both Parties shall enrol in the parenting course and complete the Parenting After Separation Program;

j) Ms. B. shall continue to see Ms. Tough on a weekly basis;

k) the Parties will abstain from any activity involving drugs or alcohol and will remain drug and alcohol free while the Children are in their care, including 24 hours prior to the parenting time. Failure by one Party to comply shall result in the Children being placed in the care of the other Party;

l) neither Party shall make disparaging remarks or speak negatively about the other Party in the presence of the Children. SUBMISSIONS Applicant [ 38 ] Ms. Lee’s submissions and the orders Ms. B. seeks can be summarized as follows:

a) Ms. B. agrees with many of the

Section 211 Report, except that she would like the Children with her on the following schedule:

i) O. and J. on alternate weekends and I. one weekend in four to allow her to take the Children to weekend activities they miss out on at present. O. and J. tell her they want to spend more time with her; ii) every Christmas from 7:00 p.m. on December 24 until 7:00 p.m. on December 25 every year; iii) every Easter From 7:00 p.m. on Easter Saturday until 7:00 p.m. on Easter Sunday; iv) every May 21 in honour of the date her Father died; and

v) O. and J. every Sunday afternoon to attend church.

b) The exchange of the Children be:

i) on Fridays at O. and J.'s school when school is in session and at the Tim Hortons located at (omitted for publication), Dawson Creek (Tim Hortons) when school is not in session; and ii) on Sundays at Tim Horton's.

c) that all communication between the Parties be by email and be limited to matters directly concerning the Children, except in an emergency when communication may be by text or telephone;

d) that Ms. B. be granted all parental responsibilities except for

section 41(

i) and (

j) which can be shared;

e) that Mr. S. be required to take the Parenting After Separation course and any other parenting skills courses directed by the Court;

f) that neither of the Parties remove the Children from Dawson Creek without either the written consent of the other Party or a further court order;

g) that both Parties will put the best interests of the Children before their own interests, encourage the Children to have a good relationship with the other parent, speak to the Children about the other parent and that parent’s partner in a positive and respectful manner, and 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 Children;

h) that both Parties not question the Children about the other parent or time spent with the other parent beyond simple conversational questions or discuss with the Children any inappropriate adult, court or legal matters, or blame, criticize or disparage the other parent to the Children;

i) that either of the Parties be subject to hair strand drug testing upon the demand of the other Party;

j) that both Parties shall immediately advise the other if they commence cohabitation with another adult person and the name of that

person;

k) that the matter of child support be adjourned generally; and

l) for so long as the Children are eligible to receive child support, the Parties will exchange copies of the respective Income Tax Returns for the previous year, including all attachments, not later than July 1st each year and copies of any Notices of Assessment or Reassessment provided to them by Canada Revenue Agency, immediately upon receipt. Respondent [ 39 ] Mr. Nielsen’s submissions and the orders Mr. S. seeks can be summarized as follows:

a) Mr. S. realizes there is conflict between him and Ms. B. and he doesn’t want to participate in such conflict but rather focus on the Children;

b) there is nothing in the evidence to support a reduction in Mr. S.’s parenting time with the Children and isolating his parenting time to weekends only does not meet the needs of the Children;

b) equal parenting time is often successful in reducing conflict in high conflict parenting arrangements;

c) Mr. S. has wanted the Children returned to his care since 2014 when he became concerned about Ms. B.’s return to drug use;

d) Ms. B. lied to the Court about remaining free of drugs as proven by the 2015 hair strand drug test which demonstrated she had been using illegal drugs. Further drug testing of Ms. B., if negative, would allow her to show the Court and Mr. S. that she is safe to be in regular care of the Children;

e) in an alternating week, equal parenting regime, Mr. S. could drive O. and J. to school daily;

f) the Parties should equally share all, or almost all, of the parental responsibilities;

g) the Parties should have reciprocal conduct orders to behave properly during the exchanges of the Children and when the Children are with them;

h) the exchange of the Children should be at Children’s school when school is in session or alternatively at the Tim Horton’s;

i) the Parties should communicate only by text and only about the Children except in an emergency when telephone contact would be permitted;

j) Mr. S. has no objection to Ms. B. having the Children on Christmas, Easter, and her birthday;

k) there is no need for a non-removal order, a child’s motion sickness is not a valid reason to impose such an order;

l) Mr. S. would agree to further hair strand drug testing and for an order requiring both Parties to inform the other of the name of any person they cohabitate with;

m) the issue of child support should be adjourned generally. THE LAW [ 40 ] The following provisions of the FLA have application in this case: a) S.37 (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 guardian 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.

b) S. 3( 1) While a child's parents are living together and after the child's parents separate, each parent of the child is the child's guardian.

(3) A parent who has never resided with his or her child is not the child's guardian unless one of the following applies: (

a) section 30 [parentage if other arrangement] applies and the person is a parent under that section; (

b) the parent and all of the child's guardians make an agreement providing that the parent is also a guardian; (

c) the parent regularly cares for the child.

c) S. 41 For the purposes of this Part, parental responsibilities with respect to a child are as follows: (

a) making day-to-day decisions affecting the child and having day-to-day care, control and supervision of the child; (

b) making decisions respecting where the child will reside; (

c) making decisions respecting with whom the child will live and associate; (

d) making decisions respecting the child's education and participation in extracurricular activities, including the nature, extent and location; (

e) making decisions respecting the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including, if the child is an aboriginal child, the child's aboriginal identity; (

f) subject to

section 17 of the Infants Act , giving, refusing or withdrawing consent to medical, dental and other health-related treatments for the child; (

g) applying for a passport, licence, permit, benefit, privilege or other thing for the child; (

h) giving, refusing or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required; (

i) receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive; (

j) requesting and receiving from third parties health, education or other information respecting the child; (

k) subject to any applicable provincial legislation, (

i) starting, defending, compromising or settling any proceeding relating to the child, and (ii) identifying, advancing and protecting the child's legal and financial interests; (

l) exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child's development. d) 183( 1) An order under this

section (

a) may be made on application by a family member claiming to be an at-risk family member, by a person on behalf of an at-risk family member, or on the court's own initiative, and (

b) need not be made in conjunction with any other proceeding or claim for relief under this Act.

(2) A court may make an order against a family member for the protection of another family member if the court determines that (

a) family violence is likely to occur, and (

b) the other family member is an at-risk family member.

(3) An order under subsection (2) may include one or more of the following: (

a) a provision restraining the family member from (

i) directly or indirectly communicating with or contacting the at-risk family member or a specified person, (ii) attending at, nearing or entering a place regularly attended by the at-risk family member, including the residence, property, business, school or place of employment of the at-risk family member, even if the family member owns the place, or has a right to possess the place, (iii) following the at-risk family member,

(iv) possessing a weapon, a firearm or a specified object, or (

v) possessing a licence, registration certificate, authorization or other document relating to a weapon or firearm; (

b) limits on the family member in communicating with or contacting the at-risk family member, including specifying the manner or means of communication or contact; (

c) directions to a police officer to (

i) remove the family member from the residence immediately or within a specified period of time, (ii) accompany the family member, the at-risk family member or a specified person to the residence as soon as practicable, or within a specified period of time, to supervise the removal of personal belongings, or (iii) seize from the family member anything referred to in paragraph (a)(iv) or (v); (

d) a provision requiring the family member to report to the court, or to a person named by the court, at the time and in the manner specified by the court; (

e) any terms or conditions the court considers necessary to (

i) protect the safety and security of the at-risk family member, or (ii) implement the order.

(4) Unless the court provides otherwise, an order under this

section expires one year after the date it is made.

(5) If an order is made under this

section at the same time as another order is made under this Act, including an order made under Division 5 [Orders Respecting Conduct] of

Part 10, the orders must not be recorded in the same document. e ) 184 ( 1) In determining whether to make an order under this Part, the court must consider at least the following risk factors: (

a) any history of family violence by the family member against whom the order is to be made; (

b) whether any family violence is repetitive or escalating; (

c) whether any psychological or emotional abuse constitutes, or is evidence of, a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour directed at the at-risk family member; (

d) the current status of the relationship between the family member against whom the order is to be made and the at-risk family member, including any recent separation or intention to separate; (

e) any circumstance of the family member against whom the order is to be made that may increase the risk of family violence by that family member, including substance abuse, employment or financial problems, mental health problems associated with a risk of violence, access to weapons, or a history of violence; (

f) the at-risk family member's perception of risks to his or her own safety and security; (

g) any circumstance that may increase the at-risk family member's vulnerability, including pregnancy, age, family circumstances, health or economic dependence.

f) S. 222 At any time during a proceeding or on the making of an order under this Act, the court may make an order under this Division for one or more of the following purposes: (

a) to facilitate the settlement of a family law dispute or of an issue that may become the subject of a family law dispute; (

b) to manage behaviours that might frustrate the resolution of a family law dispute by an agreement or order; (

c) to prevent misuse of the court process; (

d) to facilitate arrangements pending final determination of a family law dispute.

g) S. 225 Unless it would be more appropriate to make an order under

Part 9 [Protection from Family Violence] , a court may make an order setting restrictions or conditions respecting communications between parties, including respecting when or how communications may be made. DISCUSSION General [ 41 ] In arriving at any decision concerning children,

Section 37 of the FLA requires the Court to consider the best interests of the children only. In doing so, the Court is guided by section 37(2) which sets out factors to be considered. However, it is not appropriate for the Court enter into an analysis limited to only of who is the “better" parent. [ 42 ] It is clear from the evidence in this trial that the Parties:

a) in the past had a symbiotic relationship involving the exchange of drugs for affection;

b) the relationship was largely dysfunctional and since they last resided together as a couple their interactions have become confrontational and acrimonious to the point that any substantive co-parenting between them is doomed to failure;

c) in the past, and perhaps even now, they freely exchange derogatory comments about the other, both in texts or in person, without much regard for the effect such communication may have on the Children;

d) each allowed the issue of dealing with the Children's lice infestation to become an opportunity to raise unfounded allegations about the other to the point of suggesting negligence in the care of the Children by relating assertions about the lice which are biologically impossible. It may be that Ms. B. is correct that Mr. S. is not aggressive enough in dealing with the issue when the Children are with him but the Children cannot be re-infested as thoroughly as she claims over a weekend visit. On the other hand, Mr.

S. may be correct that he followed all of the protocols suggested by the school and the health authority and has even attempted to provide lice battling tools to Ms. B. Regardless of whether either or both of them are correct, their inability to cooperate concerning the Children's health demonstrates a lack of focus by the parties about the Children’s best interests. Ms. B. [ 43 ] The following conclusions can be drawn from evidence called on behalf of Ms. B.:

a) she was not beyond misleading the Court on the relevant issue of her past drug use;

b) she has taken steps, utilizing a myriad of community resources, to address her drug abuse issues and according to third parties she is making positive progress;

c) she acknowledges that Mr. S. had a legitimate concern in the past surrounding her drug use or the presence of drug users in her home and that such behaviour would not be in the best interest of the Children;

d) she is extremely critical of nearly all aspects of Mr. S.'s parenting of the Children. That view must be contrasted with her past willingness to have him care for O. and J. in circumstances where there was a real prospect that MCFD might remove them from her care;

e) she has a genuine concern O. and J. may be missing out on weekend social activities when they are with Mr. S. but she wishes to rectify that by changing the parenting time

schedule to reduce Mr. S.'s time with the children;

f) her decision to remove O. from karate was made, not in O.'s best interest, but in a fashion designed to get retribution against Mr. S. by depriving him of providing guidance to O. in a sport he likes and pursues himself. Mr. S. [ 44 ] The following conclusions can be drawn from the evidence of Mr. S.:

a) based on his own past history of supplying drugs to Ms. B. and the hair strand drug test results, he simply will not accept that Ms. B. is now maintaining a lifestyle free from drug abuse or drug abusing associates;

b) he intends to continue to pursue any steps he deems appropriate to substantiate his concerns even if it requires him to persistently attend at or near Ms. B.'s home or by following her or her friends around the community;

c) he seeks exclusive or at least equal parenting time of the Children because he perceives that would be fair to him and would keep the Children away from Ms. B. and her drug culture friends as much as possible. The Report [ 45 ] The Report author conducted a thorough investigation through his interviews with a variety of people and produced a comprehensive report.

The information gathered from third parties setting out that both of the Parties are adequate parents is of particular assistance. [ 46 ] The interviews of the Parties and the home visits provided some insight not given to the Court by the Parties during the trial. The interviews of O. and J. appeared to have been conducted in a fair and non-leading fashion. [ 47 ] All in all, the Report was fair to both Parties and of great assistance to the Court on all aspects except on what the allocation of parenting time should be to meet the best interests of the Children.

On that topic the author and the Court are not at idem. Guardianship [ 48 ] Ms. B. is the biological mother of the Children. Mr. S. is the biological father of O. and I. but not J. but he has regularly cared for her over the years. [ 49 ] Ms. B. is, by operation of law, the guardian of the Children and on the same basis, Mr. S. is the guardian of O. and I. [ 50 ] Mr. S. is also a guardian, at law, to J. given both his regular care of her, Ms. B.’s agreement and the fact he was recognized as a guardian in past Court proceedings under the Family Relations Act .

Parenting Time [ 51 ] The proposal for parenting time presented by Ms. B., Mr. S. and the Report author do not, with respect, meet the best interests of the Children.

[ 52 ] The present regime of weekends with Mr. S. interferes with some of the social activities O. and J. would like to experience on a regular basis. [ 53 ] Ms. B.'s answer to that challenge is to reduce Mr. S.'s parenting time from eight days out of every 28 to four days out of every 28 for O. and J. in six days out of every 28 for I. The Report adopts a similar proposal. [ 54 ] Mr.

S.'s position of the Children residing with him either full-time or at least half-time fails to recognize the comfortableness that the Children have with spending the present amount of time with each parent and O. and J.'s wish to spend more time with Ms. B. than with Mr. S. [ 55 ] The Children need to spend some weekend time with Ms. B. in order to enjoy some social activities. They and Mr. S. also need to have the opportunity to experience his style of parenting, both on the weekend and during the very different, and according to Ms. B., much busier, weekday schedule.

Such a parenting time regime can only be accomplished by a

schedule that blends both weekends and weekdays for both Parties. [ 56 ] Exchanging the Children at Ms. B.'s home is not appropriate given her privacy concerns, the vulgar language alleged at the exchanges and the animosity between the Parties. An exchange at O. and J.’s school poses its own challenges since the Parties would have to meet to transfer I. from the care of one to the other. A better alternative is to have a regularized location that works throughout the year and is located in a public place.

A public location may also have the salutary effect of tempering the inclination of either of the Parties to have an outburst of impolite language while the Children and the public are present. Parental Responsibilities [ 57 ] Ms. B.'s submission that she be given almost all of the parental responsibilities is not substantiated by the evidence nor is it in the Children's best interest. She has not demonstrated either why those responsibilities should be stripped from Mr. S. or that she is significantly better at discharging them than Mr. S. would be. [ 58 ] A good example of this attitude is Ms.

B.’s unreasonable and petty decision to withdraw O. from karate. She gave not one but three different reasons for doing so, all of which had nothing to do with O.’s best interests. [ 59 ] Given the level of discord between the Parties, their parental responsibilities must be set out in detail. This is necessary to help avoid, or at least reduce, the need for communication or disagreement concerning who holds the legal responsibility to make any given decision about the Children. Drug Issues and Testing [ 60 ] In light of Ms.

B.’s history of drug abuse and her relatively recent use of drugs; which she lied about to the Court but was confirmed by the hair strand drug testing; it is appropriate to provide for the possibility of random drug testing to ensure the Children’s protection from such illegal and unhealthy activity. [ 61 ] However, there will be a requirement that if any testing is called for it be completed on both Parties and that it is done by a method scientifically recognized to identify recent, as opposed to historic, substance abuse. [ 62 ] In addition, each of the Partiers will be required to abstain from alcohol and drug use for a period before and while they are exercising their parenting time.

Removal and Relocation [ 63 ] Ms. B.’s position that Mr. S. should not be able to take the Children out of Dawson Creek due to the suggestion that O. gets motion sickness is not reasonable. What is reasonable is for Mr. S. to take the necessary steps to minimize O.’s likelihood of falling ill while travelling. [ 64 ] However, the allegations which were not denied that Mr. S. had, in the past, threatened to remove the Children permanently from Dawson Creek are sufficient to put in place the necessary orders to forbid the relocation of the Children.

Protection Orders [ 65 ] Based on all of the evidence presented Mr. S.'s actions in persistently following Ms. B. around Dawson Creek, coming to or near her home on occasions where an exchange of the Children is not occurring, cursing, and swearing at her, including in front of the Children, and considering the provisions of

section 184 of the FLA, it is necessary to make a Protection Order against Mr. S. Conduct Orders [ 66 ] Each of Ms. B. and Mr. S. has raised concerns about the other not appropriately communicating to and with the Children while in their care. These concerns can be addressed by a series of conduct orders to ensure the positive behaviour of the Parties in the best interests of the Children. [ 67 ] They also agreed that they should be required to advise the other if there were certain changes in their living arrangements. DECISION [ 68 ] The Court makes the following Orders concerning guardianship:

a) The Court is satisfied that C.M.B. and L.W.S. are the guardians of O. and I. and C.M.B. is the guardian of J. under s. 39(1) of the FLA .

b) The Court is satisfied that L.W S. is the guardian of J. under s. 251(1)(

a) of the FLA .

c) Each guardian will advise the other guardian of any matters of a significant nature affecting the Children. [ 69 ] The Court makes the following Orders concerning parenting time and exchanges of the Children:

a) Commencing on December 30, 2016, the regular parenting time

schedule will follow a continuing 21 day rotation of:

i) Day 1 (Friday) at 7 p.m. to Day 8 (Friday) at 7 p.m., Mr. S. shall have parenting time with the Children; ii) Day 8 (Friday) at 7 p.m. to Day 22 (Friday) at 7 p.m., Ms. B. shall have parenting time with the Children.

b) The regular parenting time

schedule will be interrupted and overridden, regardless of who has regularly scheduled parenting time, on the following occasions:

i) Christmas Eve at 7 p.m. until Christmas Day at 7 p.m. each year, Ms. B. shall have parenting time with the Children; ii) Easter Saturday at 7 p.m. until Easter Sunday at 7 p.m. each year, Ms. B. shall have parenting time with the Children; iii) on her birthday from 10 a.m. until 7 p.m., Ms. B. shall have parenting time with the Children; iv) on Mother's Day from 10 a.m. until 7 p.m., Ms. B. shall have parenting time with the Children;

v) on May 21, 2017 only from 10 a.m. until 7 p.m., Ms. B. shall have parenting time with the Children; vi) on his birthday from 10 a.m. until 7 p.m., Mr. S. shall have parenting time with the Children; vii) on Father’s Day from 10 a.m. until 7 p.m., Mr. S. shall have parenting time with the Children.

c) The Children will be exchanged at the Tim Horton’s located at (omitted for publication), Dawson Creek, B.C., unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties, by text, in advance; [ 70 ] The Court makes the following Orders concerning parental responsibilities:

a) The Parties shall equally share the parental responsibilities detailed in

section 41(f) [except as set out below], (g), (h), (i), (j), and (

k) of the FLA .

b) Ms. B. shall have the sole parental responsibility as detailed in

section 41(

f) of the FLA only as it pertains to arranging for and attending the Children's regular medical, dental, and other health related treatments.

c) The Parties shall solely exercise the parental responsibilities detailed in

section 41 (a), (b), (c) (d), [except as set out below] and (

e) of the FLA during the time they enjoy parenting time with the Children.

d) Mr. S. shall have the sole parental responsibility as detailed in

section 41 (

d) of the FLA only as it pertains to extracurricular sporting activities. In exercising that parental responsibility, Mr. S. shall consult with O. and J. to determine their wishes concerning in which sport(

s) they wish to participate.

e) Mr. S. shall consider O. and J.’s views and then advise Ms. B. of the sport(

s) in which he intends to enrol O. and J. as well as the time and location of such activities. Each of the Parties shall take O. and J. to their sporting activities during their parenting time.

f) The Parties shall equally contribute to the cost of any of the sporting activities until further order of the Court.

g) If the Parties cannot agree on a shared parental responsibility, C.M.B. shall make the final decision and L.W.S. may apply for a review of that decision under s. 49 of the FLA. [ 71 ] The Court makes the following Orders concerning drug issues and testing:

a) Either Party may, on 72 hours’ notice by text or in writing, demand of the other Party that both Parties attend at a recognized and licenced drug testing facility and supply such samples for testing as the facility requires in order to carry out qualitative and quantitative tests for alcohol and drugs (the tests);

b) The Party demanding the tests shall initially pay all the costs for the tests subject to any subsequent court order concerning who should be ultimately responsible for the costs;

c) In the event a Party refuses to take the tests, the Court may draw any adverse inference against that person the Court deems appropriate;

d) C.M.B. will not consume or possess any alcohol or controlled substance within the meaning of

Section 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , except as prescribed by a licensed physician, during her parenting time and for 24 hours before having parenting time;

e) L.W.S. will not consume or possess any alcohol or controlled substance within the meaning of

Section 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , except as prescribed by a licensed physician, during his parenting time and for 24 hours before having parenting time.

[ 72 ] The Court makes the following Orders concerning non-removal, relocation and travel:

a) Under s. 64(1) of the FLA , C.M.B. and L.W.S. shall not remove the Children from further than 150 kilometers from Dawson Creek without the written consent of all guardians or further court order;

b) C.M.B. and L.W.S. will not change the residence of the Children from Dawson Creek without first obtaining the written approval of all guardians, unless he or she has provided all guardians with 60 days’ written notice, and no one receiving such notice has filed an application under ss. 59, 60 or 69 of the FLA to maintain contact or prohibit relocation within 30 days of receiving the notice. [ 73 ] Court makes the following Protection Order:

a) L.W.S. shall have no contact or communicate directly or indirectly with C.M.B. except for the following:

i) by text messages and then only with regard to topics involving the care of or exchange of the Children; ii) by telephone in the event of an emergency involving the Children; iii) in person during the parenting time exchange of the Children and then only with regard to topics involving the care of the Children; iv) on such specific occasions as may be requested by Ms. B.

b) L.W.S. shall not attend at, be near or enter, the residence of C.M.B.;

c) L.W.S. shall not follow C.M.B. [ 74 ] Court makes the following Conduct Orders:

a) Under s. 225 of the FLA , the Parties will communicate with each other only by text messaging and then only with regard to matters pertaining to the Children except telephone communication will be permitted in the event of an emergency.

b) The Parties will (

a) put the best interests of the Children before their own interests; (

b) encourage the Children to have a good relationship with the other parent and speak to the Children 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 Children.

c) The Parties will not (

a) question the Children about the other parent or time spent with the other parent beyond simple conversational questions; (

b) discuss with the Children any inappropriate adult, court or legal matters; or (

c) blame, criticize or disparage the other parent to the Children.

d) Under s. 224(1)(

b) of the FLA, L.W.S. will enroll in the online Parenting After Separation course by March 30, 2017 and provide confirmation of attendance to the Court Registry by April 30, 2017.

e) The Parties shall ensure that the Children are not in the presence of any person under the age of 16 who is in possession of a lighter or other incendiary device or knives, except for the purposes of eating.

f) The Parties shall immediately advise the other if they commence cohabitation with any adult person. [ 75 ] The Court makes the following Orders concerning child support:

a) The issue of child support is adjourned generally.

b) For as long as the Children are eligible to receive child support, the parties will exchange: (

a) copies of their respective Income Tax Returns for the previous year, including all attachments, not later than July 1st each year; and (

b) copies of any Notice of Assessment or Reassessment provided to them by Canada Revenue Agency, immediately upon receipt. M. J. Brecknell Regional Administrative Judge Northern Region Provincial Court of BC CORRIGENDUM - RELEASAED FEBRUARY 14, 2017 In the Reasons for Judgment dated December 13, 2016, the following changes have been made: [1] On page 31, paragraph 68(b), the

section quoted of the FLA was incorrect. Subsection (

b) should now read as follows: [68] The Court makes the following orders concerning guardianship:

b) The Court is satisfied that L. W. S.is the guardian of J. under s. 251(1)(

a) of the FLA .