D.K.C. v. B.T.C. Date:, 2017 BCPC 3

Citation: D.K.C. v. B.T.C. Date: 20170117 2017 BCPC 3 File No: 20998 Registry: Victoria IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: D.K.C. APPLICANT AND: B.T.C. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE A. F. BROOKS Counsel for the Applicant: Angela Atwood-Brewka

Counsel for the Respondent: Emma R. Neary Place of Hearing: Victoria , B.C. Dates of Hearing: December 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Date of Judgment: January 17, 2017 [ 1 ] Each parent applies for guardianship, allocation of parenting time and responsibilities. B.T.C. applies for child support. The father, D.K.C., also applies for an order that the mother not take the children off of Vancouver Island without consent of the father or pursuant to a court order.

These applications are made with regard to three boys, H.K.C. (D.O.B. omitted), M.R.C. (D.O.B. omitted) and K.V.C. (D.O.B. omitted). [ 2 ] The father seeks an equal parenting regime and all parenting decisions to be made by agreement. He seeks as well an order as to holidays. In light of the conflict between the parents, he seeks that all parenting time including holidays be very specific as to times. The mother seeks primary residence with herself and that the father’s parenting time be supervised.

In the alternative, the mother objects to the father having overnight time with the boys on a regular basis or during holidays. The mother also seeks specific pick up and drop off locations. She also requests orders that include specific terms regarding attendance at day care and the completion of homework. [ 3 ] The parents agree that, in accordance with s. 39 of the Family Law Act , they are both guardians of the boys and, therefore, there shall be an order that each is a guardian of each of the boys. I will deal next with the issues of parenting time and responsibilities, then, lastly, with child support.

PARENTING TIME AND PARENTING RESPONSIBILITIES [ 4 ] Of course the issues of parenting time and parenting responsibilities are resolved by determining the best interests of the children. Accordingly, I will focus on the best interests of the boys before coming to conclusions on, first, parenting time, then parenting responsibilities. [ 5 ] I have borne in mind the considerations regarding the best interests of the children as set out in the Family Law Act . In reviewing the best interests, I will be addressing the issues raised by the parties.

I will not, however, be coming to a decision as to what happened in each incident in dispute between these parents. Their dispute with each other is clearly of great importance to them. Not only is it of no value to the boys, it is actively impairing these parents in looking after the boys’ best interests. What is of value to the boys is to recognize that these are two parents who love their boys deeply. Their obvious concern and love for their boys is clearly reciprocated by the boys.

What emerges as the central theme of the best interests of these boys is to foster the best and strongest relationships possible with both parents. [ 6 ] As will become clear, the animosity with which these parents hold each other and the alacrity with which they wish to criticize each other is a major barrier to their parenting. Although couched in the language of the best interests of the boys, their focus on each other translates into actions that are anything but in the best interests of the boys. Therefore, I do not intend to review the entirety of the evidence that I have heard.

That is not because I have not considered it, I have. However, it is quite unnecessary to determine from the detailed evidence provided, for example, who ought to have brought the soccer ball to the parenting time. I simply am of the view that much of the evidence is either not as important as the parents view it or that that evidence does not lead to the conclusions the parents wish me to draw. CONTEXT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THESE CHILDREN [ 7 ] Before delving in to the issues raised by the parties, it is essential to first summarize the circumstances of each of the three boys.

That is the case, not just because each child is unique and precious, but, in this case, because these three boys have their own challenges. Those challenges must be identified and kept front and centre when considering their best interests and how their parents are to meet them. Their circumstances include the professional care that each of them has received, the care they have received to date from each parent and, finally, what their needs are at this time. 1. Professional Care H.K.C. [ 8 ] Nine year old H.K.C. is the oldest of the three boys.

As a result of the diagnoses of his younger brothers, H.K.C. was sent for assessment in 2014. The particular concern was whether the diagnosis of autism which had been made of his two brothers, applied to H.K.C. as well. I draw the obvious inference that those examining H.K.C. were on the lookout for any indications of autism given the findings related to his brothers. The assessment dated November 23, 2014 is predictably thorough in that regard. There is a focused review of background documentation and reliance placed on the reports of both parents as to the typical behaviours and social interactions of H.K.C.

In its 12 pages, the report concludes that there is minimal to no evidence of autism spectrum related behaviour. The opinion expressed is that H.K.C.’s “presentation was NOT consistent with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder profile.” Rather a diagnosis of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) was arrived at. The assessment concludes by giving nearly four pages of recommendations to the parents for assisting H.K.C.

In short, it is clear that due to his diagnosis, H.K.C. requires careful attention from his parents for him to be successful. [ 9 ] I should note that B.T.C. disagreed with the diagnosis contained in the assessment. It was her view that autism is an appropriate diagnosis for H.K.C. She testified that not enough time was spent with H.K.C. at the time of the assessment and, if the examiner had been “more professional,” the diagnosis may have been different. She also mentioned that D.K.C. was excusing the behaviours of H.K.C. in such a way that made an accurate diagnosis more difficult.

With respect to that latter concern, the assessment

refers repeatedly to the input of both parents. That input was summarized as consistently to the same effect. There is nothing to suggest that the parents responded to the assessor in a different manner from each other or that D.K.C. offered any excuses. The report refers to B.T.C. stating that her concerns regarding H.K.C. were dismissed by professionals but makes no mention that she is concerned that D.K.C. is making excuses.

Surely if there were a disagreement about D.K.C.’s characterization of H.K.C.’s behaviour then B.T.C., already prepared to criticize professionals, would have said so and it would be noted in the report. Even if there were that information in the report to suggest that D.K.C. had attempted to influence the assessment in a particular direction (which there is not), there is nothing to suggest that the assessor was unduly influenced.

Indeed, it runs contrary to common sense to infer that a person skilled in assessing information and behaviour was unduly influenced by D.K.C. [ 10 ] As to the thoroughness of the assessment, no other difficulty with the report is made other than the amount of time spent with H.K.C. The report itself is at least as detailed, if not more so, than those for the other two boys. I have already referred to the fact that H.K.C. was the last of the three boys to be examined and, therefore, there can be no suggestion that the issue of autism was anything other than front and centre.

In all the circumstances, the diagnosis of H.K.C. with ADHD is entirely reliable. [ 11 ] H.K.C.’s progress report for grade three is included in the materials. It shows a young boy meeting expectations in most areas but needing to work on his reading and writing. The Speech-Language Report of June 2016 reports that H.K.C. is now within typical limits and is discharged from their case load. [ 12 ] H.K.C. is somewhat overweight and requires the use of an inhaler before he engages in exercise. M.R.C. [ 13 ] Seven year old M.R.C. was assessed at age 5 for autism.

Examinations showed deficits and challenges consistent with a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). An occupational therapy report from April 2014 noted that M.R.C. would spin, run in circles and was highly distractible. It also noted that he does well with routine. In a report dated May 20, 2014, Dr. Wingerin concluded that M.R.C. met the criteria for ASD. Her report concludes with recommendations for the support of M.R.C. including his dietary needs and available interventions.

She also notes that the needs of each child with ASD is different and those needs may change over time. [ 14 ] A behavioural intervention report from April 2016 was introduced. It sets out in four pages of detail the specific skills that M.R.C. needs to work on. M.R.C.’s grade one report card for 2016 describes how he met expectations in some areas but not in others. His reading ability, at the end of the year, is at the beginning of grade one. His speech language report notes, as does his report card, his progress and what a pleasure he is to work with.

Unlike H.K.C., M.R.C. is not discharged from the Speech-Language program. [ 15 ] M.R.C. also suffers from food allergies. [ 16 ] In

summary, it is clear there are significant challenges in providing the best parenting possible for M.R.C. all of which challenges require diligent attention. [ 17 ] I should note that B.T.C. expressed concern that D.K.C. minimized the challenges facing the boys. Most of the questioning in that regard focused on D.K.C.’s views that M.R.C.’s autism was at the mild end of the spectrum. While the possibility exists that, at his young age, M.R.C. may develop so well that ‘mild’ becomes an accurate description of his challenges, it remains only a possibility.

At this stage, he is described in the first percentile in some of his skills. That challenge cannot be realistically characterized as mild. Nor does it seem prudent to respond to his challenges as if they were mild in the hope that they may turn out to be so. [ 18 ] D.K.C. left the impression in his evidence that he has come to accept that M.R.C. does have challenges that are more than ‘mild’. Realistic acceptance of those challenges is crucial to D.K.C. being able to fulfil the best interests of the children and M.R.C. in particular.

K.V.C. [ 19 ] Although the youngest of the three boys, six year old K.V.C. was the first to be assessed for autism. At age 3 he was found to have a moderate degree of symptoms consistent with ASD. He had quite restricted speech repertoire for his age. Both parents noted that his speech remains significantly restricted. The June 2016 Speech Language report noted that K.V.C. will use words to communicate. Also before the Court are detailed behaviour intervention procedures for K.V.C. to assist him in his skills development.

As well, a behaviour support cheat sheet was presented to assist in handling what is described as a ‘bright and energetic’ boy. His kindergarten report says that he is approaching expectations in all areas. Both K.V.C. and M.R.C. have educational assistants for support in the class room. The boys receive behaviour therapy, currently at B.T.C.’s home, on Monday, Tuesday and Friday in the late afternoon. [ 20 ] B.T.C. testified that it is necessary to dress K.V.C. Also of significance is that K.V.C.’s high needs include limitations in his ability to guard his own safety.

This can result in him bolting away from his parents and to handling sharp objects such as knives in an unsafe manner. It is clear that K.V.C. requires intensive attention, much more so than the other two boys. [ 21 ] There was evidence given that D.K.C. did not accept the diagnosis made of M.R.C. and K.V.C. From that evidence, it was submitted that his ability to parent the boys was compromised. I have considered that evidence very carefully. I do accept that D.K.C. had difficulty at an early stage with the diagnosis for each of the boys.

However, I do not infer that his view of the boys now is unrealistic or that he would act contrary to what is recommended for them. I come to this conclusion based on the evidence of Carla Lamothe and Bekka Keller. I am satisfied that Ms. Keller, a behavioural consultant, communicated to D.K.C. the needs of his children. She testified that she had no concerns regarding him as a parent. I am reinforced in my conclusion by the letter from Alison Watson and by the collateral information provided by the boys’ school principal (Exhibit 10, page 6 of 22). Ms.

Watson, a social worker, has spent considerable time with D.K.C. and has observed his parenting of the boys. 2. History of Care [ 22 ] Having summarized the boys’ circumstances from the professional perspective, it now remains to summarize the history of their

care. This

summary is not intended as a thorough review of the amount of each parent’s parenting time with the children since birth. It is only intended to provide a background to the discussion of the best interests of these boys. The history also provides insight into the abilities and challenges of these parents in caring for these three boys. [ 23 ] D.K.C. testified that he had worked as a manager at a local grocery store during his marriage to B.T.C. B.T.C. testified that she was at home with the boys until January of 2012 when she went to school to enhance her opportunity for employment.

She remained at school until July 2012 before obtaining employment. During this time, D.K.C. was responsible for getting H.K.C. to school. H.K.C.’s report card was entered which showed, for this period, more than 49 absences from school. D.K.C.’s evidence was not clear in explaining this degree of absenteeism. [ 24 ] Although the date of separation was in dispute, the existence of differences between the two parents was emerging in 2013.

D.K.C. testified that at some point, he wanted to give B.T.C. ‘space’ and, accordingly, allowed her to take the main role in parenting. [ 25 ] Despite their differences, the parents remained in the same home until 2016. That time, I suspect, served only to foster and cement their animosity to each other, an animosity which, as shall be discussed, constitutes the major parenting issue at this time. In any event, the boys were used to having their father nearby and in the same residence until early 2016.

That fact is a significant part of the history of their care. [ 26 ] D.K.C. testified that, in early 2016, he wanted to become more engaged with the boys and their care. It is clear that up to that point, B.T.C. had been much more actively involved in the care of the boys, both day to day and with regard to their health and educational needs. However, in 2016 D.K.C. began to ask for more information about the boys from B.T.C. and from an interventionist who regularly worked with M.R.C. and K.V.C.

Shortly thereafter, a major change in the boys’ lives occurred. [ 27 ] On February 18, 2016, B.T.C. took the boys away from their home and school (in circumstances which will be revisited) and took the position that the boys would not be returned to their home or school until D.K.C. left the home. This he did and thereafter until April 21, D.K.C. had very little contact with the boys and then only under supervised conditions.

For the first time in their lives, the boys were seeing their father under supervision. [ 28 ] On April 21, Judge Harvey ordered regular supervised parenting time for D.K.C. on Tuesdays after day care and Sundays from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. On May 19, Judge Harvey ordered parenting time for D.K.C. every Wednesday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday every second week from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Supervision was no longer a part of the order. I understand that there has been some extension of D.K.C.’s parenting time since mediation in September of this year, however, my notes do not reveal that precisely.

To date there have been no overnights of the boys with D.K.C. and B.T.C. opposes overnights now. [ 29 ] In

summary, the boys have had the majority of their care provided by their mother. They have had their father in their lives on a daily basis until early this year. That changed suddenly and dramatically. The boys have had to cope with an enormous change in their lives. They have gone from having their father with them every night of their lives to a time away from their home and school. They were then returned but with their father out of their home. The time they have spent with their father has shifted over time. H.K.C. has attended the Caught in the Middle program due to his parents’ discord.

H.K.C. and M.R.C. were described by Ms. Lamothe, a Ministry social worker, as ‘parentified.’ I took this to mean that the boys were informed as to the discord between the parents and were developing strategies to deal with the discord. Ms. Lamothe testified that H.K.C. was “very clear” that he is questioned by B.T.C. when he gets home from time with his father. [ 30 ] The parents of these boys are unable to agree on a new routine and normalcy for their lives. It is now necessary to assess the boys’ best interests in that regard having the above information of their circumstances and care.

ANALYSIS OF THE BEST INTERESTS OF THESE CHILDREN [ 31 ] As I have already indicated, I do not propose to analyze the best interests of these children according to the complaints that each parent makes of each other. To do so would place their complaining front and centre and not what the children need and deserve. The analysis of best interests must proceed from the children’s perspective of what they need from two parents who live separately. To do so is not to ignore what the parents have told me, but rather to configure what they have told me into the concrete issues of parenting time with the boys. 1.

General Considerations on the Role of Each Parent [ 32 ] Prior to determining the specific details of parenting time and parenting responsibilities, it is important to address a broader perspective on these parents. This is necessary, in part, because of the specific needs of these boys but also because the parents are so far apart in the parenting schedules they have submitted. [ 33 ] B.T.C. submits that a very limited role for D.K.C. is appropriate for a number of reasons.

I intend to review some of the concerns raised by B.T.C. to determine if, as a general approach, parenting time for D.K.C. ought to be limited. I do not intend to review every complaint made by B.T.C. although I have considered all of them. It is simply the case that some of them do not require response. I only intend to review those matters which I have accepted and which could legitimately impact the care of the boys. [ 34 ] A hotly contested issue was the suggestion that there had been sexual impropriety by D.K.C. towards the boys.

Given the importance of such a concern to the well-being of the boys, I have reviewed all of the circumstances surrounding the allegations. I have reviewed all my notes several times as to the evidence given about the allegations and their subsequent investigation by the Ministry of Children and Families and by the police. I give importance to the following in determining the weight to be given to the allegations. [ 35 ] First, is that the allegations arise in February 2016 primarily from observations supposedly made by the interventionist who was staying in the home?

Those observations are not directly of impropriety but of circumstances which raised questions in her mind. That person was not called to testify. On a matter said to be so important, I am not going to place reliance on these hearsay statements. Apart from all the well-known frailties of hearsay evidence, this allegation comes from a person who was being challenged at the time by

D.K.C. as to their qualifications and abilities to have their job. This was a person who had been hired by B.T.C. It comes at a time when emotions were running high in the family home on all sides. The allegations are of circumstances of concern and therefore cross examination of the precise nature of those circumstances would be critically important. Additionally, the actions of the interventionist and, indeed, of B.T.C., at the time do not appear consistent with the serious circumstances said to have been observed.

Finally, it appears that the witness is available to testify and therefore many of these issues have not been canvassed when they well could have been. Accordingly, in all the circumstances, I place no weight on the information emanating from the interventionist. [ 36 ] There are other circumstances referred to by B.T.C. and by her father M.K. that, in their view, suggest sexual impropriety by D.K.C. First, are the observations by the two of them of inappropriate behaviour by the boys?

The chain of inference suggested is that these behaviours are as a result of sexual impropriety and that the source of that sexual impropriety is D.K.C. The evidence of those observations was inconsistent between B.T.C. and her father. For example, her father testified that the behaviours had been going on for about four years, which would take them back to 2013. B.T.C. contradicted that chronology saying the behaviours occurred only more recently.

When the observations are so uncertain, the chain of inference becomes that much weaker. [ 37 ] M.K. testified to another incident in the living room in which he observed one of the boys place their hand on D.K.C.’s crotch. D.K.C. was asleep but apparently awoke and said “careful boys.” M.K. interpreted this as a sexual impropriety either at that moment or as evidence of past improprieties. [ 38 ] The observations testified to were ones about which very little was said until the time when the two parents being under the same roof became untenable.

In Exhibit 10 is summarized a conversation between a social worker and B.T.C. from February 10, 2016. In that conversation B.T.C. wanted to know if or how she could get D.K.C. out of the house. She said that he was acting weird and had taken one of the boys downstairs to play video games. She made no allegation of sexual impropriety. She was then told that the “only way to not have [D.K.C.] in the home would possibly be with no contact conditions from a criminal matter.” As I have noted, B.T.C. took the boys on February 18 from the home and their school for at least five days alleging sexual assault.

She said that she would not bring the boys to their home or to their school until D.K.C. left the house. At the very least, this sequence of events illustrates the impact of the stress of the situation rather than the significance of the observations on the allegations of sexual impropriety. The weak chain of inference is further weakened. [ 39 ] I am unable to come to the conclusion that M.K. came to regarding the event in the living room. It was clearly an event subject to

interpretation. These observations were communicated to the social worker, Christine Beliveau. She testified that the behaviours could be from sexual abuse or from the special needs and stage of development of the boys. From this I infer that even M.K.’s

interpretation of the events as he communicated them to Ms. Beliveau did not raise them above the level of ambiguity. I am also troubled by M.K.’s negative relationship with D.K.C. He testified that at the time of this event, he was not talking to D.K.C. He commenced his evidence by volunteering that D.K.C. had turned M.R.C. against him. His dislike of D.K.C. was palpable. In those circumstances, I am unable to give any weight to his

interpretation of the actions of D.K.C. [ 40 ] Obviously there was investigation of whether the behaviours of the boys were the result of sexual abuse or of their special needs and development. The Ministry involvement with the family provided no support for the allegation of sexual impropriety. Indeed, Ms. Beliveau testified that she talked with B.T.C. about her not asking M.R.C. leading questions about the allegations. B.T.C. agreed in her evidence that she had asked M.R.C. the very leading question set out in Exhibit 10. On April 29, 2016, M.R.C. was interviewed by an RCMP specialist in child interviews.

The social worker, Carla Lamothe, was able to watch the interview. The interview is summarized in Exhibit 10. Exhibit 10 is a record created by the Ministry for Children and Families. I am confident that it is created with an understanding of the importance of including accurate information, particularly given the importance of this particular subject matter. It would not be lost on the creator of this record that it may be analyzed for its accuracy in a court proceeding. This portion contains a

summary of the actions of a police officer as observed by a Ministry worker. In these circumstances I am satisfied that Exhibit 10 is a trustworthy record on which I can rely. [ 41 ] The

summary of the interview contained in Exhibit 10 reveals that M.R.C. spoke with the officer and was able to identify the boy/girl parts of the body. He specifically stated that no one had seen his privates or that he had seen anyone else’s privates. When asked about his dad, he said he wanted to stay with him and liked playing video games with him. M.R.C. then said “I’m done now and will go see mom.” The constable concluded that there was nothing presented as concerning. A police officer with the experience and training coming to that conclusion is very important.

The Ministry relied on this conclusion in their decision to close their file. I am certain that Judge Harvey relied on that conclusion in ordering the parenting time that she did on May 19, 2016. I too am satisfied that I ought to rely on the conclusion arrived at by the police on April 29, 2016. Any chain of inference which might exist from the observations testified to has been completely broken.

I am satisfied from this, as well as the totality of the information available, that there is no evidence of sexual impropriety on the part of D.K.C. [ 42 ] B.T.C. impugned the professionalism of the police officer by testifying that the police officer spent less than five minutes with M.R.C. She also testified that M.R.C. was “unable to disclose.” That is not what happened. M.R.C. was placed in a safe environment with a police officer experienced in speaking with children and M.R.C. denied wrong doing by his father. That is the effect of what happened.

B.T.C.’s misinterpretation of the police conclusion raises the second general consideration regarding parenting: B.T.C.’s difficulty in accepting and relying on supports that will assist her children. [ 43 ] On this point, D.K.C. submits that B.T.C.’s attitudes may cause emotional and psychological harm to the boys. I reject that suggestion. It goes far beyond where this evidence leads. However, it is still necessary to analyze whether B.T.C.’s difficulty impacts the best interests of the boys.

In this regard, it is important to review some of B.T.C.’s dealings with others, all of whom are in place to provide her and her boys with the support they need. One would expect that when people have the same goal of supporting these boys that they would move collaboratively together. That is not the case with B.T.C. [ 44 ] I have already noted that B.T.C. does not agree with the diagnosis of H.K.C. She described the examining physician as unprofessional. B.T.C. also wanted the principal at her boys’ school fired. When asked why, she testified, improbably, that the principal had bullied her.

After the Ministry closed her file on conclusion of the police investigation, she complained about the Ministry to the Ombudsperson and to the Representative of Children and Families. She explained her delay of her complaint regarding her husband’s

inappropriate behaviour because she did not trust the “system” which necessarily must have included the police. I have already referred to her view of the lack of professionalism of the specific officer who interviewed M.R.C. and to her mischaracterization of what happened in the interview. [ 45 ] Certainly, experience tells us that one does not agree with every professional that one encounters. However, to have the number of professionals that B.T.C. disparages and disagrees with is more than troubling. Consider the implications.

First, she is less likely to follow the specific recommendations for H.K.C. given that she disagrees with the diagnosis. Second, she alienates those educating her children by the suggestion of employment repercussions for the principal. Third, her complaints about the Ministry charged with protecting children makes it challenging for them to respond with alacrity to legitimate concerns that she may identify. Fourth, she distrusts the police so may not turn to them when they truly could assist.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, an allegation of sexual impropriety, which has been investigated as thoroughly as any such allegation can be, is an allegation that she maintains in the face of repeated contrary conclusions. To do so is not to champion the safety of her children but to cheapen that safety. [ 46 ] There are many supports available to these boys and required by these boys. B.T.C. has to do a better job accepting that support.

If she does so she will start to improve the parenting that these boys need. [ 47 ] The final general consideration is the conflict which exists between these parents. [ 48 ] I have already alluded to the depth of that conflict. I did not hear either parent or their counsel deny that it was a significant issue. When the issue is not in dispute, it is tempting to move on to that which remains in dispute. I am of the view that it is important to resist that temptation.

It is important to detail the conflict to some degree in order that it is clear the extent to which the parents are, through their conflict, acting adversely to the best interests of their boys. At the very least, the detail will allow the parents to see that the pattern that exists at this time cannot continue and that any order must be crafted to defuse any conflict. [ 49 ] As I say, the existence and importance of the parents’ conflict to the care of these children is not in dispute.

What appears to be unacknowledged is the extent to which the existence of that conflict goes against the best interests of the boys. Indeed, the ongoing complaining about each other comes across as the active pursuit of that conflict by each parent. Such an approach would not occur if these parents, who love their boys deeply, appreciated the extent to which their respective pursuit of conflict with each other is negative for the boys. [ 50 ] To illustrate how the parents’ conflict is contrary to the best interests of the boys, two examples will suffice. I have chosen these from many possible examples.

While there were different versions of these examples given, what set out below are my findings of fact. [ 51 ] In January of 2016, B.T.C. had to have surgery. She would have to be in hospital for a period of some days. At this time, D.K.C. was in the home albeit staying downstairs. He was expressing his interest in being more involved with the boys. Also regularly at the home was an interventionist who was assisting with M.R.C. and K.V.C. B.T.C.’s time in hospital clearly presented an opportunity for the boys to spend more time with their father.

It would also have the benefit of requiring D.K.C. to acquire more skills in handling the boys’ needs. In short, it would have been in the best interest of the boys to have this time with their father. However, B.T.C. did not tell D.K.C. that she was going into hospital until the last moment and that she had made arrangements for the interventionist to care for the boys while she was away. B.T.C. testified that she had tried several times to tell D.K.C. of her upcoming surgery but he had brushed her off so she did not get the opportunity.

She further testified that, although much of their communication was by email and text, her surgery was not the kind of event to pass on by text. She left the clear impression at that point in her evidence that she had arranged for the interventionist to provide care because, despite her best efforts to have D.K.C. provide that care, she had been unable to communicate to him about her surgery. However, she changed her testimony dramatically when she recounted how D.K.C. had been unkind to her when she had kidney stones surgery.

She then testified about her January 2016 surgery that she was not willing to “share personal information with a person who acts like that.” In other words she, in fact, had no intention whatsoever to tell D.K.C. of her surgery. As a result, it became clear that having a third party look after their children was not because of any problem of communication but because she held bad feelings about her treatment by D.K.C. In short, she put those bad feelings for D.K.C. before what was best for the boys. [ 52 ] The second example is two months later at the end of March 2016.

By this time the Ministry was involved and a family planning conference was being arranged to discuss what short term parenting arrangements could be made for D.K.C. to see the boys. D.K.C. asked that a member or members of his family be permitted to attend. When asked why he wanted family members there, he replied, according to the social worker Christine Beliveau, that he wanted people there to tell B.T.C. that she was a liar.

On an occasion when his time with his boys ought to have been at the forefront of his mind, getting back at B.T.C. was his prime motivation. [ 53 ] To their credit, the parents have attempted to manage their conflict by the use of a communication book. I have read the communication book entries, which have been placed in evidence, quite closely. Unfortunately, this technique has not had the desired result of focusing on the care of the boys. It is clear that the communication book is used by each parent to show the other how they are the better parent, not to advance the care of the boys.

The result is that D.K.C. does not include information about meals and health that would be of assistance to the care of the boys and B.T.C. demands information which has no bearing on the boys’ well-being with their father. [ 54 ] The conflict between these parents is troubling given its interference with attaining the best interests of the boys. The current situation was accurately summarized by D.K.C. when he said, “someone needs to be managing us as unfortunate as that sounds.” [ 55 ] Having said all of that, there is evidence of the positive qualities of these parents as parents.

M.K. described his daughter’s parenting as amazing. Ms. Beliveau clearly developed a positive view of B.T.C. and her parenting and, indeed, became somewhat of an advocate for her. Ms. Keller, the behavioural interventionist, testified that she had no concerns regarding either of the parents. Ms. Lamothe described D.K.C. as open and genuine and very concerned about the children. Ms. Watson, a family support worker, has been working with D.K.C. regularly and describes him as ‘consistent and engaged’. The principal at the boys’ school told Ms.

Beliveau that ‘[D.K.C.] has become more engaged. [D.K.C.] has positive questions, comfortable meeting with staff, doing lots of readings and asked how he can be more engaged at school’. While more dated information is not as positive toward D.K.C., I am satisfied that he is

diligently working to be as good a father as he can be. [ 56 ] In referring to these positive attributes of each parent, I am not ignoring the detailed failings pointed out in the evidence. It is my view that many of those failings are as a result of different parenting styles and not the result of any incapacity to parent. B.T.C. is described as hyper-vigilant. That has its positive side and its negative side. D.K.C. is described as laissez-faire . That, too, has a positive side and a negative side.

It is not a goal of protecting the best interests of these boys to decide on the right parenting style versus the wrong parenting style. Nor is it the goal to convert each parent to the other parenting style. Such goals would be doomed to failure in any event. What is essential to meeting the best interests of the boys is to show sufficient respect for the other parent’s parenting style so that the boys do not feel, as they do now, caught in the middle. [ 57 ] In

summary, these are the general considerations which apply to the appropriate parenting time and responsibilities for these boys. Those considerations are that each parent is a capable and caring parent. There is no justification in the evidence for a limited role for either parent. Right now they are embroiled in conflict with each other which negatively impacts the best interests of the boys. Minimizing the conflict and creating a pattern of parenting that will take the parents away from conflict and on to the boys is the primary goal to achieve their best interests. 2.

Specific Considerations on Parenting Time [ 58 ] Having articulated the general considerations which shape the general approach to the issues before the Court, it is now necessary to turn to the specific issues that are raised regarding parenting time. The first is the submission by B.T.C. that D.K.C.’s parenting time should be supervised. [ 59 ] Supervision has already been utilized in D.K.C.’s parenting time. That supervision ended with the order of Judge Harvey of May 19, 2016. Supervision occurred primarily on the basis that there was some concern regarding sexual impropriety.

I have concluded that there is no such concern. The other basis for supervision of D.K.C.’s parenting was that the challenges of these three boys were too much for him. A supervisor was, therefore, necessary to assist in providing care for the boys. This basis arose from observations of Ms. Beliveau of D.K.C. with the boys and from her knowledge of the background of the boys. I did not find Ms. Beliveau’s evidence in this regard to be compelling. Her opportunities to actually observe D.K.C.’s parenting were limited. The environment in which she did so was artificial.

Her evidence is in contrast to the more recent evidence of Ms. Watson which I accept. After reviewing all the evidence, I also conclude, reluctantly, that Ms. Beliveau during this time had very much taken the side of B.T.C. Unfortunately, the texts and emails between the two of them did not have the objective, professional distance that I would have expected. Accordingly, her view point that supervision was ever necessary was unconvincing. I have also already concluded that there is ample evidence that D.K.C. is an engaged parent who has been receiving regular assistance on how to parent the children.

His parenting is at a very different place from where it was at the time that supervision was considered important. If there were concerns that he was inattentive or that looking after three children was too much for him, I am satisfied that those concerns have been put to rest. [ 60 ] I cannot leave this topic without noting that previous supervision of D.K.C.’s parenting time only served to deepen the conflict between these two parents and to defeat the best interests of the boys. B.T.C. decided to monitor the supervision of D.K.C.

So, for example, she waited at the day care where D.K.C. was to pick up one of the boys insisting that the boy not be released to D.K.C. because the supervisor had not come into the building but had remained in the vehicle in the parking lot. This is an example of how the conflict between the parties is brought to bear on each situation. To reduce the conflict, there ought to be a reduction in the opportunities to create conflict.

Supervision is one of those opportunities. [ 61 ] In all of these circumstances, there is no basis for the parenting time of D.K.C. to be supervised. [ 62 ] The second specific submission is that the parenting time between the parents be equal. I have already accepted that D.K.C. is a fully engaged parent. As well, he is no longer working as a result of losing his job due to the sexual impropriety allegation. Therefore, he has time available to be fully engaged as a parent. These are all points in favour of equal parenting time. [ 63 ] Yet he has not parented on his own for extended periods of time.

He has not faced the challenge of days or weeks of continuous parenting of the boys. He needs to build toward successful parenting, not be thrown into a situation that risks failure. [ 64 ] The boys have spent most of their time with their mother. She has, to date, been the parent more engaged in their care and education. There can be no question that her vigilance in that regard has benefited the boys. On balance, it is not in the best interests of the boys that the parenting time be equally divided between the parents. [ 65 ] The third specific issue is whether overnights with D.K.C. are appropriate.

B.T.C. submits that they are not. One argument she makes is that the sleeping arrangements at D.K.C.’s home are inadequate. It is true that there is much less room for the boys in D.K.C.’s apartment. But to make this important decision on that basis would be to say that the parent who can afford less of a home ought to have less time with their children. That should not be the case. It is not the quality of the living arrangements that are essential to the best interests of the children but the love they have the opportunity to experience in their father’s home.

On the other hand, B.T.C.’s evidence was that K.V.C. has nightmares each night at her home. It would seem that another arrangement can only be an improvement. [ 66 ] B.T.C. also submits that D.K.C. does not have the capacity to manage the day to day care of the children. With respect, D.K.C. is not a newcomer into the boys’ lives. He has been in the same home when they were babies. While his role has been lesser, it is very different to say that he is incapable. The evidence of Ms. Keller, Ms. Watson and Ms. Lamothe, particularly, and the evidence as a whole satisfies me that he is capable.

I say that having reviewed carefully the concerns expressed about specific incidents of care including the incidents involving K.V.C. I have concluded that many of those incidents are dated and do not reflect D.K.C.’s skills at this time. I specifically do not find, as was submitted, that there is an evidentiary basis to conclude that he has a “propensity for ignoring the advice of the professionals working with the children.” Now that he is aware that getting the children to school on time is an issue of such importance, I do not anticipate the attendance problems which existed in the past will be repeated.

I also note that many instances of D.K.C.’s care of the boys as described are not neglectful but different. I have remarked on different parenting styles and the incidents referred to are more a reflection of those different styles than any cause for reasonable concern.

[ 67 ] As overnights at their father’s apartment constitute a change in the boys care, I ought to comment on the need these boys have for stability and routine. I certainly accept that these boys benefit from stability and routine and, specifically, I accept the opinion expressed by Dr. MacCulloch in her March 10, 2016 letter. When asked about this letter and its reference to stability as to location for the children, B.T.C. did not express a concern as to location. She properly noted, however, that stability can be achieved in other aspects of the boys’ day to day life. For these boys, stability and routine can still be achieved if a

schedule sensitive to their ongoing activities is crafted and that the parents commit to keeping to that schedule. The parents can assist by ensuring that meal times, homework times and bed times remain the same no matter which household the boys are in. Stability and routine does not preclude overnights. [ 68 ] I expect that this last year has been a difficult one as their stability and routine has changed very suddenly for them on several occasions. But ‘stability and routine’ surely does not mean that arrangements must always stay the same.

If that were the case, the boys would be forced to be without their father for much of their lives. A final benefit of overnights with D.K.C. ought to be noted. There was evidence that the boys are starting to go between parents to obtain the result they want. This is not particularly unusual in families struggling with conflict. However, with set parenting times of some duration, the boys will not be able to get around a decision they don’t like by having the other parent immediately available.

In this way, conflict may be lessened by overnights. [ 69 ] Specific submissions were made as to parenting time around holidays, Pro D days and special occasions. The concerns that I have expressed regarding equal parenting time for D.K.C. have much less force when it comes to these days. To some extent B.T.C., to her credit, acknowledges that D.K.C. should have some of this parenting time. In my view, the general approach ought to be that these days are alternated in order to provide each parent with equal time on these dates. In most cases, I would simply order that the parents alternate these dates.

Unfortunately, with these parents that is simply unworkable and, accordingly, I will set out the precise dates of this parenting time. [ 70 ] Applying the considerations and conclusions arrived at above, the parenting time shall be, commencing January 28, 2017, as follows: 1. D.K.C. shall have parenting time commencing January 28, 2017 every second weekend on Saturday from 9:30 a.m. until he drops the boys off at school on Monday morning.

In the event that there is no school on the Monday due to a statutory holiday and the weekend is one on which D.K.C. is exercising parenting time as set out in paragraph 6, the drop off shall be at 7:00 p.m. at B.T.C.’s residence. In the event that there is no school on the Friday due to a statutory holiday, the drop off shall be at B.T.C.’s residence at 9:00 a.m. 2. D.K.C. shall have parenting time every Wednesday when he picks the boys up from day care or school until he drops them off at school on Friday mornings.

As I have said, the Friday drop off shall be at B.T.C.’s residence at 9:00 a.m., if Friday is a statutory holiday. 3. B.T.C. shall have parenting time after the weekends in which D.K.C. exercises his parenting time from Monday after school until she drops the boys off at school on Wednesday. Her parenting time will resume Friday after school until Saturday morning at 9:30 a.m. if it is D.K.C.’s weekend for parenting time or shall continue until she drops the boys off at school on Wednesday mornings on weekends that are her parenting time.

Within the context of the analysis of the best interests of the boys set out above, I have decided on this specific

schedule for the following reasons. First, it does not interfere with the therapy sessions at B.T.C.’s home which I have been told are on Monday, Tuesday and Friday in the early evening. Second, it minimizes the times that these parents have to interact at pick up and drop off and, therefore, minimizes conflict. Third, it provides D.K.C. with regular, weekly time with the boys at a time that works for him given his current time away from work. 4. Picking up the boys from B.T.C. or dropping off the boys with B.T.C. shall occur at curb side of her residence.

B.T.C. requested this provision and there is no good reason not to permit it. That order comes with the following stipulation: 5. There shall be no video-taping of any pick up and drop off. With respect to statutory holidays, excepting Christmas, the parenting time shall be: 6. D.K.C.’s parenting time shall include February 13 (Family Day), May 22 (Victoria Day), July 3 (Canada Day) and October 2 (Thanksgiving) all of which fall on Mondays. Statutory holidays of April 14 and April 17 (Easter), August 7 (B.C. Day), September 4 (Labour Day), November 13 (Remembrance Day) are parenting times for B.T.C.

The division of these days is not precisely equal nor does it neatly fit into alternating statutory holidays. Rather it has been done with an eye to matching statutory holidays with weekends where the parent is already exercising parenting time. This is done to provide extended time with each parent, which I view as in the best interest of the boys. It is also done to minimize the opportunities for conflict between these parents. 7. B.T.C. shall have parenting time on Christmas Day until 1:00 p.m. at which time she shall arrive with the boys at the residence of D.K.C.

D.K.C. shall have his parenting time until he returns the boys to B.T.C. at her residence on Wednesday, December 27, at 9:30 a.m. D.K.C. shall pick up the boys at B.T.C.’s residence on December 30 at 9:30 a.m. and return them on January 1, 2018 to B.T.C. at her residence at 7 p.m. All pick-ups and drop offs shall be at curb side of the respective residences. This division of the Christmas season is not perfect but, again, it attempts to minimize the exchanges and, therefore, the conflict between these two parents while providing the boys with time with each parent.

I do not accept D.K.C.’s submission that the Christmas season be given entirely to one parent on an alternating basis. To do so is to shut one parent out from the boys and provide the boys with no contact with that parent during that Christmas season. I do not see that in the best interests of the boys. I appreciate that in so doing I have removed D.K.C.’s usual parenting time in 2017 from Wednesday to Friday, however, that was necessary to balance out the parenting time during the holiday season.

[ 71 ] I agree with the submission that each parent should have summer vacation time and it ought to be on a roughly equal basis. I have given D.K.C. the first opportunity to select vacation time in 2017 given some loss of parenting time as a result of the order as to Christmas parenting time. Once vacation time is selected, it is the responsibility of the parent to advise the day care centre of that vacation time and to incur any costs associated with that vacation time. 1. D.K.C. shall have three consecutive weeks of vacation in the summer months when the boys are not in school.

Such weeks shall not interfere with B.T.C.’s parenting time on August 7. 2. B.T.C. shall have three consecutive weeks of vacation in the summer months when the boys are not in school. Such weeks shall not interfere with D.K.C.’s parenting time on July 3. 3. In 2017, D.K.C. shall select his three weeks first and B.T.C. shall select her three weeks from the remaining weeks. In 2018, B.T.C. shall select first and D.K.C. shall select second and they shall alternate in the years thereafter. 4. Whoever has the right to select their three weeks first must do so no later than April 1 of that year.

In the event that they do not do so they forfeit their right to select first for that year. Whoever selects second must do so no later than May 1 of that year. Upon selection of their three weeks, each parent shall notify the other of their selection forthwith and in writing. [ 72 ] With respect to Pro D days, I have concluded that they should be with B.T.C. I have done that because to adjust the parenting time for them would create an opportunity for conflict.

It would also, if an error occurred, jeopardize a therapy session on Friday afternoon which would not be in the boys’ best interests. [ 73 ] With respect to spring break, I am not making any order. I do that out of concern that any therapy not be interrupted and because ample time for vacation time is provided in the order I have made regarding the summer break. [ 74 ] With respect to Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, they each fall on weekends where the respective parent already has parenting time. No adjustment is necessary this year. [ 75 ] With respect to Hallowe’en I am not making any order.

I see such an order as only creating another opportunity for conflict. Whoever has their parenting time on Hallowe’en will be able to spend that time with the children. Due to the conflict of these parents, I do not intend to introduce any complication to the schedule. [ 76 ] I appreciate that, with this order, D.K.C. necessarily becomes much more engaged with the boys schooling and its routines. B.T.C. anticipates this and asks that I order that homework be completed. There is good reason for such an order to ensure that each parent is vigilant about homework. The boys need to develop good habits.

More importantly, however, I have already referred to the importance of stability and routine for the boys in their everyday lives even while moving between homes. I decline to make the order, however, as to do so would only introduce more conflict into the parenting of these children. One can easily see the arguments descending into whether the homework was indeed completed if any portion of it was not done to the satisfaction of the other parent. If at some point conflict between these parents dissipates, then perhaps they can review homework cooperatively through the communication book. [ 77 ] In

summary, I have attempted to craft a parenting time

schedule which will serve the best interests of the boys. Those best interests revolve around significant amounts of time with each parent and a stable routine in doing so. What this

schedule does not have, as many parenting schedules do, is flexibility. As events often overtake court orders, it is frequently wise to have flexibility in parenting schedules. These parents are not at that stage yet where they can offer that advantage to their children. It is to be hoped that they will be able to do so with time. At this time, there must be a

schedule which is inflexible and intentionally so. Indeed, it is essential that the opportunity for conflict be removed from these parents as much as possible. To that end, I am of the view that there must be no unilateral alteration to this parenting

schedule under any circumstances. It is not up to one parent to change the

schedule without consent of the other parent. If there are allegations to be made, they shall be made in a court room at a fair hearing. [ 78 ] Accordingly, the following order is made: There shall be no change to this parenting

schedule without the prior written agreement of the other parent or further order of this Court. [ 79 ] The Family Law Act makes clear that there are consequences for the breach of parenting orders made and this is one provision for which there will be consequences should one parent choose to take unilateral action. I am of the view that this provision also provides for the concern of D.K.C. contained in his application for the removal of the boys from Vancouver Island. I do not view any further restriction on travel to be necessary. [ 80 ] As I have said, this

schedule is less flexible than is ideal. One impact on the boys is that their activities will not always fall neatly into each parent’s parenting time. With most parents, there is easy agreement that the children enrol in activities such as soccer or hockey. The submissions anticipate a concern that one parent will

schedule activities that will force the other parent in the use of their parenting time which will not be agreeable to that parent. In the context of these parents that is a legitimate concern. Therefore it is ordered that no extra-curricular activities for the children will be scheduled by one parent on the parenting time of the other parent without the written agreement of that parent.

It readily appears as unfortunate that the children may be deprived of activities because of the conflict of the parents, however, at this time, the reduction of that conflict must be the priority for the best interests of the boys. 3. Specific Considerations on Parenting Responsibilities [ 81 ] One aspect of parenting responsibilities about which there was agreement was that there ought to be complete and transparent sharing of the needs of these boys. It goes without saying that the best interests of the boys are advanced when both parents have the information as to their condition and progress.

The only risk to transparent sharing of information is that one parent will attempt to use that information to fan the flames of conflict. That attempt will, I am sure, completely fail with the parenting coordinators which the parents have agreed to engage. At some point these parents will learn that increased conflict and complaining about each other will accomplish nothing and it is time to stop. In the meantime, there should be a clear mechanism for the sharing of information. In this

regard, I accept D.K.C.’s submission that there be clarity with respect to the ongoing needs of the boys. Accordingly, it is ordered that: 1. Each parent will have the right to obtain information concerning the child directly from third parties, including but not limited to teachers, counsellors, therapists and third party caregivers. Each parent is to provide any consent necessary for the other parent to receive any information about the children from third parties. 2. Each parent is to be given at least one week’s notice about any medical, education, special needs or professional appointment.

The notice to be provided by the parent booking the appointment shall contain the name of the professional and the agency, the reason for the appointment and the date, time and location of the appointment. Each parent may attend the appointment. Subject to agreement between the parents, any change to an appointment of its time or location must have one week’s notice. 3.

In the event of an emergency, the parent whose time it is shall notify the other parent of the emergency and the place of treatment of the child or children. [ 82 ] It is not surprising that the conflict that exists between these parents leads to disagreement about parenting responsibilities and, particularly, regarding who ought to make the final decision. D.K.C. says all decisions ought to be made by agreement. B.T.C. says she ought to have the right to make the final decision in the event there is no agreement.

Her position assumes that there will be good faith consultation on all matters of education, health or welfare of the boys. [ 83 ] D.K.C.’s position relies on B.T.C.’s adversarial relationship she has had with other professionals. I have already noted that concern. He submits that to give B.T.C. the final decision could lead to her making decisions contrary to professional advice and contrary to the best interests of the boys. Implicit in his submission is that he is sceptical of the value of a requirement of good faith consultation.

Certainly there was support for that concern when B.T.C. was asked to recount something positive about D.K.C.’s parenting. For the first time in her evidence, she was at a loss for words. [ 84 ] In coming to a conclusion in this regard, it is important that the decision not be drawn into the power dynamic of these parents. The issue is the best interests of the boys. In that regard, I am satisfied that each parent would make any decision on the basis of what they perceive to be the best interests of the boys. To their credit, these parents have agreed to the assistance of a parenting coordinator.

I am sure that they will receive assistance in how to communicate and hear the point of view of the other parent. In these circumstances, and not without some hesitation, I have concluded that the parenting responsibilities shall be divided in a way which approximates the ‘Master Joyce’ model with the final decision being given to B.T.C. I do so in the expectation that she will not view these decisions as a contest between herself and D.K.C. but as an opportunity to receive more input in order to improve the quality of the decision made regarding the boys. Therefore I order: 1.

The parents will share the parenting responsibilities set out in s. 41 of the Family Law Act . In so doing, each parent will consult with the other parent about any decisions that must be made and will try to reach agreement concerning the decision. 2. Each parent shall make the day to day decisions affecting the children during the time in which they are exercising their parenting time. 3. In the event that the parents cannot agree on the exercise of parenting responsibilities beyond the day to day decisions, then B.T.C. is entitled to make those decisions.

D.K.C. will have the right to apply for a review of any decision he considers to be contrary to the best interests of the child or children. CHILD SUPPORT [ 85 ] The parenting

schedule which I have ordered results in D.K.C. having less than 40% of the parenting time with the boys. The guideline income of D.K.C. is $70,126. Accordingly, the guideline child support is $1,391 per month. The application for child support having been made on April 20, 2016, this support order commences on May 1, 2016. I will hear further submissions, if required, regarding the issue of retroactive child support. [ 86 ] I accept the submission of B.T.C. that the proportionate sharing of extraordinary expenses ought to be 52% for D.K.C. and 48% for B.T.C.

The only expense already incurred, which I agree ought to be characterized as an extraordinary expense, is the cost of the Caught in the Middle program. [ 87 ] Given the amount of information which I have heard and which would inform any decision in the near future regarding these children, I will remain seized of any further applications in this matter. CONCLUSION [ 88 ] In accordance with these reasons, I make the following orders: Guardianship 1. D.K.C. and B.T.C. are both guardians of H.K.C. (D.O.B. omitted), M.R.C. (D.O.B. omitted) and K.V.C. (D.O.B. omitted). Parenting time 2.

D.K.C. shall have parenting time every second weekend Saturday from 9:30 a.m. until he drops the boys off at school on Monday morning. In the event that there is no school on the Monday due to a statutory holiday and the weekend is one on which D.K.C. is exercising parenting time as set out in paragraph 7, the drop off shall be at 7:00 p.m. at B.T.C.’s residence. In the event that there is no school on the Friday due to a statutory holiday, the drop off shall be at B.T.C.’s residence at 9:00 a.m. 3.

D.K.C. shall have parenting time every Wednesday when he picks the boys up from day care or school until he drops them off at

school on Friday morning. For greater clarity, if Friday is a statutory holiday the drop off shall be at B.T.C.’s residence at 9:00 a.m. 4. B.T.C. shall have parenting time after the weekends in which D.K.C. exercises his parenting time from Monday after school until she drops the boys off at school on Wednesday. Her parenting time will resume Friday after school until Saturday morning at 9:30 a.m., if it is D.K.C.’s weekend for parenting time, or shall continue until she drops the boys off at school on Wednesday morning on weekends that are her parenting time. 5.

Picking up the boys from B.T.C. or dropping off the boys with B.T.C. shall occur at curb side of her residence. 6. There shall be no video-taping of any pick-up and drop off. 7. D.K.C.’s parenting time in 2017 shall include February 13 (Family Day), May 22 (Victoria Day), July 3 (Canada Day), October 2 (Thanksgiving) all of which fall on Mondays. The statutory holidays in 2017 of April 14 and 17 (Easter), August 7 (B.C. Day), September 4 (Labour Day), November 13 (Remembrance Day) are parenting times for B.T.C. 8.

B.T.C. shall have parenting time on Christmas Day 2017 until 1:00 p.m. at which time she shall arrive with the boys at the residence of D.K.C. D.K.C. shall return the boys to B.T.C. at her residence on Wednesday December 27 at 9:30 a.m. D.K.C. shall pick up the boys at B.T.C.’s residence on December 30 at 9:30 a.m. and return them on January 1, 2018 at 7 p.m. to B.T.C.’s residence. All pick-ups and drop offs shall be at the curb side of the respective residences. 9. D.K.C. shall have three consecutive weeks of vacation in the summer months when the boys are not in school.

Such weeks shall not interfere with B.T.C.’s parenting time on August 7. 10. B.T.C. shall have three consecutive weeks of vacation in the summer months when the boys are not in school. Such weeks shall not interfere with D.K.C.’s parenting time on July 3. 11. In 2017, D.K.C. shall select his three weeks first and B.T.C. shall select her three weeks from the remaining weeks. In 2018, B.T.C. shall select first and D.K.C. shall select second and they shall alternate in the years thereafter. 12. Whoever has the right to select their three weeks first must do so no later than April 1 of that year.

In the event that they do not do so, they forfeit their right to select first for that year. Whoever selects second must do so no later than May 1 of that year. Upon selection of their three weeks, each parent shall notify the other of their selection forthwith and in writing. 13. There shall be no change to this parenting

schedule without the prior written agreement of the other parent or further order of this Court. 14. No extra-curricular activities for the children will be scheduled by one parent on the parenting time of the other parent without the written agreement of that parent. 15. All Pro-D days shall be parenting time for B.T.C. In the event that the Pro-D day is on a Friday, D.K.C. shall drop off the children at 9:00 a.m. curbside at B.T.C.’s residence. Parenting Responsibilities 16.

Each parent will have the right to obtain information concerning the child directly from third parties, including, but not limited to, teachers, counsellors, therapists and third party caregivers. Each parent is to provide any consent necessary for the other parent to receive any information about the children from third parties. 17. Each parent is to be given at least one week’s notice about any medical, education, special needs or professional appointment.

The notice, to be provided by the parent booking the appointment, shall contain the name of the professional and agency, the reason for the appointment and the date, time and location of the appointment. Each parent may attend the appointment. Subject to agreement between the parents, any change to an appointment of its time or location must have one week’s notice. 18. In the event of an emergency, the parent whose time it is shall notify the other parent of the emergency and the place of treatment of the child or children. 19.

The parents will share the parenting responsibilities set out in s. 41 of the Family Law Act . In so doing each parent will consult with the other parent about any decisions that must be made and will try to reach agreement concerning the decision. 20. Each parent shall make the day to day decisions affecting the children during the time in which they are exercising their parenting time. 21. In the event that the parents cannot agree on the exercise of parenting responsibilities beyond the day to day decisions, then B.T.C. is entitled to make those decisions.

D.K.C. will have the right to apply for a review of any decision he considers to be contrary to the best interests of the child or children. Child Support 22. Based on a guideline income of $70,126, D.K.C. is to pay $1,391 per month commencing on May 1, 2016 and payable on the first of each month thereafter. 23. Extraordinary expenses are to be divided on the basis of D.K.C. being responsible for 52% of those expenses and B.T.C. being responsible for 48% of those expenses. The Caught in the Middle program is an extraordinary expense. 24.

The parents will exchange their Income Tax returns and Notices of Assessment by May 31 of each year. Child support will be

adjusted prospectively on the basis of Line 150 income from the previous year commencing on July 1 of that year. The Honourable Judge Adrian F. Brooks Provincial Court of British Columbia