L.E.V. v. K.V., 2023 BCPC 107

Citation: L.E.V. v. K.V. 2023 BCPC 107 Date: 20230406 File No: 215647 Registry: [omitted for publication] IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: L.E.V. APPLICANT AND: K.V. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.T. DOULIS Appearing on his own behalf: L.E.V., by telecommunication Appearing on her own behalf: K.V., by telecommunication Place of Hearing: [omitted for publication], B.C. Date of Hearing: January 19, 2023

Date of Judgment: April 6, 2023 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] In 2021, L.E.V. (or “L.V.”) and K.V. separated after a 12-year relationship. At the time of separation, they lived in [omitted for publication], their home of 11 years. L.V. and K.V. (or “K.”) are the adoptive parents of A.V. (or “A.”), who is [omitted for publication] years old. Post-separation, K.V. planned to relocate to [omitted for publication], where she has friends, family and employment opportunities. She sought permission of the court to have A. relocate with her. L.V. sought an order prohibiting K.V. from relocating A. from [omitted for publication].

On August 31, 2020, after a trial, I granted K.V.’s application to relocate A.’s residence from [omitted for publication] to [omitted for publication] on the terms and conditions set out in my order. L.V. now asks that I reverse that decision and order that A. relocate back to [omitted for publication] to live primarily with him.

ISSUE [ 2 ] The issue before the court was that raised in L.V.’s Application About a Family Law Matter filed May 6, 2022, and assigned Court Electronic Information System (“CEIS”) Number 29, namely, should the court order that A. return to [omitted for publication] to live primarily with L.V.?

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY [ 3 ] On August 31, 2021, after a trial, I made the following Final Order: Guardianship [1] The court is satisfied that L.E.V. (“L.V.”) and K.V. are the guardians of A.K.F.V., born [omitted for publication] (“A.”), under s. 39(1) of the Family Law Act ; Parenting Responsibilities [2] L.V. and K.V. will each be responsible for day-to-day decisions affecting A. during their parenting time; [3] L.V. and K.V. will each have the obligation to discuss with the other any significant decisions that have to be made concerning A., including significant decisions about her health (except emergency decisions), education, religious instruction and general welfare; [ 4 ] L.V. and K.V. will have the obligation to discuss significant decisions with each other and the obligation to try to reach agreement on those decisions; [ 5 ] In the event L.V. and K.V. cannot agree on a significant decision despite their best efforts, either of them will have the right to apply to court for directions on any decision he or she considers to be contrary to A.’s best interests; Relocation [ 6 ] Pursuant to s. 46(2) of the Family Law Act , K.V. may relocate A.’s residence from [omitted for publication] to [omitted for publication], on the terms and conditions set out in this Order; Parenting time [ 7 ] L.V. will have parenting time with A. as set out in this Order and K.V. will have all other parenting time; Parenting time when school is in session [ 8 ] Commencing in 2021, while school is in session, L.V. will have parenting time with A. every long weekend.

A “long weekend” is a weekend which is preceded or followed by a statutory holiday, a school non-instructional day or a school administrative day; [ 9 ] L.V.’s parenting time on long weekends will be suspended during the summer school break, the winter school break, and the spring school break; Parenting time during the summer school break [ 10 ] For three or four days between September 1 and 6, 2021, L.V. will have parenting time with A. at such places, dates and times as the parties may agree; [ 11 ] Commencing in 2022, L.V. will have parenting time with A. for one-half of the annual summer school break on dates and times of his choosing; [ 12 ] L.V. will advise K.V. on or before May 1 of each year when he will exercise his parenting time during the summer school break.

The annual “summer school break” commences on July 1 and ends August 31 of that same year; Parenting time during the winter school break [ 13 ] Commencing in 2021, in odd years, L.V. will have parenting time with A. for the first half of the winter school break, including all

of Christmas Day, and in the even years he will have parenting time for the second half of the winter school break, excluding all ofChristmas Day.

In the odd years, K.V. will have parenting time with A. for the second half of the winter school break, excluding all ofChristmas Day, and in the even years she will have parenting time for the first half of the winter school break, including all of ChristmasDay; Parenting time during the spring school break [14] Commencing in 2022, in the even years, K.V. will have parenting time with A. for the first half of the spring school break, and inthe odd years she will have parenting time on the second half of the spring school break.

In the even years, L.V. will have parenting timewith A. for the second half of the spring school break, and in the odd years, he will have parenting time with A. for the first half of thespring school break.

Electronic Communication [15] When school is in session, L.V. will have daily communication with A. by telephone and/or electronic communication at 7:00 p.m.; [16] When school is not in session and A. is in K.V.’s care, L.V. will have telephone and/or electronic communication with A. at 9:30a.m. and 7:00 p.m. each day; [17] When L.V. is exercising in-person parenting time with A., K.V. will have reasonable telephone and/or electronic communicationwith A.; Transitioning A. [18] L.V. and K.V. will meet at [omitted for publication] at such place, and on such dates and times as they agree, in order to transitionA. between the two households; [19] Except in an emergency, L.V. and K.V. will provided [sic] each other 48 hours’ notice of any changes to the date, time, and/or placefor transitioning A.; Other parenting time [20] L.V. will have such other parenting time on such dates and times as the parties may agree; [21] If L.V. travels to [omitted for publication], K.V. will make reasonable efforts for A. to have parenting time with L.V. in the LowerMainland; Conduct Orders [22] Pursuant to s. 255 of the Family Law Act, L.V. and K.V. will ordinarily communicate in writing (by email, text message or letter)to: (

a) arrange parenting time; and (

b) arrange transitioning A. between their respective households; Review [23] At the request of either party, the Judicial Case Manager will

schedule a review of the parenting arrangements after January 1,2022. [4] I have appended to this decision my August 31, 2021 Reasons for Judgment, indexed as L.E.V. v. K.V., 2021 BCPC 216.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND SINCE THE AUGUST 31, 2021 ORDER [5] Although the only issue before me at the January 19, 2023 hearing was that raised in L.V.’s Application About a Family LawMatter filed May 6, 2022 (CEIS 35), I have set out below the procedural history from the date of my August 31, 2021 Order, until thedate of these Reasons for Judgment. [6] On January 27, 2022, L.V. filed a Request for Scheduling seeking a hearing to review my August 31, 2021 Order (CEIS 23) (the“Review”).

The Judicial Case Manager scheduled the Review in [omitted for publication] Provincial Court on February 24, 2022. [7] On February 10, 2022, L.V. filed an Affidavit (CEIS 24), setting out his reasons why A. ought to return to [omitted forpublication] to live primarily with him. His reasons include: a. K.V.’s employment opportunity as an ABA therapist [Applied Behaviour Analysis] in [omitted for publication] did not work out asshe had planned. She was unemployed for several months and ultimately found a job as a cleaner. Her work

schedule prevents K.V. fromdriving A. to or picking her up from school. A. now has to take a bus to and from school, and L.V. believes a responsible adult is notalways at the bus stop with A.; b. K.V. has no certifications to work with special needs children; c. K.V.’s daughter, T.C., already has four young children in her care and L.V. questions T.C.’s ability to take on the responsibility ofcaring for A. as well; d. On January 13, 2022, A. came home to an empty house after school. She had to wait alone for 10 minutes until someone came home; e. L.V. is retired with a stable lifestyle. If A. were to return to live with L.V. in [omitted for publication], he could drive A. to and from

school, her extracurricular activities, medical appointments in [omitted for publication] and elsewhere when required; f. A. told L.V. on several occasions that she did not want to return to “T’s home”; g. Since moving to [omitted for publication], K.V. has not facilitated A.’s contact with the F. family; h. A. has more friends at school in [omitted for publication] than she has in [omitted for publication] in [omitted for publication]; and i. L.V. has taken on the greater part of the driving necessary to transition A. between the two households. [8] L.V. states at para. 25: 25.

The evidence I presented at trial about A.'s life in [omitted for publication] remains unchanged. She'd have her friends at school, her therapists are the same, she could continue in the same extracurricular activities, and she'd be closer to the F. family. [9] On February 24, 2022, the Review came before Judge Thomas who adjourned it to April 5, 2022. [10] On March 22, 2022, K.V. filed an Affidavit with respect to the Review (CEIS 28), responding to L.V.’s February 10, 2022 Affidavit and setting out the reasons she believes A. ought to remain residing with her in [omitted for publication]. K.V. states : a.

As of November 2, 2021, she has been employed with “Clean of the Castle”, working 30 hours per week from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 pm; b. She has 35 years of experience working with children with special needs and adults with intellectual disabilities. She also owned and operated a licensed day care that included children with special needs. K.V. asserts the following qualifications: (

a) Baby Safe; (

b) Gentle Teaching Standards; (

c) Non-violent Crisis Intervention; (

c) In-service Training on Tube Feeding; (

d) Pediatric First Aid; (

e) WHMIS [Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System]; (

f) Food Safety; (

g) Sign Language; (

h) Family Child Care Program; (

i) Supervisory Skills Program; and (

j) Child Care Program with Special Needs; c. She assists A. on the school bus every morning which stops in front of her house. The bus drops off A. at 3:30 p.m. after school. K.V. is usually there to meet A.; however, if she cannot, K.V. makes plans in advance for another adult to meet A. at the bus. The school bus policy is that a child will not be left alone at the bus stop until the bus driver has eye contact with the adult who is picking up the child; d. A. has a consistent routine and feels safe and enjoys the ten-minute ride on the school bus with her friends.

This also promotes A.’s independence and self-confidence; and e. A. is happy where she lives, “but children do struggle with the complexity of parental separation”. [11] With respect to L.V.’s concerns that A. came home to an empty house on January 13, 2022, K.V. states : 11. On January 13, 2022, T. and A. arrived at home at the same time. The Bus driver made eye contact with T. when she pulled into the driveway. Our home is also outfitted with security cameras at front door, so in the event of an emergency we could talk to A. through a speaker to let her know that another adult will be immediately available.

A. also knows the door code and can let herself in if absolutely necessary.

I have a back-up plan that A. is aware of in the event that myself or T. were not available. [12] K.V. also set out in her March 22, 2022 Affidavit the efforts she made to facilitate A.’s contact with her biological paternal grandparents and siblings (the “F. family”) [13] On April 5, 2022, the Review of my August 31, 2021 Order came before Judge Stanford who directed L.V. to file An Application About a Family Law Matter. [14] On May 6, 2022, L.V. filed An Application About a Family Law Matter (CEIS 29) seeking to overturn my August 31, 2021 Order.

He asks this Court to give him primary parenting time with A. in [omitted for publication]. He states: A. is of Cree ancestry. She has only seen her birth family twice since being moved to [omitted for publication], both times during my parenting times. K. had stated to the court that her employment would allow her to take care of A. herself. That did not happen and she currently relies on her daughter T. to look after A. while she works. . . . I would like to see A. return home to [omitted for publication] and parenting times reversed.

I can ensure parenting responsibilities are done by myself, and relationships with her indigenous family (grandmother & siblings) are re-established. . . . [15] In his May 6, 2022 Application about a Parenting time Order, L.V. reiterates his concern that K.V. did not get the employment she had anticipated which would allow her to look after A. before and after school. He asserts that her current job as a cleaner forces K.V. to rely on her daughter, T.C., to look after A. while also looking after her own two children and two stepchildren.

He says this leaves A. with lacking the parental support that a full-time parent can provide. [16] On June 1, 2022, K.V. filed an Application for a Case Management order asking that this file (File [omitted for publication] Registry) be transferred to [omitted for publication] Court Registry for all purposes (CEIS 31). This application was scheduled to proceed on June 23, 2022.

On that date, Judge Purewal adjourned the transfer application to August 11, 2022, for a Family Management Conference. [17] On July 25, 2022, K.V. filed her Form 4 Financial Statement (CEIS 35) attaching her Canada Revenue Agency documents. K.V.

declares a monthly income of $3,738.80 from all sources (or $44,865.60 per year). Her monthly sources of income includes (a) $1,665.30 from her employment as a house cleaner; (

b) Employment Insurance $36.31; (c) $79.50 from Canada Pension Plan; (

d) GST rebate; and (e) $1,429 from the Child Care Benefit and MCFD (for adopting A.). [18] On July 26, 2022, K.V. filed a Reply to an Application About a Family Law Matter (CEIS 36), opposing L.V.’s application. She claims that A. is thriving in [omitted for publication] and that is where she should remain.

K.V. states that in [omitted for publication], A.: a. has settled into her new home and school in [omitted for publication]; b. has many supports and services she needs to succeed given her neurodevelopmental disorders; c. is involved in Indigenous learning; d. is engaged in extra-curricular activities; e. has developed many friendships; f. maintains in-person and electronic contact time with her paternal grandmother B.W.-B. [19] K.V. also counterclaims for child support. With respect to the issue of child support, K.V. states that L.V. has multiple sources of income, including: (

a) money from MCFD for fostering a child; (

b) an old age pension; (

c) a retirement pension from his previous employment; (

d) financial investments; (

e) money from MCFD for adopting A. Moreover, L.V. continues to reside in the family home. L.V. had not paid K.V. any monies for child support. [20] Although K.V.’s July 26, 2022 Reply is accompanied by her counterclaim for child support, the only matter before me at the January 19, 2023 hearing was the issue of relocating A. back to [omitted for publication]. [21] On August 4, 2022, L.V. filed a Form 4 Financial Statement (CEIS 37) attaching some of his relevant financial documents. [22] On August 4, 2022, L.V. filed an Affidavit (CEIS 38), in which he set out: a.

Why he considers it is in A.’s best interests to return to reside in [omitted for publication]; b. A chronology of his parenting time with A. and other relevant events between September 2, 2021, and August 1, 2022; and c.

A letter from B.W-B. dated December 30, 2021, setting out her history with A., K.V. and L.V., and her views on their parenting arrangements. [23] On August 11, 2022, L.V.’s May 6, 2022 Application About a Family Law Matter (CEIS 29), and K.V.’s Application for a Case Management Order (CEIS 31) came before Judge Brecknell, who ordered the Review be set before me for hearing and the issue of child support be adjourned to August 25, 2022. [ 24 ] On August 25, 2022, the issue of child support came on for hearing before Judge Cutler, who ordered: 1.

L.V. on a without prejudice basis shall pay to K.V. the sum of $177.00 per month for the support of the child, commencing on September 1st, 2022, and continuing on the 1st day of each and every month thereafter, for as long as the child is eligible for support under the Family Law Act or until further court order. 2.

Adjourned to the Judicial Case Manager to set a hearing on the issue of child support for 1/2 day. [ 25 ] On December 22, 2022, I approved K.V.’s application to appear at the hearing by MS Teams. [ 26 ] On January 10, 2023, K.V. filed an Application About a Family Law Matter (CEIS 44) seeking child support retroactive to October 1, 2022, in the amount of $321.90 per month based on a Guideline income of $34,296.18, using the 2011 Child Support Tables. K.V. also asks that L.V. contribute to A.’s special expenses for speech therapy, which is $85 per week.

She says that MCFD pays $1,032, and it is up to parents to pay the residue. L.V.’s share would be $1,524 per year ($85 x 48 = $4,080 - $1,032 = $3,048 ÷ 2 = $1,524). [ 27 ] On January 16, 2023, L.V. filed an Affidavit setting out his monthly income and expenses. He states: a. His total income from all sources is $3,145.54, which is $37,746.48 per year; b. His expenses are $3,638.27 - $3,800.00 per year; c. As of September 1, 2021, he and K.V. had debts totalling $201,144.99, which includes the mortgage on the family home; d.

He has also paid interest on the family debts totalling $15,689.08, of which K.V. owes one half; e. In the year before their separation, K.V. and L.V. earned $57,173.28 as foster parents. The basic rate for each child was $1,024.69. This covers living expenses for the child such as food, clothing, heat, light, etc. There is also a payment per child for taking care of them, which can total $2,692.92, for three children; f. In the year prior to their separation, K.V. withdrew or transferred 35,300.00 from their joint account. L.V. transferred 30,600.00 into his account.

All the household expenses were paid from his account. Until June 2021, K.V. continued to use K.V. and L.V.’s joint

account for all expenses except K.V.’s cell phone bill and her truck insurance, which totalled less than $200 per month; g. The money L.V. took from the joint account was used to pay household expenses, as well as to repay some of their joint debts. K.V.made no effort to participate in paying down their debts; h. On August 25, 2022, Judge R. Cutler ordered by consent that L.V. pay K.V. $177 per month for the support of A. L.V. did so foronly a couple of months, finding the rise in interest rates and the increase in the cost of living left him with insufficient funds to make thepayments. i.

The increase in interest on K.V. and L.V.’s credit lines increased from $195.87 in September 2021, to $309.52 in January 2022, anincrease of [$113.65]. [28] Although L.V. has filed an affidavit in response to K.V.’s January 10, 2023 Application About a Family Law Matter, he has yetto file a Reply, which I encourage him to do so without further delay. Should the Court order that A. return to [omitted for publication] to live primarily with L.V.? LEGAL FRAMEWORK [29] L.V. is asking me to change and terminate my August 31, 2021 Order respecting the parenting arrangements for A.

As theAugust 31, 2021 Order was a Final Order, L.V.’s application brings into play s. 47 of the Family Law Act, which states: Changing, suspending or terminating orders respecting parenting arrangements 47 On application, a court may change, suspend or terminate an order respecting parenting arrangements if satisfied that, since themaking of the order, there has been a change in the needs or circumstances of the child, including because of a change in thecircumstances of another person. [30] In Williamson v.

Williamson, 2016 BCCA 87, at paras. 30–31, the Court of Appeal held the test set out in Gordon v.Goertz, (SCC), applies to s. 47 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25. A material change in circumstances is thethreshold required to “embark on a fresh inquiry into the best interest of the children”: Williamson, para. 34. In Callaghan v.Charbonneau, 2022 BCCA 167 , Harris J.A. for the appellate court states at paras. 10-12: [10] The judge correctly identified the test that emerges as follows: [17] Mr. Charbonneau has the onus of proving a material change in circumstances before the court can inquire further.

The court mustonly consider the change in circumstances since the order was issued. That change must alter the child's needs or the ability of theparents to meet those needs in a fundamental way. The change must represent a distinct departure from what the court could reasonablyhave anticipated in making the previous order: Gordon v.

Goertz, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 27 at paras. 11–12. [18] Gordon states that the applicant must establish the following before a court can consider the merits of the application: 13 It follows that before entering on the merits of an application to vary a custody order the judge must be satisfied of: (1) a change inthe condition, means, needs or circumstances of the child and/or the ability of the parents to meet the needs of the child; (2) whichmaterially affects the child; and (3) which was either not foreseen or could not have been reasonably contemplated by the judge whomade the initial order. [11] Moreover, the judge correctly identified that establishing a material change in circumstances is a threshold or precondition forengaging in an analysis of the merits of the proposed change.

This proposition is clear. For example, in Williamson v Williamson, 2016BCCA 87, this Court said: [32] The first step in the analysis set out in Gordon v. Goertz is to “determine whether there has been a material change in circumstancessince the making of the prior order”: Boychuck at para. 14. The Court in Gordon explained what is necessary to establish a materialchange in circumstances: [11] The requirement of a material change in the situation of the child means that an application to vary custody cannot serve as anindirect route of appeal from the original custody order.

The court cannot retry the case, substituting its discretion for that of the originaljudge; it must assume the correctness of the decision and consider only the change in circumstances since the order was issued.... [12] What suffices to establish a material change in the circumstances of the child?

Change alone is not enough; the change must havealtered the child's needs or the ability of the parents to meet those needs in a fundamental way …The question is whether the previousorder might have been different had the circumstances now existing prevailed earlier…Moreover, the change should represent a distinctdeparture from what the court could reasonably have anticipated in making the previous order. [Emphasis in original.] [33] At para. 13, the Court summarized what the applicant must establish before proceeding on the merits of the application: [13] It follows that before entering on the merits of an application to vary a custody order the judge must be satisfied of: (1) a change inthe condition, means, needs or circumstances of the child and/or the ability of the parents to meet the needs of the child; (2) whichmaterially affects the child; and (3) which was either not foreseen or could not have been reasonably contemplated by the judge whomade the initial order. [34] Absent a material change in the needs or circumstances of the child, the inquiry can go no further.

It is only after this threshold ismet that the judge on the new application can embark on a fresh inquiry into the best interest of the children.

[12] It is also clear, in my view, that the judge appreciated the various criteria that could establish a material change in circumstances.Those criteria include changes in the means, needs or circumstances of the child, as well as changes in the ability of the parents to meet achild’s needs. Moreover, the changes are only those occurring since the order was made. Further, the changes must be material, that is tosay fundamental in such a way that had the circumstances now existing prevailed then, the order might have been different.

Further, itmust be the case the changes relied on were not foreseen and were, reasonably, outside of the contemplation of the parties when theorder was made. [31] In sum, parenting arrangements that are settled by Final Orders can only be varied by a further Final Order of the court under s.47 of the Family Law Act if there has been a material change of circumstances. In my view, L.V. has not demonstrated a material changeof circumstances.

I do not find the fact that K.V. has obtained a different job than what she initially had hoped for constitutes a materialchange of circumstances. [32] I do acknowledge, however, my August 31, 2021 Order included the following term: [23] At the request of either party, the Judicial Case Manager will

schedule a review of the parenting arrangements after January 1,2022. [33] I included this provision in the event the parties experienced unforeseen difficulties in transitioning A. between households giventhe distance between [omitted for publication] and [omitted for publication]. I did not intend the term as an opportunity to retry therelocation issue.

However, as both parties are self-represented, I will consider whether the August 31, 2021 Order with respect toparenting arrangements are still in A.’s best interests. [34] The overarching consideration in determining issues of guardianship, parenting responsibilities and parenting time is the bestinterests of the child.

The relevant statutory provisions are set out in s. 37 of the Family Law Act which states: Best interests of child 37(1) In making an agreement or order under this Part respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with a child, theparties 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 thefollowing: (

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 thechild 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 carefor the child and meet the child's needs; (

i) the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child, includingwhether 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 insubsection (2), and only to the extent that it affects that factor. [35] In analyzing the child’s best interests, the court should consider all of the factors under s. 37, but such factors are non-exhaustive:Pozzobon v. Pozzobon, 2013 BCSC 1226 , at para. 30. a. the child’s health and emotional well-being [36] Although otherwise healthy, A. suffers from serious developmental deficiencies arising from her in-utero exposure to alcohol andstreet drugs.

In 2018, A. was assessed with Global Developmental Delay, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Language Delay and SelectiveMutism. I have discussed the genesis of these disabilities and their impact on A. in my August 31, 2021 Reasons for Judgment appendedto this decision. I have no evidence that A.’s disabilities have changed significantly since that decision. Life in [omitted for publication]

[ 37 ] K.V. says that A. has successfully settled into her home and school in [omitted for publication]. She has many supports and services that she needs to flourish. K.V. attached as Exhibit “B” to her March 22, 2022 Affidavit, A.’s Grade [omitted for publication] Report Card from [omitted for publication] in [omitted for publication]. A.’s teacher, N.T. (W.), writes: It has truly been a pleasure having A. in my class this year. A. has made great progress across the curriculum this year. She is working on completing her work to the best of her ability and taking pride in her work.

A. often needs frequent reminders during the day to focus on the task at hand and not to be distracted by things going on around her. A.'s kind, caring, and friendly character make her a role model for her classmates. A. worked with the Indigenous Support Worker (ISW) to support her learning in [omitted for publication]. She also worked with the Educational Assistant and teacher on her Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals. . . A. is emerging in the area of Grade [omitted for publication] reading expectations. A. participates in a Guided Reading Group five times a week to support her reading.

She continues to read preprimer and primer sight words, which will help improve her reading ability. A. loves reading books and enjoys listening to adults or peers read books to her. Continue to read with A. every day through the summer to maintain her reading skills for grade [omitted for publication]. A. is emerging in the area of Grade [omitted for publication] writing expectations. A. is working hard to print letters with the proper formation and neatly on the line. A. is working hard on using sentence frames to write sentences independently.

A. is able to write three simple sentences with little to no adult support. For more complex classroom content, she will tell an adult what she wants to say and the adult will scribe with a highlighter. A. will then trace over the highlighted printing. Writing a summer journal would help her writing skills for grade [omitted for publication]. A. is emerging in the area of Grade [omitted for publication] math expectations. She is gaining confidence in her number sense 0-25. She is working on identifying numbers and counting objects to 25.

She has also continued to work on both her addition and subtraction facts to 20. A. enjoyed working cooperatively with peers to play a variety of Math Games that reinforce, and practice math skills taught in class. Continue to practice math facts over the summer using games to maintain her confidence and quick recall of math facts for grade [omitted for publication]. I truly appreciate A. for her smile, calm demeanor, and honest nature she has brought into our classroom each day.

Continue to read, write and practice math facts over the summer to maintain and develop these skills for grade [omitted for publication]. I am hopeful that with continued practice and effort, A. will be successful in grade [omitted for publication].

Have a wonderful summer! [ 38 ] K.V. says that A. has many resources in [omitted for publication] to assist A. in overcoming or managing the effects of her neurodevelopment disabilities, including: a. working with her Indigenous worker, J.B., three times per week; and b. attending speech therapy four times per month with G.A.-L., who is a registered speech-language therapist. K.V. has provided the court with a report and invoices from G.

A. -L.; c. accessing Aboriginal child support services with Inclusions Langley Society; and d. attending the ophthalmologist and pediatrician. [ 39 ] A. also is engaged in extra-curricular activities, including: a. attending the Fraser Valley Indigenous organization every Saturday; b. swimming in Aldergrove or [omitted for publication]; c. rollerblading; d. horseback riding in Langley; and e. snowboarding in the park. Life in [omitted for publication] [ 40 ] L.V. says that if A. returns to live with him in [omitted for publication], he would re-enrol her in [omitted for publication] in [omitted for publication].

A. told L.V. she prefers [omitted for publication] to [omitted for publication] in [omitted for publication]. L.V. would take A. to the bus in the morning, which will facilitate her making new friends in the area. L.V. would also enrol A. in the school program “[omitted for publication]”. Two of A.’s friends at [omitted for publication] attend this program. L.V. would pick up A. at the end of the school day and take her to dance and swimming lessons, which are two activities in which A. had been previously engaged.

This also affords A. some extra time to spend with her friends in a play situation. [ 41 ] L.V. states that while she was having parenting time with him in July 2022, A. had an opportunity to spend some time with her former schoolmates, which she enjoyed.

L.V. asserts that one of the attractions of a small town like [omitted for publication] is that A. and her friends will likely be in school together for the remainder of their educational years. [ 42 ] L.V. says that at her home in [omitted for publication], A. has an opportunity to “go swimming every day and there are many recreational activities that we have here in town”. He is aware of a group currently putting together a play program A. could become involved in should she relocate back to [omitted for publication].

Also, if she lived in [omitted for publication], A. would have increased opportunities to visit with her biological paternal family who live in Prince George. He says: . . . I feel it is very important for A. to learn some indigenous teachings from her grandmother B. It is also very important for her to get to know her siblings. She will never have the chance to do this living in [omitted for publication].

[43] In my August 31, 2021 Reasons for Judgment, I expressed the view (at para. 51) that “time and distance will limit how muchcontact A. will have with her non-primary care giver. I am satisfied, however, that both L.V. and L. [sic] V. are supportive of A. having ameaningful relationship with the other parent.” My views in this respect have not changed. b. the child's views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them [44] Section 37(2)(

b) of the Family Law Act requires the court to consider the child's views unless it would be inappropriate to do so.A child’s views are considered inappropriate where the child is very young or suffers from serious cognitive impairment. Although thechild’s views are but one factor the court must consider in assessing the child’s best interest, it is a factor that increases in significancewith the child’s age. [45] In J.E.S.D. v.

Y.E.P., 2018 BCCA 286 , the BC Court of Appeal discussed the weight to be given to a child’s views inassessing the child’s best interests in light of the child’s evolving capacities for autonomous decision-making. Groberman J.A. for theunanimous court states: [51] In A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the conceptof “best interests of the child” in the context of legislation that permitted a court to authorize medical treatment, even against a child’swishes.

Justice Abella, writing for the majority, noted that as children gain maturity, their wishes become proportionately moreimportant in determining what is in their best interests. She stated: [87] The more a court is satisfied that a child is capable of making a mature, independent decision on his or her own behalf, the greaterthe weight that will be given to his or her views when a court is exercising its discretion under s. 25(8).

In some cases, courts willinevitably be so convinced of a child’s maturity that the principles of welfare and autonomy will collapse altogether and the child’swishes will become the controlling factor. . . . . . . [92] The statutory factors reflect decades of careful study into children’s needs and how the law can best meet them. . . .

With ourevolving understanding has come the recognition that the quality of decision making about a child is enhanced by input from that child.The extent to which that input affects the “best interests” assessment is as variable as the child’s circumstances, but one thing that can besaid with certainty is that the input becomes increasingly determinative as the child matures. [52] Inherent in the court’s analysis in A.C. is the recognition that circumstances will exist when the child’s wishes do not conform towhat is in his or her best interests.

Children are sometimes incapable of identifying what is in their own best interests. [53] While the views and wishes of a mature child . . . will be important in determining what is in her best interests, they will not bedeterminative. [46]

Section 202 of the Family Law Act empowers the presiding judge to determine how a child’s evidence is received. It states: Court may decide how child’s evidence is received 202 In a proceeding under this Act, a court, having regard to the best interests of a child, may do one or both of the following: (

a) admit hearsay evidence it considers reliable of a child who is absent; (

b) give any other direction that it considers appropriate concerning the receipt of a child's evidence. [47] In Goldsmith v. Holden, 2020 BCSC 1501 , Justice Baker notes (at para. 9) that s. 202 is protective of children in thelitigation context as it does not require them to be witnesses in any litigation. It allows a child to participate in family law proceedingswithout having to testify at trial. [48] L.V. says A. very much wants to live with him in [omitted for publication].

At the end of their parenting time together, A. saysshe wants to stay with him and she does not want to return to [omitted for publication]. He says that if I were to reverse the currentparenting arrangement, it would still leave plenty of time for K.V. and her relatives to spend time with A., as they live close together inthe Lower Mainland. [49] K.V. acknowledges that A. does enjoy her time with her father. When she visits L.V. in [omitted for publication], A. is onholidays. At home in [omitted for publication], A. has a very busy schedule, which K.V. describes as follows: a.

A. has to get up most mornings at 7:00 a.m. She has a bath if it is a “bath morning”, followed by breakfast; b. A. gets ready and takes the school bus to school. She attends school, then takes the bus home or K.V. picks her up. Usually, A. getshome at about 3:25 p.m. A. has dinner; c. A. has to read 20 minutes per day. She also has writing and math homework. A.’s “homework” takes her about an hour; d. A. goes to bed between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. and K. reads her a bedtime story; e. On Mondays, A. attends [omitted for publication] from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.; f.

On Tuesdays, A. has speech therapy from 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; g. On Thursdays, A. attends Boys and Girls Club from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., where she socializes and engages in various activities,crafts and games;

h. On Fridays, A. only as to spend one-half hour on her homework; i. On Saturdays, A. attends pow-wow dancing, drumming and arts and crafts from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Fraser Valley Indigenous Club in Langley. There, A. is learning to speak Cree; j. K.V. also takes A. swimming in Aldergrove or [omitted for publication]; k. A. has known her cousins, A.A. who is [omitted for publication] years old and J.J. who is [omitted for publication], since birth. Sometimes they have overnight visits with A.; l.

A. engages in a myriad of unorganized recreational activities, such as: rollerblading and snowboarding in the park, depending on the season; visiting with relatives; and baking with her mother; and m. A. also receives horseback riding lessons, which K.V. pays for by cleaning the stalls. [ 50 ] K.V. says this busy regime is necessary if A. is going to develop to her full potential despite her disabilities.

A. does not appreciate that if she were to reside with her father, her life would not be a continuous holiday. [ 51 ] Given A.’s congeries of disabilities and her special needs, I find her views on parenting arrangements carry less weight than if these factors were not present. Moreover, a child’s views are best obtained through a professional trained in the art of interviewing children.

Where the child’s views are provided by a parent to the litigation, there is always the concern the child is saying what they believe the parent wants to hear or the parent is hearing what that parent wants to hear. c. the nature and strength of the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child's life [ 52 ] A. is the biological daughter of S.A.F. and B.S. S.A.F. is the son of B.W-B. and J.B. B.W-B. is of Cree ancestry. Eleven years ago, the Ministry of Child and Family Development (“MCFD”) removed all of B.S. and S.A.F.’s children from their care.

Since then, B.W-B. and J.B. have been raising B.S. and S.A.F.’s son A.F. who is [omitted for publication] years old, M.F. who is [omitted for publication], and S.F. who is [omitted for publication]. A.F. is A.’s biological sibling; M.F. and S.F. are her half-siblings. S.A.F. died in August 2019. [ 53 ] In January 2014, when she was [omitted for publication], MCFD placed A. in L.V. and K.V.’s home as a foster child. A. lived with L.V. and K.V. at their residence at [omitted for publication], as their foster child until October 27, 2020, when they formally adopted her.

A. is L.V.’s first and only child; she is the youngest of K.V.’s five children, two of whom are adopted. [ 54 ] A. has a close and loving relationship with both her adopted parents. She is also close to her extended adopted maternal family, as well as her biological paternal family. Both parents are willing to nurture and foster A.’s relationship with her extended family. d. the history of the child's care [ 55 ] A.’s history with her adopted parents is set out in my August 31, 2021 Reasons for Judgment. Since K.V. and L.V. separated, A. has lived primarily with her mother in [omitted for publication].

Her mother works while A. is in school and is home with A. when she is not in school. Because she is only with her father when she is not in school, A. spends all of her time with her father when in his care as set out in my August 31, 2021 Court Order. e. the child's need for stability, given the child's age and stage of development [ 56 ] Like all [omitted for publication] year olds, A. requires a predictable, stable and supportive home and school environment. Because of her disabilities, A.’s need for stability is more acute than a [omitted for publication] year-old child without these disabilities.

A. has already been relocated to [omitted for publication]. To return her to live full time with L.V. in [omitted for publication] now is not necessarily a “return to stability”. I agree that to relocate A. back to [omitted for publication] would be less destabilizing than to relocate her to a community where she has never lived, but it is still destabilizing. A. has lived and attended school in [omitted for publication] now for almost two years. That is a long time in the life of a child.

In my view, A.’s need for stability militates towards her remaining with her mother in [omitted for publication]. 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 [ 57 ] In my August 31, 2021 Reasons for Judgment, I found “L.V. and K.V. are engaged, competent, loving and nurturing parents who are emotionally connected to A.

If L.V. and K.V. were to remain living in close proximity to each other, I would likely endorse a shared parenting arrangement.” I continue to hold this view. [ 58 ] I do not accept the premise that L.V. is better situated than K.V. to care for A. because he does not work outside the home. L.V. is a foster parent to a very young disabled child, an obligation I assume commands much of his attention. Moreover, many, if not most, young children in this country have parents who work outside the home.

Section 147(1) of the Family Law Act imposes a duty on every parent and guardian of a child to provide support for the child.

Section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines set out as a special expense, childcare expenses incurred as the result of the employment of the parent with primary parenting responsibilities. Juggling childcare with employment is something the court acknowledges is a reality in most households, whether the parents are together, separated, or re-partnered. 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 [ 59 ] In my August 31, 2021 Reasons for Judgment, I stated at para. 93 that I did not find there was “any family violence currently

present in K.V. or L.V.’s life that is directed towards A. or any other family member.” I am still of this view. 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 [ 60 ] In my August 31, 2021 Reasons for Judgment I stated at para. 94, “I am satisfied that neither parent is responsible for any family violence and neither is impaired in his or her ability to care for A. and meet her needs.” I am still of this view. i. the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the child or other family members [ 61 ] The distance and inclement weather has made it difficult for L.V. and K.V. to transition A. between households.

These obstacles to their ability to co-parent A. will not change unless one of them moves.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, I still am of the view I expressed in para. 95 of my August 31, 2021 Reasons for Judgment, “I am satisfied that any parenting arrangement requiring L.V. and K.V. cooperate with each other will not pose any risks to the safety, security or well-being of A. or other family members.” j. any civil or criminal proceeding relevant to the child's safety, security or well-being [ 62 ] The only proceeding of which I have been made aware that may be relevant to A.’s safety, security or well-being, is further family law litigation between her parents.

K.V. points out that L.V. appears to ignore the fact that at some point he will likely have to sell the family home in [omitted for publication], because it is a family asset. He has no other way of compensating K.V. for her interest in the family home other than to sell it. This means it is unlikely that L.V. will be in a position to offer A. the life in [omitted for publication] she had prior to separation. CONCLUSION [ 63 ] I do not find there has been a material change of circumstances since my August 31, 2021 Order.

Notwithstanding this deficit in L.V.’s pleadings, I find it is still in A.’s best interests to live primarily with K.V. in [omitted for publication]. [ 64 ] Having said that, it has become apparent that transitioning A. between L.V.’s and K.V.’s respective households is not seamless. Initially, K.V. and L.V. agreed to meet in [omitted for publication] to effect the exchanges. On January 16, 2023, L.V. filed an affidavit (CEIS 47) addressing the transition issues. K.V. cannot afford winter tires and asked that L.V. meet her in [omitted for publication] instead.

In 2021, there were various road closures because of flooding. L.V. proposes that he and K.V. meet in [omitted for publication] to transition A. [ 65 ] The evidence before me indicates that L.V. has not been paying to K.V. child support; it is little wonder K.V. cannot afford winter tires. Moreover, K.V. is working five days per week outside the home.

On an interim basis, until such time as the parties resolve their financial issues, I will order the parties meet in [omitted for publication] to transition A. between households. [ 66 ] I reiterate the matter before me was L.V.’s May 6, 2022 Application About a Family Law Matter (CEIS 29) seeking an order that A. relocate to [omitted for publication] to live with him full time. I recognize L.V. and K.V. still have other outstanding issues to resolve, such as child support.

As the parties are self-represented, I ask the Judicial Case Manager to contact them to see if they wish the child support issue set down for adjudication. I am not seized of this matter. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge J.T. Doulis Provincial Court of British Columbia