K.M.M. v. D.R.M., 2015 BCSC 1126

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: K.M.M. v. D.R.M., 2015 BCSC 1126 Date: 20150630 Docket: E130570 Registry: Vancouver Between: K.M.M. Claimant And D.R.M. Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Tindale Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the claimant: S.L. Specht Appearing for the respondent: D.R.M., In Person Place and Date of Trial: Prince George, B.C. July 21 - 24; July 28 - July 31, 2014; August 1, 5 & 6, 2014; October 20 - 24, 2014; October 27 & 28, 2014; December 8 - 12, 2014; January 26 - 28, 2015 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C.

June 30, 2015 Contents Introduction .. 3 Background .. 3 The Issues .. 4 The Evidence .. 5 The Claimant’s Case .. 5 The Claimant 5 Sandra Miller 14 Amanda Whyte . 15 Karen Whyte . 16 Kerri-Lynn Cayen .. 17 Patricia Cayen .. 19 Dr. Ronald LaTorre . 21

The Respondent’s Case .. 23 Heidi OBorne . 23 Ken Umbarger 25 Robert Colby . 26 Janice Butler 28 Dr. Liam Higgins . 30 N.M. 31 Sandra Menge . 33 Dr. Elizabete Rocha . 34 The Respondent 36 Dr.

Michael Elterman .. 43 Position of the Parties .. 45 The Claimant’s Position .. 45 The Respondent’s Position .. 49 Decision .. 52 Conclusion .. 63 Introduction [ 1 ] This is a matrimonial trial to determine the custody, guardianship, parental responsibilities, and parenting time of the parties’ two children. [ 2 ] By agreement, the property and other issues in this matrimonial action were adjourned to be heard at a later date.

Background [ 3 ] The claimant, K.M.M., was born on November 29, 1963 and is currently 51 years of age. [ 4 ] The respondent, D.R.M., was born on July 22, 1964 and is currently 50 years of age. [ 5 ] The parties met in the summer of 1989 and were married on September 7, 1991. [ 6 ] The parties have two children: S.M., born May 16, 1999, and K.M., born November 8, 2000 (collectively, the “Children"). [ 7 ] The respondent is a successful businessman who is a shareholder, director and/or officer in a number of different companies.

He is the biological father of the Children. [ 8 ] The claimant is an accountant and a businesswoman.

She is the biological mother of the Children. [ 9 ] The parties own a piece of recreational property at Cluculz Lake, British Columbia (the “Cabin"). [ 10 ] On December 24, 2012, as a result of the respondent‘s infidelity, the parties had a physical altercation while at the Cabin. [ 11 ] On December 27, 2012, the parties separated. [ 12 ] The claimant filed her notice of family claim on March 1, 2013. [ 13 ] The claimant also made an ex parte application to restrain the respondent from disposing of any family assets or assets that he had a personal interest in on March 1, 2013.

On March 1, 2013, Master Tokarek pronounced that order. [ 14 ] On April 5, 2013, a judicial case conference was held on this matter.

[ 15 ] The respondent filed his response to family claim as well as a counterclaim on April 12, 2013. [ 16 ] There have been numerous applications and orders made since April 2013. In particular, on April 5, 2013, Master Scarth ordered that a report be prepared pursuant to

section 211 of the Family Law Act , S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (the " FLA "). [ 17 ] On April 3, 2014, I granted an interim order that the claimant would assume all interim parenting responsibilities for the Children. The respondent would have reasonable parenting time with S.M. and reasonable parenting time with K.M. at her request. I also granted orders relating to counselling for the Children. Those reasons for judgment are indexed at K.M.M. v. D.R.M ., 2014 BCSC 569 .

The Issues [ 18 ] The issues on this trial are custody, guardianship, parenting responsibilities, and parenting time. [ 19 ] There are also issues related to whether or not the claimant has alienated the respondent from the Children and in particular K.M. as well as whether there should be conditions on the respondent’s parenting time with the Children especially in regard to his alcohol consumption. Finally, there is the issue of what counselling, if any, should K.M. and the parties attend. [ 20 ] The claimant seeks sole custody and guardianship of the Children.

The respondent seeks joint custody and joint guardianship of the Children with the Children spending equal time with each parent. The Evidence [ 21 ] The following is a

summary of the relevant evidence in this trial. I have refrained from including the volumes of text messages and e-mails, which show little more than each parties’ animosity towards the other. I have included those messages that are specifically relevant to issues on this trial. The Claimant’s Case The Claimant [ 22 ] The claimant has been working in the field of accounting since she was 22 years of age. In 2003 she received her professional designation as a Certified Managerial Accountant ("CMA"). She typically works seven and a half hours per day, Monday through Friday.

She testified that she has flexibility in terms of when she can leave work during the day. She works overtime hours when required and particularly at month-end or year-end. [ 23 ] When the child S.M. was born, the claimant was on maternity leave for seven months. She breastfed him for ten months. She acknowledged that the respondent attended pre-natal classes with her and attended doctor appointments.

She testified that the respondent did not make any changes in his work hours after S.M. was born. [ 24 ] The claimant testified that she took ten months maternity leave when the child K.M. was born. [ 25 ] The Children both attended daycare. However, given the difference in their ages, they attended at different daycares.

The claimant said that she arranged the Children's attendance at these daycares. [ 26 ] In May and June 2001, the claimant was in Edmonton, Alberta for ten days to prepare for her CMA exams. [ 27 ] The claimant testified that her parents, in particular her mother, assisted her greatly in the care of the Children. [ 28 ] The claimant testified that she arranged and attended most of the Children's recreational activities. [ 29 ] The claimant testified that, in the two years prior to their separation, the respondent was frequently out of town on business.

She also testified that he was involved in a number of political endeavors and sat on a number of boards. [ 30 ] The claimant testified that the respondent did not actively engage in parenting when he came home from work. He would often go downstairs and watch TV or be on his computer. [ 31 ] The claimant testified that she fought with the respondent frequently about his alcohol consumption. She recounted an incident when they were at the Cabin where the respondent came back from a neighbour’s house intoxicated.

There was also another occasion when he came home intoxicated and fell into a bathtub. [ 32 ] The claimant testified that S.M. went to Vancouver with the respondent and the respondent’s father to watch a Canucks hockey game during the Easter break in 2012. S.M. told her that the respondent became intoxicated at the hockey game and then left him in a hotel room so that he could go drinking. S.M. said that he watched two and a half movies before the respondent returned. [ 33 ] The claimant testified that S.M. was bullied in sixth grade.

Both of the parties dealt with this incident. [ 34 ] The claimant testified that the respondent on occasion bullied S.M. by negatively commenting about his weight and telling him he had a "Buddha belly".

[ 35 ] The claimant testified that K.M. is a strong-willed, independent, and assertive girl. [ 36 ] The claimant testified that the respondent had five or six companies at different times. He sat on the board of the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce as well as other boards and he was very busy. [ 37 ] The claimant testified that in the fall of 2012 the respondent was away on business on numerous occasions. She stated that the Children were vocal about his absences. [ 38 ] The claimant also testified that, in November 2012, the respondent was away on business over the course of her birthday.

The parties had correspondence during this time period where it is clear that the respondent was upset about a pending court case and the likelihood of him being served with court documents. [ 39 ] On December 24, 2012, the parties and the Children were at the Cabin. The claimant woke up in the early morning and found the respondent’s phone. She saw some personal text messages from the respondent to another woman. [ 40 ] The claimant then went into the bedroom where the respondent was sleeping and she hit him on the hip three times with her wrist. They had an argument.

The claimant had the respondent’s phone and sent a message to the other woman to stay away from her husband. [ 41 ] The parties fought over the phone and the respondent grabbed the complainant’s wrists and pushed her into a couch, face down, with his knee on her back. She could not breathe and yelled out for someone to call 911. K.M. heard the commotion and yelled out to the respondent two or three times "daddy please stop". [ 42 ] During this altercation, the claimant bit the respondent on his hand.

She said there has never been an incident of violence like this before. [ 43 ] The parties stayed at the Cabin over the Christmas holidays. There was discussion about the respondent’s infidelity, which he denied. The parties came home on December 27, 2012. [ 44 ] On December 28, 2012, the respondent sent a text message to the claimant which, in part, stated that he was going home to say goodbye to the Children. About 20 minutes later, K.M. phoned the claimant, crying and telling her that the respondent "didn't do what you think he did". The claimant asked her mother and sister to go to the family home.

The claimant became concerned because the respondent took a gun to the Cabin and left a number of papers at the house including his will. He also left a note which stated, “OK it's all my fault”. [ 45 ] The claimant and her sister drove to the Cabin where they met the respondent and retrieved the gun that he had taken with him. [ 46 ] The parties exchanged a number of communications by text message in January 2013.

The claimant made it very clear in those messages that she was the primary caregiver for the Children and that she would only agree to every other weekend access for the respondent. [ 47 ] The claimant told the respondent on January 21, 2013 that the marriage was over. [ 48 ] The claimant enrolled the Children in counselling to help them with the separation. [ 49 ] The claimant testified that, on February 17, 2013, K.M. was with the respondent at his new residence. She was talking to K.M. on the phone when the respondent yelled out "I love you mommy".

The claimant felt that this sent the wrong message to the Children. She ultimately told the Children that the parties were getting a divorce. Clearly given the messages that had been exchanged between the parties prior to this point they had agreed not to tell the Children about their divorce until they had developed a parenting plan. [ 50 ] The claimant also testified about an incident where S.M. told her that the respondent had asked him to tell a process server that the respondent was not home. An

article came out in the local newspaper about the respondent evading service of court documents. The claimant became concerned that the

article made reference to S.M. The claimant talked to S.M. about this and he became angry and phoned the respondent. This telephone call was on speakerphone. The respondent apologized to the child for this. [ 51 ] It should be noted that while the newspaper

article mentions a teenager it does not mention S.M. by name though it could be inferred that he was related to the respondent from the information in the article. [ 52 ] The claimant testified that, on February 20, 2013, after a visit with the respondent, S.M. told her that he knew that his father had had a "fling" and that the claimant was making a big deal of it. [ 53 ] On February 25, 2013, K.M. was up most of the night sick. The claimant text messaged the respondent telling him not to pick the Children up in the morning as K.M. was not going on her school ski trip.

This message was sent around 3 a.m. [ 54 ] The respondent arrived at the family home to pick up the Children that morning. The claimant told the Children to stay in the car as they were driving out of the driveway and the respondent tried to get the Children out of the car. The claimant called the RCMP. The claimant testified that she was unable to drive away initially however ultimately she was able to leave.

Nothing occurred with the RCMP. [ 55 ] On February 28, 2013, the claimant received a call from S.M. who was at school and upset because the respondent had come to see him there and pulled him out of his class. The respondent had asked S.M. why he did not love him anymore. [ 56 ] The claimant arranged to have the respondent served with the notice of family claim on March 1, 2013. Ultimately she decided to have him served as the respondent was taking K.M. to counselling. The claimant testified that K.M. was going up the stairs to the counsellor's office and was not near the respondent when he was served.

The claimant said K.M. did not see this process.

[ 57 ] The claimant testified that, during spring break in 2013, the parties had arranged that the Children would be with the respondent for one week. On March 15, 2013, S.M. called the claimant and told her that K.M. and the respondent had a fight and that K.M. was in the closet of the respondent’s house, crying. [ 58 ] The claimant spoke to K.M. and told her to sleep on it overnight and see how she felt in the morning. The plan was that the Children were going to go to Vancouver Island with the respondent the next morning.

When the respondent attended with the Children at the claimant's house to pick up some of their items, S.M. told the respondent that he did not want to go. The claimant testified that both of the Children wanted to stay at home with her. [ 59 ] On March 16, 2013, the respondent requested that the Children come back to his place. It was at this time the claimant says that the respondent first mentioned the term “parental alienation” to her. [ 60 ] The claimant testified that the Children, the respondent and her had a family meeting about the trip to Vancouver Island. A portion of that conversation was recorded.

The audio recording was marked as Exhibit 3 in this proceeding. After that meeting, S.M. was not agreeable to seeing the respondent though K.M. was. [ 61 ] I will note after listening to the audio recording, in my view, the claimant's tone of voice toward the respondent was hostile and belittling. Also, the claimant was argumentative with the respondent during that meeting.

In my view, the claimant manipulated the conversation to inject her point of view into the Children's minds. [ 62 ] The claimant testified that she took the Children for one week of the spring break to visit her relatives in Edmonton. [ 63 ] After the spring break, K.M. went to visit the respondent. During that visit, the respondent and K.M. attended at the local SPCA and picked out some kittens for K.M. to have. [ 64 ] The claimant says that evening K.M. phoned her at 9:30 p.m. and was quite distraught.

K.M. said she had made a mistake by getting the kittens, that she missed her family, and it was too much pressure for her. The claimant testified that K.M. telephoned her at 12:30 a.m. and was still upset. KM was calmed down by 6 a.m. [ 65 ] It was after this incident that K.M. became resistant to seeing the respondent. The claimant then attempted to have the respondent and the Children attend counselling. [ 66 ] In preparation of a

section 211 report, Dr. Michael Elterman interviewed the parties on July 24 and July 25, 2013. The claimant testified that this process was very stressful for the Children and that it took her a number of hours to try to get K.M. to see the respondent so that Dr. Elterman could conduct his interviews. [ 67 ] At page 14 of his report dated September 21, 2013, Dr. Elterman said the following about the claimant: I suspected from some inappropriate smiles that she is subtly happy at the children's turn against their father.

I thought that she lacked empathy for [D.R.M.] feeling rejected by the children. [ 68 ] The claimant denied that she felt happy about the Children's rejection of the respondent and stated that she was nervous during the interview. The claimant also did not agree with Dr. Elterman’s recommendation that the parties share joint guardianship of the Children. [ 69 ] During the summer of 2013, the claimant instructed her lawyer to advise the respondent that she did not want any direct communications with him. [ 70 ] The Children have seen a number of counsellors.

These counsellors have not worked out for a variety of reasons. By October 2013, the claimant found a counsellor named Janice Butler and arranged to have K.M. see her. [ 71 ] The first visit with Ms. Butler was on October 16, 2013. By the fourth session, K.M. was very upset and texted the complainant saying that Ms. Butler compared her to a three-year-old. The claimant testified that K.M. was traumatized after the session. [ 72 ] The plan of Ms. Butler was that K.M. would attend a session at the respondent’s house with the respondent present.

The claimant said that K.M. refused to do this and the claimant tried to arrange with Ms. Butler to have the counselling at Ms. Butler's office. Apparently the claimant and K.M. attended at Ms. Butler's office but she was not there as she was at the respondent’s house. [ 73 ] On October 31, 2013, the respondent called the claimant's house and asked to speak to the Children. K.M. refused to speak to the respondent however S.M. spoke to the respondent. After that, S.M. began seeing the respondent again. [ 74 ] The claimant testified that at Christmas 2013, she set up a

schedule that was roughly allowing for each party to have 50% of the holidays with the Children. She did want specific time however which included Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day. The respondent did not agree to the

schedule and, on December 18, 2013, the claimant was served with an application for custody of the Children by the respondent. [ 75 ] For spring break vacation in 2014, the respondent took S.M. to Disneyland; however, K.M. would not go. [ 76 ] Dr. Elizabete Rocha also began to see K.M. Dr. Rocha is a psychiatrist. However, the claimant says that K.M. told her that she is tired of talking to counsellors and defending herself. [ 77 ] On cross-examination, the claimant agreed that she has worked on occasion to as late as 11 p.m. and on one occasion until 4 a.m. [ 78 ] The claimant also agreed that the respondent’s alcohol consumption did not affect his ability to take the Children to preschool,

elementary school, the ice rink, hockey, power skating, figure skating, swim practice, Scouts, or tae kwon do practice. [ 79 ] The claimant also agreed that she had no information about the respondent’s drinking post-separation. [ 80 ] Interestingly, the claimant agreed that, during a cruise in 2007 which was part of a business meeting for the respondent, the claimant became highly intoxicated and ultimately vomited on the floor of their cabin and passed out. [ 81 ] The claimant also agreed that, during the relationship, the family took many vacations together to places such as Disneyland, Mexico, Palm Springs, Jasper, Edmonton, and Vancouver Island. [ 82 ] The claimant agreed that the respondent had participated in the transportation and attendance of the Children at their pre-school, daycare, and kindergarten.

She also agreed that the respondent along with her attended when the Children each had their first day of school. She also agreed that he attended at the grade seven graduation of K.M.; however, he was not present at the grade seven graduation of S.M. [ 83 ] On cross-examination, the claimant denied that she has turned the Children against the respondent. [ 84 ] The claimant testified that, with regard to the comments by S.M. about the trip with the respondent to the Vancouver Canucks hockey game, she was not told about that incident until March or April 2013.

She agreed on cross-examination that she did not particularly believe S.M. that the respondent was gone long enough for S.M. to watch two and a half movies. [ 85 ] The claimant agreed that the parties could cooperate and come to a consensus with regard to the medical issues of the Children and in particular S.M. She also agreed that when the Children had braces installed the respondent was the one that took them to the appointment.

This was in part because it would be easier for the Children as the claimant acknowledged she did not like to see them in pain or discomfort. [ 86 ] The claimant conceded on cross-examination that she did not support the idea of counselling for the Children and the respondent. [ 87 ] The claimant agreed on cross-examination that S.M. is no longer participating in baseball, tae kwon do, hockey, tennis, golf, or a formal swimming program. [ 88 ] The claimant also testified that the reason that she wanted S.M. to be home by 8 p.m. on school nights if he was visiting with respondent was to provide him with structure and stability. [ 89 ] On cross-examination in regard to the Children's access with the respondent, the claimant said "I have neither made it easier or difficult for you I'm focused on the best interest of the children". [ 90 ] The claimant agreed that she told S.M. about the

article in the newspaper. [ 91 ] The claimant is of the view that the adoption of the kittens was a bad idea and she was aware of that from the beginning. Sandra Miller [ 92 ] Ms. Miller is a piano teacher who has taught piano to both of the Children. The Children came for one hour sessions 35 weeks per year. [ 93 ] Ms. Miller testified that the claimant organized most of the lessons; however, the respondent did organize some of them. [ 94 ] Ms.

Miller was aware of the parties’ separation and she did not notice anything negative in terms of the conduct of the claimant with the Children. [ 95 ] She testified that after the separation S.M. was not as outgoing. Also, he did not want to talk about his week and would easily come to tears. She testified that K.M. adjusted more positively to the separation of her parents. However, she said that in the late fall or early winter of 2013 K.M.’s attitude seemed to go downhill and she was more quiet than normal.

She noticed that K.M. became very anxious. [ 96 ] She testified that K.M. played in a piano recital in December 2013 and both of her parents were there. K.M. was initially reluctant to play at the recital and ultimately she sat up front with Ms. Miller before playing. Her reluctance appeared to stem from the fact that both of her parents were there. [ 97 ] Ms. Miller agreed on cross-examination that both of the parties would pick up and drop off the Children for their lessons. She also agreed that the respondent was at most of the piano recitals. [ 98 ] Ms.

Miller testified that K.M. had told her that she just wanted to be her own person and live at home. [ 99 ] Ms. Miller also testified that she had never seen the respondent intoxicated or heard him call the Children names. Her opinion was that the respondent was a good father. Amanda Whyte [ 100 ] Ms. Whyte provided childcare for the parties for approximately eight or nine years. She testified that the claimant would arrange for her services.

[ 101 ] She cared for the Children one summer. She testified that she would come over to the parties’ home at approximately 8 a.m. and that she used the claimant's car to pick the claimant up and drop her off at work. She took the Children to swimming, golf, and tennis lessons. The claimant gave her the

schedule for the Children's activities. [ 102 ] She testified that she had minimal communication with the respondent. [ 103 ] She saw the Children after the parties’ separation at the claimant's birthday in 2013. She described the Children as being happy and said they did not talk about their relationship with the respondent. [ 104 ] She also described an incident where she attended with the claimant, the claimant's mother, and her own mother, Karen Whyte, in the summer of 2013 at the Cabin. She described that when they arrived the respondent was still there.

The claimant appeared to be frustrated however she did not yell or scream at the respondent. She did not notice any threats, intimidation, or concerning behaviour from either party. [ 105 ] She stated that after the respondent left the claimant contacted the claimant's sister to bring the Children to the Cabin. [ 106 ] On cross-examination, she agreed that she had provided childcare for the Children on occasions when the claimant was working late. [ 107 ] She also agreed on cross-examination that she did not see the respondent scream at the Children or mistreat them. Karen Whyte [ 108 ] Ms.

Karen Whyte is the operations comptroller at the claimant's place of employment. She worked with the claimant from 1988 to 1993. Then again in 2005 until the present. [ 109 ] Ms. Karen Whyte described the claimant as a top-performing employee that had no interpersonal issues with her coworkers and no disciplinary file. She is also a personal friend of the claimant. [ 110 ] She testified that the claimant has a flexible start time to accommodate her family obligations. She did say that her job requirements dictate an average of six to fourteen hours of overtime per month.

Most of these hours are at the month’s end. [ 111 ] She also testified that the company's year-end is December 31 and there would be overtime hours associated with that. [ 112 ] Ms. Karen Whyte also testified that the claimant can bank up to a maximum of 80 hours of overtime. On cross-examination, she stated that the company does not have a policy on overtime hours.

The claimant would have to work at least two hours of overtime before it would show up on a paycheck. [ 113 ] She testified that the claimant is a wonderful mother who spends time with her Children. [ 114 ] She has not observed many interactions between the respondent and the Children. She described him as friendly. [ 115 ] Ms. Karen Whyte testified that, initially after the separation, the claimant was hurt and distraught. She was struggling at work and other employees had to cover for her. She says that she is now functioning at an appropriate level in her employment. [ 116 ] Ms.

Karen Whyte also described an incident in July 2013 when she attended at the Cabin with her own daughter for a barbecue. The respondent was there and Ms. Karen Whyte testified that "we confronted him" as to why he was there on the claimant’s weekend. [ 117 ] She also agreed that she had never seen the respondent treat the Children badly.

She could not comment on which of the parties took the Children to their various activities. [ 118 ] In terms of the claimant's banked overtime, she stated that any current entitlement would already have been earned and she did not agree that the claimant could take off four months from work as a result of her banked overtime. Kerri-Lynn Cayen [ 119 ] Ms. Cayen is the sister of the claimant. She currently resides in Edmonton, Alberta and is a grade one teacher as well as the K- 12 math/science curriculum coordinator in her district.

She has been teaching children for approximately 31 years. [ 120 ] She testified that she is very close to the Children. She talks to them on the phone and comes to Prince George every Christmas. She also comes in the summer to visit. [ 121 ] She described the respondent's interaction with the Children as intermittent. For example, if they were at the Cabin he would only be there part of the day and would often leave until the evening.

Also, if she was looking after the Children at the family residence he would come home from work typically after dinner time. [ 122 ] She also testified that she never saw the respondent engage in "imaginative play" with the Children. He would play videogames with them. [ 123 ] She did describe that she has seen the respondent drink in the presence of the Children. She said that there was more alcohol at the Cabin than at the parties’ home. [ 124 ] She testified that she has not heard the claimant be disrespectful about the respondent in front of the Children. She also observed

the claimant correcting the Children if they were disrespectful toward their father since the separation. [ 125 ] Ms. Cayen testified that K.M. is overly dependent on the claimant. She says that K.M. always wants to know where the claimant is. She described K.M. as a highly intelligent, independent thinker. [ 126 ] Ms. Cayen was present with the parties over the Christmas 2012 holidays. She attended on December 27, 2012 at the parties’ residence where she was greeted by S.M. who was agitated and upset that his dad went to the Cabin with a gun and told S.M. to take care of his mother and sister. [ 127 ] Ms.

Cayen testified that she found papers including a will and a note in the respondent's handwriting at that time. She accompanied the claimant to the Cabin to retrieve the gun from the respondent. [ 128 ] She testified that she has heard the claimant tell the Children that if they want to be at their dad's house more often they just need to tell her. [ 129 ] In February 2013, she contacted the claimant to see how the family was doing. S.M. was talking to the respondent on a different phone. She spoke to S.M. after his conversation with the respondent. She stated S.M. was in tears and said “he never listens to me”.

She testified that she just listened to S.M. until he calmed down. [ 130 ] She also testified that, on another occasion, when she spoke to S.M. he told her that the respondent had told him that he only had sex on four occasions with his girlfriend and that this was because his mother is fat. S.M. told Ms. Cayen “and I'm only a kid”. [ 131 ] Ms. Cayen testified that, on June 27, 2014, she received a telephone call from K.M. who was at Dr. Rocha’s office. K.M. was upset and told her that she wanted to leave this place because they were hurting her.

She wanted to go home, she wanted her grandmother, and she wanted to leave right now. [ 132 ] Ms. Cayen spoke to Dr. Rocha. Ultimately, she determined that K.M.’s grandmother came to get her. [ 133 ] On cross-examination, Ms. Cayen stated that she knew her parents had provided a lot of childcare for S.M. [ 134 ] She could not say when the last time was that she saw the respondent intoxicated. [ 135 ] It became apparent during the cross-examination of Ms. Cayen that much of her information came from the claimant or her mother and not from her personal observations. Patricia Cayen [ 136 ] Ms.

Patricia Cayen is the mother of the claimant. Her husband passed away in 2005. She stated that the respondent assisted with most of the funeral arrangements for her husband and she appreciated that. [ 137 ] She testified that her and her husband assisted with childcare for S.M. until he was 18 months old. She noted that the respondent would often be home late from work. [ 138 ] She testified that the respondent was not around much when the Children were younger.

At the Cabin, she noted that the respondent would take the Children for boat rides or tubing in the water however other than that she did not see a lot of interaction between him and the Children. It was the claimant who looked after them during these times. [ 139 ] Ms. Patricia Cayen stated that she attended all of S.M'.s basketball games and the respondent did not attend any of them. She also attended most of his volleyball games and again she says the respondent did not attend those games.

She attended at the Children's piano lessons and did not observe the respondent there. [ 140 ] She testified that S.M. loves his dad and is always anxious to please him, though he did complain that the respondent called him a “porker” or “Buddha belly”. [ 141 ] She testified that K.M. loves her dad; however, she was not as close to him as SM was. [ 142 ] She testified that she went to the parties’ house in December 2012 with her daughter, Keri-Lynn, where she found the Children upset. S.M. told her that the respondent had left to the Cabin with a rifle.

The respondent had left papers on the island in the kitchen and a note. [ 143 ] S.M. came to her house in February 2013 and he was angry that the respondent had pulled him out of his class at school. [ 144 ] In March 2013, prior to the Children going with the respondent on spring break, she said that K.M. told her she did not want to go. She also testified that S.M. did not want to go. [ 145 ] Ms. Patricia Cayen testified that she took the Children to a counsellor by the name of Lori Larkin in January 2013. She said that there were never any concerns with her waiting in the office waiting room of Ms.

Larkin when the Children were in their sessions. [ 146 ] She also testified that she took K.M. to counselling sessions with Janice Butler. She said that K.M. was crying after the first session. During the second session she said that when the respondent arrived there K.M. back up against her and said “no”. By the third session K.M. was resigned to the visit and went with the respondent. [ 147 ] She testified that at the fourth session with Janice Butler she along with her sister waited in Ms. Butler’s waiting room for K.M. She heard loud voices and heard K.M. crying and saying that she was not a three-year-old.

She said she heard K.M. crying for 20 to 30

minutes. [ 148 ] She also took K.M. to counselling sessions with Dr. Rocha. Dr. Ronald LaTorre [ 149 ] Dr. LaTorre was called as an expert witness on behalf of the claimant. He provided a psychological assessment report dated June 4, 2014. He was qualified as an expert in clinical and forensic psychology. [ 150 ] Dr. LaTorre interviewed the respondent on May 27, 2014. In addition to interviewing the respondent, Dr. LaTorre interviewed the following collateral contacts: (

i) the claimant (ii) David McWalter (iii) Marshall Smith (iv) Ken Umbarger (

v) Courtney Langer (vi) Robert Trowbridge (vii) Grant Dakus I will note that, other than the claimant and Ken Umbarger, none of these collateral witnesses were called on this trial. [ 151 ] Dr. LaTorre opined that the respondent met the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild, In Sustained Full Remission. This means that the respondent does not demonstrate the criteria beyond the minimum required for the diagnosis and none of the criteria have been met at any time during the preceding 12 months. [ 152 ] Dr.

LaTorre opined to the following at page 24 of his report: Additionally, [D.R.M.], on current and previous psychological testing and based upon collaterals interviewed, appears to evidence both narcissistic and obsessive-compulsive traits. Narcissistic Personality disorder is, essentially, a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and lack of empathy. Obsessive -Compulsive Personality disorder is essentially a pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism and control. [ 153 ] On the same page, Dr.

LaTorre went on to say the following: In the present case, I have no information confirming the existence of narcissistic or obsessive-compulsive traits from adolescence or early adulthood. Further, [D.R.M.’s] traits, until relatively recently, served him well in his business dealings and, I will assume, served his family well to some extent. His narcissistic and obsessive-compulsive traits that had become a problem particularly near the end of the marriage were not noted to have been a focus of concern earlier. I am, therefore, reluctant to diagnose the presence of a Personality Disorder at this time.

I would revisit that if additional information were provided specifically with respect to those traits being evident earlier in his life and, particularly, if there were evidence that those traits caused problems earlier. [ 154 ] Dr. LaTorre diagnosed the respondent with narcissistic and obsessive-compulsive personality traits. [ 155 ] On cross-examination, Dr. LaTorre agreed with the respondent that the respondent could have revoked his informed consent to the interview at any time. [ 156 ] On cross-examination, it became clear that the respondent had requested that Dr.

LaTorre review certain affidavit material that the respondent would provide to him. Dr. LaTorre provided the respondent with an e-mail on May 29, 2014 which said, in part: Third, Ms. Specht has indicated that any Affidavit you provide can have a response Affidavit provided by her client. I am informed the Affidavits were given to me to provide context. Given the circumstances, I would suggest you provide whatever Affidavit you think is appropriate. Please do so as early as you can tomorrow[.] [ 157 ] The respondent provided additional material to Dr. LaTorre.

Unbeknownst to the respondent, the following e-mail exchange occurred between Dr. LaTorre and counsel for the claimant, Ms. Specht: Dr. LaTorre wrote at 3:10 PM on May 30, 2014 the following : Hello, Ms. Specht. [D.R.M.] has e-mailed a number of Affidavits to me. I will be forwarding them all to you. Do you have instructions for me?

Ms. Specht wrote at 3:24 PM on May 30, 2014 the following: Hello Dr. LaTorre I would ask that you not read the affidavits at this stage, but instead focus on your assessment of [D.R.M.] and your discussions with the collateral witnesses. If you feel after that you need additional background information on the parenting dispute, which is what the affidavits largely go to, we can discuss it once you have spoken with the collaterals.

I would also have to provide you with all of [K.M.M.’s] materials as well and I am very concerned about the cost of this for my client and I do not see the necessity at this stage until we are able to speak further. Is that acceptable to you? [ 158 ] At 4:41 PM on May 30, 2014, Dr. LaTorre replied and agreed not to review any of the affidavits. This information was never given to the respondent prior to the completion of the report. [ 159 ] That was the case for the plaintiff. The Respondent’s Case Heidi OBorne [ 160 ] Ms. Oborne is the mother of the respondent and grandmother to the Children.

She resides in Campbell River, British Columbia. [ 161 ] She testified that when she would visit she observed the respondent taking the Children to activities such as hockey or swimming. She stated that she had no restrictions on seeing the Children before the parties separated. After the separation, that changed. [ 162 ] Ms. Oborne testified that she had asked the claimant to see the Children without either parent present. She went to a restaurant on one occasion with K.M.

However, the next time she tried to set up a visit with K.M., she was told by the claimant that K.M. wanted the claimant present. [ 163 ] She testified that she had a quick visit on Vancouver Island the summer of 2013 with the Children. The claimant contacted her on that occasion with very little notice. And they only saw one another for a few hours. [ 164 ] Exhibit 4 in this proceeding is a number of text messages that were sent between Ms. Oborne and the claimant during the period of September 27, 2013 to September 30, 2013. These text messages are in relation to Ms. Oborne’s request to see the Children.

They can be summarized as Ms. Oborne requesting from the claimant to see the Children alone and the claimant telling her that the Children do not want to see her unless the claimant is present. [ 165 ] On September 28, 2013 at 5:05 PM, the claimant sent the following message to Ms. Oborne: Well we will be at Original Joes at 5:30 PM. I have asked [K.M.] if she will go without me and she has said no. Come have a dinner with us and see your grandchildren.

The most important thing is to see each other. [ 166 ] The claimant then sent this message at 5:51 PM: We are at the restaurant kids are wondering if you are going to join us. [ 167 ] Ms. Oborne sent this message on September 29, 2013 at 10:39 AM: Why would you tell the children I would be there, when you knew that I wanted one one time with them. This was not in their best interest. I would dearly love to see them by myself I am available at any time Heidi. [ 168 ] The claimant then sent a number of messages to Ms.

Oborne on September 29, 2013, including this one: The children were aware of your visit and know the reason we were going to dinner was to have dinner with you and have a visit with you. It makes no sense that I wouldn't have told them as I had to make arrangements with them. Of course I told them. Your decision to not join us is unfortunate as stated below. If you are available at any time to see the kids today then let me know what time and I will get them together with you as noted below. [ 169 ] It is clear from the messages that were sent that Ms.

Oborne at no time agreed to go to the Original Joe's restaurant yet the claimant took the Children there and told them about the visit. [ 170 ] Ultimately a visit was arranged between Ms. Oborne and SM at a later date. [ 171 ] I find this series of messages disturbing because in the claimant's view she was being accommodating however it is obvious that she does not listen to other people such as the Children's grandmother and displays a strong need to control the Children’s activities. [ 172 ] On cross-examination, Ms. Oborne agreed that the claimant has never said anything negative to her about the respondent.

[ 173 ] She also agreed that the respondent lives in a house that she owns. She testified that she has gifted the respondent between $100,000 and $150,000 in the last two years. [ 174 ] She also agreed on cross-examination that the claimant had offered to have her stay with the claimant when she was in town. Ken Umbarger [ 175 ] Mr. Umbarger is a realtor who resides in Kelowna, British Columbia. He met the respondent in Prince George in 1986 and they have been friends ever since. [ 176 ] He testified that he comes to Prince George on average three times per year.

In March 2013, he was in Prince George and went to dinner with the respondent and the Children at Original Joe's restaurant. He said that they had a nice meal and the visit went well. [ 177 ] He testified that he has never seen the respondent intoxicated though he has seen him drinking before. This would include a three day trip to Las Vegas that Mr. Umbarger and respondent went on. [ 178 ] He also testified that there were two occasions when he thought the claimant behaved oddly.

In his view, she was obsessed about talking about the bullying incident that involved S.M. at two different social functions. [ 179 ] On cross-examination, Mr. Umbarger described the respondent as confident, quick on his feet, and an excellent negotiator. He agreed that he attended a golf tournament with the respondent in Prince George but he could not comment on how much the respondent had to drink. Robert Colby [ 180 ] Mr. Colby is a registered psychologist who provided a psychological assessment report dated April 10, 2014. [ 181 ] Mr.

Colby was qualified as an expert in psychology capable of giving opinion evidence as to whether or not an individual suffers from a mental illness. [ 182 ] Mr. Colby’s report was marked as Exhibit 6 in this proceeding. At pages 6-7 of that report, he said the following: Further scales present [D.R.M.] as similar to individuals who are stable and comfortable with themselves. They are open to expressing their feelings. They present as self-confident and assertive individuals. They are reliable and responsible individuals who are sociable and outdoing.

At the same time, his responses are similar to individuals who were dominant, poised and self-assured. However, they also feel that they are not treated favourably. They feel they are misunderstood and that someone is out to do damage to them. They present as wary and suspicious individuals who may be distrusting and angry. Individuals undergoing matters related to family court and family dynamics may show elevated scores on this scale. However, [D.R.M.]’s scores are in excess of that normed population. Among his responses are the following: Someone has it in for me. I have enemies who really wish to harm me.

People say insulting and vulgar things to me. At the same time, there are no indications of depression or suicidal ideation. There are no indications of anti-social personality and there are no indications of a propensity to engage in substance abuse with the use of alcohol or drugs. The Personality Assessment Inventory administered by Dr.

Elterman was re-scored. [D.R.M.] responded appropriately to the test items in a consistent manner and this would be considered a valid test protocol. [D.R.M.]’s responses are similar to individuals who present themselves in a highly favourable light, free of common difficulties that most people would knowledge. [D.R.M.] presents as similar to individuals who may not acknowledge minor faults and therefore may be uncritical of their own status or of the results of their behavior, as they tend to minimize problems. Due to this degree of defensiveness, the test needs to be interpreted with caution.

It should be stated that individuals going through family litigation matters may score similarly. Further analyses of his test results present him as someone who acknowledges failures in close personal relationships while at the same time having a highly estimated value of their own status. There are no indications of clinical psychopathy. Test results are within the normal framework in regards to matters of undue suspiciousness or hostility. [D.R.M.] does not present as an unhappy or depressed individual, with no heightened level of anxiety. He reports no significant problems with alcohol or drug usage.

His self-concept is that he is a stable and positive individual who is resilient and happy with his life. He presents as similar to individuals who are friendly and extroverted. He enjoys interactions with others. He states that he has a support base to assist him in dealing with any stresses he would encounter. He does not report suicidal ideation or risk of self -harm. His temper is reported to be within a normal framework. Possible diagnostic considerations would be Adjustment Disorder or Personality Disorder with narcissistic features.

Neither of these possible diagnoses is felt to be indicated. [ 183 ] On cross-examination, Mr. Colby agreed that the scope of his report was to perform a psychometric assessment. [ 184 ] Mr. Colby agreed that if he had more information that the respondent had problems with his business partners that may have influenced his opinion. He also agreed that the respondent had a few features of narcissistic personality disorder. [ 185 ] Mr. Colby however did state that if someone has narcissistic traits or is a narcissist they would not likely come for therapy.

This is because in such a person’s mind, he or she has nothing to change.

[ 186 ] Mr. Colby indicated that he did not find any issues of alcoholism however he did rely on Dr. Michael O'Malley and Dr. Kathleen Reay’s reports. These reports were not admitted as evidence at this trial. Janice Butler [ 187 ] Ms. Butler is a counsellor who provided services to the respondent and K.M. in October 2013. She was contacted initially by the claimant to provide those services. [ 188 ] Ms. Butler indicated that she met K.M. on four occasions in her office. K.M. was somewhat anxious and angry during the sessions which escalated to K.M. jumping out of her chair and screaming at Ms.

Butler's office door on the fourth session. [ 189 ] Ms. Butler indicated that the only difference she was aware of between the different sessions has that on the fourth occasion K.M. was accompanied by her grandmother to the counselling session. [ 190 ] As a result of the incident with K.M. at the fourth session, Ms. Butler wanted to have further sessions with K.M. at the home of the respondent. These sessions did not occur. Ms. Butler felt that the claimant was interfering with the counselling because she did not bring K.M. to the further sessions. [ 191 ] Ms.

Butler testified that the respondent's home was suitable for a child to reside at in her observation. She did not witness the respondent being intoxicated or verbally abusing anyone. K.M. denied any abuse of any kind to her during the counselling sessions. [ 192 ] Ms. Butler did not feel that counselling could be successful if there was parental alienation. She found it unusual that K.M. said things such as the respondent was "never present and never spent time with her". Ms. Butler said that the claimant had told her similar things. [ 193 ] On cross-examination, Ms.

Butler said that the respondent told her that this was a case of severe parental alienation. She could not remember what specific materials were sent to her by the respondent prior to the meetings with K.M. She also agreed that the respondent gave her recommendations as to what should occur during the sessions and that she followed some of them. She also agreed that she was not an expert in parental alienation. [ 194 ] Ms. Butler made no observations of K.M. that would suggest that she is suicidal. [ 195 ] Ms.

Butler did say that “parental alienation syndrome” is not a clinical term but more of a legal term. [ 196 ] Ms. Butler agreed that K.M. was frustrated with her communication with the respondent because he did not hear her and he twisted the truth. [ 197 ] Ms. Butler explained that, during the fourth session, K.M. became aware that her grandmother was in the waiting room and that is when she began to act out. She did agree that her grandmother did not do anything to incite this behaviour in K.M. nor did she try to come into Ms. Butler's office. [ 198 ] Ms.

Butler did provide a letter to the respondent dated November 1, 2013 in which she noted that she had observed some behaviours that fit with the criteria of parental alienation. She recommended removing the Children from the claimant for a short period of time and placing the Children with the respondent. [ 199 ] On cross-examination, she agreed that she only talked to the respondent before writing her letter of November 1, 2013. [ 200 ] She also agreed that she was not aware that S.M. had made similar complaints about the respondent not being “present” for the Children. [ 201 ] Ms.

Butler agreed that the claimant was committed to counselling and supportive of counselling. She agreed that, after the fourth session, the claimant was willing to take K.M. to counselling, just not at the respondent’s house. [ 202 ] Ms. Butler agreed in cross-examination that, during the fourth counselling session, she did say to K.M. that she was acting "like a 3-year-old". She said she did apologize for that comment to K.M. [ 203 ] Ms. Butler was also cross-examined on a number of e-mails sent between her and the respondent. In my view, there was a disturbing amount of influence being directed toward Ms.

Butler from the respondent. In particular, in an e-mail from the respondent to Ms. Butler dated October 23, 2013, the respondent makes no less than nine recommendations for what should occur with regard to K.M. There are other e-mails of this nature. [ 204 ] It should be noted that Ms. Butler did not provide an expert report nor was she qualified as an expert in this proceeding. Dr. Liam Higgins [ 205 ] Dr. Higgins is a family physician who has been the parties’ doctor for many years. He delivered the Children. [ 206 ] Dr. Higgins was not tendered as an expert witness. [ 207 ] Dr.

Higgins testified that, with regard to the Children, both the claimant and respondent brought the Children to his office on almost an equal basis. Dr. Higgins testified that the claimant probably bought the Children 60% of the time and the respondent 40% of the time.

[ 208 ] Dr. Higgins indicated that he had seen both of the parties somewhat angry in his office though he felt this was stress-related. [ 209 ] Dr. Higgins testified that the complainant authorized him to give all information to the respondent with regard to the health issues of S.M. He said that neither party tried to exclude the other from this information. S.M. was diagnosed with a rare condition called anaplastic lymphoma of a cutaneous variety. [ 210 ] Dr. Higgins testified that he did not see K.M. as much as S.M.

He felt that K.M. was more traumatized and not coping as well with the separation of her parents. [ 211 ] Dr. Higgins felt that both of the parties were caring parents. N.M. [ 212 ] N.M. is the father of the respondent. He is 77 years of age and has suffered from a number of health problems in recent years. As a result of his health problems, he does not consume alcohol very often. [ 213 ] He testified that he separated from his wife Heidi Oborne many years previously. He is currently remarried. [ 214 ] N.M. testified that the respondent was a happy father who had a good relationship with his wife and kids.

He observed the respondent changing diapers, preparing meals, and feeding the Children when they were younger [ 215 ] He also observed the respondent playing with the Children. He said that when the Children were infants he did not observe the respondent consuming alcohol. [ 216 ] N.M. also observed the respondent taking the Children to and from their respective daycares. He also testified that the respondent was involved in attending at and taking the Children to recreational activities as well as afterschool tutoring programs.

N.M. specifically testified that when he was younger he played semi-pro soccer and that he observed both the Children during their soccer practices along with the respondent. [ 217 ] N.M. testified that he visits the children two to three times per year. Prior to the separation, he never observed the respondent to physically or emotionally abuse the Children or yell at them. [ 218 ] He testified that, when he was visiting at the Cabin, often the claimant would have to work late and not come until 7 or 8 p.m. [ 219 ] He testified that he has been at the respondent's new home and he was there when K.M. was there.

She was happy with her room. K.M. told him that she really liked the house. [ 220 ] N.M. was present when the respondent and S.M. went to the hockey game in Vancouver. The three of them spent the day together and shared a hotel room that night. N.M. did not drink alcohol at the game. He testified that the respondent had a drink however he denied that the respondent had three or four beers. He said the three of them went back to the hotel between 9:45 and 10 p.m. He stated that S.M. was left in the hotel room and he and the respondent went downstairs to the hotel bar.

They were back in the room by 11:30 or 11:45 p.m. [ 221 ] He testified that S.M. at no time complained about this to him. [ 222 ] N.M. agreed that the respondent had taken him and S.M. to Disneyland in 2014 and it was a great trip. [ 223 ] He testified that, over the course of 2013, he had difficulties arranging access to the Children with the claimant. [ 224 ] On cross-examination, he agreed that, in January 2014, the claimant contacted him to take K.M. to a movie. [ 225 ] On cross-examination, he agreed that he was very angry when he found out that the claimant had obtained a financial restraining order which he felt restrained some of his personal accounts.

He said within five or six days these accounts were no longer the subject of the restraining order. He agreed that he voiced his opinion to the claimant about this. He did agree that if he was wrong he would apologize to her. [ 226 ] He also agreed on cross-examination that it would be inappropriate for the respondent to talk to S.M. about his affair.

He does not know whose fault it is with regard to the state of the Children's relationship with the respondent. [ 227 ] He agreed on cross-examination that he has not heard the complainant speak negatively about the respondent in the presence of the Children. [ 228 ] He also agreed that the claimant helped to repair his relationship with the respondent which was strained in years gone by. [ 229 ] He agreed that the respondent belongs to a number of different organizations and is a busy man. [ 230 ] N.M. believes that the respondent had an equal role in raising the Children. [ 231 ] N.M. believes that the complainant is an excellent mother who puts the Children as a top priority.

Sandra Menge [ 232 ] Ms. Menge is a friend of the respondent who has known him since the summer of 2012. She had spent some time socially with

both the claimant and respondent which included Thanksgiving dinner in 2012. Her impression was that they had a wonderful relationship. [ 233 ] After the parties separated, she testified that the respondent stayed with her and her partner, Gorden Langer, for four or five days. During that time, she did not hear the respondent speak of being suicidal or say anything negative toward the claimant. [ 234 ] On one occasion after the parties separated, Ms. Menge and Mr. Langer accompanied the respondent, S.M., and K.M. when the respondent was house hunting.

She said it was a pleasurable couple of hours and that the Children were fighting over which room they would get. She also indicated that she never saw the Children exhibit any fear of the respondent. [ 235 ] On another occasion, Ms. Menge and Mr. Langer came to the respondent's house to help set up furniture. K.M. was present and showed Ms. Menge her room. She indicated that she spent more time with K.M. on that occasion as the respondent was helping to put furniture into S.M.’s room. She described the Children as being happy on that occasion. [ 236 ] Ms.

Menge describes the respondent’s home as being beautiful and safe. [ 237 ] Ms. Menge testified that she has seen the respondent with S.M. on numerous occasions. She describes S.M. and respondent as having a wonderful relationship. [ 238 ] On cross-examination, Ms. Menge stated that she has not seen K.M. since March 2013. Ms. Menge testified that the respondent has never talked to her about the complainant alienating the children from him. [ 239 ] Ms. Menge agreed that, prior to the parties separating, she only spent a few hours with the family. Dr. Elizabete Rocha [ 240 ] Dr.

Rocha has a PhD in clinical psychology. She was contacted by the complainant in the first week of May 2014 about conducting eight court-ordered counselling sessions. [ 241 ] Dr. Rocha testified that the respondent sent her a large volume of documents to review. [ 242 ] Dr. Rocha testified that when she first saw K.M. she was a typical 13-year-old girl. Dr. Rocha testified that K.M. initially would not attend counselling sessions with the respondent. Dr. Rocha stated that K.M.’s dislike or hatred for the respondent was absolute. [ 243 ] Dr.

Rocha challenged K.M. on her views that the respondent was evil and the claimant was all good. [ 244 ] Dr. Rocha testified that, during one counselling session, the respondent apologized to K.M. though she did not seem to believe the apology. [ 245 ] Dr. Rocha is of the view that K.M. has alienated herself from her relationship with her father. [ 246 ] Dr. Rocha also explained the pros and cons of different counselling options. [ 247 ] Dr. Rocha provided a counseling

summary report on June 27, 2014. In that report Dr. Rocha made six recommendations to be considered for K.M., which can be summarized as follows: 1. Continued work to repair the damaged relationship with father; 2. Continued contact with father is important; 3. Continued individual therapy; 4. Consider integrative family therapy or structured reunification therapy approach; 5. Consider inclusion of extended family in therapy approaches; and 6. Consider intensive reunification efforts. [ 248 ] Dr.

Rocha wrote the following in her report of June 27, 2014 at page 5: [K.M.] is a strong and articulate girl who has the potential to be resilient in the face of the family conflict. From my interactions with her parents, both parents are dedicated to [K.M.] and her well-being. There is also a strong support of extended family network that she is close to; these connections which will help build resilience for her. As much as possible, I encourage the family to focus on strengths that will support reunification and healthy relationships. [ 249 ] In a letter dated January 24, 2015, Dr.

Rocha summarized her counselling sessions with the parties. She had been contacted by the parties to provide interim counselling sessions while the family was in the process of arranging integrated family therapy to support parent/daughter reunification and address family dynamics that had been occurring in the context of a high conflict parental separation. [ 250 ] In that letter, Dr. Rocha wrote the following with regard to the claimant and respondent’s presentation: Both parents were generally cordial to one another and were mostly amenable to redirection when I interjected to request it.

Nonetheless, there was considerable acrimony present when family issues were being discussed. For example, Mom referred to Dad as a liar on multiple occasions, and Dad made comments about Mom creating drama where none existed and about not being genuine about her

comments. It is certainly clear that when discussing the same event, both parents may come away with a very different

interpretation of that event. There is disagreement about what the important issues are that need to be resolved and how to do so. [ 251 ] Dr. Rocha went on to say the following: Overall, some gains were made over the course of the sessions. The family had not sat in the same room together for a very long time, as per their reports. As evidenced by the brunch on Christmas Eve, they were able to have small, seemingly late conversations that focused on issues such as the kids’ activities or current events.

Also, [K.M.] made some gains in starting to voice concerns to her Dad and gains in her ability to be in the same space as Dad. I am hopeful that the Family Forward Reunification Therapy will facilitate the productive work needed to help the parents minimize the negative consequences of the separation. The children have the potential to be resilient in the face of strong parental discord. It is incumbent on both parents to work hard to make changes during the course of the Family Forward program.

I suggest that Mom, Dad, [K.M.] and [S.M.] be the initial focus of the session, as opposed to having extended family present. It would be worthwhile to review the options for family therapy after the completion of [the] Family Forward[] program. Maintenance of the gains achieved during treatment will be very important and some ongoing work may be needed; perhaps there may be a local option for this work.

As I have said before, I encourage the family to focus on strengths that will support reunification and healthy relationships. [ 252 ] The Family Forward Reunification Therapy Program is a counselling and therapy program situated in the lower mainland of British Columbia. It is designed to assist parents and their children in high conflict separations. Its particular area of expertise was recently explored by Mr. Justice Kent in N.R.G. v. G.R.G ., 2015 BCSC 1062 at paras. 241-260 .

In the circumstances of N.R.G. , the program was held to be in the best interests of the children and full participation was incorporated into the parenting order issued by the court: para. 329. The Respondent [ 253 ] The respondent testified that, when the claimant was pregnant with S.M., he attended pre-natal classes with her. He also testified that he was present for the birth of S.M. [ 254 ] The respondent testified that when K.M. was born, the parties chose the date as the claimant was going to have a C-section.

He testified that he had a good relationship with K.M. as she was growing up. [ 255 ] The respondent recounted an incident in June 2013 when he attended an awards ceremony for S.M. He arrived at the venue and K.M. jumped into his arms. She told him that she loved him. He noted that the claimant would not walk with him or the Children going into the venue.

He said that, after the award ceremony, K.M. gave him a hug and then looked at the claimant who said “no”. [ 256 ] The respondent believes that this is one of the incidents that confirm that the claimant alienated K.M. from the respondent. [ 257 ] As of the end of this trial, the respondent will have only seen K.M. for approximately 12 hours in the last 18 months. [ 258 ] The respondent stated that the only disagreement in regards to the Children between him and the claimant is the amount of time that he would spend with the Children.

The respondent believes the Children should be with each parent equally. [ 259 ] The respondent testified that he participated in every aspect of the Children's lives.

He attended church with them, their first day of school, and took them to their various recreational activities. [ 260 ] The respondent testified that the parties are able to agree on parenting decisions involving S.M. [ 261 ] The respondent along with the claimant and the Children prior to separation went on many family vacations to such places as Disneyland and Mexico. [ 262 ] The respondent participated in the Children's counselling that they have had since separation. [ 263 ] The respondent testified that, on March 1, 2014, he was taking K.M. to a counselling session when he was served with his divorce papers.

The claimant was present to watch this happen. [ 264 ] The respondent said that the claimant has worked very hard in her career. He remembers that she was away from home a lot when S.M. was younger. He also testified that the claimant's overtime is significant and he has observed her working on many occasions until 1 or 2 a.m.

He also recalls on one occasion that she worked until 5 a.m. [ 265 ] The respondent testified to and went through numerous pictures which portrayed family vacations, family Christmases together, and different events that the parties and the Children had participated in. [ 266 ] The respondent testifies that, while he has been a member of a variety of different boards, he presently only sits on the board of the Rocky Mountain Rangers. [ 267 ] The respondent testified that S.M. has mild attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and that he attended all meetings with the Child Development Center in that regard.

He also drove or picked up the Children from their daycare. He attended most medical appointments with the Children. [ 268 ] The respondent testified that he does not have a drinking problem. Alcohol has never interfered in his professional life or with his children. The respondent testified that he may drink on one or two occasions per week and then only have two beers. [ 269 ] With regard to the Vancouver Canucks hockey game, he said that he attended with his father and S.M. After the game he had perhaps two glasses of wine. They were gone for maybe one to one and a half hours.

S.M. told him that it was the best trip that he had

been on. [ 270 ] The respondent denies being suicidal or telling anyone that he was going to kill himself at the time of the separation. He testified that when he went to the Cabin in December 2012, he packed his clothes, a computer, a weight set, and an old 22 calibre rifle. He also said that the documents that were in the family home were there because the claimant had asked for those documents a number of weeks earlier and they had been sitting there for some time.

He agrees that the claimant and her sister came to the Cabin and retrieved the rifle. [ 271 ] The respondent said that early on in the separation he had difficulty seeing the Children. When K.M. sent the claimant a message that she wanted equal time with her parents the claimant told the respondent that he had put K.M. up to this. [ 272 ] With regard to the process server incident concerning S.M., the respondent testified that he was not aware that it was a process server at the door when S.M. answered it. He also noted that it was the claimant that told S.M. that he was mentioned in the newspaper article.

However, the respondent did apologize to S.M. for this incident. [ 273 ] The respondent described the events surrounding the adopting of the kittens for K.M. as a happy experience. She had a wonderful time with the kittens and he was surprised when she wanted to return the kittens. [ 274 ] The respondent testified that he was quite upset that, between July 2013 and October 2013, he did not receive a single response to his inquiries about the Children from the claimant. [ 275 ] The respondent described the ski trip incident as the claimant asking him to pick up K.M. as she needed to go to school early.

He attended to pick up the Children and the claimant told him no. He asked the Children to hop into his truck and when the Children started to go toward his truck the claimant yelled at them to get back into her vehicle. Words were exchanged and the claimant drove away. [ 276 ] The respondent is of the view that the claimant influenced the Children not to go to Vancouver Island with him for spring break 2013. [ 277 ] Since separation and more recently, the respondent has re-established his relationship with S.M.

The two of them, along with an N.M., went to Disneyland in 2014. [ 278 ] The respondent testified that all of the counsellors that the Children saw were selected by the claimant. The respondent feels that the claimant sabotaged the counselling sessions with Ms. Butler by having her mother there which caused K.M. to act out. [ 279 ] The respondent testified that it was very upsetting for him when K.M. started seeing Dr. Rocha for counselling as it was apparent that her situation with him had deteriorated.

The respondent agreed that in one of the counselling sessions K.M. left and he went looking for and found her near the back door entrance of Dr. Rocha’s building. He did agree that he grabbed onto her and ultimately she started screaming and K.M. told the respondent that she hated him. [ 280 ] Exhibit 10 in this proceeding is a recording of a conversation that the respondent had with the claimant shortly after the claimant's brother had passed away.

While I understand the grief and stress the claimant must have been under, her tone and manner of speaking to the respondent was full of hatred and seemed out of place. [ 281 ] The respondent says that the physical altercation at the Cabin in December 2012 was initiated by the claimant and that all he did was try to restrain her after she struck him.

He also testified that she bit him on his wrist and provided a picture of that wound, which showed a minor aberration to his wrist. [ 282 ] On cross-examination, the respondent denied trying to manipulate the counsellors by providing them with voluminous documents and his opinions.

He did agree that he has worked in counselling on communicating better with the Children and agreed that he needs to do that. [ 283 ] The respondent agreed on cross-examination that when he told S.M. about his affair that was wrong. [ 284 ] The respondent agreed that he has done extensive research on the concept of parental alienation. [ 285 ] The respondent also said that prior to separation he had never had a fight with K.M. Now she tells him that she hates him and is angry with him all the time. [ 286 ] The respondent testified on cross-examination that he took the bullying incident with S.M. seriously.

The respondent testified that was one of the reasons the parties put S.M. into tae kwon do classes. [ 287 ] The respondent agreed that in the past he was a member of the BC Chamber of Commerce, he was on the Museum board in Prince George, as well as on the Prince George Chamber of Commerce. He was also a member of the BC Railway Board. [ 288 ] The respondent also agreed that he has been on many trips away from home without the Children or the claimant. [ 289 ] The respondent agreed that he was away on numerous occasions in the last eight months prior to separation.

He also agreed that S.M. had sent him a letter prior to separation expressing his feelings to his dad. That letter reads as follows: Dear dad You know I love you very much, but sometime and Most of the time you are not there for me and the family. You may come to all my hockey games but you text all the time. I have always wished to just grab the phone and smash, burn, and drown it in the lake. You're gone for long periods of time in Vancouver, trail and other places. I used to miss you a whole lot. But now I do not care whatsoever. Even when you're home it's like you're away.

Always at work, drinking or watching TV downstairs. I feel that you're not proud of me sometimes. It's like you don't care about the family. That work is more important. I can only talk to you this way because whenever I try

face to face its way too awkward. And the only time were alone is when you drive me to school. I love you very much but it is very hard on me and the family because you're away all the time. I love you o so very much from: [S.M.] [ 290 ] The respondent disagrees that he was distracted from his family when he was at home. He did agree that both S.M. and K.M. spoke to Dr. Elterman about his absenteeism. [ 291 ] The respondent said he had a good relationship with the Children; however, he agreed that that may not have been their reality. [ 292 ] The respondent denied calling S.M. a “Buddha belly”.

He did say that he told S.M. that if he ate too much ice cream he would become a "porker". [ 293 ] On cross-examination, the respondent agreed that the claimant confronted him upstairs in the Cabin in December 2012 and hit him three times on his hip. He agrees that he did not have any injuries as a result of that. He then said that he followed the claimant downstairs. He said that he had his phone at this point. He said the claimant tried to grab the phone from him and then that is when she bit him. There was a struggle.

He disagreed that the claimant would not have been able to breathe at any time during the struggle. However he agrees that the claimant's yelling woke up K.M. [ 294 ] The respondent testified that when K.M. came out she did not yell at the respondent to stop but rather she said "you guys are ruining Xmas". [ 295 ] The respondent agreed that he lied about his affair to the claimant. [ 296 ] He agreed that he had a tearful moment when he left the note which said "ok it's all my fault" at the family home in front of the Children. He said he made a mistake in doing that.

He disagreed that he put the package of papers on the island in the kitchen on December 28, 2012 but rather says the documents had been there for a few weeks. [ 297 ] The respondent said that the rifle in the truck had a trigger guard on it.

He said he thought it was a "goofy" request when the claimant and her sister asked for the rifle at the Cabin. [ 298 ] With regard to the ski trip incident, the respondent testified on cross-examination K.M. was not too sick to go when he arrived and he did not understand why the claimant just did not pick up the phone and phone him. [ 299 ] The respondent disagreed on cross-examination that he tried to portray himself as a victim. [ 300 ] On cross-examination, the respondent said that after he spoke to S.M. about the newspaper

article S.M. was in a good mood. The respondent feels that it was the claimant's actions that caused problems with S.M. [ 301 ] The respondent is of the view that it is the claimant's actions that caused various counsellors to withdraw. He says the claimant is the reason that K.M. has not progressed in her relationship with him. [ 302 ] The respondent was cross-examined on a number of text messages that K.M. sent to him. In particular, she asked him to stop coming to her swim practices because it "bothers" her. Also, she asked the respondent to stop talking to her like she was four years old.

I did not get the impression that the respondent felt these were sincere messages from his daughter. [ 303 ] That was the case for the respondent. Dr. Michael Elterman [ 304 ] Dr. Elterman prepared a

section 211 report pursuant to the FLA which is dated September 21, 2013. He attended in Prince George on July 24 and 25, 2013 for that purpose. [ 305 ] Dr. Elterman did not testify at this trial, however, his report has been made an exhibit. Dr. Elterman conducted extensive interviews with the claimant, the respondent, S.M., and K.M.. At page 26 of his report, he states the following: When I look at some of the issues that are presented as critical and serious, I would comment that these seem more like the type of situations where the children's reaction follows the parents’ reaction. The issue about the newspaper

article was clearly poor judgment on the part of [D.R.M.] but it is not the type of event that a teenage boy would become so angry about that he would sever a relationship with his father. Similarly, on the issue of the kittens, I suspect that what upset [K.M.] was less that the kittens were at her father[‘s] and that he would not look after them, but that rather she felt that she had been manipulated into getting the kittens and that it was now her responsibility to come over to look after them. Both of these situations appeared to me to involve some adult

interpretation to the children of the implications for these situations. [ 306 ] Dr. Elterman said this about the Children at page 27 of his report: In speaking to [SM], he described [D.R.M.] as overly critical of him around his sports and that this was detrimental to his self- confidence. I would note that even though this might be true, it does contradict the statement that [D.R.M.] did not participate in the children's sports. I think that [S.M.] is correct when he talks about going to a Canucks game and [D.R.M.] having too much alcohol to drink.

I think that [D.R.M.] underestimates the emotional impact that speaking about his sex life with [his] wife had on [S.M.]. [S.M.] perceives that [D.R.M.] is upset by not seeing him but distances from it by saying that he doesn't know if his father really means it. I asked [S.M.] what issues would need to be addressed in counselling with his father and he says that his father should stop drinking every day and listen more to what they have to say and respect their wishes. [S.M.] says that his father makes promises to change but doesn't

follow-through. When I interviewed [K.M.] and she was asked about her father, she says that she doesn't really know him because he was at work and would be off doing his own thing at home. This is the part that I thought was exaggerated and a form of posturing on her part. When asked what advice she would give him about being a better parent, she says the same thing as [K.M.M.] which is that he should have started years ago. [K.M.] says that she is mad at her father for different reasons and he does not understand or accept this.

On the issue of the kittens, she says that she felt responsible for choosing them and that she felt that they would be looked after better by someone else. I note when interviewing

[…]