D.K.A. v. L.E.A., 2019 BCPC 358

Citation: D.K.A. v. L.E.A. 2019 BCPC 358 Date: 20190806 File No: F-20579 Registry: Fort St. John IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: D.K.A. APPLICANT AND: L.E.A. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L. THOMAS Appearing on their own behalf: D.K.A. Appearing on their own behalf: L.E.A. Place of Hearing: Fort St. John , B.C.

Date of Hearing: May 9-10, June 5-6, 2019 Date of Judgment: August 06, 2019 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The primary issue in this application is whether the applicant, L.E.A., should be allowed to relocate from Fort St John, British Columbia to Greenbelt, Maryland with the parties’ two children: G.N.A., born [omitted for publication], and A.S.A., born [omitted for publication] (collectively, the “Children”). [ 2 ] L.E.A. also seeks an order permitting her to apply for a passport and or travel with the children without the consent of their father, D.K.A. [ 3 ] In January 2019, L.E.A. remarried D.G., who resides and works in Greenbelt, Maryland, and now uses the name L.E.G. [ 4 ] D.K.A. opposes the relocation application. [ 5 ] While it was not part of the Notice of Motion filed on July 11, 2018, L.E.G. filed a Notice of Motion on May 3, 2019 requesting income tax returns be filed for 2017 and 2018.

On May 9, 2019, D.K.A. filed an affidavit containing financial information for 2017 and 2018. [ 6 ] L.E.G. also seeks a review of the child support based on updated financial information filed by D.K.A. [ 7 ] D.K.A. consented to child support being addressed during this hearing. [ 8 ] The Notice of Motion related to the financial information was not addressed at the hearing as time did not permit. I will address the issue of child support at the end of my reasons. [ 9 ] Neither party was represented by counsel for these proceedings.

BACKGROUND OF PROCEEDINGS [ 10 ] The relocation application was filed on July 11, 2018. The matter was before the court January 10, 2019 and was adjourned due to lack of court time for a hearing. On this date, the parties entered into Consent Order that D.K.A. attend at the Calgary Passport Canada Office for the purposes of signing the consent form to obtain a passport and provide written consent so that L.E.G. could travel with the Children to Maryland for 2019 spring break. The visit never occurred due to the delay in obtaining the paperwork. [ 11 ] The relocation hearing took place on May 9 and 10, 2019.

It was scheduled to continue on June 5 and 6, 2019. [ 12 ] The June hearing dates were emailed to D.K.A. on May 10, 2019. On June 5, 2019, by telephone, D.K.A. made an application to adjourn the hearing citing that he could not travel from Calgary to Fort St John due to his father, who was visiting from Chicago, recently suffering a stroke. [ 13 ] L.E.G. opposed the adjournment. [ 14 ] I denied his application on the basis that there was no evidence indicating that his father required 24 hour care to be given by D.K.A.

With his application to appear by telephone D.K.A. provided a letter addressed to the court including terms of an order which he would consent to. However during the hearing of the adjournment application he indicated that was not willing to negotiate those terms in an effort to resolve the matter. [ 15 ] I directed him to attend court for the continuation of the hearing on June 6, 2019.

D.K.A. failed to attend. [ 16 ] At the hearing on May 9 and 10, 2019, L.E.G., D.G., and L.E.G.’s mother, M.C. testified. [ 17 ] On May 10, 2019 D.K.A. testified, giving only evidence in chief. [ 18 ] On June 6, 2019, L.E.G. provided her closing submissions. [ 19 ] In relation to the relocation application, L.E.G. filed three affidavits; June 11, 2018 with the Notice of Motion, July 16, 2018, and on January 9, 2019. (Copies of these were tendered in the binder marked as Exhibit 1 in these proceedings.) [ 20 ] D.K.A. filed one affidavit which, unfortunately, is not in a standard form; containing no narrative, only documents marked as exhibits.

I am unsure of the relevance or meaning of this application, so I did not review it. Only one exhibit, marked “G”, from D.K.A.’s affidavit was referred to in his cross examination of L.E.G. and in his direct evidence. [ 21 ] L.E.G. filed a Notice of Motion with respect to the Relocation on June 11, 2018. [ 22 ] In the court file, but not filed, is D.K.A.’s Notice of Motion and Reply signed on July 12, 2018 and date stamped on July 24, 2018. An unfiled Affidavit of Service indicates these were served on L.E.G. by mail. There is also an Application to Re-set a court date dated July 10, 2018, and not filed.

[ 23 ] On the Notice of Motion, D.K.A. seeks an order to prohibit the relocation of the Children. In the reply he disagrees with the relocation. He indicates that he “feels it is not in the best interests of the children to be estranged from their biological father”. The Notice of Motion indicates that an affidavit is included with the Notice of Motion, however, I have not been able to locate one. Included in the court file date stamped July 24, 2018 is a package containing 74 pages.

Absent from these materials is a narrative to explain the relevance of these materials to these proceedings. [ 24 ] A review of this matter indicates that the parties have been involved in court proceedings since 2012. Up until February 10, 2016, L.E.G. had sole guardianship and sole custody of the Children (Court Order April 5, 2012). D.K.A. had supervised access to the Children until October 10, 2014.

In the February 10, 2016 final consent order, the terms relevant to the relocation application are as follows: • The parties are guardians of the child, G.N.A. under s. 39(1) of the Family Law Act ( FLA ); • The parties are declared guardians of the child, A.S.A.; • D.K.A. will have parenting time to include but not limited to, once per month from Saturday at noon until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. commencing March 19, 2016 and continuing on the third weekend of every month; • D.K.A. will provide his contact and accommodation information to L.E.A. for all parenting time that shall take place in Fort St John, BC, such information shall be provided 24 hours in advance of parenting time. • D.K.A. will provide L.E.A. with 24 hours notice in advance of exercising his parenting time. • The first three (3) parenting times will occur in Fort St John, BC and thereafter the parenting time shall alternate between Grande Prairie, AB and Fort St John, BC. • Under s. 225 of the FLA , the guardians will only communicate with each other by email save and except for emergencies and notice with respect to parenting time; • Neither guardian shall remove the children from Canada without the written consent of all guardians or further Court order; • L.E.A. will have the parental responsibilities for the children; • D.K.A., during parenting time, will have parenting responsibilities of making day to day decisions affecting the children and having day to day care, control and supervision of the children and emergency medical issues relating to the children; and • The parties will attend mediation in the event that there is a material change of circumstances and the guardians require one or any of the provisions of the order to be changed. [ 25 ] The court order also includes a police assist clause which applies to both parties and terms related to their communication with each other and with the Children.

ISSUES [ 26 ] The issue to be decided in this application are as follows: 1. Is the proposed relocation made in good faith? 2. Is there reasonable and workable arrangements proposed to preserve the relationship between the child and the child’s other guardian? 3. Has the other guardian satisfied that the court that the relocation is not in the children’s best interest? [ 27 ] There is no issue with respect to Notice of the Relocation in these proceedings.

In addition to the requirements under the Family Law Act , a term in the 2016 Order prohibits either party from removing the Children from Canada without consent of the other guardian or court order.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE [ 28 ] The parties separated in February 2011 when their eldest son, G.N.A., was 9 months old and L.E.G. was pregnant with their daughter, A.S.A. Since their separation, the Children have resided with L.E.G. in Fort St John. After their separation, D.K.A. moved to Grande Prairie, Alberta, and now resides in Calgary, Alberta. [ 29 ] At the time of these proceedings, G.N.A. was nine years old and A.S.A. was seven years old. [ 30 ] L.E.G. seeks to relocate the Children to Greenbelt in the state of Maryland from Fort St John, a remote northern city located in northeastern British Columbia.

Maryland is located about half an hour from Washington, District of Columbia. [ 31 ] On January 5, 2019 L.E.G. married D.G., who resides and works in Greenbelt. They met in 2014 and since 2016 have been in a relationship. They became engaged in 2017. Moving to Maryland, in L.E.G.’s opinion, is in the best interests for all four members of the family, and presents the most opportunities economically, educationally, and culturally. [ 32 ] L.E.G. is a dual Canadian-American citizen by birth and the Children are eligible to obtain their dual citizenship.

D.G. immigrated to the United States in 2004 from Ghana and became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 2015.

[ 33 ] L.E.G. testified that since 2016 she and the Children have been living in in two bedrooms in her parents’ home with her parents and 17 year old brother. The home is located on an acreage 30 minutes from Fort St John. She pays $800 per month in rent and utilities. The Children commute to and from school by bus. L.E.G. works 40 minutes from the school. The daily commute makes it challenging for the Children to be involved in extra-curricular activities. [ 34 ] L.E.G. says that Maryland offers options of highly rated public and private schools within the vicinity of her proposed workplace.

A wider selection of extra-curricular activities are available to the Children in Maryland as compared to Fort St John. Additional transportation options would give the Children more opportunities for involvement in sports, arts, or academic activities.

Maryland is an ethnically diverse community so the Children would be able to interact with others who share their ethnic background, contrary to the limited cultural diversity in Fort St John. [ 35 ] L.E.G. has extended maternal family within three hours of Greenbelt, which would allow the Children an opportunity to establish relationships with aunt, uncles, and cousins. The Children would be able to attend the annual family reunion usually held in the southern or Midwestern states.

In addition, the Children’s paternal grandfather and his family reside in Baltimore, which is located about a 45 minute drive from Greenbelt. [ 36 ] Since 2012, L.E.G. has been self employed as a dog groomer. Only since the Children reached school age has she earned an income over $30,000 annually. While she considers herself successful, she does not believe that she can advance her career any further in Fort St John due to lack of training and certification available in Northern BC.

On the other hand, moving to Greenbelt offers her more opportunity for work, an increase in salary and more opportunities for certification, training and grooming competitions. [ 37 ] D.G., L.E.G.’s husband, testified that he has worked with the US Library of Congress as a software developer for the past 3 years. He is on contract and expects to remain employed with them. He has a Bachelor of Computer Science from the University of Pennsylvania. His annual salary is $103,435 USD, equivalent to $134,130 CAD (Exhibit 1, Tab 6, para.2).

D.G. testified that he if he were to immigrate to Canada, he would expect a significant pay cut. The immigration process could take a year if not longer.

As a couple they explored their options of relocating to either Fort St John, BC, or Greenbelt, Maryland, and concluded that it would be easier for L.E.G. to relocate as she is an American citizen, there were more employment opportunities for L.E.G. in Greenbelt, considerably less work for D.G. in Fort St John, there would be more educational and extracurricular activities for the Children, and more opportunities to spend time with extended family (Exhibit 1, Tab 6, para. 8). D.G. is prepared to take on the role as a step-father to the Children.

He has, over the last few years, developed a relationship with the Children during visits and through telephone calls and Skype. During his relationship with L.E.G., he was not aware of D.K.A. exercising his parenting time, or following through on telephone calls to the Children.

He observed that D.K.A. did not acknowledge G.N.A.’s birthday which occurred on [omitted for publication] by “reaching out to wish him a happy birthday or to give him a present.” D.G. testified that while he would abide by any court order, he expected that D.K.A. would take the responsibility to facilitate parenting time and not expect others to facilitate it. [ 38 ] M.C., L.E.G.’s mother, testified that she has played an active role with the Children since they were born. She has observed L.E.G. as the primary caregiver.

She is not aware of many visits the Children have had with their father since the couple’s separation. Phone calls with him have been sporadic. She said that she has not heard G.N.A. ask about his father for over two years like he used to when he was younger. From her perspective, L.E.G. has gone beyond the court orders to facilitate D.K.A.’s visits; sending texts or emails to tell him it was his weekend or to confirm he was coming to Fort St John.

She was aware that when D.G. and L.E.G. were taking the Children to Grande Prairie, they contacted D.K.A. to meet them at a restaurant. [ 39 ] She has read some of the email correspondence between D.K.A. and L.E.G. She says D.K.A. makes a lot of accusations in his emails and demands respect from L.E.G., saying things like “you need to respect me” or “you need to show me respect”.

These are the responses to L.E.G. telling D.K.A. that since he did not confirm his parenting time, L.E.G. and the Children have made other plans. [ 40 ] M.C. says the Children are “very excited and a little nervous” about the prospect of moving to a new place and with D.G.

She says the Children will miss their family in Fort St John area however the Children know that they will be returning to visit from time to time and will be in contact in the meantime. [ 41 ] L.E.G. does not consider relocating the Children to Maryland would significantly impact their relationship with their father as he has not made his relationship with the Children a priority. He moved from Fort St John to Grande Prairie in 2011 and then in 2017, moved to Calgary.

She says that he cited time, cost, and driving involved in making the two and half hour trip from Grande Prairie as the reasons he could not exercise his parenting time. Since he relocated to Calgary he has seen the Children once in Fort St John in 2018, citing the same reasons for not exercising his parenting time. He has, on several occasions, asked L.E.G. to bring the Children to see him and offered assistance with transportation or accommodation. [ 42 ] From D.K.A.’s perspective, his relationship has been inconsistent with the Children due to the lack of support from L.E.G. and her family.

This has not allowed him to have a good relationship with the Children. He blames L.E.G. for his financial instability caused by efforts to collect child support. [ 43 ] According to L.E.G., the Children have been experiencing some negative emotions as a result of not seeing their father. G.N.A., so much so that he has been in counselling to work through these emotions. [ 44 ] L.E.G. testified that D.K.A. has failed to exercise his court-ordered parenting time. A detailed record of visits since October 2014 to May 2019 was tendered into evidence by L.E.G. (Tab 1 of Exhibit 1 in these proceedings).

Based on her records, since 2011 the Children have seen their father on average twice a year for a few hours each time. Specifically, D.K.A. saw the Children once in 2018, three times in 2017 and once in 2016. In 2019, D.K.A. made no attempts to exercise his parenting time. Initially she used to make the phone calls to D.K.A. for the Children, now she waits for him to call them. She has been flexible with the telephone calls to accommodate his

schedule however he fails to consistently call. The last time that he spoke to the Children on the telephone was on December 23, 2018. D.K.A. has never had an overnight visit with the Children in his own home. [ 45 ] D.K.A. relocated to Calgary in 2017 from Grande Prairie. He has two Children from a prior relationship, aged 17 and 14 which he found out about two and half years ago. They are now living with him in Calgary and have little or no relationship with their younger

siblings. [ 46 ] According to L.E.G.’s records, only two regularly scheduled visits were cancelled by L.E.G.; once because she and the Children were snowed in and once when he asked her to bring the Children to Grande Prairie and she could not afford to. She did expect that visit to take place in Fort St John but he did not attend. [ 47 ] D.K.A. says when he had asked for parenting time, he was continuously denied. [ 48 ] According to L.E.G.’s records, when parenting time was requested on a few occasions, it was denied because the request was outside the scope of the court order or it was requested without prior notice.

a) These records further indicate that in 2016, D.K.A. never made any requests to exercise his parenting time and cancelled twice.

b) In 2017, in 7 months he never made any requests to exercise his parenting time. He exercised his parenting time on February 18 and 19, and August 5 and 6 for a total of 3 hours. On July 20 th , L.E.G. contacted D.K.A. when she was travelling through Grande Prairie. He met the Children for dinner.

c) In 2018, in 10 months D.K.A. never made any attempts to exercise his parenting time. Two requests were denied in 2018 and he had one 4.5 hour visit. [ 49 ] L.E.G. proposes that parenting time could remain largely the same as the 2016 court order except that D.K.A. would exercise his parenting time in Greenbelt. She considers that the cost of D.K.A. travelling by air from Calgary to Fort St John return would cost the same as D.K.A. travelling from Calgary to Greenbelt. Since he has family in the area, he would not have accommodation expenses.

L.E.G. says that travel and accommodation costs to see the Children in Fort St John was an issue for D.K.A. She also believes that D.K.A. would have more choice of activities with the Children moving to a bigger center. She says that D.K.A. would complain about the lack of things to do with the Children in Fort St John. The telephone contact terms would remain the same. L.E.G. says that she would support and facilitate email communications between the Children and D.K.A. once they are old enough. She will further commit to at least one overnight visit in Calgary each year.

THE LAW [ 50 ] The parties have a court order dated 2016 which sets out parenting arrangements and a term prohibiting either party from removing the Children from Canada. In this case, the relocation application must be considered pursuant to ss. 65 to 69 of the Family Law Act. Section 65(2)(

b) of the Family Law Act confirms Division 6 applies if a child’s guardian plans to relocate with the child, and there is an order respecting parenting arrangements. [ 51 ]

Section 69 of the Family Law Act stipulates what the court must consider before granting an order for relocation: 69

(1) In this section, “relocating guardian” means a guardian who plans to relocate a child.

(2) On application by a guardian, a court may make an order permitting or prohibiting the relocation of a child by the relocating guardian.

(3) Despite section 37 (1) [best interests of child], the court, in making an order under this section, must consider, in addition to the factors set out in section 37 (2), the factors set out in subsection (4) (

a) of this section.

(4) If an application is made under this

section and the relocating guardian and another guardian do not have substantially equal parenting time with the child, (

a) the relocating guardian must satisfy the court that (

i) the proposed relocation is made in good faith, and (ii) the relocating guardian has proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the relationship between the child and the child's other guardians, persons who are entitled to contact with the child, and other persons who have a significant role in the child's life, and (

b) on the court being satisfied of the factors referred to in paragraph (a), the relocation must be considered to be in the best interests of the child unless another guardian satisfies the court otherwise.

(5) If an application is made under this

section and the relocating guardian and another guardian have substantially equal parenting time with the child, the relocating guardian must satisfy the court (

a) of the factors described in subsection (4) (a), and (

b) that the relocation is in the best interests of the child.

(6) For the purposes of determining if the proposed relocation is made in good faith, the court must consider all relevant factors, including the following: (

a) the reasons for the proposed relocation; (

b) whether the proposed relocation is likely to enhance the general quality of life of the child and, if applicable, of the relocating guardian, including increasing emotional well-being or financial or educational opportunities;

(

c) whether notice was given under

section 66 [notice of relocation]; (

d) any restrictions on relocation contained in a written agreement or an order.

(7) In determining whether to make an order under this section, the court must not consider whether a guardian would still relocate if the child's relocation were not permitted. [ 52 ] Section 69(6) sets out how a court is to determine whether a proposed relocation is made in good faith: 69(6) For the purposes of determining if the proposed relocation is made in good faith, the court must consider all relevant factors, including the following: (

a) the reasons for the proposed relocation; (

b) whether the proposed relocation is likely to enhance the general quality of life of the child and, if applicable, of the relocating guardian, including increasing emotional well-being or financial or educational opportunities; (

c) whether notice was given under

section 66 [Notice Of Relocation] ; (

d) any restrictions on relocation contained in a written agreement or an order. ANALYSIS Is The Relocation Application Made In Good Faith? [ 53 ] In this case, since the guardians do not share substantially equal parenting time, the matter is appropriately analyzed under s. 69(4) of the Family Law Act . Even though the 2016 court order does not provide for equal parenting time, D.K.A. never went beyond exercising the parenting time once a month as set out in this order, if at all. In fact, I find that D.K.A. is largely absent in the Children’s lives. He has failed to attempt to exercise his parenting time.

He never exercised any parenting time in 2016, in 2017 he spent 8 hours with the Children and in 2018, spent 4.5 hours with them. From January 2019 to the hearing date in May 2019, D.K.A. failed to exercise any parenting time. [ 54 ] Phone calls to the Children have been similarly inconsistent despite attempts by L.E.G. to accommodate his

schedule and the Children’s schedules. Outside of parenting time, there is no evidence that D.K.A. phones the Children on their birthdays or holidays or sends the Children gifts, cards or mail. Although he believes that L.E.G. has continuously frustrated his attempts to exercise his parenting time, he has seldom chosen to exercise his parenting time, and if he did it was not according to the court order.

If L.E.G. were continuously denying his parenting time, there is no evidence that he sought to enforce his parenting time. [ 55 ] Accordingly, L.E.G. has the burden to satisfy me that she meets the factors in s. 69 (4)(a)(i) ( good faith ), and s. 69 (4)(a)(ii) ( preservation of relationships ).

If she does, pursuant to s. 69(4)(b), the relocation is considered to be in the best interests of the Children, and D.K.A. bears the burden of satisfying me otherwise. [ 56 ] Turning first to the analysis under s. 69(6) the factors I must consider in deciding whether or not the application is being made in good faith are as follows:

a) the reasons for the proposed relocation;

b) whether the proposed relocation is likely to enhance the general quality of life of the child and of the relocating guardian, including increasing emotional well-being or financial or educational opportunities;

c) whether notice was given under

section 66;

d) any restrictions on relocation contained in a written agreement or an order. [ 57 ] I am satisfied that L.E.G.’s proposed the relocation to Greenbelt, Maryland, is being made in good faith. Simply put, she has remarried and wishes to start a new

chapter in her life with her husband and her Children. As a couple they wish to take advantage of a stable two-parent home and move on with their lives. They have been in a holding pattern waiting for the outcome of court proceedings. I do not consider the proposed relocation to be a rash or impulsive decision. It has not been made to intentionally undermine the Children’s relationship with their father. I accept that the relocation has been carefully thought out and researched. [ 58 ] Both D.G. and L.E.G. have allowed their relationship to mature before proposing this move.

They met online in 2014, met in person in 2016, became engaged in 2017 and married in 2019. I accept that D.G. is willing and financially capable of supporting a family of four, should he be required to do so. [ 59 ] I accept that the quality of life of L.E.G. and the Children would be enhanced by relocating to Greenbelt. Employment or career prospects of L.E.G. will be greater and her income, once employed, will be increased by the relocation.

In her industry, she would have more opportunities for employment and to advance her skills and certification than she would in Fort St John. [ 60 ] D.G. has stable employment and is paid well. As such, the couple and the Children would be able to afford to live in their own accommodations contrary to L.E.G.’s current situation where she resides with the Children in two basement rooms of her parents’ home.

I agree, that the Children living in an urban center, they would have a choice of schools; whether public or private schools, and the ability to participate in extracurricular activities, which they do not do here. In addition, the Children would be exposed to ethnic and cultural diversity in Greenbelt contrary to the lack of ethnic and cultural diversity in Fort St John. More importantly, they would have the opportunity to be with people who share their own ethnic background. I agree with L.E.G., this may contribute to better sense of belonging and connection.

2. Is There Reasonable And Workable Arrangements Proposed To Preserve The Relationship Between The Child And The Child’s Other Guardian? [ 61 ] L.E.G. is committed to supporting the relationship between the Children and their father, notwithstanding it being a tenuous connection at this time. I accept her proposal provides the same opportunities for D.K.A. to exercise parenting time and telephone contact as in the past. However, she wants 72 hours’ notice of parenting time as opposed to 24 hours.

L.E.G. is also willing to pay for an annual trip for the Children to Calgary to visit at least one overnight visit. [ 62 ] Moving to an urban centre with improved internet access will allow the Children to have additional access to their father by various electronic means, other than by telephone. In that regard she proposes that the telephone time remain the same, but is willing to be flexible provided it does not disrupt the Children’s schedule. 3.

Has The Other Guardian Satisfied That The Court That The Relocation Is Not In The Children’s Best Interest? [ 63 ] D.K.A. opposes this application stating that “i t is not in the best interests of the children to be estranged from their biological father.” [ 64 ] D.K.A. has not satisfied me that the relocation is not in the Children’s best interest. [ 65 ] Clearly, based on the undisputed evidence of L.E.G., D.K.A.’s current relationship with the Children is estranged by no one’s doing but his own.

Unfortunately, D.K.A. cannot accept his role in creating this situation and would rather blame others for his lack of engagement. He is unable to accept that he has failed to develop a meaningful connection to his Children. If he chose to exercise his parenting time, or at minimum regular telephone calls, or other such communication, he may have been able to accomplish this. He is the only one who can improve the relationship with his Children, should he choose to do so.

If he chooses to improve this relationship, it will take time, consistency, follow through, and must be appropriate to the Children’s emotional and developmental needs. An improved relationship cannot be developed by demanding others to facilitate a relationship to satisfy D.K.A.’s needs or desires. This relationship cannot be forced upon the Children. [ 66 ] At the same time, I have no doubt that D.K.A. sincerely wishes to be involved in his Children’s lives.

Moving forward, it may assist D.K.A. if he engages in a parenting course to provide insight and to assist him in navigating his role and to learn how to best to build a positive relationship with his Children. This may also assist him with improving his communications with L.E.G. which, it appears when he is frustrated, or not getting what he requests regardless of the reasons why it is denied, he becomes accusing and threatening towards her. In particular, I am referring to the exchange of emails between the parents in December 2018 (entered as exhibit “G”).

D.K.A. will need to improve his communication with L.E.G. in order to move forward. CHILD SUPPORT [ 67 ] These proceedings were primarily dealing with the relocation application of L.E.G. L.E.G. raised the matter of child support at the beginning of the hearing and advised the court that D.K.A. is $9,950 in arrears of child support payments. [ 68 ] With D.K.A. failing to attend the remaining two days of the hearing on the issue of relocation, the child support was not discussed any further. [ 69 ] The affidavit filed by D.K.A. on May 9, 2019, does not include sufficient financial information.

It is not in a standard affidavit form; it is an affidavit cover with documents attached. There is no narrative which would explain the relevance of attached documents. As such, I decline to make an order at this time. [ 70 ] I will make an order that D.K.A. provide his financial information on Form 4 , a form relied on in family court proceedings in British Columbia. The specific terms of this Order follows the Relocation Order.

ORDER [ 71 ] For all the reasons discussed in this judgment and based upon the submissions of L.E.G., I order the following: Application To Relocate Children [ 72 ] Upon the Court being advised that the name and birth date of each child is as follows: G.N.A., born [omitted for publication], and A.S.A., born [omitted for publication] (collectively, the “Children”). [ 73 ] The application of L.E.A., also known as L.E.G., to relocate the Children to Greenbelt, Maryland, United States of America is approved, pursuant to section 69(2) of the Family Law Act . [ 74 ] L.E.A., also known as L.E.G., may travel to any location with the Children without the written consent of any other guardian of the Children. [ 75 ] L.E.A., also known as L.E.G., may apply for a passport, Nexus, and other necessary travel documents and their renewals for the Children without the consent of any other guardian of the Children. [ 76 ] D.K.A. will have parenting time to include, but not limited to, once per month from Saturday at noon until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. on the third weekend of every month.

Other times and dates must be agreed to by the guardians at least 72 hours in advance and in

writing. [ 77 ] D.K.A. will provide his contact and accommodation information to L.E.A., also known as L.E.G., for all parenting time that shall take place in Greenbelt, Maryland. Such information shall be provided at least 72 hours in advance of his parenting time.

Other locations of parenting time must be agreed to by the guardians at least 72 hours in advance and in writing. [ 78 ] D.K.A. will provide L.E.A., also known as L.E.G., with at least 72 hours’ notice in advance of exercising parenting time. [ 79 ] L.E.A., also known as L.E.G., will be responsible to transport the Children to Calgary, Alberta, once a year, for the purposes of D.K.A. exercising parenting time.

Specific times and dates to be agreed upon by the guardians at least one month in advance and in writing. [ 80 ] D.K.A. will have reasonable telephone and/or electronic communication with the Children at least once a week at dates and times to be agreed upon by the guardians and in consideration of the Children’s schedules and activities. [ 81 ] Under s. 225 of the Family Law Act , the guardians will only communicate with each other only by email save and except for emergencies. [ 82 ] The parties will: (

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

b) encourage the child(ren) to have a good relationship with the other parent and speak to the child(ren) about the other parent and that parent’s partner in a positive and respectful manner; and (

c) make a real effort to maintain polite, respectful communications with each other, refraining from any negative or hostile criticism, communication or argument in front of the child(ren). [ 83 ] Upon being satisfied that a person has wrongfully withheld a child from a guardian, this Court orders under s. 231(5) of the Family Law Act that a police officer apprehend the child(ren), G.N.A., born [omitted for publication] and A.S.A., born [omitted for publication], and take the child(ren) to L.E.A., also known as L.E.G. [ 84 ] For the purpose of locating and apprehending a child in accordance with this order, under s. 231(6) of the Family Law Act a police officer may enter and search any place he or she has reasonable and probable grounds for believing the child to be. [ 85 ] Under s. 64(1) of the Family Law Act , D.K.A. shall not remove the Children from Canada or the United States without the written consent of L.E.A., also known as L.E.G. [ 86 ] That Court Order granted by the Honourable Judge Bowry on February 10, 2016 is vacated, save and except for the following four terms numbered 16, 17 and 18 and 19: 16.

The Court is satisfied that D.K.A. and L.E.A. are the guardians of the child, G.N.A., born [omitted for publication], under s. 39(1) of the Family Law Act . 17. This Court declares that L.E.A. and D.K.A. are the guardians of the child, A.S.A. 18. Under s. 40(2) of the Family Law Act, L.E.A. will have the following parental responsibilities: (

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

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

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

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

e) making decisions respecting the child(ren)'s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including the child(ren)'s aboriginal identity where applicable; (

f) subject to S. 17 of the Infants Act, giving, refusing or withdrawing consent to medical, dental and other health-related treatments for the child(ren); (

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

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

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

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

k) subject to any applicable provincial legislation, starting, defending, compromising or settling any proceeding relating to the child(ren), and identifying, advancing and protecting the child(ren)'s legal and financial interests; (

l) exercising any other responsibilities reasonably necessary to nurture the child(ren)'s development.

19. Under s.42 of the FLA during parenting time, D.K.A. may exercise the following parental responsibilities: (

a) making day to day decisions affecting the Children and having day to day care, control and supervision of the Children and emergency medical issues relating to the Children. [ 87 ] I will grant leave to L.E.A., also known as L.E.G., to settle the terms of this Order, if required, at the next available family remand date. [ 88 ] The style of cause is changed to the married name of L.E.G., formerly known as L.E.A.

Child Support [ 89 ] In regard to child support, I make the following order: [ 90 ] D.K.A. will complete, file with the Registry of this Court, and deliver to L.E.A., also known as L.E.G., a sworn Financial Statement in Form 4 of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules , including all attachments listed on page 2 of that Form, by August 30, 2019. [ 91 ] Under Section 213(2)(

d) of the Family Law Act , D.K.A. will pay up to $5,000 to L.E.A., also known as L.E.G., if he fails to file financial information in accordance with this Order. This award is in addition to and not in place of any other remedy. [ 92 ] Should extraordinary and special expenses be sought by L.E.A., also known as L.E.G., she will complete and file with the Registry of this Court, and deliver to D.K.A. a sworn Financial Statement in Form 4 of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules , including all attachments listed on page 2 of that Form, by August 30, 2019. [ 93 ] The parties will attend at the Judicial Case Manager to

schedule a court appearance with respect to child support after August 30, 2019. [ 94 ] The signatures of the parties are dispensed with. _____________________________ L. Thomas, PCJ