J.J.A. v. K.A.C. aka K.A.A. Date:, 2017 BCPC 127

Citation: J.J.A. v. K.A.C. aka K.A.A. Date: 20170301 2017 BCPC 127 File No: F10809 Registry: Chilliwack IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: J.J.A. APPLICANT AND: K.A.C. aka K.A.A. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE W.A. YOUNG Counsel for the Applicant: D. Klassen Counsel for the Respondent: M. Walters P. Cote W.L. Scott, Q.C.

C. Arbour S. Sim S. Robinson K. Pollitt Place of Hearing: Chilliwack , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: Dec 17, 2010; Feb 10-11, Oct 19 & 21, 2011; Sept 19-21, 2012; Dec 8, 2014; Jan 12-14, Feb 4 & 11, Mar 17, June 9 & 30, July 6 & 20, Aug 17, Oct 28, Nov 17, Dec 15, 2016; Date of Judgment: March 1, 2017 Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 2 TRIAL HISTORY .......................................................................................................................... 5 PRIOR COURT ORDERS .......................................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 14 The Father ...................................................................................................................... 14 The Father’s Wife .......................................................................................................... 28 Mr.

A.A. ............................................................................................................................ 34 Mr. G.C. ........................................................................................................................... 34 Mrs.

V.A. .......................................................................................................................... 35 The Children’s School Records.................................................................................. 36 The Mother ..................................................................................................................... 38 THE EXPERTS ......................................................................................................................... 43 Ms.

Fran Hillier .............................................................................................................. 44 Dr. M. Elterman .............................................................................................................. 45 Ms. Carmen Carter ........................................................................................................ 51 Dr. P. Colbert .................................................................................................................. 57 Dr.

Geddes ..................................................................................................................... 59 Dr. K. Shope ................................................................................................................... 63 Dr.

Reedyk ...................................................................................................................... 63 POSITION OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................................ 63 The Father ...................................................................................................................... 64 The Mother ..................................................................................................................... 68 DISCUSSION OF THE LAW .................................................................................................. 69

ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 77 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 91 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The applicant, J.J.A., hereinafter referred to as the father, seeks an order with respect to guardianship, parental responsibilities and primary residency of his three children, H.N.W.A.A. (a boy, hereinafter referred to as H.A.(1), born [omitted for publication] (now age [omitted for publication])), H.S.A.A. (a girl, hereinafter referred to as H.A.(2), born [omitted for publication] (now age [omitted for publication])), and S-B.M.A.A. (a girl, hereinafter referred to as S-B.A., born [omitted for publication] (now age [omitted for publication])).

The father filed his application on October 21, 2008 under the Family Relations Act [R.S.B.C. 1996]. The father was born on December 16, 1974, and is now 42 years of age. The respondent is K.A.C. (also known as K.A.A.), hereinafter referred to as the mother. The mother was born on March 2, 1968 and is now 48 years of age.

She sought sole custody and sole guardianship, access and child support, as well as a restraining order, and an order that she be allowed to move with the children to Calgary, Alberta. [ 2 ] As of March 18, 2013, the Family Law Act , S.B.C. 2011, c. 25, has come into force and the former Family Relations Act has been repealed. [ 3 ] The main issue to be determined is where the children are to live. This has been a high conflict family dispute. The children have been residing with their mother from birth.

The father alleges that this is a case involving severe parental alienation, and despite the numerous interim orders which have been made during the course of this trial, he has not been able to have meaningful parenting time with his children.

In addition he alleges that the children are at risk, given concerns about the mother’s mental health, her extreme negativity about the father, her unstable living situation, the children’s difficulties with their schooling as well as the ongoing inability of the mother to comply with the interim court orders. [ 4 ] The fear now is that the mother, who had initially resided in Chilliwack and Mission at the outset of this trial, may well have moved to Alberta, after having moved to the Castlegar/Nelson area and Cranbrook.

She made the move with the children mid trial to the Kootenays without advising the father of her intention to relocate. Her current whereabouts is simply unknown, although there is a suspicion she now lives in Calgary. The father has recently tried to track down the children by contacting their last known school in Cranbrook, but without success.

It appears from a recent letter prepared by a family doctor that the mother and one of the daughters, H.A.(2), have been in touch with a medical clinic in Calgary in the late fall of 2016. [ 5 ] The father is becoming increasingly concerned that the children are living at risk, and wishes the children to reside with himself, his wife and stepchildren in Carbon, Alberta. He alleges severe alienation of affection. He is prepared to ensure the children have a stable living situation at his home in Carbon, along with consistent schooling and counselling to ensure reunification of the children with him.

He is prepared to ensure that the children have parenting time with their mother, but he is asking that there be no contact with the mother for the first 6 months to ensure a safe and smooth transition into his home. The father relocated from British Columbia to Alberta about two years ago during the course of this trial. The mother became aware of that move. She has never expressed any concern about the father’s move to Alberta. Indeed, she too applied to move to Alberta. [ 6 ] This is a trial which began with the father’s wanting more parenting time with his children.

Now he is concerned that the children have become severely alienated from him, are living at risk and need to reside with him for their emotional and physical wellbeing. The parties did commission a s. 211 report 9 ( Family Law Act ) to be prepared by Dr. M. Elterman. That report has been helpful, as has the report in affidavit form, prepared by Ms. Carmen Carter, a registered clinical counsellor in Nelson. There is also a helpful report prepared by Ms. Fran Hillier, a Family Justice Counsellor, in May of 2010. Ms.

Hillier was the first to raise the concern that the mother was alienating the children from their father at an early stage of this proceeding. That concern is mirrored in the more recent reports of Dr. Elterman and Ms. Carter.

There has also been a psychiatric consult report dated December, 2015 advising that the mother might suffer from a delusional disorder, and that she might benefit from cognitive behavioural therapy and the use of an antipsychotic drug, should further investigation support the diagnosis of delusional disorder. [ 7 ] The mother has been consistent in her belief that she and her children are being followed by the father and/or his agents. She alleges that they have been harassed on a regular basis by the father. There is no evidence the father and/or his agents have been stalking the mother and his children.

The concern is that the mother has shown delusional behaviour in the later stages of this trial. [ 8 ] Lastly, a recent letter from Dr. Colbert of the [omitted for publication] in Calgary, expressed a concern that the mother has raised a history of the father’s abusing and now possibly sexually abusing the children. She appears to have raised that concern at the clinic in the fall of 2016.

While the mother has always expressed a concern that the children witnessed some family violence and that the father may have been violent to the children during access visits, the mother has never raised the concern about the father’s possibly sexually abusing the children, and in particular the daughter, H.A.(2). Any allegation of sexual abuse (if such allegation is now being raised by the mother) is thus recent, and caused Dr. Colbert to opine that the mother may be suffering from a psychiatric condition called Munchausen by Proxy. Dr.

Colbert’s concerns are set out in an affidavit filed December 2, 2016 (exhibit 39). [ 9 ] My intention is to review the background of the parties, the evidence and expert reports, and to make findings of credibility, in order to determine if the father has proven alienation of affection, such that the children should now reside with their father in Alberta. [ 10 ] One of the great difficulties with this case is that the parties do not have the money to enable them to attend a privately funded reintegration program, such as The Family Reflections Reunification Program in Kelowna.

Such a program might well have assisted these parties, but is not a realistic option for this family. TRIAL HISTORY [ 11 ] This trial commenced in December of 2010, and concluded in January of 2017. There have been many reasons for the length of

this trial. Firstly, the mother hired multiple lawyers. The lawyers who appeared at the trial are set out on the face page of this judgment. However, the mother hired other lawyers who made interim appearances. The myriad of lawyers for the mother, combined with the mother’s inability to conclude this proceeding on her own, has led to significant delay. As a result, there have been dozens of appearances in court above and beyond the trial dates specified above. The court has made many interim orders during the course of the trial. [ 12 ] The parties agreed to hire an expert, Dr. Elterman. It took Dr.

Elterman a significant period of time to file his report. There has been some concern expressed that the delay in the filing of Dr. Elterman’s report arose because the mother took considerable time to pay her portion of the cost of the report. [ 13 ] In addition, the mother has been self-represented for almost a year now.

She has attempted to delay this trial for a number of reasons, not only to retain yet another lawyer, but also for alleged health reasons, her alleged inability to drive to Chilliwack from the Cranbrook area, and her alleged inability to arrange for her witnesses to attend court, either here in Chilliwack or via video from Cranbrook. She has pled financial hardship. However, the mother has demonstrated a profound inability to seize hold of concluding her case in a timely fashion. In the result, she chose not to conclude her evidence. I would not allow any further adjournments.

I simply had no confidence she would appear to conclude her case, especially if she has left the province. [ 14 ] Furthermore, the mother has failed to keep the court and the father apprised of her current address or where the children are attending school, or if they are even attending school. She has ceased any meaningful attempts to reconnect the children with their father. She was also advised of a time line for written submissions, but has failed to file any written submissions. The mother last appeared in court on August 17, 2016.

And, as I have stated at the outset, the concern is that she no longer lives in British Columbia. The suspicion is that she has not done so since the summer of 2016. [ 15 ] Given this history, the father is understandably “beside himself” as to where the children are living, how the children are doing, and how he will ever have any sort of meaningful relationship with them, short of the children residing in his own home. The concern throughout this trial has been that the mother has severely alienated the children from their father, such that they no longer want to see him or have anything to do with him.

The mother appears to have a sense of justification in disappearing with the children, so that the father will never have any opportunity of reconnecting with them. The mother has given many reasons as to why the father should not reconnect with his children, or if he has parenting time, that the parenting time be supervised on a never ending basis.

She was resistant to an interim order I made terminating the supervision that had been in place since September 23, 2009. [ 16 ] So, what started out as a trial with multiple lawyers appearing for the mother and the resultant delay has now concluded with the mother no longer taking ownership of concluding this trial. But most especially, she has not taken ownership of ensuring the children have parenting time with their father. PRIOR COURT ORDERS [ 17 ] I would like to refer to some, but not all of the many interim orders made during this trial.

The history of the court orders and the mother’s inability to comply with most of the orders are a consideration for the court when determining if there has been alienation of affection. [ 18 ] Judge R. MacKay made an interim order on July 16, 2009 that the mother have interim custody and guardianship of the three children. The father was to pay the mother child support in the sum of $680 per month, commencing August 1, 2009. The mother was restrained from moving with the children to a new residence outside of the Lower Mainland, without the written consent of the father or further order of the court.

The father was to have access to the three children every second weekend commencing July 24, 2009. Further access time was specified for summer time and Christmas. The father was to pickup and drop off the children at the Cultus Lake Esso gas station, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. A custody and access report was to be prepared by a Family Justice Counsellor. [ 19 ] Then, on September 23, 2009, the mother was able to obtain an order varying Judge MacKay’s order, by having the father’s access supervised at the discretion of the mother. It was that order which set the tone for years to come.

That order was unfortunately made after a brief appearance on a family remand list day, and not after a hearing. Although that order continued well into the future, the father was content to see the supervision remain in place, so that he had the benefit of a third party witness to his access with his children.

The father had become concerned about the mother throughout this trial, and third party supervision of any parenting time with his children provided the father with an element of protection. [ 20 ] On February 11, 2011, I made an order that the father was to have supervised access to the children by Dolphin Investigations Ltd., at a place and time agreed to between the father and Dolphin Investigations Ltd. The mother was to provide Dolphin Investigations Ltd. with a retainer. Either the paternal grandparents or Ms. T.A. (father’s new wife) and her children could be present.

The cost of the supervision was to be shared equally by the parties. The visits were to commence on March 6, 2011 and on every second Sunday thereafter. [ 21 ] On March 9, 2011, I made an order that the father was to have access to the children supervised by Dolphin Investigations Ltd., on March 20, 2011 in Horseshoe Bay, and the mother was to pay for the transportation costs of the children from Chilliwack to Horseshoe Bay. [ 22 ] On July 25, 2011, I ordered that the father have supervised access to the children as recommended by Dr. Geddes. Dr.

Geddes was an expert retained by the mother, and I intend to refer to his evidence later in my reasons. [ 23 ] On October 19, 2011, I ordered that an updated report be prepared by a Family Justice Counsellor, and on October 21, 2011 that a psychological report be prepared. [ 24 ] Then on August 15, 2012, the parties consented to Dr. Elterman’s preparing a psychological assessment, focusing on practical and reasonable access arrangements. The parties were to share the cost equally of that report.

[ 25 ] On December 8, 2014, I made an interim consent order that the primary residence of the children be with their mother. She was to have all parenting responsibilities under s. 41 of the Family Law Act . The father was to have the right to request and receive from third parties health, education or other information respecting the children, such information to be provided to his counsel, Ms. Klassen, to be in turn distributed to the father after editing, to remove any address or other contact information for the mother. Also, the order provided that the children were to commence counselling forthwith with Ms.

Carter or such other counsellor to address the issue of reconnecting with their father. Both parties were to cooperate with the counsellor and were to attend as directed by her for the purpose of addressing the reconnection between the children and their father. The mother was responsible for the cost of counselling for the children and herself, and the father was responsible for the cost of his attendance with the counsellor.

The father was to have parenting time with the children as directed by the counsellor, and the mother was not to relocate the children without prior court approval. [ 26 ] On April 22, 2015, I made an order that the children not be removed from the Province of British Columbia until further order of this court.

The father was becoming concerned that the mother might flee with the children. [ 27 ] On June 22, 2015, I made an order that the mother have a psychiatric assessment with the psychiatrist to have access to the reports that had been prepared; and that she have professional counselling through mental health for her own mental health and to address any issues/concerns brought forth in the professional’s reports; and that the father have a psychiatric assessment, with his doctor to have access to Dr. Elterman’s report, Ms. Carter’s report, as well as Dr. Geddes’ report. There was also reference to a report by Mr.

Sean Larsen, a social worker, but no such report has ever been entered into evidence. Both parties did have psychiatric assessments. There has never been any suggestion that the mother has ever undertaken professional counselling to address the mental health concerns raised in her assessment. [ 28 ] On September 1, 2015, I made a further order varying the order of December 8, 2014. The children were not to be removed from the Province of British Columbia.

The possibility of the mother’s leaving the Province of British Columbia with the children was becoming an increasing concern. [ 29 ] Then on June 30, 2016, I made an order that the father have parenting time with the children in July and August, 2016. The prior orders regarding supervision of the access at the discretion of the mother were rescinded. The order of June 30, 2016 was a detailed order which enabled the father to remove the children from the Province of British Columbia in order to have parenting time with them in August, 2016. The father was to arrange counselling for the children in Red Deer.

Furthermore, the children were not to communicate with their mother during the summer parenting time except as supervised by the proposed counsellor during the parenting time visit with their father. The children were not to be provided with a cell phone by their mother, which cell phone could be used by them to contact her. The parties were to communicate with each other by email.

I also included a conduct order that the parties encourage the children to have a good relationship with their father. [ 30 ] On July 20, 2016, I made a further order that the father’s parenting time with the children be from August 2, 2016 to August 23, 2016, with the pickup and drop off of the children to be at the Ann Davis Transition Society in Chilliwack.

I further ordered that if the parenting time did not occur, the parties were to appear in person on August 17, 2016 to the Chilliwack Courthouse to explain the reasons for the failed visit. [ 31 ] The court ordered visit in the summer of 2016 did not occur, although the children did attend Chilliwack to meet their father outside the Ann Davis Transition Society (the pickup and drop off point). The eldest child, H.A.(1) presented a letter to his father advising him that he wanted nothing to do with him and that he hated him. The mother sent a friend with the children to that exchange, and did not appear herself.

The friend told the children they did not need to go with their father. The father told his children he loved them. It was a brief meeting in the parking lot. The children did not want to go with their father. Thus the attempt to reintroduce the father with the children in the summer of 2016 failed. The mother clearly did not enable or encourage that visit to occur. [ 32 ] On August 17, 2016, I ordered that the mother provide information prior to September 27, 2016 regarding the entire school records for all three children for the 2015/16 school year, the report of a social worker Mr.

Larsen (potential witness for the mother), other reports and information about her attendance at a funeral in August, 2016 which attendance resulted in her non-appearance with the children in Chilliwack, all police reports she intended to rely on at the trial continuation in the fall of 2016, and the confirmation of counselling that any or all of the children and/or the mother have participated in since February, 2015. Also, I ordered that the mother pay to the father the sum of $536.10 for the cost of his attendance at the unsuccessful exchange in Chilliwack in August.

The mother did appear in court on August 17, 2016, as did the father and his lawyer. That was the last day she appeared on this trial. [ 33 ] As the fall of 2016 progressed, and it became apparent that the mother was having difficulties in concluding her case, I ordered that the father was a guardian of the children under s. 39(1) of the Family Law Act , and was to have the parental responsibilities with respect to the children pursuant to s. 41(

j) of the Act, being that he request and receive from third parties health, education or other information respecting the children. I made that order on October 28, 2016. As a result of my making that order, the father attempted to obtain information from the most recent school the children had attended in Cranbrook. The father has also been able to obtain medical information from Dr. Colbert in Calgary regarding allegations concerning his eldest daughter, H.A.(2) (exhibit 39). [ 34 ] I note that father’s counsel only received partial school records for the children from the mother in the spring of 2016.

There were no records for the fall of 2015, nor since the spring of 2016. Subsequent to the August 17, 2016 order the mother also advised she had no intention of ever paying the travel costs of $536.10 to the father for the failed court ordered parenting time exchange in Chilliwack. [ 35 ] I made an order on October 28, 2016 with respect to the continuation of the trial in November, and other directions regarding the mother’s witnesses. I also ordered that the mother give her evidence in person in the Chilliwack Courthouse, not via video from Cranbrook.

I ordered that she not send any more substantive information regarding her case to the attention of the Judicial Case Manager regarding her position, but was rather to communicate with the Judicial Case Manager about trial scheduling only. I also ordered a

schedule for written submissions. The mother was to have her written submissions filed at the Chilliwack Courthouse on or about January 1, 2017. She has not filed any submissions. Counsel for the father has filed written submissions, which I have read.

[ 36 ] The last order was made on November 17, 2016. The mother was to provide the name and address of the current school where the children are attending for the school year 2016/17. She was to provide the current residential address for the children. That information was to be provided to Ms. Klassen and the court no later than November 30, 2016. None of that information has been forthcoming. Ms.

Klassen advises that she sent a copy of this order, and the prior order to the mother’s last known address in Cranbrook. [ 37 ] Father’s counsel also sent a copy of her written submissions to the mother’s last known address in Cranbrook, but those written submissions were never picked up at the post office (having been sent via registered mail). The father’s written submissions were returned to counsel. The mother has not expressed any interest in obtaining those submissions, nor filing her submissions. BACKGROUND The Father [ 38 ] The parties commenced their relationship in the summer of 2002.

They lived in Calgary at the time. They began living together prior to the birth of their son, H.A.(1). All three children were born in Calgary. The couple lived in Calgary for over three years. The mother then moved to Regina. The father helped her with that move. The decision was then made that the father would accompany the mother to Regina. The parties lived in Regina for about 8 months. Then the couple separated again. The father moved to Estevan. He remained in Saskatchewan for another few months. His father then asked him if he would like to move to Vancouver Island to be closer to the paternal family.

The father did so. He moved to Parksville on Vancouver Island in October, 2007. The mother remained in Regina. The father did not have any access with the children at that time. [ 39 ] There were numerous occasions when the police became involved during the time the parties lived together. Charges were laid against the father. There was a criminal charge laid in Calgary that ultimately was stayed, and subsequent charges in Regina were also stayed. The father did enter into a peace bond, and had that bond supervised by a probation officer in Parksville after he moved to Vancouver Island.

The father did acknowledge there were times when there was court ordered no contact with the mother. He attended relationship counselling. He attended the Sheriff King Home in Calgary for relationship counselling. The parties also attended relationship counselling together. [ 40 ] After his move to Vancouver Island, the father did speak with the mother and the children on occasion. Then the mother moved with the children to the Cultus Lake area of Chilliwack. The father spoke with them by phone, and on one weekend he purchased bunk beds which he brought to the mother’s home in Cultus Lake.

He had limited access to the children in 2007. He maintained phone contact with the mother and the children as well as in person contact in 2008, and then in August of 2008 he came to Chilliwack for his son’s birthday. [ 41 ] The father advised the mother during that August 2008 visit that he had become involved with another woman on Vancouver Island, and that he did not foresee reconciliation with her. The mother advised him that she wanted the father out of her life, and out of the lives of their children.

The mother advised the father that if he was not pursuing a relationship with her, that he would no longer have a relationship with their children. The father then filed this application on October 31, 2008. He felt it was important to the development of the children that they have a relationship with him and with his parents, and other paternal family members. [ 42 ] After the father filed his application in October of 2008, the mother maintained her position that his access to the children should be supervised. His initial access was supervised by the mother and one of her friends.

Then on August 4, 2009 the father had an unsupervised access visit with the children at his home on Vancouver Island. He understood that he would have access every second weekend, and that he would be able to pick up the children at Cultus Lake. He was to spend weekends with them on Vancouver Island, including time with them at his parents’ home, and return them to Cultus Lake on Sundays. [ 43 ] Only the two older children were present at the first access visit in 2009. The younger child did not want to be part of that visit. The father then had a full week access visit on August 12, 2009 with all three children.

That visit occurred on Vancouver Island. He described the children as playing nicely with one another and that the access visit was a success. [ 44 ] However, the mother had difficulties with the father’s having access visits with the children in the summer of 2009. For example, on the first weekend the mother phoned the Chilliwack RCMP and the Nanaimo RCMP, trying to terminate his access based on the car seats he had purchased for the children. He testified that the mother continued to interrupt his access visits with the children that summer.

Indeed, the father came to the view that the mother tried to make all his access visits difficult. [ 45 ] The father was also contacted by the Ministry of Child, Family and Community Services, with an alleged complaint his partner’s (Ms. T.A.) house in Nanaimo was full of cat feces and that his children were being assaulted by him. The Ministry did an exhaustive investigation and concluded that the children were not at risk while being in his care. [ 46 ] During the visits, the children would spend the first night at Ms.

T.A.’s house in Nanaimo, and then on the Saturday they would go to Parksville to the paternal grandparent’s house. The father found that his access visits were constantly interrupted by the mother’s phoning the eldest child, H.A.(1). The mother had provided a cell phone to their son, although he was only [omitted for publication] years old at the time. The mother also continually phoned the father. The father was of the view that the mother was using the cell phone to interrupt the children during the access visit. The children became upset speaking with their mother on the cell phone.

The father found the mother’s constant use of the cell phone to be disruptive of his parenting visit and of their household. The father had advised the mother that the children could call her anytime they wished during their access visits, but that it was inappropriate for the eldest child to be supplied with a cell phone. The mother refused to give her cell phone number to the father, so he was not able to call her, or arrange for the children to call her. [ 47 ] The mother also phoned the father excessively at his work at his parent’s vacuum store in Nanaimo.

The father did obtained a phone number for the mother and the children just before he filed this application in October of 2008. However, he has had no phone number for many years. He has never had meaningful telephone contact with the children. [ 48 ] The father found the children otherwise did well during the 2009 access visits. The children also got along well with his new

partner, Ms. T.A. and her children. Her children are a son, born in [omitted for publication] (now age [omitted for publication]), a son born in [omitted for publication] (now age [omitted for publication]), a son born in [omitted for publication] (now age [omitted for publication]), and a son born in [omitted for publication] (now age [omitted for publication]). [ 49 ] After the unsupervised access visits in August and September of 2009, the father had one supervised visit with the children at McDonald’s in Chilliwack in November of that year.

He had contact with the children again in March of 2010 when the s. 15 report ( Family Relations Act ) was being prepared. He also had a supervised visit with the children on December 5, 2010 at the Ann Davis Transition Society in Chilliwack. All three children were present, along with the supervisor. That visit went well, and the father felt he interacted well with his children. However, at the outset of the visit the children were all crying.

The father felt that the mother had instructed the children to cry at the outset of this visit. [ 50 ] The father was scheduled to have visits on December 27, 2010 and January 2, 2011, but no visits occurred. He had a supervised visit with his son, H.A.(1) on March 6, 2011. That visit was supervised by Dolphin Investigations Ltd. from Abbotsford. The access visit went well, although his son seemed upset at the end of the visit when he had to return home. The two girls did not want to attend the visit that day.

I note that the report prepared by the Dolphin Investigations Ltd. supervisor stated that the eldest daughter H.A.(2) had been incontinent that day, that she said she never wanted to see her dad and never live with him, and that the youngest girl, S-B.A. said she was never going to see her dad or live with him. It appears that the seeds of the alleged alienation were planted as early as 2010 and 2011. [ 51 ] After this visit, the owner of Dolphin Investigations Ltd., Mr. Don Silcox, contacted the father to advise him that the mother told him she was cancelling further access visits with the father.

As a result the father had no further visits with the assistance of Dolphin Investigations Ltd. The money that the father had paid to Dolphin Investigations Ltd. was forfeited. [ 52 ] The father was to have visits on March 20 and April 3, 2011 but no visits occurred. The father in essence did not see his children again until he was interviewed by Dr. Elterman in Vancouver in the presence of his children, for the preparation of the s. 211 report ( Family Law Act ).

The last time that the father saw the children was in the parking lot of the Ann Davis Transition Society in early August, 2016, when his son handed him a disturbing letter to the effect that he did not want to see his father. It was a brief meeting. [ 53 ] The mother retained Dr. Geddes, a psychologist, in 2011. The father tried to have access with the children as a result of Dr. Geddes’ involvement with his children. He advised Dr. Geddes that he was available anytime to see his children, but no visits were ever instituted with the assistance and supervision of Dr. Geddes.

The father was left with the impression he should not contact Dr. Geddes directly to arrange supervised access with his children. The father understood that the mother had hired Dr. Geddes to counsel the children and to prepare an evaluation. Dr. Geddes was retained as a counsellor, not as an access supervisor. The father also advised Dr. Geddes he would be available to attend any counselling sessions with his children. Nothing came of the father’s initiative to attend counselling sessions with Dr.

Geddes. [ 54 ] The father has been paying child support in the amount of $680 since the order of Judge MacKay made in July of 2009. He has been consistent in the payments. He self-enrolled with the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program. [ 55 ] The father found that the children behaved differently towards him after he advised their mother he was not resuming his relationship with her. His position is that he has not been able to have a meaningful relationship with his children as a result of the mother’s negative intervention. Nor has the father been able to have meaningful phone access to the children.

The father felt that the children were being coached by their mother during the few phones calls he did have with the children. [ 56 ] The father took the position midway through this trial that the children needed counselling to assist them in reuniting with him. His communication with the mother was difficult. She was very confrontational with him. She had used the phone to harass him during the 2009 access visits. The mother did not appear to have a computer and so email communication between the parties was not possible.

Also, the mother has never advised the father how the children were doing at school, until school records were given to his lawyer as a result of a recent court order. So thus the father has not had any information regarding the children’s schooling until recently. He is not aware of where the children are currently attending school or if they are attending any school.

He has no idea where the children are now living, although there is a strong suspicion they may be in Calgary. [ 57 ] The father gave compelling evidence that he would like to have more involvement in his children’s lives, and that he is more than prepared to ensure that he and his children undergo reunification counselling if they come to live with him. The tenor of his evidence is that he did have a good relationship with his children, until the mother began to influence the children against him.

He believes a good relationship can be reinstated with the assistance of counselling by professionals who are skilled in reunification. He would like a period of time when the mother has no parenting time with the children, if the court orders that the children can reside with him in Alberta. There needs to be a period of uninterrupted reconnection between the father and his children, for them to settle successfully with him.

He is not adverse to the mother’s having parenting time with the children after the children have undergone counselling for at least 6 months, and in the most appropriate way as recommended by the reunification counsellors. [ 58 ] The father has raised the concern that he has no idea where his children have been living since the summer of 2016. Indeed, he had no clear idea before that where his children were living in British Columbia, especially in the latter years. He is not sure if the mother and the children are residing in Cranbrook at her mother’s house, another address in the interior or possibly Calgary.

The mother has never told the father when or where she would be relocating. She has never given him formal notice of her intention to relocate. The father is understandably concerned about his children’s whereabouts and thus their safety. He is very concerned his children are currently at risk, and especially if the mother has moved the children out of British Columbia in contravention of the existing court order regarding non removal from the province. He is also concerned that the mother may flee further with the children. [ 59 ] The father met his current wife, Ms.

T.A., in Nanaimo when his parents had a vacuum cleaner store. They met in 2008 and were married in 2009. They lived in Nanaimo between 2009 and 2012. His wife was a stay at home mother. At the time of the report by Dr. Elterman in May of 2014, her children were ages [omitted for publication], [omitted for publication], [omitted for publication] and [omitted for publication] and three youngest were living at home. The father and his new wife sold their home in Nanaimo and moved to

McBride in northern British Columbia in November 2012, because Ms. T.A.’s parents lived there. The father had worked in his family’s vacuum store when he lived in Nanaimo. That store closed. The father then moved with his wife and her children to McBride. He ultimately became employed with CN Rail in McBride. [ 60 ] The father, his wife and her children then relocated to Carbon, Alberta in December of 2015. Carbon is located between Drumheller and Three Hills. The father is still working with CN Rail. He has worked for three years with CN Rail.

He described how he has a permanent position in Three Hills with CN Rail where he is able to go home every night. The father put in for a permanent position in Three Hills so he could work close to home, rather than working away from home. The couple have purchased a home in Carbon. The father views that community as being a safe and nurturing community for a blended family. He wishes to remain there on a permanent basis. He has explored the schooling system and the counselling available for his children in Carbon and/or the nearby communities, should the children come to live with him.

He and his wife are more than prepared to deal with the difficulties they expect to encounter with respect to the children’s reunification with their father. [ 61 ] Ms. T.A.’s eldest son does not live in the family home in Alberta. The next son, J., lives in the home, as do Ms. T.A.’s other two sons, A.(1) and A.(2). So there are three other children living in the household. The second son, J., is special needs and is a young adult (age [omitted for publication]). He was enrolled in independent living courses. The next two sons are now [omitted for publication] and [omitted for publication]. In the past, Ms.

T.A.’s youngest children have had a good relationship with the father’s three children. The children are of a similar age. Ms. T.A.’s younger children attend school in Three Hills, near Carbon. [ 62 ] The father described Carbon as a beautiful, close knit community. The children are safe. Their house is a 6 bedroom house. It is large enough to accommodate not only the father’s three children but also his wife’s three younger children. The two girls, H.A.(2) and S-B.A. would share a bedroom, and the boy, H.A.(1) could share a room or have his own bedroom.

The father is contemplating putting his children into a particular school located in Three Hills, because there would be help for the children on a one to one basis with the teachers. The children would take a school bus to that school. The school is about 20 miles from their house. [ 63 ] The father has spoken with a counsellor in Red Deer who is available to provide reunification counselling immediately to the children.

The father would also be given a leave of absence from his employer if he found the children were having difficulties and he needed to spend more time with them, at least during the initial reunification stage. So his employer would be accommodating to his situation. The father has a benefits package with CN Rail which would pay for any reunification counselling. His wife, Ms. T.A., has also made her own enquiries about what counselling would be available to the family. Ms. T.A.’s younger children are excited about the prospect of the father’s children coming to reside in their household. Ms.

T.A. is for the most part a stay at home mom, although she also works for a few hours a week as a home support worker. [ 64 ] The father was prepared to be reunified with his children with the assistance of Ms. Carter, who was counselling the children in Nelson. He was prepared to be part of any counselling recommended by Ms. Carter. However, before he could become involved with Ms. Carter, the mother terminated the children’s counselling with her. The father had been prepared to drive from Alberta to her office in Nelson to have the counselling sessions.

So again, nothing came of any reunification counselling with the children. [ 65 ] Ms. Carter advised the father that she suspected that the mother was alienating the children from him. She advised that she had spoken with the local child protection authorities about her concerns. The father then contacted a social worker by the name of Mr. Larsen who is based in Trail. Mr. Larsen did not feel it was necessary for the father to be involved with the Ministry. Mr. Larsen took the position that any information he had regarding the children was confidential. The father last spoke with Mr.

Larsen in April, 2015. [ 66 ] Father’s counsel, Ms. Klassen, submits there has been a great deal of movement by the mother in the Cranbrook/Trail/Castlegar/Nelson area. Some of the school records suggest that the children were attending school in Nelson, but more recent school records suggest the children attended a school in Cranbrook for a portion of 2016. The children no longer seem to be in the Cranbrook School District. Counsel filed a list of the various schools the children have attended throughout their lives.

I intend to deal with their schooling under a separate heading. [ 67 ] The mother’s most recent address provided to the court is in Cranbrook, although there is some compelling suggestion that the mother may now be living in Calgary. The father also has no current phone number for the mother. The Cranbrook address may well be the maternal grandmother’s address. [ 68 ] The mother has been concerned that the father or his agents/friends have been following her and the children for several years. The only photo the father and his wife ever took was of the mother’s Alberta license plate on her car outside of Dr.

Elterman’s office, but otherwise the father denies he has been stalking the mother and his children. The father testified that he is fearful the mother will flee with his children, and even possibly harm them. The father takes the position that the mother has an undiagnosed mental illness which needs to be addressed. The mother’s mental health problems have become more apparent during the course of this trial, and are referred to in the expert reports. [ 69 ] The father is asking that the mother have no contact with the children for a period of time if the children relocate to his home in Carbon, Alberta.

They need to adjust to living in his household. The children would also attend reunification counselling. He would also seek the direction of the counsellors to come up with a workable plan for the mother to be reconnected with the children. His view is that the mother should eventually take

part in ongoing counselling with the children. [ 70 ] The father has become very concerned about the children’s moving from residence to residence, and from school to school, without there being any stability in their lives. He feels the children are at risk given the mother’s behaviour. He is of the view that the mother is showing inappropriate behaviour which behaviour is having a detrimental effect on the children’s development. The children have also become concerned they are being followed by their father and/or his friends.

The children have become part of their mother’s delusions regarding the alleged stalking by their father. [ 71 ] The father would prefer that in an ideal world the child protection authorities might consider taking the children into care, in order to facilitate a peaceful transition into his household. The father has never been contacted by the RCMP about the mother’s claim that the father is stalking the mother and his children. The father is conscious that he will need supports from the school, the counsellors

and any other resources in the community, so that the children can have a successful reunification with him. He and his wife are more than aware of the challenges they face if the children reside in their home. [ 72 ] The father also underwent a mental health assessment by Dr. M. Reedyk, whose office is located in Three Hills, Alberta. His report is dated December 23, 2015 and was marked as exhibit 17. The doctor is both a family physician as well as a medical psychotherapist. The doctor’s impression was that the father provided a good account of his situation and was self-observant.

He did not appear defensive when questioned about the potential problems of his becoming a custodial parent. The father appeared to be credible. The doctor concluded that his findings are essentially the same as those of Dr. Elterman. Dr. Reedyk advised he has no reservations with the court’s granting the father access to his children; and that if the father was granted shared custody, he thought a home study would be in order.

It was a brief report. [ 73 ] The father is aware of the Family Reflections Reunification Program in Kelowna but he knows that he cannot afford the cost of that program, which could be upwards to $25,000. He is conscious he will have to find local support in Alberta in order to facilitate the much needed reunification with his children. [ 74 ] The father also gave evidence regarding Dr. Elterman’s report, and in particular how his son, H.A.(1) was behaving during the sessions in Dr. Elterman’s office. The mother was present during one joint interview.

The father described the mother as being very controlling of his children during that interview. He felt that his son was saying whatever he felt his mother wanted him to say. [ 75 ] In cross examination, the father testified that the mother was the one who was confrontational during the course of their relationship, that she would assault him and that she would be physical and aggressive towards him. He takes the position that he was the one victimized during their relationship, not the other way around. He also denied pushing her down a staircase while she was holding their youngest child.

He would grab her wrist to prevent her from striking him. However, he did admit that he struck her and slapped her in the face. The pattern of volatility continued during the time the parties lived in Regina. The father denied any suggestion that the children were afraid of him because there was volatility in the parties’ relationship during those early years. He feels the mother is creating a situation where the children feel compelled to act frightened around him. [ 76 ] He described himself as being a hands-on father when the parties lived together.

He described how the mother was the disciplinarian of the children during this time. In those early years, the father did see fear in his children’s eyes when the mother was disciplining them. He denied using force in order for the children to obey him. [ 77 ] The father testified he has never seen his wife, Ms. T.A., use physical discipline to manage either her children or his children. He described the relationship between Ms. T.A. and his own children as being a positive one. He described how his wife’s younger children and his children had missed one another when they were not together in 2009.

He testified that all the children had gotten along well, and that he and his wife can manage all the children. He denied ever being physical with his children. He also denied using illicit hard drugs, although he admitted to having tried marihuana in the past. [ 78 ] The father gave his evidence at various times during the course of this lengthy trial, mainly to update the court as to what had been happening with the children and the preparation of the reports. I found the father to be a caring and measured individual, who is keen to do whatever is necessary to reunite with his children.

He clearly cares for his children and feels that it is time for his children to be placed in a stable home environment so that they might thrive. He is very concerned that the children are at risk, and that the mother might attempt to flee with them. [ 79 ] Ms. Klassen, counsel for the father, filed the children’s school records for the last few years. The father was of the view that initially the children might have been attending a school in Kimberley, and then more recently he learned they had attended a school in Cranbrook.

The mother never advised the father where the children were attending school during the time she lived with them in the Kootenays or indeed in the Lower Mainland. The Father’s Wife [ 80 ] Ms. T.A. married the father on November 22, 2009. As I have stated above, Ms. T.A. has four sons. Her eldest son was living on his own in Nanaimo with his girlfriend when Ms. T.A. first testified; however that situation changed when the family moved to Carbon. Her eldest son lived for a brief period of time with the family in Carbon, but now lives on his own. [ 81 ] Ms.

T.A. lived in Nanaimo for about 30 years, and she owned her own home there. The father moved into her house when they married. She described the layout of that house, which is not relevant now that the parties are living in Alberta. She described how she met the father. They started dating in September of 2008. They then married. Prior to that, the father had been living with his parents in Parksville. [ 82 ] She met the father’s children in August of 2009. The children had a good time during the initial visit and she described the children as being well behaved. The children were polite. Ms.

T.A.’s children got along well with the father’s children. She described how the children interacted well with their father. Their initial visit was with the two older children. However, the police showed up at Ms. T.A.’s house during that first visit. The police told the father that they were getting phone calls that he was transporting the children using illegal car seats. The police investigated and advised the father the car seats were appropriate given the children’s weight. It appeared that the mother was the one who had made that complaint to the police about the car seats. [ 83 ] Ms.

T.A. described how the children got along well with their paternal grandparents. She described the children as being talkative and that they did not have any problems during the course of the first access visit in 2009. She was part of the drop off the children with their mother. The children ran to greet their mother. She thought the first drop off at the Cultus Lake gas station went well. [ 84 ] The father had a longer visit with all three children in August, 2009. That second visit also went well. There were visits at the grandparent’s house and also at Ms. T.A.’s house in Nanaimo. Ms.

T.A. described how the children were [omitted for publication], [omitted for publication] and [omitted for publication] at the time of the August visits. Ms. T.A. had to take the eldest daughter, H.A.(2),

to a doctor on Vancouver Island because the child had a bladder infection. She described how the three children got along well with one another. There was no fighting amongst the children. She denied spanking any of the children. [ 85 ] However, Ms. T.A. described how there was difficulty during one of the visits in August of 2009 with the mother’s phoning the cell phone that the children had brought with them, over and over again. The constant ringing disturbed the children.

There was a police investigation as well, because the mother had phoned the police to complain the children were not answering her phone calls. The police showed up quite a few times because the mother kept repeatedly phoning the police. When the children would not answer their cell phone, the mother would call the police. The mother called incessantly between 10 p.m. and 12 midnight, and even into the following day. The mother called the children between 40 and 60 times a day. Also, the mother called the father’s cell phone repeatedly. [ 86 ] Ms.

T.A. and the father also received a phone call from the child protection authorities expressing a concern that Ms. T.A.’s household had cat feces. A Ministry worker came to the vacuum store to speak with the father and Ms. T.A. about the alleged cat feces problem. The mother had seemingly made that complaint to the Ministry. [ 87 ] Ms. T.A. had worked at the vacuum store for about two years. She was a stay at home mother prior to that. Ms. T.A. also wanted to get back into the work force as a pharmacy technician. [ 88 ] Ms.

T.A. was of the view that her children would respond well to having three additional children in their household on a full time basis. Ms. T.A. had explored mental health programs in Nanaimo to assist the children. Ms. T.A. was training as a care aid, although she had also taken the pharmacy technician course. Ms. T.A. has never had any involvement with child protection authorities regarding her own children. [ 89 ] During the time the children were with their father in August, 2009, the father and Ms. T.A. had contact with the child protection authorities because the mother kept making allegations about them.

Most of the complaints were regarding the cell phone issue. The mother became threatening to the father and Ms. T.A. in repeated phone calls to them. Then a social worker spoke with the father and Ms. T.A. The social worker advised them that she felt the children were not at risk in their care. In other words, the access visits had resulted in a tempest in a teapot, disturbing the father, his wife and the entire household. The father had 4 access visits in August and September, 2009. [ 90 ] The next person that the father and Ms. T.A. had involvement with was Ms.

Fran Hillier, the Family Justice Counsellor. [ 91 ] Ms. T.A. entered some photos of the children taken during the August, 2009 access visits; one at the train museum in Duncan, and the other at the grandparent’s house in Parksville. The photos show that the parties were having fun. [ 92 ] The September 4, 2009 pickup of the children at the Cultus Lake gas station did not go well. Ms. T.A.’s oldest son videotaped that exchange. That video has been marked as an exhibit. I intend to describe the contents of that video when referring to the evidence of her son. The video is about one hour in length.

There was yelling and confrontational behaviour by the mother, which was only quelled when the RCMP attended to keep the peace. The children were crying. They were then placed into their father’s van. The mother’s behaviour during that exchange was inappropriate and aggressive. It was Ms. T.A. who called the police, as well as the child protection authorities. After the children were placed into their father’s van and the mother had left, the children calmed down. [ 93 ] Ms. T.A. also described other access visits, one being in November, 2009 at McDonalds in Chilliwack.

That was a 6 hour visit which was supervised and went well. The children were initially distressed and clinging to their mother, but then they opened up after their mother removed herself. The next contact with the children was at the Ann Davis Transition Society in Chilliwack on December 3, 2010. [ 94 ] There was one visit with the father and Ms T.A. in the presence of Ms. Fran Hillier, the report writer of the s. 15 report. The children did loosen up after the supervisors left the room. The children then played without there being any problems with their father. [ 95 ] The last time that Ms.

T.A. saw the children was on March 6, 2011, some 6 years ago. The children never called her mom, but rather by her first name. She was part of 4 access visits with the children in 2009, and two later access visits which were supervised. [ 96 ] After one of the access visits in the summer of 2009, the mother left a number of phone messages about the father’s having hit their son in the eye. The mother was also concerned about the father and Ms. T.A. having cut the children’s hair. Ms. T.A. was concerned enough about these allegations that she called the local child protection authorities.

The mother called the same authorities. Ms. T.A. denied that the father struck the son or that they had cut the children’s hair. Ms. T.A. was quite disturbed by the nature and frequency of the mother’s allegations during the 2009 access visits. [ 97 ] Ms. T.A. was also concerned about the father’s subsequent attempts to speak with his children over the phone. All the children would say to their father was that they did not wish to speak with him on the phone. As a result, the father was not able to have meaningful phone access with his children. [ 98 ] Ms.

T.A. was conscious when she testified in 2011 that the children would need counselling if they came to live with them. Otherwise she would do her best to help the children to adjust to living in her household. She also explained how she and the father were constantly harassed by the mother at their place of employment, and that they had to contact the police on numerous occasions to have the mother cease her phone calls to them. [ 99 ] In cross examination, Ms. T.A. testified that she never saw her husband hit his children. The children were well behaved and did not need to be disciplined.

If there was discipline of the children, it took the form of a time out. She and the father never argued in front of the children. There was never any physical violence between herself and the father. Nor did they use physical discipline with the children during the access visits. Mr. A.A.

[ 100 ] Mr. A. is the paternal grandfather. He and his wife live in Parksville. His son, the father, lived with him for a period of time before his marriage to Ms. T.A. He spent time with the children when they visited their father in his home. He described the children in those early days as being full of love and fun. His son interacted well with the children. [ 101 ] Mr. A also saw Ms. T.A. and her children interact well with his grandchildren. There was no behaviour which caused him concern, other than the frequent cell phone calls that his grandson, H.A.(1) received from his mother.

He last saw his grandchildren in 2009. He would like to reconnect with them. He has attended court on many occasions in support of his son, the applicant. [ 102 ] Mr. A. was also a witness to the mother’s repeatedly calling his son at the vacuum store. He asked the mother not to phone the business line. He explained how the mother would swear in her phone calls, and left messages that they would never see their grandchildren again. Mr. G.C. [ 103 ] Mr. C. is the eldest son of Ms. T.A., and the father’s stepson. He described having a good relationship with his stepfather.

He described how his stepfather interacts well with his younger siblings. He has never observed any aggressive behaviour between his stepfather and his siblings, or his mother. The police have never been called to their home. [ 104 ] Mr. C. described how his stepfather interacted well with his own children. The father obviously loves his children. [ 105 ] In early September, 2009 Mr. C. videotaped an exchange of the children which occurred at the Cultus Lake Esso Station. The video of that exchange was played in court, and entered as an exhibit. It was a one hour exchange.

The video can only be described as disturbing. Mr. C. was upset and emotionally distraught by that access exchange. He testified he videotaped the exchange from his own vehicle. His mother and the father were in a van parked beside Mr. C.’s car. [ 106 ] I have had the opportunity of reviewing that video. The mother was screaming and yelling at the father for most of the exchange. The children were crying and clearly upset. The mother told the father that the children were scared of him and had been for years. The father stated: “you’re lying”. The father told the mother that she had changed the children.

The mother was also yelling at the children who were becoming increasingly distressed. The mother’s behaviour can only be described as hysterical, while the father was trying his best to remain calm and to be reassuring with his children. The mother also said that the children are her children, and not his children. [ 107 ] The mother clearly was exacerbating the emotional distress of the children during the hour long exchange. The police finally arrived, and at that point the children were placed into their father’s van.

The mother took no responsibility to move the children from her vehicle to the father’s vehicle. Ms. T.A. was present and she tried to encourage the children. After the children were placed in their father’s van, and their mother had left, the children calmed down. The father tried to remain positive in a volatile situation. The videotape is a compelling example of the mother’s position, and indeed her behaviour, throughout this trial. Mrs. V.A. [ 108 ] Mrs. A. lives in Parksville with her husband. They have been married for over 42 years. She is the paternal grandmother of the three children.

She described her son’s relationship with the mother as having its difficulties, and she felt that her son was being treated unfairly by the mother when the couple lived together. She felt her son was being accused of behaviour which had not occurred. [ 109 ] Mrs. A. did not have much contact with the mother after the parties separated. She did see the children when they came to visit their father on Vancouver Island. She described how they engaged in many fun activities. She described her grandchildren as being beautiful children. She interacted well with them. [ 110 ] Mrs.

A. described how the children interacted well with their father. On many occasions the children would become anxious because their mother would upset them by repeated phone calls. The phone calls would disrupt the children’s activities. The cell phone would ring every 10 or 15 minutes. There was one occasion when the police did attend her house to ensure that everything was alright. Also, on one occasion the mother made a complaint to the police about car seats. There was contact with a social worker who interviewed the family.

The mother contacted both the police and child protection authorities on Vancouver Island during the father’s access visits in 2009. [ 111 ] The children have not been back to their paternal grandmother’s house since September, 2009. The Children’s School Records [ 112 ] The father’s lawyer, Ms. Klassen, entered a number of school records for the children. Those records had been given to Ms. Klassen by the mother as a result of a court order for disclosure. There are also further school records that cover the spring period of 2016.

It is not known where the children are currently attending school, or if they are attending school. I would like to go over a brief history of the children’s schooling. The children have moved schools frequently. The children have shown difficulties in school, especially in the core subjects of reading, writing and math. [ 113 ] Firstly, the children attended [omitted for publication] and then [omitted for publication] in Chilliwack. Those schools were followed by [omitted for publication] and [omitted for publication] in Chilliwack, and then [omitted for publication] in Abbotsford.

Thereafter the children were home schooled for the period of 2013 to 2014, after which they attended [omitted for publication] in Nelson for the period of 2014-15, and then back to Distance Education for term 2 and 3 of their 2015 spring school year. They appeared to attend a school in Kimberley for a portion of the 2015-2016 school year, but then attended a school in Cranbrook for the period of March 1, 2016 to June 23, 2016. [ 114 ] The father has no idea where the children are currently attending school.

He tried to get information about the children’s current whereabouts from the principal of their last known school in Cranbrook, but was unsuccessful in obtaining that information.

[ 115 ] The records indicate that the children have missed many days of school or have been late on numerous occasions. The Distance Education teacher discouraged the children from doing home schooling and encouraged them to return to a regular school. They were clearly having difficulties with their home schooling. All the children appeared to have issues with their core subjects. The various schools have put the children into individual education plans, particularly in those core subject areas, but also in social studies and science.

A review of the records suggests that the core subjects continue to remain a challenge for the children. [ 116 ] The father is thus concerned that the children have moved schools at least once per year, and are having their difficulties in the core subjects. He is concerned the children’s education is at risk. The Mother [ 117 ] The mother and Dr. Geddes were the only witnesses called in the mother’s case. The mother had intended to call other witnesses but did not follow through with concluding her evidence. She gave many reasons why she could not conclude her case.

She clearly did not intend to conclude her case, and appear in the Provincial Court here in Chilliwack to do so. She has been overwhelmed throughout this trial. She has retained multiple lawyers. She was clearly anxious throughout this proceeding. She does not want the father to have any form of meaningful parenting time with the children. Nor has she done the necessary to ensure that the children attend for counselling to enable the children to be reunited with their father. She has not kept the court or the father apprised of her addresses.

She has relocated to Mission and the Kootenays without giving the father notice of her intention to relocate. [ 118 ] The mother claims she is afraid of the father and for that reason will only provide the court her address in a sealed envelope. And, as I stated at the outset, the concern now is that she may no longer be living in British Columbia. However, I do wish to touch on her evidence from 2011, 2012 and 2014. [ 119 ] The mother may well be on social assistance. How she is currently supporting herself is unknown.

She does receive child support from the father, via the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program. She has spoken about getting a student loan so she could take some college courses when she lived in the Kootenays. What she is currently doing by way of employment or schooling is not known. She worked as a dietary aid for a short period of time when the family lived in Mission. [ 120 ] The mother spoke of her son having a cell phone, and that the father has called that phone in prior years. She described how the children do not wish to speak with their father on the phone.

She claimed that the children have spoken about their father hitting them. She claimed that she has never told the children that they should not have a conversation with their father. She denied coaching the children on what they should say to their father. The last time the father called the children was in the summer of 2011. [ 121 ] Their son has stated that he hates his father and wishes he would go away. Dr. Geddes, the mother’s expert, advised her not to force the children to have a conversation with their father.

She was aware there was a court order that access for the father was to occur as recommended by Dr. Geddes. She felt that order should remain in place because the children needed counselling with Dr. Geddes. She noticed that the children had benefited from their limited counselling with Dr. Geddes. But the children persisted in stating they did not want to have any contact with their father. So she had left the issue of reconnection with the father completely in the hands of Dr. Geddes. [ 122 ] The mother described the access visit arranged with the Dolphin Investigations Ltd. supervisors.

The children were clearly most distressed about having a visit with their father on one of those occasions. The two girls were under their beds, crying and screaming, and yelling that they did not want to attend the visit. However, the eldest child, H.A.(1) agreed he would go for the visit with his father. The mother described her son as appearing sad that he was about to have a visit with his father on that occasion. [ 123 ] When her son returned after the visit with his father, he was quiet and subdued, and stated that he never wanted to go again for a visit with his father.

He told his mother that he hated his father. Their son also said he does not like Ms. T.A.’s children. Nor does he like Ms. T.A. The son, H.A.(1), told his mother he does not want to see his father. He was hostile and angry for about a week after that supervised visit. The mother was of the view that her son needed counselling given his negative attitude towards his father. [ 124 ] At that time the two girls were showing difficulties in school. They said to their mother that they wished their father would go away.

The children were also seeing a counsellor at school in the spring of 2011. [ 125 ] The children had another visit with their father in early March, 2011. The mother was of the view that any visits between the father and the children would be up to Dr. Geddes, and not her.

It was at that point, if not earlier, that the mother started to abdicate any responsibility for ensuring the children had any sort of parenting time with their father. [ 126 ] In cross examination, the mother testified that not only did their son make negative and disturbing comments about his father, but also the two girls made negative comments about their father. The children all expressed the wish that they wanted their father to leave them alone. [ 127 ] The mother again gave evidence, with her having different counsel, in September of 2012.

It was at that time that the mother first raised the concerns she was being followed by people she believed to be connected with the father. For example, she moved from her home in Cultus Lake to Mission because of her safety concerns. She claimed that in May of 2011 strangers took photos of her children at Cultus Lake. She reported her concerns to the police. She believed that these strangers were somehow connected with the father.

Those concerns have never been proven by the mother. [ 128 ] Furthermore, father’s counsel indicated that the mother’s position regarding the alleged stalking was never put to the father in cross examination. The mother’s belief was that the alleged stalking had something to do with the father. [ 129 ] The mother further explained the children’s frequent school moves and the difficulty that her son was having at school in the spring of 2012. She testified that her son was doing well at his current school, being at that time a [omitted for publication] school in Abbotsford.

She explained how her children suffered from emotional outbursts at home and at school whenever there was a proposed visit with their father.

[ 130 ] The mother testified that the children do not have any medical problems, and are all very healthy. That evidence is contrary to the evidence that their daughter, H.A.(2), has persistent health problems. [ 131 ] The mother was born in Regina, and lived there until she was three. She then moved with her parents to Cranbrook, and remained there until she was 18 years of age. She graduated from high school. She started working after school. She held various jobs in Cranbrook. Her mother still lives in Cranbrook. The mother’s father is deceased. She has three brothers and two sisters.

She has a sister who lives in Calgary. [ 132 ] The mother moved to Calgary when she was 26 years of age to attend Mount Royal College. She then moved back to Cranbrook and worked with Shaw Cable. She returned to live in Calgary, and was a dietary aid at the Foothills Hospital. She met the father in 2002 in Calgary. She never married the father, although she claims she was engaged to him. She claims to have changed her last name to A., from her maiden name of C., sometime in 2007. She separated from the father on April 6, 2007. [ 133 ] The mother alleged physical abuse by the father.

The police attended their home about 27 times. She alleged that the father threw a lamp at her and hit her in the head when she was pregnant with their second child. She did not believe that the father used alcohol but she was not sure if he used illicit drugs. The mother also claimed that the father hit her when their second child was about 5 months old. She also alleged an incident in 2005 when the father choked her during her pregnancy with their youngest child. She alleged another incident when the father hit her and slapped her in the face, while she was holding their second child.

She called the police and the father was charged. She claimed that the charge was resolved by way of a peace bond. [ 134 ] The mother then moved to Regina, and the hope was that the parties would enter into counselling. The plan at that time was for the father to see his children, and to have contact with them. After three days the father returned to Calgary and she eventually returned to Calgary with the children, before she moved to Cultus Lake near Chilliwack. [ 135 ] The mother gave further evidence in December, 2014. At that point she had no counsel. She took issue with the expert report by Dr. Elterman.

She advised that she had arranged for a counsellor by the name of Carmen Carter to see the children. [ 136 ] The mother had moved to the Kootenays in July, 2014. She moved to Cranbrook to be with her mother. She was there for a month and then moved to Castlegar. She had a 4 bedroom house in Castlegar. She was a student at Selkirk College in a culinary arts program. She started that program in September, 2014. The course was a three year course and she had a student loan to assist her financially.

There is no evidence she has completed that program. [ 137 ] The mother explained how she would pay for the counselling with Ms. Carter. The mother’s intention was that the parents and the children would all receive counselling with the purpose being to reintegrate the father into the lives of the children. She acknowledged that she did not apprise the court of her new address when she moved to Castlegar. She also had not advised the father of her intention to relocate. [ 138 ] The mother provided further details alleging stalking of the children and herself in Abbotsford and the Kootenays.

Her theory is that the father had people continually stalking and taking photos of them. [ 139 ] I made an order on December 8, 2014 that the children were to commence counselling with Ms. Carter or such other counselling to address the issue of reuniting with their father. [ 140 ] The mother did not return to conclude her evidence. THE EXPERTS [ 141 ] The father’s counsel filed a number of expert reports, to which I would like to refer in detail. [ 142 ] The mother entered only one report, being that of Dr.

Geddes, which report I find to be rather outdated, and not of particular assistance to the court. [ 143 ] The reports of Ms. Hillier, Dr. Elterman and Ms. Carter have been helpful. Dr. Elterman, Ms. Carter and Dr. Geddes all gave evidence. I intend to refer to their evidence as well. Dr. Elterman and Ms. Carter were witnesses on behalf of the father. Dr. Geddes was called as a witness for the mother. [ 144 ] There have also been letters from Dr. Reedyk, M.D., who interviewed the father, and from Dr. Shope, who prepared a psychiatric consult regarding the mother. I intend to refer to those letters. Ms.

Fran Hillier [ 145 ] J

[…]