K.N. v. B.C. Date:, 2015 BCPC 232

Citation: K.N. v. B.C. Date: 20150522 2015 BCPC 0232 File No: F13391 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: K.N. APPLICANT AND: B.C. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G.J. BROWN Counsel for the Applicant: F. Jhuty

Counsel for the Respondent: A. Florescu Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Dates of Hearing: January 7, February 12, March 19, 20, 2015 Date of Judgment: May 22, 2015 [ 1 ] THE COURT : These are my reasons for judgment in the file of B.C. versus K.N., file 13391. INTRODUCTION [ 2 ] B.C. and K.N. are the parents of one child, T.N., born [omitted for publishing]. T.N. is currently five years old and is in kindergarten. These parents have been in litigation concerning parenting arrangements for T.N. since his birth.

On August 2, 2013 Judge Romano commented that B.C.'s then application for parenting time had been going on for close to a year, yet K.N. had not been accommodating. In my view K.N. is somewhat more accommodating now, but the parties still find themselves entrenched in the court process. [ 3 ] On October 4th, 2013 Judge Romano ordered that both parents were guardians of T.N. B.C.'s parenting time was ordered to be alternate weekends from Friday at either 2:30 or noon to Sunday at 7:30 p.m., to be extended by professional development days or holidays. He also had a midweek visit on Tuesdays from 2:30 to 7:30.

B.C. was also given summer parenting time of seven days in July and seven days in August, plus other holiday times. [ 4 ] On June 24, 2014 Judge Hoy made further orders concerning parenting time in the summer and Easter, and amongst other orders he ordered a full s. 211 report. That report was prepared November 21st, 2014 and it recommended that B.C.'s parenting time on alternate weekends be extended to Monday mornings with drop-off at school. The Tuesday visits were to remain, but it was recommended that B.C. have an alternating Thursday after school to Friday morning.

Certain holiday times were recommended and there were other recommendations concerning parental responsibilities. It was suggested that there be an order that the parents refrain from disrespecting each other in front of T.N. [ 5 ] On January 7, 2015 I was pleased to see the parties consent to an order extending B.C.'s alternate weekends to Monday morning drop-off at school as recommended in the report. The Tuesday visits were also shifted to Thursday on the weeks B.C. did not have weekend parenting time. ISSUES [ 6 ] At this time B.C. seeks greater parenting time than recommended in the report.

He seeks that his alternate weekends be from Thursday after school to Monday morning. Prior to his weekend time, the Tuesdays should in his view be overnight to Wednesday. The Thursdays following his weekends should be overnight to Friday. Furthermore, B.C. seeks equal holiday time in the summer and on other occasions. [ 7 ] Not surprisingly, K.N. seeks lesser parenting time for B.C. than recommended in the report. Although she has consented to the extended alternate weekends, she is concerned that T.N. is getting overtired with this new regime and he is acting out more often.

K.N. does not agree to the alternating Thursdays being overnight. THE CASE FOR THE FATHER, B.C. D.Y. [ 8 ] D.Y. is T.N.’s paternal grandmother and she lives on 14 acres in 100 Mile House. According to D.Y., T.N. and his cousins, P. and Q. have lots of fun together. These children all live in Abbotsford, but also visit grandmother in 100 Mile. D.Y. has seen T.N. play with her puppy and he has no adverse reactions. T.N. often has a runny noise. D.Y. first saw T.N. when he was five-and-a-half months old and thereafter K.N. welcomed her over as often as every two weeks.

She observed T.N. at K.N.'s place and she has seen T.N. on visits with his father. D.Y. noticed that T.N. was more clingy with K.N., whereas he plays with everyone when at B.C.'s home. I should add that B.C. has a spouse, L.R., and T.N. gets along well with L.R.'s daughters. [ 9 ] D.Y. reports that T.N. has said some concerning things. He has said, "Mommy says Daddy is a bad man." He has also said, "Mommy gets angry when I say I love L.R." At a wedding T.N. said, "Daddy, Mom says my penis is bigger than yours." Overall, D.Y. believes that K.N. does not encourage T.N. to visit with his father.

She wants her son to see T.N. without going to court. The last five years have been difficult for everyone. [ 10 ] In cross-examination D.Y. emphasized that her son is passive, he does not like confrontation. She also agreed that K.N.'s door was always open to her and she does not think K.N. is a bad person. Her son had originally agreed to supervised visits so he could see T.N. In my view, D.Y. was the sort of grandmother who would enrich T.N.'s life and she was not very critical of K.N. notwithstanding her attachment to B.C.

A.L. [ 11 ] A.L. is T.N.'s kindergarten teacher at Dormick Park Elementary in Abbotsford. She is aware that his parents are separated, so

unfortunately she holds separate conferences with each parent. A.L. describes T.N. as a kind, sweet boy. He had trouble with letters, sound recognition and fine motor skills, but now he can print his full name and he is improving overall. T.N. tends to be more unfocused on Mondays. K.N. is a crossing guard and when she or B.C. cannot pick up T.N. right after school T.N. stays at a day-care. A.L. notes that both parents have expressed frustration about co-parenting issues.

T.N.'s attendance is good and although she has a puffer for T.N. he has never needed it. [ 12 ] In cross-examination A.L. stated that T.N. was below average in most areas, including reading and printing. I note that T.N.'s first report card to November 14th, 2014 showed he was "approaching" expectations in several areas. The second term interim report card of February 10th, 2015 indicated that T.N. needed additional support to meet expectations in five areas, although he was meeting expectations in three areas, including having a positive attitude.

On one occasion the teacher did hear K.N. making negative comments about B.C. when T.N. was in the room. L.R. [ 13 ] L.R. has been in a common-law relationship with B.C. since April of 2013. She has two daughters from a prior relationship, K. who is 15 and J. who is soon 19. L.R. is a registered care aid working with an elderly population. T.N. does refer to L.R. as "Mommy." The two of them get along very well. L.R. also has a cat and dog and T.N. plays with the dog regularly without showing any signs of allergies.

At one time K.N. accused L.R. of having fleas in her house when that was not the case; in fact T.N. had little red bites because K.N. had a bedbug infestation. [ 14 ] Interestingly, neither B.C. nor K.N. drive, so L.R. has been driving for the pick-ups and drop-offs of T.N. L.R. feels T.N. is more comfortable with exchanges at school as he seems anxious when dropped off at K.N.s' home. L.R. has no relationship with K.N.

Anything concerning T.N. is "none of her business." T.N. has told her, "My Mommy doesn't like you." [ 15 ] L.R. also testified that K.N. does not notify her or B.C. about guardianship matters, such as day-care, medical arrangements and dental appointments. She was not initially aware of T.N.'s day-care, K.N. changed T.N.'s doctor without notice, and she unenrolled T.N. in an asthma clinic without consultation. K.N. also sets dental appointments midday when B.C. is unavailable.

He was not able to make proper inquiries concerning major dental surgery which was arranged by K.N. for T.N. [ 16 ] L.R. also asserted that when T.N. is dropped off at his mother's home, the mother insists on bathing T.N. a second time and she asks a multitude of questions. K.N. also insists that B.C. is not allowed to pick up T.N. early (as set out in the court order) unless B.C., not L.R., is there to pick the child up. [ 17 ] In cross-examination L.R. did concede that she had applied to be added as a party to this proceeding in March of 2014.

B.C. was initially quite passive, but now he is more assertive where T.N. is concerned. L.R. realizes B.C. and K.N. do communicate by text and she does not get involved. The Father, B.C. [ 18 ] B.C. testified in a slow and deliberate manner, but he was responsive to the questions posed. He works at a kitchen cabinet shop with a flexible

schedule that is usually from 6:00 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. He lives in a three bedroom mobile home with L.R., her two girls and T.N. He plans on moving to a larger home in Abbotsford. B.C. is current with his child support. [ 19 ] B.C. described his relatively brief relationship with K.N. It lasted less than a year. After the parties separated B.C. learned from K.N.'s friend that K.N. was pregnant. K.N. denied that the baby was his, so he got a court order for paternity testing and that testing proved him to be the father. B.C.'s visitation with T.N. started slowly.

When T.N. was eight months old he started seeing him a couple of hours on Sundays at K.N.'s home. In February of 2012 when T.N. was around two years old, he got a court order to see T.N. for three hours on Saturdays and a couple of hours Tuesday evenings. He was also required to go to court to increase his visitation. In August of 2013 he obtained a court order for Saturday overnight visitation. Since October of 2013 B.C.'s visits with T.N. have been every other weekend, Friday to Sunday, and Tuesday evenings. [ 20 ] B.C. sometimes had difficulty picking up T.N. from K.N.'s home.

He believed K.N. was not encouraging the visits. She would say things like, "Tell Dad your feelings", rather than encouraging T.N. to go. The October 4th, 2013 order allowed B.C. to pick up T.N. early on Fridays if his work

schedule permitted, but K.N. would not allow that to occur if the child was to be staying alone with L.R. [ 21 ] B.C. testified about his visits with T.N. They do carpentry and work in the garden together. They visit parks and museums. They also read together and complete school workbooks. B.C. missed T.N.'s first day of kindergarten because, in his words, K.N. did not inform him when the school strike ended. The Tuesday pick-up from school was initially problematic. K.N. would take T.N.'s backpack and he would have to talk to the teacher about homework.

Now K.N. is not present when he picks up T.N. from school on Tuesdays and that works a lot better. Any exchanges at the school are better than at K.N.'s home. T.N. would "clam up" and put his head down when returning to his mom's home. [ 22 ] Like L.R., B.C. gave evidence about the difficulties in communicating about guardianship matters with K.N. He often finds out after the fact about changes in day-care, changes in doctors and medical/dental appointments. B.C. is also not comfortable being in K.N.'s home due to an allegation that he touched her inappropriately.

B.C. explained that K.N. has two other children, K. (phonetic) who is 17 and B. who is 15. Schooling for them has been "off and on" and K. is being home schooled. [ 23 ] In cross-examination B.C. acknowledged that he was initially somewhat passive in his pursuit of parenting time with T.N. He does not like confrontation. He also agreed that when L.R. entered the picture the ability to co-parent with K.N. was affected. However, he does not trust K.N. and her friends. [ 24 ] In October of 2014 T.N. did receive a large bruise to the left side of his face while at school.

B.C. chose not to take T.N. to the doctor, but when K.N. then got care of T.N. she immediately took him to the doctor. B.C. thought the matter was taken care of by the teacher contacting K.N. In my view, the more prudent course of action was for B.C. to take T.N. to a clinic, but nothing of great

significance turns on this judgment call. I also note that the teacher did not inform B.C. to take the child to the doctor. THE CASE FOR THE MOTHER, K.N. A.R. [ 25 ] A.R. has known K.N. for the past five years as the two women live in the same complex. She has also done some of the pick- ups and drop-offs for T.N. A.R. describes K.N. as a pleasant person and an attentive mother. A.R. handled the exchange for T.N. on Tuesdays for about one year when T.N. was younger. She says communication between the two parents often did not go well.

On one occasion, T.N. was at his mother's home and he stated that he did not feel like going to his father's home. A.R. did talk to T.N. and told him he is "supposed to go to his dad's home." T.N. was initially refusing and 45 minutes expired before he decided to go with B.C. K.N. was uncomfortable in this situation. K.N. had been telling T.N. that "It's time to go with Dad", but also "If you don't want to go, you must voice that." The Mother, K.N. [ 26 ] K.N. is the mother of three children, T.N. who is five, a son who is 15 and a daughter who is 17.

Her elder son's father died from cancer and she has no communication with her daughter's father. K.N. has been a crossing guard for seven years. She testified in a rather slow and pondering manner, somewhat like B.C. [ 27 ] K.N. was in a one-year relationship with B.C. in 2008. She described B.C. as a very passive and indecisive person. In May of 2008 when K.N. was pregnant with T.N., she did not tell B.C. of the pregnancy, but she did try to tell his mother. T.N. was born on November 23rd, 2009 and eight months later K.N. obtained an order of sole custody.

The parties shared guardianship and B.C. was given access as it was then phrased for two hours on Sundays. See the order of July 26th, 2010. [ 28 ] As far as K.N. was concerned, she had an open door policy concerning B.C.'s visitation schedule. K.N. was present for most of B.C.'s visits. In fact, K.N. testified that early on in T.N.'s life it was her who initiated B.C. having more parenting time with T.N., however, she was not comfortable leaving T.N. alone with B.C.. There was an incident in 2010 at 100 Mile when B.C. and her elder son got lost on quad recreational vehicles.

There was another occasion when B.C. knocked the wind out of T.N. I should add that B.C. stated in rebuttal that he only lost his way for some 15 minutes while quading in 100 Mile. He was not drinking. B.C. says he roughhouses with T.N., but there is no cause for concern. [ 29 ] K.N. supervised B.C.'s visits on Tuesdays and Saturdays, but she became uncomfortable with this arrangement. She alleged that B.C. touched her inappropriately. Early in T.N.'s life K.N. was concerned that B.C. would not initiate activities for T.N.

For example, he would not do a diaper change or assist T.N. during meals. [ 30 ] K.N. feels that communication really broke down when L.R., B.C.'s present spouse, became involved. L.R. has been involved with e-mails to the teacher, Halloween trick-or-treating, and T.N.'s ear infections. K.N. is of the view that L.R. is the main instigator of B.C.'s applications for more parenting time with T.N. K.N. is unable to properly co-parent due to L.R.'s involvement. [ 31 ] With respect to guardianship matters, K.N. says that B.C. showed little interest in medical appointments and the like.

She maintains that B.C. did attend part of the appointment with T.N.'s dental surgeon and he voluntarily signed the consent forms. K.N. stated that B.C. did attend the first day of school for T.N. and she told him about the teachers' strike. In October of 2014 T.N. had a bad fall at school. His left cheek was bruised as I mentioned earlier and he had a "goose egg." B.C. apparently gave T.N. Tylenol but he did not take the child to the doctor. K.N. took T.N. to emergency after he was returned to her. There was a concern T.N. had a concussion and T.N. was kept home from school for two days.

As I stated earlier, B.C. did not handle this situation ideally. [ 32 ] K.N. feels intimidated by L.R. On one occasion L.R. laughed at her and said, "Soon I'll have my little boy." L.R. denies making that statement. According to K.N., co-parenting is impossible. Teacher interviews have to be conducted separately and the teacher has to maintain two communication books. In this situation it is the teacher I feel sorry for. K.N. testified that there are times when T.N. does not wish to visit his father.

K.N. says she encourages T.N. to go, but at the same time she said she tries to get T.N. to "make choices." [ 33 ] K.N. described her meetings with P.C., the Family Justice Counsellor who prepared the s. 211 report. K.N. felt P.C. had already decided the parenting arrangements and she did not canvass T.N.'s health concerns. According to K.N., T.N. has a number of health problems: asthma, gluten sensitivity and an adverse reaction to pollen and animal dander. T.N. also needs extra help in school. [ 34 ] K.N. also detailed the weekday routine for T.N., and I found that she had a good structured

schedule with T.N. K.N. is worried that if B.C.'s parenting time increases, T.N. will become more aggressive and clingy and she has seen this already when B.C.'s weekends were extended from Sundays to Mondays. [ 35 ] In cross-examination K.N. stated that T.N. has his own bed in her bedroom. Sometimes he sneaks into her bed at night. K.N. denied that she opposed B.C.'s visits with T.N. in the past. From her perspective he chose not to instigate visits. K.N. did not recall that she sought a referral to a different asthma clinic for T.N.

She denied that she withheld information from B.C. regarding the dental surgery or the name of T.N.'s school. [ 36 ] During cross-examination it was clear that the parties had had disputes about spring break in 2014, about who got the Tuesday visit following Family Day and about Easter visitation. Ultimately, Judge Skilnick made an order on April 16th, 2014 that neither party was to file any further Notices of Motion without getting leave from the court. P.C. P.C. is a Family Justice Counsellor and she prepared the s. 211 report, dated November 21st, 2014.

She has been a Family Justice Counsellor for seven years and she has prepared about 50 s. 211 reports (or s. 15 reports under the old Family Relations Act ) per year since October of 2010. P.C. made the following findings in her

summary:

The relationship between these two parties was very brief, which did not allow for a foundation of trust and understanding to be built. After separating K.N. did not disclose her pregnancy to B.C. Unexpectedly and unprepared to appreciate fully the extent in which each parent and new partners would be involved in T.N.'s life, the parties are struggling to find ways to be respectful and complementary co- parents. T.N. is an active and happy boy, who appears to be perceptive to the discord presented at times between his parents, which can lead to disruptive exchanges. ...

K.N. is a very committed parent to T.N., although she has had some difficulty letting go of her attachment to her youngest child. B.C. although seemingly the less prepared for the job of parenting, has been a present and committed father regardless of the unexpected news and roadblocks he has faced since T.N.'s birth. A more cooperative and less critical approach to co-parenting would benefit T.N. instead of remaining stuck in a pattern of finding ways to minimizing the efforts that are being made. From a developmental perspective, T.N. would most likely benefit from a parenting

schedule that would involve frequent and continued contact with both parents in order to ensure the continuity of both relationships and the child's security and comfort. Routines and structure are important to allow him stability through the week in order for him to fully focus on his schooling and not any parental conflict. Of utmost importance T.N. would benefit from an environment free from negativity and aggression towards the other parent ... [ 37 ] P.C. then made the following recommendations: Both B.C. and K.N. shall remain guardians of the child.

T.N. shall spend parenting time with B.C. as follows - Tuesday afternoon, pick- up at school until 7:00 p.m. when he will drop T.N. off at K.N.'s home - alternating weekends from Friday after school until Monday morning, drop-off at school and - every other week from Thursday after school until Friday morning drop-off - additional time during the summer of up to two weeks for vacations and equal time during spring break and Christmas holidays. [ 38 ] She made some other recommendations including sharing parental responsibilities and attending mediation where there was a dispute.

Further, P.C. ended the report by recommending an order that said, "The parents shall refrain from arguing, discussion or disrespecting each other in front of the child and during exchanges." [ 39 ] P.C. was concerned about giving B.C. more visitation than recommended in her report because T.N. will have difficulties adjusting. I found P.C.'s report to be thoughtful and well written. Her recommendations are full of common sense. Reducing the exchanges for visitation is a good idea. J.B. [ 40 ] J.B. is a mother of five children and she has known K.N. for ten years. They attend church together.

J.B. has also known B.C. for seven to eight years and she has known T.N. for his entire life. J.B. acted as a supervisor for B.C.'s visits with T.N. in 2010. Most of these visits occurred Tuesday evenings. [ 41 ] J.B. felt that there was not a lot of interaction between T.N. and B.C. There was no effort by B.C. to feed T.N. He rarely got T.N. ready for bed and when he did, he was a little rough with the child who was then two years old. J.B. knows T.N. well. T.N. likes to visit his father, but he wants to sleep at his mother's house.

After spending time with B.C., T.N. is often aggressive and he has bitten people. In J.B.'s view, T.N. is now more tired with the increased visitation with his father. [ 42 ] While I share some of J.B.'s historical concerns, I note that T.N. is no longer of a vulnerable age and B.C. has grown as a parent. I also am of the view that T.N.'s aggressive behaviour should diminish over time as he gets used to his

schedule and as the exchanges between the parents are reduced. ISSUE: VARYING PARENTING TIME ARRANGEMENTS [ 43 ] I have already made a without prejudice interim order varying B.C.'s parenting time to increase his alternate weekends and to shift the Tuesday evening visits to Thursday on the weeks B.C. does not have weekend parenting time. In order to vary on a final basis the parenting arrangements as defined in the October 4th, 2013 order and any other orders, I must comply with s. 47 of the Family Law Act .

I must be satisfied that since the making of those orders there has been a change in the needs or circumstances of T.N. [ 44 ] There is no question there has been a change in T.N.'s circumstances. The previous orders were made before T.N. entered kindergarten and parenting arrangements must now be assessed in light of his school

schedule and how he is progressing in his first year of school. Furthermore, s. 47 references changes in the circumstances of a child "including because of a change in the circumstances of another person." In my view, B.C. has progressed as a parent. When T.N. was two years old, I accept that B.C. was an inexperienced parent with limited interaction with his son. Now B.C. has significantly greater time with his son and he has matured as a parent. I draw this conclusion not only from the s. 211 report but from all the evidence presented. [ 45 ] Consequently, I am satisfied that I may change the existing orders.

The manner in which I change these orders is governed by only one thing, the best interests of T.N. under s. 37 of the Family Law Act . Before I embark on an analysis of the best interests factors as outlined in s. 37(2) of the Family Law Act , some general comments are in order. [ 46 ] K.N. is doing a fine job as T.N.'s primary caregiver. She provides her five-year-old boy with good structure and routine. I think B.C. recognizes that fact. However, K.N. could still improve in encouraging T.N.'s visits with his dad. T.N. is too young at five years old to be given choices about seeing B.C.

He should simply expect the visits to occur as part of his weekly routine. As well, K.N. still needs to be more careful about saying negative things about B.C. within earshot of T.N. T.N. needs to respect both of his parents. They both contributed to his DNA. [ 47 ] B.C. now has very good visits with T.N. and he has become more assertive in his role as a father. For a variety of reasons, including limited visitation, B.C. was not as attentive a parent when T.N. was a toddler. I am of the view that L.R. has been a good influence on B.C. as a parent.

That said, L.R. cannot inject herself in what has historically been a conflictual relationship between Mom

and Dad. [ 48 ] In considering the positions for more or less parenting time for B.C., I now turn to the factors under s. 37(2): (

a) T.N.'s health and emotional well-being. The parties still need to communicate more fully about T.N.'s day-care, medical care and dental care. Having considered all the evidence, I do not consider T.N.'s asthma or a possible sensitivity to pet dander to be major concerns affecting B.C.'s parenting time. I have already commented about T.N.'s bruised cheek, and although B.C. did not handle that situation ideally, he cannot be considered negligent. My main focus is T.N.'s emotional well-being before and after B.C.'s visits. There is some concern that T.N. is becoming clingy and over-tired.

He has also acted out aggressively. I conclude that so long as B.C.'s visits remain structured and so long as those visits are encouraged by both parents, T.N. will adjust to a

schedule which involves a slightly greater role for B.C. The recommendations in the s. 211 report are not earth-shattering. They are minor adjustments meant to strengthen the bond between father and son. (

b) T.N.'s views. As I already discussed T.N. is too young to have his views canvassed. I rely on P.C.'s observations of T.N.'s interactions with each of his parents. (

c) The relationship between T.N. and important people in his life. T.N. has a close and affectionate relationship with his mother and her friends, such as A.R. and J.B. I think T.N. should be encouraged to sleep in his own bed, but apart from that minor point T.N. has a strong and loving bond with his mother, his primary caregiver. T.N. also has a close relationship not only with B.C., but also his mother, D.Y., and with L.R. The s. 211 report says at page 7 that T.N. is accepting of L.R. as a parental figure. I should add that T.N. appears to get along with all the children in both family units. I totally agree with P.C. when she asserts that T.N. would benefit from a parenting

schedule that involves frequent and continued contact with both parents in order to ensure continuity of those relationships and the child's security and comfort. (

d) The history of T.N.'s care. I have already remarked that B.C. was less involved with T.N. when he was a youngster. I understand this was not by choice because K.N. played a role in curtailing his parenting time. However, B.C. himself was a much less assertive parental figure in years past. Suffice it to say that we are now at a point when B.C. has regular parenting time with his son with the implicit understanding that K.N. is the primary caregiver. (

e) The need for T.N.'s stability. I reiterate that P.C. has correctly stated frequent and continued contact with both parents is vital to T.N.'s security and comfort. (

f) The ability of the guardians to exercise parenting responsibilities. While the focus of this case has been on parenting time, I have heard of communication problems regarding school, day-care, medical matters and dental issues. I see no reason to change Judge Hoy's order of June 24, 2014 requiring there to be no third party involvement with respect to communication about the child. L.R. can always receive information about T.N., but she ought not to be communicating with K.N. directly. However, T.N. needs to feel that both these women respect each other and that is not evident right now.

The s. 211 report does recommend mediation between the parents where they cannot agree, and I am going to follow Judge Skilnick's April 16, 2014 order requiring leave to bring Notices of Motion or applications. (

g) There is no family violence in my view. There is great tension between K.N. and B.C., and K.N. and L.R. That needs to diminish. (

h) The appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the guardians to cooperate on issues affecting T.N. I believe that parenting time should be arranged so that there are less exchanges of T.N. at either parent's home. P.C. emphasized the need for T.N. to be exposed to less tension and less conflict. With B.C. having alternate weekends to Monday morning and alternate Thursdays to Friday morning, T.N. is dropped off usually at school and not a parent's home. [ 49 ] Taking into account all the factors which serve the best interests of T.N., I am going to follow the s. 211 report.

P.C.'s recommendations to reduce the exchanges of T.N. between parents uses a balanced schedule. B.C.'s parenting time is increased without eroding K.N.'s historical role as the primary caregiver. ORDERS Parental Responsibilities [ 50 ] I make this editorial comment before I make my order. The parents are already guardians under the October 4th, 2013 order and K.N. is required to consult with B.C. under clause 14 of that order.

Based on the best interests of T.N. and the s. 211 report I am going to make the following two orders. [ 51 ] The orders of October 4th, 2013 and April 16th, 2014 are varied by adding these clauses: Number 1. In the event B.C. and K.N. cannot reach agreement about a parental responsibility or parenting time for T.N., they will attend mediation with a Family Justice Counsellor to attempt to resolve their dispute out of court.

No party may file a further motion or application in court without leave of the court and proof that mediation has been attempted. [ 52 ] I am going to pause there because of something I have heard today. Although not part of the order, I simply add that of course in addition to mediation with a Family Justice Counsellor, you can use your lawyers. It sounds like both lawyers have been able to sort some of your problems out, but you cannot keep doing that forever. At some point the lawyers, the courts have to get out of your lives. Number 2.

All parties shall refrain from arguing or disrespecting each other in the presence of T.N. and during any exchange of T.N. I am really disturbed when I hear anybody saying something negative about the other parent, because this child gets his self-esteem from how he feels about both parents. His DNA comes from both parents. It is critical that he think highly of both of his parents, and I see no reason why he would not.

Parenting Time [ 53 ] And this is again an editorial comment. Holidays such as Easter, Father's Day, Mother's Day, Christmas, spring break and the summer appear to be covered in past orders. Based on the best interests of T.N. I make these new orders. [ 54 ] The order of October 4th, 2013 is varied as follows: Clauses 3 and 4 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Number 3. B.C. shall have parenting time with T.N. on alternating weekends from Friday at 2:30 p.m. or 12:00 p.m. or earlier if his work

schedule permits, with B.C. giving K.N. 48 hours' notice, to Monday morning drop-off at school (or K.N.'s home if no school), provided that if the Friday or Monday of his parenting time weekend is a professional development day or a holiday, then B.C.'s parenting time is extended to the whole of these days. If the Friday is a professional development day or holiday, B.C.'s parenting time commences at 9:00 a.m. Number 4A. I have had to divide 4 into two parts, 4A.

During the midweek B.C.'s parenting time shall be every Tuesday, pick-up at school (or 2:30 p.m. if no school) until 7:00 p.m., when he will drop T.N. off at K.N.'s home. Number 4B. On every second Thursday preceding a weekend when B.C. has no parenting time, B.C.'s parenting time shall be from Thursday after school (or 2:30 p.m. if no school) until Friday morning drop-off at school (or K.N.'s home if there is no school). [ 55 ] Now, those are my orders.

If there are any further submissions or clarification I am willing to hear that now. (SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL) [ 56 ] THE COURT: So, Madam Clerk, we will add that the order of October 4th, 2013 shall be varied so that in clause 5 the words "of 2014" in the second line and "2014" in the last line are deleted.

And again you can wait for the transcript, but one of you is going to draft this order. (FURTHER SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL) [ 57 ] THE COURT: So, there will be a further order again that the order October 4, 2013 shall be varied so that number 6 will be deleted and replaced with the following: Christmas break shall be shared equally between the parties.

The first half of Christmas to be with K.N. in 2015 and B.C. shall have the first half of Christmas in 2016 and to alternate in this manner. [ 58 ] I did not deal with Father's Day and Mother's Day because it is in here and it does not seem to be year specific, so that should be okay. [ 59 ] MR. FLORESCU: Yes. [ 60 ] THE COURT: I'm just hoping you folks can work things out because if you can't, the first thing you're going to do is go to the Family Justice Counsellor. For T.N.'s benefit, this file is too thick and this conflict has gone on too long. It's really time to mend fences and work things out. G.J.

BROWN Provincial Court Judge