T.C. v. W.C. Date:, 2017 BCPC 143

Citation: T.C. v. W.C. Date: 20170223 2017 BCPC 143 File No: F16244 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: T.C. APPLICANT AND: W.C. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE GAFFAR Appearing on her own behalf: T.C.

Counsel for the Respondent: M. Campbell Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Date of Hearing: February 23, 2017 Date of Judgment: February 23, 2017 [ 1 ] THE COURT: In giving these oral reasons for judgment, I reserve the right to edit my reasons for minor errors and to add such things as headings and more extended case references or excerpts if a transcript is ordered. Any such editing will not change any of the underlying reasoning or ultimate result. INTRODUCTION [ 2 ] T.L.C. and W.F.C. have two wonderful daughters now aged [omitted for publication] (A.) and [omitted for publication] years old (K.).

The children primarily reside with their mother and previously had regular and extensive parenting time with their father. Their parenting time arrangements were somewhat complex because the youngest child has a severe intellectual disability that affects her physical and mental functioning. It is apparent that both parents love and care for their children very much. [ 3 ] The children initially attended school in Abbotsford, British Columbia. At the time, Ms. C. (T.C.) resided in Abbotsford while Mr. C. (W.C.) resided in Mission, British Columbia.

The children were dropped off and picked up at school to facilitate their respective weekday and weekend parenting times with their father. [ 4 ] In September 2015, T.C. moved with the children to a new residence in the Chilliwack area. W.C.'s residence remained in Mission, British Columbia, and he objected to the relocation. [ 5 ] In October 2015, an agreement was reached that permitted the children's continued attendance at their school in Abbotsford.

The children's parenting time with their father was generally maintained. [ 6 ] In April 2016, T.C. filed the notice of application which is the subject of this hearing. She sought to transfer the children's school from Abbotsford to a Chilliwack area school close to her residence. She also sought to alter the parenting time arrangements in a manner that would reduce W.C.'s parenting time. W.C. objected to the relocation of their children and their school. [ 7 ] In June 2016 and prior to the hearing of her application, T.C. made final arrangements to switch their children's school from Abbotsford to Chilliwack.

She argues that she believed W.C. had agreed to the switch for the next school year beginning September 2016. She also argues that she needed to make those arrangements before the school staff left for the summer holidays in case her application succeeded. W.C. denies that he agreed to the school switch and argues that the children should have stayed in the Abbotsford school while these proceedings were ongoing. [ 8 ] In September 2016, the children began attending school in Chilliwack. Consequently, they have spent less time with their father.

W.C. seeks to enforce his parental rights as a legal guardian with shared parenting responsibilities and the October 2015 parenting time agreement. [ 9 ] I accept that both parents have made significant efforts to meet the needs of each child. ISSUES [ 10 ] T.C. is required to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the children should attend school in Chilliwack and W.C.'s parenting time should be changed. I note that T.C.'s proposed parenting time arrangements significantly reduce the children's parenting time with their father. [ 11 ] The following three matters are relevant to my decision: (

a) T.C.'s relocation of the children in 2015 had the potential to significantly impact the children's ability to have parenting time with their father. Although the children have been in their Chilliwack home for approximately 1.5 years now, I must still touch on relocation considerations; (

b) Correspondingly, the location of their school also has a significant impact on how much time they can spend with their father; (

c) However, the focus of this inquiry must remain on the children's best interests at all times, not on the conduct or needs of their parents. The best interests of the children are the most important considerations in determining where the children should attend school and how to allocate parenting time. EVIDENCE [ 12 ] In making my decision, I have considered the testimony of each parent as well as the following documentary exhibits: (

a) Exhibit 1: the affidavit of T.C., filed the 4th of August 2016, which appended various documents, such as: undated text messages that included a list of the children's dental appointments in August, year unknown; other text messages dated the 31st of August 2015; emails from October 2015; and a letter dated June the 10th, 2016, from one of K.'s educators at [omitted for publication] School in Abbotsford (M.K.). (

b) Exhibit 2: the school registration form for [omitted for publication] School in Chilliwack, dated the 30th of March, 2016.

(

c) Exhibits 3 to 6: which contained various brief text messages exchanged in August, September and early October. I am going to have to double check that, whether it is 2015 or 2016. (

d) Exhibit 7: an email regarding medical appointments for K. and possibly A., dated the 24th of July, 2016. [ 13 ] At the end of our last court day, there was insufficient time to hear full oral submissions from both parties. Consequently, I asked the parties to make written final submissions in order to expedite a decision in this matter. The written decisions tended to focus on the conduct of the parties towards each other. The evidence of parental conduct assists me when assessing the credibility and reliability of their evidence. However, I repeat that my central concern is the best interests of the children.

The needs and conduct of the parents are relevant only when it affects the best interests of the children. [ 14 ] I also note that T.C.'s written submissions appear to be written by T.C. without the assistance of her trial counsel. T.C.'s written submissions contain new information that was not subject to cross-examination. While an update of information may have been helpful, there was no corroborating material to support this new information. It amounted to statements by T.C. that supported her position in these proceedings.

Accordingly, it would be unfair to W.C. to place weight on this new information. [ 15 ] I do not intend to describe the evidence provided in detail; rather, I will briefly refer to evidence that applies to my analysis. ANALYSIS OF FACTS GENERALLY [ 16 ] I begin my analysis with these general comments. [ 17 ] The parents were living together in 1999, married in 2003, and separated in 2013. T.C. reduced her work hours after the children were born while W.C. continued to work full-time in the Lower Mainland area. T.C. continued to organize the children's personal, medical and educational arrangements.

These arrangements intensified after K. was diagnosed with a genetic intellectual disability and A. began participating in more activities outside the home. At the end of their relationship, they were living in Mission, B.C. [ 18 ] I observed that both parents have responsibly tried to address the needs of their children. T.C.'s efforts to meet the needs of her children are admirable and not disputed by W.C. She is to be commended for her efforts. She has arranged and attended K.'s numerous educational, medical and therapeutic services. However, I agree with W.C. that T.C. undervalues his contributions.

She does not seem to realize that W.C.'s contributions to the well-being of their children can be different from her own. An example of this mind-set is contained in T.C.'s written submission where she states: All needs regarding children and decisions were always and continue to be made by myself. [ 19 ] Since their separation, T.C. usually worked part-time outside of the home and spent much time dealing with K. and A. during the week, particularly K. due to her special needs.

W.C. worked full-time outside of the home and had less available time during weekdays to attend K.'s regular appointments during business hours. [ 20 ] Due to K.'s special needs, the attention tends to shift towards her when both children are present. Both parents sensibly arranged one-on-one time for A. with her father so that she did not have to compete for attention during that time. This occurred while the children lived and attended school in Abbotsford. As a consequence, W.C. had substantially equal parenting time with A. up to June 2016.

W.C. did not have substantially equal parenting time with K. when both parents arranged for A. to have additional one-on-one time with her father. [ 21 ] After June 2016, it appears that W.C. has substantially parented the children simultaneously. A. has had little time alone with her father. [ 22 ] I found T.C.'s evidence to be problematic at times, which affected her credibility. On occasion, her testimony, particularly with regard to K.'s medical, therapeutic and educational services in Abbotsford was less than forthright or forthcoming.

It also varied from some of the contents of her affidavit concerning the location of various therapies. Her perspective that she is the only person who decides the children's needs and then makes decisions about their needs colours her evidence. [ 23 ] I found W.C.'s evidence generally more reliable, although it was unreliable in some areas as well. His recollection about appointment services was contradicted by documentary evidence. I find this contradiction to be a memory issue, not a credibility issue. Otherwise, I find that he provided his evidence in a straightforward manner.

RELEVANT TIME PERIODS [ 24 ] I leave my general comments now and move to a brief chronology and analysis of the facts. I have organized my analysis according to the three general time periods that affect this proceeding: (

a) The months prior to September 2015, when the children lived and attended school in Abbotsford; (

b) September 2015 until August 2016, when the children lived in Chilliwack but attended school in Abbotsford; and, (

c) From September 2016 onwards, when the children lived and attended school in Chilliwack. Prior to September 2015 [ 25 ] Prior to September 2015, the parents did not agree on parenting time arrangements. Court orders were sought and opposed.

[ 26 ] On March 9, 2015, the court ordered that W.C. have parenting time for all but one weekend per month. During the week prior to T.C.'s weekend, W.C.'s parenting time was on Thursdays from 4:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m., so the children were able to see him on specified weekends and a particular weekday on a regular basis. [ 27 ] Subsequently, W.C. applied to change the March 2015 order. Parenting time remained an issue into the summer of 2015. I am unable to locate any court records that indicate that a consent order regarding parenting time was made on the 31st of July 2015.

The subsequent order on parenting time refers to the March 2015 order, not to a July 2015 order. The only order for July 31st, 2015, according to the family case conference record and appended terms of consent order, relate to child support. However, it appears that W.C.'s parenting time was increased around this time, so some sort of agreement was reached. The parenting time was increased to roughly the same

schedule that was formalized later that year. [ 28 ] T.C. bought the house in the Chilliwack area at the end of August 2015. [ 29 ] During this period, both parents were satisfied with the care, attention and services that their children received at the Abbotsford school. September 2015 to August 2016 [ 30 ] I now will deal with the time period between September 2015 and August 2016. [ 31 ] T.C. moved the children to the Chilliwack home in September of 2015. At that time, the children had resumed attending school in Abbotsford. [ 32 ] In October 2015, the parents disagreed about how to

schedule the parenting time and who should pick up or drop off the children in Chilliwack or elsewhere. W.C. filed an objection in court about the relocation of the children to Chilliwack. [ 33 ] On the 27th of October 2015, the court varied the March 2015 court order. According to the order details on the court

summary sheet and the court terms of order sheet, W.C. had the following parenting time: (

a) W.C. would have parenting time with both children on alternating weekends, beginning Friday after school until Monday morning at school. K. might be picked up on Sunday evening by T.C. in certain circumstances. (

b) Every Monday, A. would return to her father after school until Tuesday morning at school. The court

summary sheet and the terms of order sheet do not refer to parenting time with K. on any particular Monday evenings. (

c) Every Wednesday, K. would return to her father after school until she was picked up and returned to her mother later that evening. A. would remain with her father until Thursday morning at school. [ 34 ] I accept that the October 2015 order refers to the school in Abbotsford. I also accept that the parties agreed that the children would remain in the Abbotsford school, albeit for different reasons. [ 35 ] For W.C., having the children remain at the Abbotsford school permitted him to have meaningful continuous parenting time with them.

He would not have been able to maintain the same level of parenting time, particularly during the week, if they attended school in Chilliwack. His work required he drive westward in the opposite direction from Chilliwack. Accordingly, he agreed to withdraw his objection to the relocation. [ 36 ] I find that T.C. agreed to keep the children at the Abbotsford school because K.'s school team and services had already been arranged for that school year in Abbotsford. It was too late to transfer those arrangements in Chilliwack.

I find that her secondary consideration was that she was willing to see how parenting time worked while they lived in Chilliwack. However, at the time she agreed to keep them in the Abbotsford school, I find that she never intended that the children would remain there after the first year. My impression is based on statements she made during her testimony which I found evasive in this area and is reinforced by her continued emphasis on her difficulties driving back and forth to the Abbotsford school given her busy schedule. Shortly after the October 2015 agreement, she became pregnant.

She became more dissatisfied with driving the children to school over the next months. [ 37 ] She testified that she wanted to change schools shortly after the October 2015 agreement, told W.C. "right away", then dropped it, and then brought it back up again in January 2016. She began formally investigating a school change in March 2016, a few months later. The registration form for [omitted for publication] School near her Chilliwack home is dated the 30th of March 2016. I find it interesting that she did not list W.C. as K.'s parent on the form, which would be legally expected and appropriate.

She listed her new partner as a parent or guardian. She did not seek nor obtain W.C.'s signature on the registration and/or transfer documents, which is highly relevant to the manner in which the change of schools occurred. [ 38 ] It is important to note that T.C. and W.C. are both guardians who share parenting responsibilities for the children. They are supposed to equally share the decision-making regarding their children. [ 39 ] T.C. filed her court application to change the school and change W.C.'s parenting time in April 2016.

However, she finalized the school transfer to Chilliwack prior to the court resolution of these issues. [ 40 ] I accept that parents need to be organized about school registration, et cetera. I also accept that the parties discussed the school change prior to the final arrangements. Further, I accept that T.C. tried to convince W.C. to agree to the change. [ 41 ] However, the parties dispute whether W.C. agreed to the school change prior to the final arrangements. Their recollection is different on the issue.

Based on my concerns about T.C.'s evidence on this issue and the manner in which she transferred the schools, I accept W.C.'s evidence on this point. If he had truly consented to the change, I would have expected the parties to attend court to withdraw the application by T.C., formalize their agreement, and cancel their summer hearing date.

[ 42 ] I find that T.C. has not established on the balance of probabilities that W.C. provided formal consent to the school change. [ 43 ] I also find that the children were unable to spend the same level of consistent time with their father during their summer vacation. W.C. was unable to attend in Chilliwack during the weekdays due to his work locations. After September 2016 [ 44 ] From September 2016 onwards, W.C. continued to have difficulties with weekday access to his children. His parenting time has been reduced. T.C.'s parenting time has increased.

The location of the school has made drop-offs and pick-ups at school more convenient for her and the children. [ 45 ] The children are now able to spend more time in their neighbourhood and develop friends there. They have also been able to make friends in their new school. A. has apparently told her mother that she would like to remain at her new school. No doubt, its proximity makes it easier to get ready for school. It is also harder to uproot the children again. [ 46 ] I understand and sympathize with A.'s stated preference for a convenient school location.

However, my assessment of the best interests of the children requires that I balance her preference with the benefits of A. spending meaningful time with her father. [ 47 ] K.'s care team member, Ms. K., provided a letter where she acknowledged the "great" services that would be provided by both schools. However, in her view, K.'s proximity to her school and neighbourhood would be most beneficial to her development and progress. I observe that this information was not subject to cross-examination.

APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS Relocation Consideration and Best Interest of the Children [ 48 ] I turn now to the legal and factual considerations that apply to this case. First, I will discuss the change of residence of the children from Abbotsford to Chilliwack. Then I will discuss where the children should now attend school. I repeat that the best interests of the children is the central consideration to my analysis. [ 49 ] The change of residence of the children is the underlying context of this case.

There are specific laws that apply where one parent wishes to change the location of the children's residence and that relocation can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on the children's relationship with the other parent. [ 50 ] The relocating parent is supposed to comply with these legal requirements before the relocation occurs.

The relocating parent must give the other parent at least 60 days' written notice of the date of relocation and the name of the proposed relocation. (See s. 66 of the Family Law Act ) [ 51 ] Then, after the notice is provided but before the date of relocation, the parents must use their best efforts to cooperate with one another for the purpose of resolving any issues relating to the proposed relocation. (See s. 67) [ 52 ] If the relocating parent gives the required notice of the relocation, the relocation may occur on or after the date indicated in the formal notice unless the other parent files an application to prohibit the relocation within 30 days after receiving the notice. (See s. 67) [ 53 ] I am concerned that W.C. did not receive sufficient notice, if any, about T.C.'s proposed intention to buy or move to the Chilliwack area residence.

If there were any communications, they were verbal. T.C.'s best evidence on the point is that "he didn't say no, you can't move," when she told him about it. Such a response does not equal consent or agreement. The only contemporaneous record is an excerpt of texts between the parties on the 31st of August 2015, after the purchase of the property. When T.C. wrote that "we got the house for sure this morning," W.C. responded, "Which house?" She responded, "Chilliwack.

We had to fight with the bank but it's fine." [ 54 ] From his response, I infer that, if T.C. told W.C. that she was looking at a house in Chilliwack, it was in the context of several other options in other locations. Otherwise, W.C. would have known which house she had just bought. He would not have needed to ask "which house?". Her response described the house solely by its location, which I infer distinguished this house from the other prospective houses. [ 55 ] I find that T.C. did not provide the required notice of the relocation before the intended move.

While I realize that real estate transactions may occur quickly, it does not excuse T.C. from still providing the required written and proper notice as far in advance as possible. I am aware that T.C. and her new partner may have been acting quickly and not turned their mind to the impact of such a move on W.C. That is little comfort to the parent whose relationship with the children is significantly impacted by the relocation. I have not been presented with sufficient evidence to justify why proper notice was not provided.

The verbal communications and text messages do not comply with the required written notice. [ 56 ] I also find that faced with this "fait accompli" or "done deal", W.C. filed an objection to this relocation. He attempted to comply with the legal requirements. Afterwards, the parties agreed that W.C. would withdraw his objection as a result of T.C. agreeing to keep the children in the Abbotsford school. In this way, the children's time with their father would be minimally impacted.

While T.C.'s agreement to the school arrangement seems to comply with the parties' obligation to make best efforts to cooperate with one another to resolve issues relating to the relocation, I again note that they were doing so after T.C. unilaterally moved the children. [ 57 ] Since T.C. did not file an application to relocate the children's residence, it may appear moot to address those legal considerations now. T.C. has placed the court and W.C. in this difficult position. The children have been living in Chilliwack for approximately one and a half years at this point.

While their time with their father remained substantially the same for the first year, except during the summer vacation, it has diminished since T.C. moved their school to Chilliwack in September 2016. They have seen much less of their father for approximately six months, if the parenting time

schedule has not substantially changed since October 2016.

The relocation issue must still be addressed. [ 58 ] W.C. spent multiple days or evenings with the children during the week and over the weekends prior to their relocation. Prior to their relocation, W.C. shared substantially equal parenting time with A. but substantially less than equal parenting time with K. due to A.'s need to have alone time with her father and K.'s special needs.

Overall, the reality was that W.C. did not have substantially equal parenting time with both children when they were relocated. [ 59 ] The law requires that I consider whether the relocating parent acted in good faith and made best efforts to resolve any resulting issues for the other parent. If so, then I must consider whether the move was in the best interests of the children. See s. 69(4) and (6). [ 60 ] I find that the proposed relocation had the initial goal of allowing T.C. and her new partner to purchase a home in Chilliwack rather than rent one in Abbotsford.

T.C.'s emotional well-being and financial circumstances benefited from this move. I have heard little to no evidence to substantiate T.C.'s submission that the community surrounding their rented residence in Abbotsford was unsafe. At most, she testified that the condominium in Abbotsford had no yard and was on a busy street. The lack of the proper required notice clearly does not demonstrate good faith. [ 61 ] At first glance, T.C.'s October 2015 agreement to keep the children in the Abbotsford school appears to be an effort to cooperate with W.C. to resolve issues.

Also at first glance, the parties appeared to find a reasonable and workable arrangement to preserve W.C.'s relationship with the children. [ 62 ] However, I find that T.C.'s primary reason for keeping them at their old school was because it was too late to transfer K.'s extensive services to Chilliwack. T.C. initially appreciated and understood that the October 2015 agreement would benefit the children by allowing them to maintain their time with their father.

However, this consideration became much less important within two months of the agreement. [ 63 ] Based on her evidence, she changed her position about the schools within two months of the October 2015 court agreement. Then she "let it drop" for a short period of time before renewing this changed position in January 2016. During her testimony, she was not forthright about her plans regarding the children's schools when she made that October 2015 agreement. She now takes the position that she never intended them to remain at their old school "forever".

The manner in which she changed the schools, which I have discussed earlier, also demonstrates that she never intended to use her best efforts to resolve the primary issue of W.C.'s parenting time. [ 64 ] I do not consider her current proposal of three weekends a month to be a reasonable and workable arrangement that sufficiently preserves the relationship with both children. [ 65 ] Overall, I find that the relocation was not made in good faith and that T.C. did not sincerely propose reasonable and workable arrangements for the long-term preservation of the children's relationship with their father. [ 66 ] I now turn to whether the relocation was in the best interests of the children.

Prior to the relocation, it was in the children's best interests to have stability and continuity with their father. I have little to no evidence about what efforts T.C. made to consider the impact of changing schools at that point. Later in this decision, I will describe the benefits and disadvantages of the Abbotsford and Chilliwack schools in more detail. For the purposes of brevity now, I will say that the Abbotsford school provided satisfactory care for both children. They had spent their formative school years there and established relationships with teaching and care staff, as well as friends.

While the children were located and/or going to school in Abbotsford, they were also located close to their paternal grandparents. While their lifestyle may have improved in the new townhome in Chilliwack, their connections with their paternal family diminished. [ 67 ] If this relocation decision was properly sought prior to the move, I would have not permitted the children to be relocated. However, at this point, I am faced with the reality of the children now residing in Chilliwack.

They have now started to settle into their new community, make friends, use services there and participate in activities closer to their primary home. They have settled into their new school activities. With great reluctance, I find it is now not possible to return the children to a residence closer to their father. It would be too disruptive for the children. I observe that T.C. has created the conditions that make it difficult now to reverse the relocation.

Best Interests of the Children - Location of School [ 68 ] I now turn to whether it is in the best interests of the children to attend school in Abbotsford or Chilliwack. [ 69 ] From my review of the evidence, it appears that both the Abbotsford and Chilliwack schools provide an equivalent level of educational care for A. She benefits from living closer to her Chilliwack school, particularly when attending school and extracurricular activities. She has established teacher, student and community relationships at that school now. I have already discussed her personal preference.

I must balance all of this with her interests in spending more time with her father and her extended paternal family. By the end of the June 2016 school year, A. had attended the Abbotsford school for four years. This was the only school she had known up to this point. Accordingly, I also infer that she had well established teacher, student and community relationships in Abbotsford before the school switch. [ 70 ] The evidence about the level of care in each school differs for K.

T.C. testified that based on the information provided by the Abbotsford school caregivers, a stable, long-term school and community close to K.'s residence benefited K. She also viewed the services provided at the Chilliwack school as superior to those offered by the Abbotsford school. [ 71 ] M.K, K.'s former Abbotsford teacher and a member of her educational care team at the school, provided a letter to the parents in June 2016. She supported K. attending a school close to K.'s residence, which Ms.

K. believed would allow K. to more easily return home on difficult days and develop life skills in her local home community. She also believed that K. would require more classroom space to accommodate the particular manner in which K. learns about her environment. While the Abbotsford school space was currently sufficient, it would become too limiting as K. grew. Ms. K. advocated for a long-term, stable, uninterrupted learning environment. She also recommended that, if K. had to be moved, it should be now rather than later.

[ 72 ] One of T.C.'s main concerns is that she spends a great deal of time driving the children, particularly K., to various locations. Having the children attend school in Chilliwack is easier for her. While I sympathize with T.C., I find that this consideration is only relevant to the extent that it impacts the children's needs. Obviously, T.C.'s stress levels in driving the children longer distances can emotionally impact the children.

Children are impressionable and can be very sensitive to their parents' moods. [ 73 ] W.C.'s evidence contained his efforts to learn about the services for K. at the Chilliwack school. He also met with the care team and spoke with the principal. He also spoke with the principal at the Abbotsford school. Based on the information he learned, particularly from both principals, W.C. views the Chilliwack school services as largely inferior to the Abbotsford services for K.

W.C. is also concerned that the care team provides more random and intermittent care, rather than consistent one-on-one care, while at the Chilliwack school. He has formed the opinion that the Chilliwack special needs school services are not as well-funded as similar services in Abbotsford. He testified that the information from the Abbotsford principal led him to believe that there would be more availability and consistency with the same caregivers for K. at various times. He believes that such consistency in care is important for K.

The Chilliwack school only has two Individual Educational Plan meetings with K.'s caregivers and her parents per school year. The Abbotsford school has three meetings with the option of more meetings, if necessary. These meetings allow the parties to monitor K. more closely and share pertinent information. He also received information that there were more onsite therapies for K. at the Abbotsford school. [ 74 ] I note that the information provided to both parents by Ms. K., the caregivers and the school principals is hearsay and not subject to cross-examination.

I am, therefore, cautious about information that tends to be self-serving for either parent. [ 75 ] W.C. testified about the difficulties in spending time with the children since the school change. Prior to the school change, I accept that he had quality time during which he could participate in the daily and overnight activities of both children. Weekday and alternative weekend parenting time allowed them to have regular time together without significant gaps. Such time is beneficial to children. [ 76 ] W.C. discussed the option of moving to Chilliwack to be closer to his children.

However, he noted that it would negatively impact his long-term and stable employment. The drive would be prohibitive. This would require him to either lose his seniority, if not his job, and financial benefits with a long-term employer. I am aware that W.C. pays child support which should be maintained for the benefit of his children. [ 77 ] Both T.C. and W.C. have members of their family that participate in the care and upbringing of the children. These family members are also able to pick up and drop off the children if something unexpected occurs.

W.C. testified that his family participated in dropping off and picking up the children when they attended school in Abbotsford. I accept that these family members were also prepared to pick up K. if she was unexpectedly unable to continue in the Abbotsford school at least once per week. [ 78 ] I view the support service and therapies at both schools as roughly equivalent for K. The Abbotsford school might be marginally better based on the information provided to the court by October 2016.

However, T.C. was actively engaging with the Chilliwack school by that point, while W.C.'s interactions were more limited with that school. I note that much less was known about how the Chilliwack school services would actually be implemented at the time evidence was provided in August and October 2016. [ 79 ] The equine therapy seems to have remained in Langley. Other therapies in Abbotsford, like her aquatic therapy, appear transferrable to Chilliwack. I note that at least one therapy is not onsite at the Chilliwack school while it was onsite at the Abbotsford school.

K.'s pediatrician is in Abbotsford but many of her other medical services are all over the Lower Mainland, including Vancouver and Burnaby. Which School? [ 80 ] I now turn to my decision concerning the schools. If this application had been heard prior to the change in schools, I would not have hesitated to order that the children remain at the Abbotsford school. They should have remained there while the issue was ongoing. [ 81 ] As a general rule, it is in the best interests of the child or children to have regular contact with their parents without extended gaps between parenting time.

W.C. remains willing to significantly participate in raising both children. He has taken steps to meet their needs, particularly K.'s high level of needs. While T.C. acknowledged that it will take a village to raise the children, particularly K., she appears to undervalue the children's need to have frequent and regular time with their father or the willingness of his family to assist. The most important outcome for the children is that they benefit from time spent with their father. [ 82 ] T.C. has placed both W.C. and this court again in a difficult position.

We are all faced with the reality of the children in a Chilliwack school. After a careful and difficult consideration of all of the evidence, my key concern is to ensure the long-term stability for the children, particularly as they relate to their parents, community and school. The schools are roughly equivalent for A. If she was the only consideration, I would order her returned to the Abbotsford school. However, K.'s overall, long-term needs tilt my decision towards the Chilliwack school. I have also considered that it is important to keep the children together in the same school, if possible.

They can and have learned much from each other. Therefore, I reluctantly order that both children shall attend a school in close proximity to their current residence in Chilliwack. Parenting Time [ 83 ] I accept W.C.'s evidence that A. misses spending time with him since the school change. W.C. has made great efforts to accommodate the physical and emotional needs of his children. Accordingly, the current parenting time must be varied to compensate for the residential and educational changes caused by T.C. CONCLUSIONS [ 84 ] I will now summarize my conclusions.

[ 85 ] With regards to the location of the school, T.C.'s application to move schools is reluctantly granted. W.C.'s counterclaim to prohibit the change in schools is reluctantly denied. [ 86 ] I make the following order: (

a) The location of the children's school shall be at the [omitted for publication] school; (

b) The location of the school shall not be changed by either parent without the prior written and dated agreement of both T.C. and W.C., which shall not be unreasonably withheld. [ 87 ] I now turn to the issue of parenting time. I make the following order. T.C.'s application to change parenting time is granted, in part. The October 27, 2015, consent order is varied regarding parenting time beginning February 24th, 2017, as follows: (

a) W.C. shall exercise parenting time with both children every weekend from Friday after school until Sunday at a convenient time to W.C.; (

b) T.C. shall exercise parenting time with both children from Sunday at a time determined by W.C. until Friday after school; (

c) W.C. shall exercise parenting time during all statutory holidays with exchange times and locations to be determined by W.C.; (

d) Either party may exercise parenting time at any other time, including summer vacations, with the prior written and dated agreement of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld; (

e) All exchanges shall occur at a location to be determined at the discretion of W.C. Such location may include his residence; (

f) T.C. or her designate shall transport the children to all exchanges unless W.C. agrees otherwise, in advance in writing; [ 88 ] I make an additional order that the parties shall exchange all information, immediately upon receipt, concerning the health, education or well-being of their children by email. If any agreements are made by telephone, the parties shall immediately confirm that agreement by email. [ 89 ] Anything further, Ms. Campbell? [ 90 ] MS. CAMPBELL: No, thank you, Your Honour. [ 91 ] THE COURT: T.C.? [ 92 ] T.C.: Not at this time, thank you. [ 93 ] THE COURT: All right. The matter is concluded.

I am now going to be disengaging the telephone system. [ 94 ] THE CLERK: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 95 ] MS. CAMPBELL: I will hang up. [ 96 ] THE COURT: Just go off the record, please. (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED) (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED) [ 97 ] THE CLERK: Back on the record, Your Honour. [ 98 ] THE COURT: Yes, dealing with the C. matter, I am going to order that the registry prepare this court order as soon as possible. I do so because there has been some difficulty in getting supposedly agreed-upon court orders drafted and filed with the court when the responsibility lay with counsel. (ORDER CONCLUDED)