C.V.L. v. M.R.W. Date:, 2012 BCPC 551

Citation: C.V.L. v. M.R.W. Date: 20121003 2012 BCPC 0551 File No: F1725 Registry: Powell River IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY RELATIONS ACT , R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 128 BETWEEN: C.V.L. APPLICANT AND: M.R.W. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE A.E. ROUNTHWAITE

Counsel for the Applicant: S. McCausland Counsel for the Respondent: G. Reif Place of Hearing: Powell River, B.C. Dates of Hearing: September 18, 19, and 20, 2012 Date of Judgment: October 3, 2012 [1] C.V.L. (C.L.) is the mother and M.R.W. (M.W.) is the father of R.J.L. (R.L.), born (d.o.b.). The issue in this hearing is R.L.’sprimary residence. His mother now lives and works in Powell River while his father works in North Vancouver.

Each parent wants R.L.to live with them during the week and spend some weekends and holidays with the other parent. [2] On June 28, 2011 the parents agreed to a Consent Order providing for joint custody and guardianship, with R.L.’s primaryresidence to be with the father and neither parent to move his residence away from School District 47 (the Powell River area). Bothparents now seek to change that order. When the order was made the father lived and worked in Powell River and the mother in theLower Mainland.

Since the order was made the father has obtained employment in North Vancouver and wants to live there while themother has moved back to Powell River. The mother relies on the provision of the order requiring a review of primary residence if bothparents were to reside in Powell River. The father seeks to vary the non-removal provision. Applicable Law [3] An order may be varied under s. 20 of the Family Relations Act if there has been a significant change of circumstances since itwas made.

I am satisfied that the father’s having obtained work in the Lower Mainland and spending weekdays there and the mother’smove back to Powell River constitute significant changes of circumstance that meet the threshold test for variation. The circumstancesalso trigger the review provision of the order because the father maintains a residence in Powell River that he considers his primaryresidence. [4] Both the application to vary and the application for review require me to decide what living arrangement is in R.L.’s bestinterest, considering the factors set out in s. 24 of the Family Relations Act: (

a) the health and emotional well being of the child including any special needs for care and treatment; (

b) if appropriate, the views of the child; (

c) the love, affection and similar ties that exist between the child and other persons; (

d) education and training for the child; (

e) the capacity of each person to whom guardianship, custody or access rights and duties may be granted to exercise those rights andduties adequately. and the factors applicable to the issue of moving a child identified in the leading case of Gordon v. Goertz, (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27: (

a) the existing custody and access arrangements and relationships between the child and the parents; (

b) the desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents; (

c) the views of the child; (

d) the custodial parent's reason for moving, only in the exceptional case where it is relevant to that parent's ability to meet the needs ofthe child; (

e) disruption to the child of a change in residence; (

f) disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools, and the community he has come to know. [5] I must also have regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to R.L.'s needs and the ability of the respective parents tosatisfy them, and I must focus on his best interests rather than his parents’ interests and rights. Background Facts [6] The parents lived together in Powell River with the mother being R.L.’s primary caregiver until they separated in January 2009when he was two years old.

From their separation until September 2011, R.L. spent equal time with each parent, initially movingbetween them every day, then every four days, then weekly, then bi-weekly, and in the summer of 2011 monthly. Because this historyinvolves a number of moves and court orders, I will set out in abbreviated form an approximate chronology of relevant events until the

summer of 2011, and then discuss the events of the fall of 2011 in more detail. January 2009 – the parents separated; both lived and worked in Powell River. February or March 2009 – the father remained in the matrimonial home and N.G. (“the stepmother”) moved in with him; the mother completed her Home Support Residential Care Certificate; R.L. spent alternating weeks with each parent. August 2009 – the mother began to live with I.J. in Powell River.

October 2009 – the mother moved to the Lower Mainland with I.J.; she intended to choose a college programme, upgrade her Grade 12, and obtain admission to college; R.L. stayed with his father in Powell River in November while the mother got settled. December 2009 - the mother returned to Powell River for financial reasons and R.L. resumed alternating weeks with each parent.

December 17, 2009 - Interim Consent Order providing that R.L.’s residence not be changed from the geographical area of School District 47 (the Powell River area) without prior written consent or court order; each parent to have access on an alternating week

schedule December 2009 – the parents agreed to an alternating two week schedule. March 2010 – the mother returned to the Lower Mainland and R.L.’s alternating two week

schedule continued. April 22, 2010 - Interim Consent Order at a Family Case Conference, providing that the parents share time with the child as they agree, with an alternating two week rotation for July and August 2010; the father to pick up the child at Langdale ferry terminal at the start of his time and mother to pick up at Earl’s Cove ferry terminal at the start of her time. May 2010 – the mother began a two year programme at Douglas College and planned to complete teacher’s training; she subsequently attended four consecutive semesters while working part time.

August 26, 2010 - Interim Consent Order at a Family Case Conference, providing that the two week rotation and pick up arrangements continue. March 2011 - first day of a two day hearing on an application by the mother to move R.L. to the Lower Mainland to reside with her. June 2011 - the mother took a break from college, worked, and reconsidered her career path; she and I.J. discussed the future of their relationship because he would be attending university in Victoria in the fall and decided they would separate in September.

June 28, 2011 - Final Consent Order on the second day set for hearing, providing that the parents share joint custody and joint guardianship, with the father having the primary residence of the child and the mother having generous access; all holidays being shared equally; each parent having a month in the summer of 2011; neither parent changing the child’s residence from School District 47 without prior written consent or court order; and the parents agreeing to review the terms of the order in the event they both resided in Powell River.

July and August 2011 – the father obtained employment in North Vancouver, left R.L. with the stepmother in Powell River during the week, and returned to spend 3 weekends a month with them; R.L. spent August with his mother.

[ 7 ] Until this point the parents had co-operated to an admirable extent as co-parenting partners, making equal time-sharing work for R.L. in spite of their different personalities and different approaches to parenting. However, for a few months in the fall and winter of 2011 they stopped communicating effectively and became adversarial. The details of this period of high conflict, from which they fortunately emerged to a great extent by the spring of 2012, are as follows. [ 8 ] In August and September 2011 both parents were working in the Lower Mainland.

They disagreed about when R.L. should move to the Lower Mainland and where he should start kindergarten. The mother was living alone in New Westminster and had registered R.L. in school in Port Coquitlam. The father intended him to attend school in North Vancouver eventually but wanted him to start school in Powell River because his job was not yet secure. He arranged for R.L. to live with the stepmother in Powell River and attend kindergarten there. The stepmother had previously played only a supportive role in caring for R.L.; she then became his primary caregiver.

The father returned to Powell River to spend three weekends with R.L. and the stepmother in September, but R.L. did not see his mother or her extended family for six weeks, and the mother had difficulty reaching him by telephone. [ 9 ] By October the mother was uncomfortable with R.L. remaining in Powell River with the stepmother when both his parents were living in the Lower Mainland. Her discomfort was exacerbated by the father’s inability to commit to move him by a specified date. He had begun to talk about leaving R.L. in Powell River until January.

On October 3 the mother told the father she was thinking of moving back to Powell River to be closer to R.L., and on October 4 she texted him that she was not willing to move to North Vancouver, and confirmed her intention to return to Powell River to be with R.L. [ 10 ] The mother quite naturally felt that if she were in Powell River she should care for R.L. during the week while the father would spend weekends with him, but the father disagreed, believing he and the stepmother were more stable than the mother.

Relying on his understanding of the primary residence order, he felt R.L.’s primary residence should be with the stepmother in his absence. He resented the mother demanding to have R.L. during the week rather than asking. As a result, he refused to agree to her picking R.L. up from school and keeping him until his father arrived for a weekend. [ 11 ] The mother went ahead without agreement, picked up R.L. on October 18, and informed the stepmother that she would look after him until the father’s return.

Communications between the parents broke down; the father didn’t inform the mother that he’d be home the next weekend and R.L. wasn’t returned to his father until Sunday October 23 when his mother took him for his weekly visit with his paternal grandmother. The father refused the mother’s suggestion of mediation to work out a schedule. The mother then picked R.L. up at school on October 26 and communicated with the father and the stepmother to arrange for them to pick R.L. up for the weekend and share Halloween. She filed an application for review of the primary residence order on October 28.

To their credit the parents and the stepmother were all able to trick or treat with R.L. on Halloween without problems. [ 12 ] However, during this period the father had instructed the stepmother to go to school every day to pick up R.L. even though the mother said she would be doing this. When they met at school the mother would tell the stepmother she wasn’t needed.

Having both women at school under these circumstances must have been confusing and uncomfortable for R.L. [ 13 ] Moreover, shortly before trick or treating on October 31 the stepmother gave the mother a copy of an ex parte application filed by the father. The mother did not read it until the next day when it was too late to attend court.

On November 1, 2011 the father obtained an Interim Ex Parte Order providing that he and the stepmother have interim joint custody of R.L.; R.L. reside with them at their address and continue to attend (name of school) in Powell River; the father, the stepmother or the paternal grandfather pick R.L. up from school; the mother not pick the child up from school unless expressly authorized by the father in a letter to the school; the mother have interim access three specified week days from 3:00 to 7:00 pm, Friday after school until Saturday at 10:00 a.m., and school professional days and statutory holidays; with an order that police may apprehend R.L. if his mother doesn’t return him as required by the order.

The mother applied immediately to set aside the ex parte order. [ 14 ] After hearing testimony from both parents and the stepmother on the relevant facts, I consider the ex parte application to have been an overreaction by the father based on evidence that included allegations about the mother that were disproven in this hearing. It is true the mother might have taken court action sooner rather than act unilaterally, but the father was unwilling to compromise with her on where R.L. would spend the nights.

She did not breach a court order by picking R.L. up at school and keeping him overnight: the parents shared joint custody and guardianship and there was no court order scheduling R.L.’s time. The mother’s wish to have R.L. with her during the week was not unreasonable, particularly when he had not seen her for six weeks.

I accept that both parents shared responsibility for the breakdown in co-operation, but mediation would have been a more appropriate way to resolve their differences, and failing that a hearing in which both parties could be heard. [ 15 ] Nevertheless, in spite of this conflict, the parents appear to have gradually regained their ability to co-operate. The father was laid off from December 2011 until April 2012 and he returned to Powell River.

On December 1, 2011 an Interim Consent Order was made providing that the mother, father and the stepmother share joint guardianship on the Master Joyce model with the father and the stepmother having decision-making power if agreement were not reached. Co-parenting worked fairly well during this period. The parents accommodated each other with

schedule changes they generally recorded in writing. On March 22, 2012, another Interim Consent Order provided that the police assist and school pick-up terms of the ex parte order be deleted; the mother have access every Tuesday after school until Thursday at 7:00 pm and other access as agreed. This arrangement has continued since April, when the father returned to work in North Vancouver and resumed spending three weekends a month with R.L. In May 2012 he obtained his own rented apartment in North Vancouver.

Analysis [ 16 ] In this analysis I will deal first with the weight to be accorded to the parents’ views; then canvas the factors identified in the statute and case law; then examine the arrangements proposed by the parents in light of the most significant factors and explain my conclusions; and finally, set out the orders I am making. Parents’ Views [ 17 ] In Gordon v. Goetz the Supreme Court said “The inquiry does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the custodial

parent, although the custodial parent's views are entitled to great respect.” While the father has interim joint custody with the stepmother under the November 1, 2011 ex parte order, and I will accord great respect to his views, the situation here does not involve a custodial and an access parent as contemplated by Gordon v. Goetz. [ 18 ] Here the parents have shared joint custody and joint guardianship until the November 1, 2011 ex parte order, initially de facto by spending equal time with R.L. and sharing decision-making, and then pursuant to the June 28, 2011 Consent Order.

The mother’s consent to the father having primary residence in that order was based on her belief that the father would remain in Powell River with R.L. Within days of that order, however, the father obtained employment in the Lower Mainland and began to spend his weeks there. The interim ex parte order that deprived the mother of joint custody in November 2011 would likely not have been made had she participated in the hearing. Since March 2012, R.L. has resided with the mother for three days a week and with the father three weekends a month.

In these circumstances neither the primary residence order nor the interim custody order should operate to diminish the importance of the mother’s views. R.L.’s parents have demonstrated equivalent commitments to their son, and have equivalent knowledge of his needs. I will therefore accord great respect to both their views. Significant Factors [ 19 ] Determining R.L.’s primary residence is a difficult decision. He has two good parents, each of whom is able to care for him well.

However, neither option for R.L.’s residence is ideal because each will deprive him of contact with a person or people he loves and who love him. By far the most significant factors in the decision about R.L.’s residence are the strong bonds he has with both parents and with his grandparents, and the importance of his connections with these adults to his emotional well-being. [ 20 ] The other factors are of less significance, being either neutral or not applicable. There is no evidence about R.L.’s views, and given his young age a court would be cautious in considering any expression of his views.

He does not have special needs requiring treatment, and he will attend a public elementary school in Grade One wherever he lives. While he spent kindergarten at (name of school) in Powell River, there is no evidence to suggest that he would not be able to thrive at a North Vancouver school. [ 21 ] The parents’ reasons for moving are not significant factors.

R.L.’s father cannot be faulted for moving to North Vancouver for a municipal government job with prospects for advancement, good pay, benefits and a pension, particularly since the mother was living in the Lower Mainland when the father moved and his move would have made co-parenting easier. His decision to move is consistent with the father’s commitment to provide financial security for his family’s future. [ 22 ] On the other hand, the mother cannot be faulted for moving back to Powell River to care for R.L. when he remained there without either of his parents.

Although the father submits the mother should have sacrificed short-term concerns for long-term goals and remained in the Lower Mainland waiting patiently for R.L. to move, the parents were not communicating well in September 2011 and the father was unable to commit to moving him by a specific date. Given the facts that she had had trouble getting telephone contact with R.L. and that her family was not seeing him, it is not surprising that the mother was anxious about him and felt compelled to move back to Powell River. [ 23 ] The father is solid, stable, and goal-oriented.

He did not want to move R.L. until he was sure the move would be permanent. However, I am not at all certain that it would have been better for R.L. to remain in Powell River from September until January, only seeing his father three weekends a month and rarely seeing his mother and her family, than to move to the Lower Mainland for his first term of kindergarten and have frequent contact with his parents, even if the move turned out to be temporary.

I therefore reject the father’s submission that the mother’s return to Powell River was not in R.L.’s long-term best interest. [ 24 ] I conclude from the evidence that both parents are capable of exercising parental duties adequately. It is clear that the father’s household is considerably more structured and strict than the mother’s but there is insufficient evidence to permit me to determine that one parent’s approach is more beneficial to R.L. than the other. To the parents’ credit they each acknowledge that the other is a good parent.

Arrangements Proposed by the Parents [ 25 ] The father intends to make his home in the Maplewood area of North Vancouver and the stepmother will soon move to join him in the three-bedroom apartment he has rented for them. The father plans to rent out his condominium in Powell River once the stepmother leaves it. There are parks, playgrounds, outdoor activities, recreational opportunities, and a creek in the father’s North Vancouver neighbourhood, and two elementary schools have space for R.L. in Grade One.

The stepmother will be able to work in two local grocery stores and she would take R.L. to school while the father ends work early enough to pick him up. The major advantage of a move to North Vancouver for R.L. would be spending more time with his father. [ 26 ] It appears that the stepmother will resume her previous role supporting the father as a parent when she moves to North Vancouver.

She willingly took on primary responsibility for R.L.’s day to day care in September 2011 when both parents were in the Lower Mainland, and despite concerns from some witnesses that she may have been too strict, I accept the evidence of other witnesses that she did a good job of parenting him in his father’s absence. [ 27 ] However, she was in a difficult position, carrying out the father’s wishes and dealing with the mother at a time when the parents were having conflict.

Acknowledging that, I conclude from the evidence that she has been unwilling to have R.L. spend time with his mother’s family and that she has at times behaved in a competitive manner with the mother, particularly in regards to involvement in R.L.’s schooling. For example, she took R.L.’s crafts home at the end of kindergarten and has not done anything to share them with the mother.

Her explanation that she hasn’t had time to go through his work with R.L. in the last three months is nonsensical. [ 28 ] I also conclude from the evidence that there was tension when both women drove children from R.L.’s class on field trips. For example, whose car R.L. would ride in was a contentious point. R.L. acted up on one field trip to a grocery store and had problems focusing on schoolwork when both women were helping in the classroom.

Although the stepmother attributed this to the mother’s presence, I think it more likely that R.L. was negatively affected by tension between the two women and their different parenting styles. He may have felt confused having them both present in a parental capacity. Although the stepmother was put in a difficult position when

she was given interim joint custody with the father on November 1, 2011 without having applied for it, it would have been both sensitive to R.L.’s needs and diplomatic to have permitted the mother to take the lead role in her son’s school activities. [ 29 ] The stepmother also appeared from text communications with the mother to want to be the one to take him to the doctor. In one exchange she discouraged the mother from doing this and then did it herself. [ 30 ] There have also been problems with the father and the stepmother sharing information with the mother about R.L. since the primary residence order.

The father did not give the mother his address in North Vancouver although she provided hers when she lived in the Lower Mainland. While the stepmother has asked the mother to let her know if R.L. misses school, in May 2012 the mother learned R.L. had missed school for two days and asked the stepmother if he’d been sick. The stepmother first ignored her texted questions and then said she should discuss it with the father. Her perception that the mother was pressuring her and being confrontational is not supported by objective assessment of the text exchange.

The father did not reply to the mother’s text enquiry about whether R.L. had been sick, and the mother had to telephone him to learn that R.L. had spent the weekend in North Vancouver with the father and been too sick to travel on Monday.

The father’s response in cross-examination that he didn’t see it as a big deal because they were his days, and he kept his texts short because he was working, does not provide a satisfactory explanation as to why he and the stepmother could not simply have replied “He had the flu” to the mother’s initial questions, and why they didn’t inform the mother R.L. was ill and missing school on the Monday. [ 31 ] A significant disadvantage of a move would be the loss of the close relationships R.L. enjoys with both his maternal and paternal grandparents, three of whom live in Powell River and with their partners spend one on one time with R.L. that is immeasurably enriching for him.

His maternal grandfather and his partner live on acreage and involve R.L. in farming activities with a garden, orchard, forest, dogs, cats, chickens and goldfish; his paternal grandfather and his partner involve him in building projects; his paternal grandmother has spent Sunday afternoons with him since he was one. Two grandparents and one of their partners testified and the depth of their attachment to R.L. was very obvious. [ 32 ] The father points to the presence of most of the stepmother’s extended family in North Vancouver as a potential advantage.

R.L. has met them a few times, but there is no evidence that any of the stepmother’s relatives would offer R.L. the warm affection and frequent, sustained, one on one time he regularly enjoys with his own grandparents and their partners.

While the father testified he would bring R.L. to Powell River to visit family and friends, even if this happened regularly, there would be insufficient time on weekend visits for R.L. to have the kind of visits he now enjoys with all his grandparents, particularly since weekends would be his only time with his mother during the school year. [ 33 ] Moreover, although the father used to take R.L. to see his maternal grandparents and use them for babysitting, he hasn’t done so since obtaining primary residence and starting work in North Vancouver.

It is true that R.L.’s opportunities to spend time with his grandparents have decreased since he began school and can only spend weekends with his father. However, R.L.’s Sunday visits to his paternal grandmother have continued. In addition, although the stepmother requires childcare at times when she has R.L. and must work and the maternal grandfather and his partner demonstrated warmth and openness to the father and stepmother when they testified, the stepmother has not permitted R.L.’s maternal grandparents to provide that childcare since July 2011. Instead, she uses the paternal grandfather or friends.

In addition the father acknowledges that the stepmother has tension with his father’s partner, possibly because she is friendly with the mother. The evidence establishes valid grounds for concern about the extent to which contact with his maternal grandparents would be encouraged and facilitated if R.L. were living with the father and the stepmother. [ 34 ] If R.L. moves to North Vancouver and his mother remains in Powell River, the father proposes that he spend all long weekends except Labour Day, one month in summer, half the Christmas holidays, and spring break in alternating years with his mother.

This would be a marked decrease from the three days a week he currently spends with her. The mother testified that if R.L. were moved to the Lower Mainland she would do what she could to move there too in order to be close to him, even though she considers her job possibilities there far less certain and less convenient than her position as a Home Support Residential Care Aid in Powell River.

However, if she were living in the Lower Mainland the father does not support sharing time equally but proposes she have R.L. every second weekend and two after-school visits each week. [ 35 ] R.L. has a close and loving relationship with his mother. Remaining in Powell River with her offers him the stability of remaining in the community he was born in, outdoor activities he enjoys, and most significantly, enriching relationships with both his paternal and maternal grandparents. The mother rents a two bedroom condo in a quiet neighbourhood near a park.

She works 26 to 30 hours a week, from 0700 to 1100 Friday to Tuesday, at a secure, permanent part time union job with good benefits, and enjoys her work. On work days she would take R.L. to her father’s in the morning and he or his partner would take him to school on the bus. The mother would pick him up. On her days off she could transport him both ways and continue to help in the classroom as she did last year.

She is dating a man who gets along with R.L. but they have no plans to cohabit in the near future. [ 36 ] The father perceives the mother as unstable or flighty, because she has changed residences and school programmes. However, the mother has changed her rented accommodation about once a year to improve it, and that is a pattern the parents shared until they bought the condominium that the father obtained in their division of property. She moved to the Lower Mainland in October 2009 and March 2010 to pursue education. If she were to do so again, she would want R.L. to share his time equally with both parents.

I accept that she had good reasons for her moves back to Powell River: financial necessity in December 2009 and her desire to parent R.L. in October 2011. She also had rational reasons for deciding not to pursue a teaching degree and returning to the health care field with a long-term goal of becoming a LPN.

I conclude that the evidence does not establish a lack of stability in the mother that would be detrimental to R.L. [ 37 ] The father testified that he and the stepmother like structure and certainty and they find it frustrating when they attempt to inform the mother weeks in advance of precise details for picking up R.L. and she requests changes the night before. He said they felt they had to keep exchange dates free of other commitments because they wouldn’t know the exact times until the last minute.

However the stepmother was only able to cite two instances when the mother had requested changes, and she acknowledged that although their relationship is distant, the mother has generally been co-operative with her.

[ 38 ] The mother would like R.L. to spend more time with his father; he has spent much of his time with his stepmother in the past year. She considers it in R.L.’s best interests to see both his parents as often as possible and would propose alternating weeks if the parents lived in the same community. If they remain in different communities she suggested that he spend three weekends a month with his father and share holidays. She has taken steps to facilitate R.L.’s contact with his father and his family when her son is with her.

During her month with R.L. in August 2011 she arranged for him to see his father; she is on good terms with the paternal grandfather and his partner; and when she kept R.L. with her for several days in October 2011 she continued his weekly visits to his paternal grandmother and let the stepmother know she could see him when she liked. The mother has also ensured that R.L. spends time with all his grandparents whenever he is with her. [ 39 ] Of course the disadvantage of living in Powell River with his mother is that R.L. will spend less time with his father, and his father is very important to him.

I acknowledge that after obtaining the ex parte order, the father has been co-operative with the mother and facilitated extra access to her. However, I have concluded that the mother is more likely to ensure that R.L. maintains his ties with his father and stepmother and all his grandparents than his father and stepmother are.

Both her past conduct and her willingness to share R.L.’s time equally with the father if they live in the same community demonstrate her ability to foster his important relationships and her commitment to do so. [ 40 ] I have considered whether it would be in R.L.’s best interests to continue primary residence with his father, and hope that his mother would move to the Lower Mainland so R.L. could have more frequent contact with both parents. However, I consider that the father’s

interpretation of primary residence as granting him decision-making power has caused problems: the ex parte order following a refusal to seek mediation, and R.L.’s lack of contact with his mother’s family when he is with his father and stepmother.

I recognize that the father believes it best for R.L. to spend the majority of his time in the structured environment he and the stepmother offer, but there is evidence that R.L. moves quite easily between his parents’ homes and has done so since he was two. [ 41 ] I consider the mother’s recognition of both parents’ importance to R.L. to be better for R.L. than his father’s desire to be the primary care giver with the mother playing a diminished role. In spite of their disagreements, the parents have usually been able to make equally shared time work for R.L.

They have demonstrated admirable abilities to argue and move on without dwelling on past disputes. I therefore believe the problems they have encountered, such as occasional last minute time changes and differing behavioral expectations, could be addressed effectively in meetings with a mediator or counsellor. Having concluded that the mother has a greater capacity than the father and stepmother to meet R.L.’s need to maintain relationships with his other parents and grandparents, I find that it is in his best interests to remain with his mother in Powell River.

Nevertheless, I do urge all three parents to do their very best to ensure that R.L. spends weekends with his father, both in Powell River and in North Vancouver. R.L.’s relationship with his father is very important to him and must be maintained. [ 42 ] If the mother were to decide to move to the Lower Mainland or the father to return to Powell River, the parents should do all they can to live near enough to one another to make equal time sharing work.

In that case, I recommend that they attend counseling or mediation to assist in minimizing the causes of friction between them and harmonizing their parenting styles. Orders [ 43 ] I therefore make the following orders. The Interim Orders of November 1, 2011, December 1, 2011, and March 22, 2012 are cancelled.

The provisions of the Consent Order made June 28, 2011 providing that M.W. and C.L. share joint custody and joint guardianship of the Child and that neither party shall change the Child’s residence from School District #47 without the prior written consent of the other party or a court order remain in effect. The Consent Order made June 28, 2011 is varied to provide the following: The Child’s primary residence shall be with C.L. M.W. shall have access to the Child as follows:

a) as often as possible, and not less than one weekend a month, to be a long weekend if there is a holiday or Professional Development Day;

b) an equal share of all the Child’s school holidays;

c) generous telephone and computer access;

d) any other access agreed by the parties;

e) pick up and drop off shall be in Langdale and Earl’s Cove respectively, with the parents sharing responsibility for transportation as equally as possible, but sharing the cost of transportation in proportion to their incomes. In the event that the parties reside in the same city or district they shall share time with the Child as equally as possible, and they shall attend mediation to assist them in agreeing on the details of shared time and harmonizing their approaches to parenting.

Joint guardianship shall mean the following: (1) the parents are to be the joint guardians of the estate of the Child; (2) in the event of the death of either parent, the remaining parent will be sole guardian of the person of the Child; (3) each parent will have the obligation to advise the other parent of any matters of a significant nature affecting the Child; (4) each parent will have the obligation to discuss with the other parent any significant decisions which have to be made concerning the Child, including significant decisions concerning the health (except emergency decisions), education, religious instruction and general welfare of the Child; (5) each parent will have the obligation to try to reach agreement on these major decisions; (6) in the event that the parents cannot reach agreement with respect to any major decision despite their best efforts they will attend mediation to try to reach agreement; and (7) each parent will have the right to obtain information concerning the child directly from third parties, including, teachers, counsellors, medical professionals and third party care givers. [ 44 ] I have not included a “tie-breaker” provision in this definition of joint guardianship because the parents have proven themselves capable of resolving disagreements and should be encouraged to do so.

If this proves impossible, the Family Relations Act and its successor, the Family Law Act , provide avenues to have a judge decide an issue joint guardians cannot agree on. A.E. Rounthwaite Provincial Court Judge