A.C.K. v. C.P.K. Date:, 2011 BCPC 442

Citation: A.C.K. v. C.P.K. Date: 20111125 2011 BCPC 0442 File No: F22435 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY RELATIONS ACT , R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 128 BETWEEN: A.C.K. APPLICANT AND: C.P.K. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R.N. HAMILTON Appearing on their own behalf: A.C.K. Appearing on their own behalf: C.P.K. Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: November 7, 8, 9, 2011 Date of Judgment: November 25, 2011 [ 1 ] C.K. and A.K. are the parents of fourteen year old J.K., born [date of birth].

Before me is an application by C.K. seeking sole custody, sole guardianship, and primary residency of J.K., with limited access to J.K. for A.K. [ 2 ] A.K. opposes that application and seeks orders for joint custody, joint guardianship, and a 50/50 sharing of J.K.’s time between the two parents’ homes on a week on/week off basis. Presently J.K. alternates between his parents’ homes daily. [ 3 ] Accordingly, the issues I must determine are: (

a) What custody/guardianship arrangement is in J.K.’s best interests? (

b) How much time should J.K. spend with each parent? [ 4 ] Child support is expressly not before me for determination. [ 5 ] My decision in this case must be based upon what I determine is in J.K.’s best interests and nothing else. [ 6 ] I want to first compliment both parties for the civility and respectful manner they displayed throughout the two and a half days of this trial. This case raised emotions and feelings that were, at times, difficult for the parties. It is clear to me that both of these parents care deeply for J.K.

[ 7 ] It is equally clear to me that both C.K. and A.K., in seeking the orders I have indicated, are doing so because they honestly believe that what they are doing is in J.K.’s best interests. BACKGROUND [ 8 ] C.K. and A.K. met in 1994 and were married on [date]. J.K. was born [date of birth] and his parents separated on [date] when J.K. was four years old. [ 9 ] The care giving arrangements for J.K. were agreed to by the parties without the necessity of court proceedings or even a formal written agreement. [ 10 ] Upon separation, J.K. resided primarily with A.K.

He saw his father, but did not sleep overnight at C.K.’s home. [ 11 ] According to Karen Fenton, the author of the Views of the Child Report tendered into evidence before me, J.K. did not begin sleeping overnight at his father’s home until he was ten years old. At that time J.K. asked to spend more time with his father, including overnight visits, and the parties agreed to an arrangement where J.K. spent three of seven nights each week with C.K.

Again this care giving arrangement for J.K. was reached by agreement without the need for a court order. [ 12 ] By this time C.K. had remarried and was living with his wife, C. [ 13 ] The non-litigious approach to a parenting

schedule for J.K. changed on May 14, 2010 when C.K. filed his Application to Obtain an Order relating to custody, guardianship, and access. On his Application, C.K. indicates that J.K. had asked for a change in custody and guardianship. J.K. was 12 years old at the time. [ 14 ] A.K. replied to C.K.’s Application by indicating she would agree to an order for joint guardianship, maintaining the status quo regarding access, and seeking her own relief in an order for sole custody (the “Custody/Guardianship Applications”). [ 15 ] The Custody/Guardianship Applications made their way through various court appearances and on February 28, 2011 the Honourable Judge Cohen made an order that a

Section 15 Custody and Access report be prepared. In fact what occurred was Karen Fenton, a Family Justice Counsellor, prepared a Views of the Child Report which she submitted on June 24, 2011. [ 16 ] In completing her report, Ms. Fenton spoke to both parents by telephone, and met with and interviewed J.K. in person. The trial proceeded before me on November 7, 8, and 9, 2011. [ 17 ] C.K. testified that he brought his Application primarily because J.K. had stated he wanted to come and live with his father.

C.K. filed his Application two months prior to J.K.’s 13 th birthday. [ 18 ] The genesis of the dispute over how these parents cared for J.K. occurred in the Spring of 2008 when J.K. was 10 years old. A.K. approached C.K. with a proposal to place J.K. into a home-schooling program commencing in September, 2008. [ 19 ] C.K. spoke to his wife, C., and both C.K. and A.K. attended a conference to learn more about home-schooling their son.

In order to accommodate a home-schooling program for J.K., both parents were going to have to make adjustments to their personal and professional lives in order that they could implement the home-schooling program and monitoring J.K.’s progress. [ 20 ] Both C.K. and A.K. ultimately agreed to enrol J.K. and his home-schooling program was set to begin in September, 2008. [ 21 ] Meanwhile, during the summer of 2008, J.K. expressed his desire to play on a football team.

J.K. had spoken about wanting to play football for a couple of years, but his parents had not registered him to play. [ 22 ] This year, both parents agreed, so J.K. began practicing in July and August, and his season began in September, 2008, the same time his home-schooling program began. [ 23 ] I note, as well, that around this same time J.K. was entering puberty. [ 24 ] Unfortunately, both the home-schooling program and the foray into football failed during September and October, 2008.

The failure of the home-schooling program and football resulted in what C.K. described in his evidence as a fracture in the relationship between J.K. and A.K. It also brought to an end the co-operative relationship that had existed between C.K. and A.K. Whereas before these parents would welcome each other into their respective homes, share J.K.’s birthday celebrations together, and help each other out when in difficulty, the fall-out from the failure of the home-schooling program and football led to acrimonious communication or a total absence of communication between these parents.

No longer was either welcome in the other’s home. [ 25 ] According to C.K., the fracture that occurred in the relationship between J.K. and A.K. led J.K. to distrust his mother and has resulted in a very stressful and strained atmosphere for J.K. while he is at A.K.’s home. [ 26 ] C.K. describes J.K. as “bottled up,” “frustrated,” and “stressed out” living with A.K. [ 27 ] For her part, A.K. also described a fractured relationship with J.K. describing him as disrespectful towards her. In her evidence, A.K. stated that J.K. will call her a bitch, liar, twofaced, and a hypocrite.

A.K. says that she believes J.K. calls her these names because he has heard C.K. refer to her by those same names. In effect, J.K. is simply parroting the disrespect openly shown her by C.K. [ 28 ] C.K. acknowledged that he refers to A.K. in those terms and that he has done so in J.K.’s presence. [ 29 ] A.K. testified that she felt C.K. was primarily responsible for her poor relationship with J.K. She went further and stated that she felt J.K. was expressing a desire to live with C.K. as a way of seeking and obtaining his father’s approval.

[ 30 ] I heard from two witnesses in addition to the parties. C. testified as part of C.K.’s case. Her evidence was fairly brief, but she described a good relationship between herself and J.K. C. is a Registered Nurse and she testified as to concerns she had about A.K.’s medical care for J.K. J.K. broke his collar bone and it was C.’s evidence that A.K. did not initially provide pain medication for J.K. despite having been given a prescription for Tylenol 3’s by J.K.’s doctor.

In general, C. testified that A.K. was resistant to discussing J.K.’s medical care or to accepting C.’s advice on how to care for J.K. when he was sick. [ 31 ] C. testified that she and C.K. reorganized life in their home to accommodate the plan to home-school J.K.

She said she was very angry when A.K. decided, unilaterally, to withdraw J.K. from the home-schooling program and re-enrol him in [name of school], J.K.’s former private school. [ 32 ] C. testified that when she and C.K. learned that A.K. had pulled J.K. out of home-schooling they offered to take on full responsibility for the home-schooling program, but A.K. declined. [ 33 ] C. testified that J.K. first spoke to her about wanting to live with her and C.K. when he was seven years old and that she supports J.K.’s stance now when he says he wants to live in their home. [ 34 ] The final aspect of C.’s evidence that I find germane to what I must decide, is her evidence about C.K.’s negative and disparaging comments about A.K.

She stated that C.K. will make negative comments about A.K., in J.K.’s presence, although she said he does so rarely. [ 35 ] C. stated that when this happens C.K. will apologize to J.K. She stated that she believed C.K. wants J.K. to have a good relationship with A.K. [ 36 ] I find as a fact, based upon the evidence of A.K., C.K. and C., that C.K. refers to A.K. negatively and in a demeaning and disparaging manner. Such conduct is utterly unacceptable, and it will not be tolerated.

If I thought that placing J.K. in his father’s home would put J.K. in an environment of hatred and disrespect for A.K., I would decline to do so. [ 37 ] The final witness to testify before me was A.K.’s sister, D.J. Like C., her evidence was brief but helpful. She described A.K. as a loving, caring, mother who has done a good job caring for J.K. [ 38 ] The two areas of D.J.’s evidence that I found of assistance to me in deciding this case were the following. [ 39 ] First, D.J. testified to a conversation she had with J.K. following church services a few months prior to trial.

She asked J.K. about what was going on in his private live and why he was so disrespectful toward his mother. [ 40 ] J.K., at first, said he did not know why he acted the way he did towards his mother. D.J. asked J.K. if A.K. had done something to hurt or humiliate him and J.K. responded “No.” [ 41 ] D.J. then testified that J.K. became emotional and choked up and stated that only spending one day in each parent’s home was very difficult for him. He could not get used to the different rules in each home and the back and forth and confusion was driving him crazy.

He said he could not remember the rules in each house and the result was he was getting into trouble. [ 42 ] D.J. painted a picture of a young teenager struggling with a parenting

schedule that left him confused, frustrated, and angry. [ 43 ] The second part of D.J.’s evidence I have found helpful in my deliberations is her evidence of the disrespect J.K. shows his mother. [ 44 ] She said that she has seen J.K. be very defiant of A.K.’s house rules and that he is not a well behaved child. She said that J.K. is happy at times, but his problematic behaviour goes deeper than just parent-teen conflict.

She expressed her view that J.K.’s problems are the result of his parents’ fractured relationship. [ 45 ] I return now to the two significant events in 2008 that C.K. stated have led to the deterioration in J.K.’s relationship with A.K. I do so because both of these incidents provide clear evidence about events in J.K.’s life that would lead a child to be confused, frustrated and angry. THE FOOTBALL INCIDENT [ 46 ] As I have indicated, J.K. joined a football team in September, 2008. By October, 2008, he decided he no longer wished to play football.

J.K. spoke to C.K. who encouraged J.K. to think about his decision for a further week and then C.K. and J.K. would discuss whether or not he would continue in football. [ 47 ] A week later J.K. was determined to quit football and C.K. said that would be fine. However, C.K. did not contact A.K. to discuss this issue with her. [ 48 ] When J.K. told his mother he was quitting football, A.K.’s reaction was to tell J.K. he had to remain on the team until the end of the season.

She said she felt strongly that he had made a commitment to his coaches and teammates to play out the season and he could not quit on them. [ 49 ] This contradictory stance taken by J.K.’s parents would clearly put J.K. in conflict. A.K. decided that she would speak to J.K.’s football coach to see if he would have a chat with J.K. about quitting the team. [ 50 ] J.K.’s coach agreed to talk to J.K. so A.K. told J.K. that his coach wanted to talk to him. [ 51 ] When A.K. took J.K. to speak to his coach, the coach asked J.K. what he wanted to speak to the coach about.

In J.K.’s mind he understood the coach wanted to speak to him, not the other way around.

[ 52 ] J.K. felt that A.K. had lied to him and he felt embarrassed and angry. To this day J.K. refers to his mother as a liar, an impression that is reinforced on occasion by C.K. when he calls A.K. a liar and hypocrite in front of J.K. [ 53 ] The point of this discussion concerning the football incident is simply this; it provides one clear and concrete example of significant confusion, conflict, frustration, and ultimately anger experienced by J.K. due to the different approaches taken by his parents to a relatively straightforward issue: Can J.K. quit football part way through the season?

THE HOME-SCHOOLING INCIDENT [ 54 ] The home-schooling incident is the second incident I will refer to in an effort to illustrate the difficult position J.K. found himself in due to the different approaches taken by his parents. [ 55 ] J.K. began home-schooling in September, 2008. His school materials arrived late so he did not get started working in the program for approximately one week. [ 56 ] In C.K.’s home, J.K. was given virtually complete independence as to when he started school work in the morning, how long he was to work, and how studiously he was to complete his assignments.

For the first week of school, C.K. did not check J.K.’s school work which he conceded was a mistake. [ 57 ] In A.K.’s home, J.K. was expected to rise early in the morning and work hard on his assignments. A.K. was vigilant in checking J.K.’s school work and she would occasionally assign additional work for J.K. to complete. [ 58 ] Unfortunately, J.K. did not respond positively, at all, to A.K.’s approach.

He would not do the school work, and was defiant in the face of A.K.’s attempts to have J.K. start the home-schooling year with a diligent attitude. [ 59 ] J.K. was travelling between each parent’s home on alternate days and the difference in the house rules regarding expectations for J.K.’s school work were polar opposites. [ 60 ] The failure of C.K. and A.K. to develop a common approach to J.K.’s home-schooling led to an unfortunate, if not catastrophic, decision. [ 61 ] A.K., convinced there was no way she was going to be able to get J.K. on track with a disciplined approach to home-schooling, re-enrolled J.K. in [name of school] without telling J.K. or C.K. [ 62 ] A.K. woke J.K. up one morning in early October, 2008 and told him to get into the car.

She drove him to school and J.K. spoke to the school Chaplain for an hour and a half. J.K. agreed to return to his classroom to speak to the other children, and from that point J.K. was back at school. The confusion, shock, and anger this approach must have caused J.K. is easily imaginable.

Coupled with the football incident that occurred at nearly the exact same time, these incidents would have fractured J.K.’s relationship with his mother. [ 63 ] A.K. testified that she made the unilateral decision to pull J.K. out of the home-schooling program without telling J.K. or C.K. because she was convinced neither J.K. nor C.K. would co-operate with her.

She felt she had no choice but to act unilaterally because her view was that the home-schooling program was doomed to fail due to J.K.’s unwillingness to work diligently on his course work. [ 64 ] When C.K. learned that A.K. had pulled J.K. out of the home-schooling program he offered to take on the full responsibility for home-schooling J.K., but A.K. would not agree to that proposal out of her concern that such a solution would eliminate her from J.K.’s schooling.

This was unacceptable to A.K. [ 65 ] C.K. then acquiesced in the decision to pull J.K. from the home-schooling program because as he put it, he has not had any authority to make schooling decisions for J.K. for several years as A.K. says it is her legal right to make those decisions. [ 66 ] I have made reference to the football incident and the home-schooling incident in an effort to bring clarity to this finding which I make: These two incidents which occurred at nearly the exact same time, coupled with the difference in the approach taken by J.K.’s parents, and further coupled with the conflict in the relationship between C.K. and A.K. led to a significant fracture in J.K.’s relationship with A.K.

THE VIEWS OF THE CHILD REPORT [ 67 ] The only other piece of evidence that was put before me that I wish to touch upon is Karen Fenton’s Views of the Child Report. Mrs. Fenton states that J.K. welcomed the opportunity to share his point of view in this case. [ 68 ] J.K. spoke to Ms. Fenton about the home-schooling program and the different approaches taken by C.K. and A.K. With respect to J.K.’s impression of how A.K. viewed J.K.’s efforts at home-schooling, Ms.

Fenton states: J.K. acknowledges that [his] mother was visibly disappointed in his efforts, but was not coming straight out and talking to him or his father, which led to a lot of frustration and breakdown in communication. [ 69 ] In her

summary, Ms. Fenton writes, He has lived primarily with his mother since he was 5 years old and wants her to consider that his father is an important influence in his life. J.K. wants to live with his father and reduce the control his mother has over pertinent decisions such as his choice of school, community involvement and religious practices. [ 70 ] A.K. does not accept that J.K. expressed his true feelings to Ms. Fenton. A.K. believes that J.K. has been influenced by C.K. and that he feels under some pressure to say to Ms. Fenton that he wishes to live with his father.

[71] There are reasons why Views of the Child Reports are done by trained professionals with a background in family services. It isto ensure, as far as possible, that the court is provided with an objective account of what the child has said. [72] As well, these trained professionals are tasked with trying to ascertain the sincerity of the views of the child they areinterviewing. While not perfect, absent some evidence of undue influence, I am of the view that the court must be able to rely upon theViews of the Child Report as providing an accurate, objective account of the child’s views.

In this case, I find that J.K. has a sincerelyheld view that he would like to move to live primarily with C.K. DISCUSSION [73] As I have said earlier in these reasons, I must resolve the issues before me in this case based upon what I determine to be in J.K.’sbest interests. In Robinson v. Filyk (BC CA), 84 B.C.A.C. 290, Madam Justice Huddart wrote about the best interestsof a child in these terms at paragraph 23: The concept of the best interests of a child has been called ephemeral. Certainly it is difficult to apply.

However transitory it mayappear, this concept is nonetheless the only test for guardianship and custody of a child available to a court in British Columbia. [74] In Gordon v. Goertz, (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, Madam Justice McLachlin (as she then was) wrote about theenquiry each judge must make when determining the best interests of a child before the court: But Parliament did not entrust the court with the best interests of most children; it entrusted the court with the best interests of theparticular child whose custody arrangements fall to be determined.

Each child is unique, as is its relationship with parents, siblings,friends and community. Any rule of law which diminishes the capacity of the court to safeguard the best interests of each child isinconsistent with the requirement of the Divorce Act for a contextually sensitive inquiry into the needs, means, condition and othercircumstances of “the child” whose best interests the court is charged with determining... The inquiry is an individual one.

Every childis entitled to the judge’s decision on what is in its best interests; to the extent that presumptions in favour of one parent or the otherpredetermine this inquiry, they should be rejected. “No matter what test or axiom one adopts from the many and varied reporteddecisions on this subject, each case must, in the final analysis, fall to be determined on its particular facts and, on those facts, in whichway are the best interest of the children met” (Appleby v. Appleby, supra, at p. 315). [75] In British Columbia,

section 24 of the Family Relations Act sets out the considerations I must bear in mind when I determinewhat is in J.K.’s best interests.

Section 24 of the Family Relations Act says: 24

(1) When making, varying or rescinding an order under this Part, a court must give paramount consideration to the best interests ofthe child and, in assessing those interests, must consider the following factors and give emphasis to each factor according to the child'sneeds and circumstances: (

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.

(1.1) The references to "other persons" in subsection (1)(

c) and to "each person" in subsection (1)(

e) include parents, grandparents, otherrelatives of the child and persons who are not relatives of the child.

(2) If the guardianship of the estate of a child is at issue, a court must consider as an additional factor the material well-being of the child.

(3) If the conduct of a person does not substantially affect a factor set out in subsection (1) or (2), the court must not consider thatconduct in a proceeding respecting an order under this Part.

(4) If under subsection (3) the conduct of a person may be considered by a court, the court must consider the conduct only to the extentthat the conduct affects a factor set out in subsection (1) or (2). [76] In reviewing

section 24, I find the following. With respect to J.K.’s health and emotional well-being, I find this to support adecision in favour of C.K. J.K. is clearly struggling with his relationship with A.K. He is disrespectful, rude, and defiant in A.K.’shome. Emotionally he has grown distant from A.K. J.K. told Ms.

Fenton, “At the present time he says he isolates himself in hisbedroom at his mother’s to avoid conflict and limit their interactions.” [77] With respect to J.K.’s views, I find that it is appropriate to consider them and I have found that he has a sincere wish to liveprimarily with C.K. [78] With respect to the love, affection and similar ties that exist between the child and other persons, again, I find this to support adecision in favour of C.K.

I believe that J.K. maintains love and affection for A.K., but the fracture in their relationship must beaddressed before their relationship can return to where it was over the first 10 years of J.K.’s life. [79] With respect to education and training for the child, I find this factor to be neutral. [80] With respect to the capacity of C.K. and A.K. to exercise guardianship and custody rights and duties, both parties raised concernsas to the other’s capacity. The concerns raised by C.K. with respect to the medical care or food provided by A.K. to J.K. are, in my view,

inconsequential. Of greater import on the issue of capacity is the fracture in the relationship between J.K. and A.K.

While I do not consider that fracture a complete impediment to A.K. exercising custodial and guardianship rights and responsibilities, I find that fracture is an impediment to A.K. providing J.K.’s primary residence. [ 81 ] As to C.K.’s capacity to exercise custody and guardianship rights and responsibilities, on his own evidence he has not had much, if any, experience exercising authority over these kinds of decisions to this point in J.K.’s life as he stated that A.K. made all such decisions and he never challenged those decisions. [ 82 ] A.K. testified to violence and conflict in her relationship with C.K., but I find that no such violence has ever been inflicted by C.K. on J.K. [ 83 ] However, I have serious concerns about the open disrespect shown to A.K. by C.K. in J.K.’s presence.

Such conduct and attitude must cease immediately. [ 84 ] Taking into account

section 24 of the Family Relations Act I find it is in J.K.’s best interests to reside primarily with C.K. CUSTODY AND GUARDIANSHIP [ 85 ] C.K. seeks sole custody and sole guardianship based primarily on the inability of him and A.K. to communicate. In evidence before me, A.K. spoke about attempts to communicate with C.K. and felt he was demeaning, confrontational, and dismissive.

C.K. displayed some of those characteristics in his evidence and during his cross-examination of A.K. [ 86 ] A.K. spoke of C.K.’s need to create conflict when they were together and called C.K. a “rage-aholic.” She described verbal arguments that at times became physical. She called the police on three occasions. [ 87 ] Despite that troubled past, after the parties separated they were able to put into place a parenting regime for over 6 years co- operatively and without resort to the courts.

That is commendable. [ 88 ] However, in the latter years and the years leading up to this trial, the communication has broken down. Both parties spoke of unilateral changes to when J.K. would be in each other’s home with no consultation with the other parent. [ 89 ] Despite the failings in the last few years, I believe that C.K. and A.K. can return to a more co-operative and consultative relationship given that this contest between them is over.

In addition, I expect that with more certainty coming to J.K.’s life by virtue of my resolution of when he will spend time in each home, the confusion and frustration of the past few years will dissipate. [ 90 ] I find that it would not be in J.K.’s best interests to cut A.K. out of the decision making process for J.K. She was J.K.’s primary caregiver until 4 years ago and has continued to make most of the important decisions for J.K.

She has made some mistakes, most notably concerning the football and home-schooling incidents, but I find those mistakes were because she had unilateral authority over those decisions. [ 91 ] I share A.K.’s concern that giving C.K. all of the decision making authority over J.K. to the exclusion of A.K. will quickly lead to A.K. playing virtually no role in J.K.’s life. CONCLUSION [ 92 ] I make the following orders: (

a) C.K. and A.K. shall share joint custody and joint guardianship on the Master Joyce model. (

b) J.K.’s primary residence will be with C.K. (

c) A.K. will have access to J.K. on alternate weekends from Thursday after school until Monday mornings when J.K. leaves for school. If the Monday of A.K.’s weekend is a holiday, her weekend will be extended until Tuesday morning. (

d) A.K. may have such additional weekly access with J.K. as is agreed upon between the parties. (

e) A.K. will have one week with J.K. over the school Christmas holiday each year. While I acknowledge that C.K. is opposed to such a holiday division, I find it is in J.K.’s best interests to have an extended period of time with his mother during holiday periods. I will leave it to the parties to sort out how to divide the holiday fairly between them. (

f) J.K.’s school Spring Break will be divided equally between the parties. (

g) A.K. will have 2 weeks with J.K. in July and 2 weeks in August each year. I will leave it to the parties to sort out how and when those weeks will be selected. (

h) A.K. will have J.K. on Mother’s day and C.K. will have J.K. on Father’s day each year regardless of whose weekend it is with J.K. (

i) A.K. may have such further or alternate holiday access as is agreed upon by the parties. [ 93 ] Lastly, C.K. is not to speak negatively of A.K. or demean or disparage her in any manner in front of J.K. or in any way that J.K. might hear. In addition C.K. shall not permit J.K. to disrespect or demean A.K. in C.K.’s presence. [ 94 ] The message I am hopeful C.K. will be able to convey to J.K. is that this dispute is now over and it is time to fix the divide that has developed between J.K. and his mother.

[ 95 ] While I will not order this, I find that it would be in J.K.’s best interests to commence counselling on his own and with A.K. to obtain assistance in repairing his relationship with his mother. If funding for counselling is available through C.’s benefits through work, I strongly encourage the parties to arrange for that counselling to commence immediately.

If no funding is available I would expect both parents for fund counselling for J.K. as far as they are able to based upon their respective incomes. [ 96 ] I will seize myself of any future applications relating to custody, guardianship and access for the next 12 months. Thereafter any such applications may be brought before any judge of this court. _____________________________________ The Honourable Judge Robert N. Hamilton Provincial Court of British Columbia