Dhillon v. Dhillon

2011 BCSC 1190 Dhillon v. Dhillon

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Dhillon v. Dhillon, 2011 BCSC 1190 Date: 20110901 Docket: E019490 Registry: New Westminster Between: Satpal Kaur Rai-Dhillon Claimant And Kavinder Singh Dhillon Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harris Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Claimant: Matthew Brandon Counsel for the Respondent: Betty L. Gabriel Place and Date of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. August 29, 2011 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. September 1, 2011 Introduction [1] This application is to resolve issues of custody, guardianship of and access to, the seven-year-old child of the parties. The parties agree that there should be an order of joint custody and guardianship, but disagree about who should have final decision-making authority in the event of disagreement. They also agree that a shared parenting arrangement is in the best interests of their child. They disagree, however, about how quickly equal parenting time should be instituted. The mother takes the view that there should be graduated progress over an approximately three-year period towards shared parenting. The father takes the position that an access regime of one week on and one week off should be implemented immediately. The parties also disagree about some ancillary matters arising out of these primary issues. Facts [2] The parties were married on June 2, 2001 and

divorced in December 2005. [3] They have one child, Simrit, a daughter, who was born March 26, 2004. [4] Currently, there is no court order in place governing guardianship, custody and access. The parties entered a written agreement in February 2007. That agreement dealt with child support and special and extraordinary expenses. It did not deal with access. The parties did, however, follow a parenting schedule that was based on the recommendations contained in a Section 15 Report of March 21, 2008. [5] Since that time the father has had parenting time with his daughter every Tuesday from 5:30 p.m. until the following morning at 10:00 a.m. In addition, he has access on Friday from 5:30 p.m. until Sunday at 12:00 p.m., three out of every four weekends. [6] Recently, difficulties have arisen concerning the parenting schedule. The parents have attempted, without success, to negotiate a new schedule with the assistance of a parenting coordinator. There have been some difficulties with drop-offs and pick-ups. In recent months, the father has frequently delayed returning his daughter to her mother until about 4:00 p.m. on Sundays, thereby cutting into the mother's access time. Problems arose between the parties about vacation trips. The police have been involved in at least one incident involving the parents. [7] Both parents are dedicated, loving and capable parents of their child.

Both are well educated. The mother is a financial advisor. The father runs his own company. Both parents appear to have reasonable flexibility to devote time to parenting Simrit. [8] Simrit's primary residence has been with her mother. She is the one who has discharged the day-to-day responsibility for managing the logistics of Simrit's life. The father wishes to be involved in what was referred to as the "grind of daily life", since he sees that as an important aspect of his parenting role. [9] The father remarried in 2010. There are no children of that marriage. Mr. Dhillon lives with his parents and his new wife. His parents are healthy and have a very close relationship with their granddaughter. Similarly, his daughter has a good relationship with his new wife. [10] Simrit is currently in grade 2. She attends horseback riding lessons, piano lessons and a jazz class. Analysis [11] The parties agree that the resolution of the parenting schedule and access issues is to be determined by what is in Simrit's best interests. They also agree on the factors that should guide a decision on access. Most importantly, they agree on the importance of the so-called maximum contact principle and the child's right to know and have a rich and rewarding relationship with each parent. [12] There is no dispute between the parties that each parent is a committed, capable and loving parent. The

mother's view, however, is that Simrit has some anxiety and attachment issues and benefits from a primary residence which provides stability, continuity and predictability in her life. She does not believe that Simrit is yet ready for an equal parenting arrangement, hence the proposal for a graduated increase in the father's access over several years. [13] I have found the detailed, thorough and considered Section 15 Report dated March 21, 2008 to be the most helpful material in the record. The Report was complimentary about both parents and their parenting ability. It found that Simrit was comfortable with both parents and had a loving and affectionate relationship with each of them. The Report found that both home environments have a great deal to offer Simrit and that she is fortunate to have parents who are so supportive and understanding of her needs. [14] The Report also concluded that Simrit benefits from having a primary residence with her mother because she benefits from the stability, structure and routine offered in her mother's home. The Report recommended that the mother's home be the home base until Simrit is in middle childhood, although precisely what that term means was not defined. [15] I appreciate that that Report is now over three years old, but I do not think anything in its essentials have materially changed since it was prepared. It seems clear to me

from the Report that it would not be in Simrit's best interests to move abruptly from one parenting regime to another. A sudden move to a regime of one week on and one week off would be dislocating and disruptive. A sudden move puts at risk the structure, predictability and routine which apparently benefits Simrit. It seems clear to me that a graduated move to a shared parenting regime is in her best interests and is consistent with the recommendations in the Section 15 Report. [16] A graduated move to shared parenting will permit the parents to develop schedules and arrangements that facilitates stability and routine in Simrit's life and will provide the opportunity to the parents to develop the methods by which the logistics of her life, schooling and extracurricular activities can be planned and managed. [17] Having said this, I have concluded that the proposal to work towards shared parenting over a 3-1/2 year period is unsatisfactory. In my view, the parties should attempt to achieve shared parenting sooner than the proposal put forward by the mother contemplates. I have reached the conclusion that there should be a gradual move towards shared parenting, but that the objective should be to achieve shared parenting after two years. In my view, the father's access should be increased in increments each six months, starting October 1, 2011, until he has equal parenting time

with the mother. [18] I do not propose to impose particular access times on the parents. At this stage I consider it preferable that the parents develop, with or without the assistance of the parenting coordinator, a parenting schedule that works for them and is in their daughter's best interests, but which is within the parameters that I have set out. I think a schedule reached by agreement is likely to be better than one imposed by me. If the parties are not able to agree on a schedule by the end of September 2011, they are at liberty to submit their proposed schedules culminating in shared parenting to me in writing and I will make the decision for them. [19] I turn now to ancillary matters. The only disagreement between the parties on the order for custody and guardianship concerns who will have the final decision-making authority relating to Simrit. The mother proposes that she have that authority. The father proposes that a parenting coordinator have the authority to arbitrate any disputes between the parents and impose a binding decision on them. [20] I do not agree with the father's suggestion. The parties have worked with a parenting coordinator. It likely will be to their benefit and in the interests to continue to do so. I expect that a parenting coordinator who works with the parents to achieve consensus, but does not have the authority to arbitrate disputes, would

be more useful to them. I am concerned that if the parenting coordinator has the authority to act as an arbitrator, one or other of the parents may tend to resort to "arbitration" too readily and the effectiveness of the parenting coordinator to facilitate consensus may be undermined. In my view, the father's interests are adequately protected by his right to apply to court in the event that he considers the mother is using her decision-making authority improperly. [21] The father also requested some additional further orders. He suggested that there should be a reciprocal restraining order preventing either parent from removing their child from the Lower Mainland. In my view, that order is unnecessary. No foundation has been provided to suggest that either parent poses the risk that would justify making such an order. Equally, I am not prepared to order that a so-called "police assist" clause be in the access order. There is some evidence that the father has inappropriately involved the police in issues to do with access in the past. Not only do I think that such a term in this order is unnecessary, I am concerned that if one were included it would provide an incentive to involve the police inappropriately in the future. Involving the police in an access issue would be unnecessarily upsetting to Simrit and not in her best interests. [22] As I understand it, there is no

disagreement between the parties that letters providing consent to travel should be provided. Subject to the agreement of the parties, such letters should be requested and provided not less than three weeks before the proposed dates of travel. The parties have agreed on access for special occasions. Access for winter school holidays, summer school holidays and Simrit's birthday are ordered as set out in the father's proposed order at clause 3(b). [23] In my view, success on this application has been divided and each party should bear their own costs. "Harris J."