E.W. v. B.G.

E.W. v. B.G. Court Supreme Court Date 2021-04-22 Citation 2021 NSSC 137 Docket Sydney No. 89791 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator MacLeod-Archer, Lee Anne (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: E.W. v. B.G., 2021 NSSC 137 Date: 20210422 Docket: Sydney No. 89791 Registry: Sydney Between: E.W. Applicant v. B.G. Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Lee Anne MacLeod-Archer Heard: March 15, 2021, in Sydney, Nova Scotia Written Release: April 22, 2021 Counsel: E.W., Self-Represented B.G., Self-Represented By the Court: [1] The parties are the parents of N.G. who is 7.5 years old. E.W. applied for custody in 2014, and a series of interim orders followed. A final hearing was started in front of another Justice, but adjourned to allow for the preparation of a parental capacity report (P.C.A.). In the meantime, B.G. filed a motion for contempt. [2] I was assigned to hear the motion for contempt, and at a conference to organize the hearing, I ordered an update to the P.C.A. That report was filed on May 29, 2020. After Covid-19 related delays, a hearing was held on March 15, 2021. [3] Because the custody hearing was adjourned and not concluded by the time the contempt hearing was scheduled, I inquired whether E.W. and B.G. wished me to treat the March 15th hearing as a final hearing, dealing with all outstanding issues. They agreed. Both were interested in bringing matters to a final resolution. [4] By way of background, the parties have been involved in litigation for most of their child’s life. Their parenting relationship is considered “high conflict”. Unfortunately, N.G. has been exposed to a great deal of that conflict. [5] The latest interim order issued by the court places N.G. in the parties’ joint custody but in E.W.’s primary care. It also details B.G.’s parenting time with N.G. Before the Covid-19 pandemic swept across the country, B.G.’s parenting time was being facilitated by the Minister of Community Services (C.P.S.). They opened a file after receiving a referral from the court, due to the high level of conflict between the parties, and concern about the emotional impact on the child. [6] When C.P.S. was unable to provide workers to facilitate parenting time in March, 2020 due to the pandemic, E.W. unilaterally terminated B.G.’s in-person parenting time altogether. He allowed only phone contact for the next 11 months. However, just before the hearing in March, 2021, he arranged for B.G.’s mother to facilitate an in-person visit between B.G. and N.G. [7] B.G.’s mother has played an important role in the child’s life. Shortly after N.G. was born, B.G. placed her with the maternal grandmother, who was also raising B.G.’s older son. At that time, B.G. says that she was suffering from severe post partum depression. The maternal grandmother continued to provide care for N.G. until E.W. became involved. He eventually became the child’s primary caregiver, with support from the maternal grandmother. [8] N.G. is described as bright and articulate, charming and pleasant. She exhibits signs of A.D.H.D.-Combined Type, and she displays anxiety, aggression, and hyperactivity at school and home. She is at risk of developing further mental illness due to the high conflict between her parents. [9] B.G. suffers from a number of physical ailments, as well as long-standing mental illness, both of which impact her general functioning. E.W. also says that he has health concerns, including a heart condition and C.O.P.D. ISSUES 1. Should E.W. be held in contempt of the current order? 2. What is the parenting plan that meets the best interests of the child? 3. Should make-up time be ordered? ISSUE #1: Should E.W. be held in contempt of the current order? [10] When E.W. began restricting B.G.’s parenting time in March, 2020, Nova Scotia had declared a state of emergency. That state of emergency continues at present, and there are numerous health directives in place which govern social interaction and personal protection. [11] E.W. admits that he knew there was an order for parenting time in place, and that he could face serious consequences for refusing to permit in-person visits. However, before the hearing began, B.G. withdrew her motion. She simply wishes to ensure that she gets parenting time with N.G. in future. That decision is to her credit. Hopefully her conciliatory position will help to reduce the conflict between the parties. ISSUE #2: What is the parenting plan that meets the best interests of the child? [12] The current order provides that the parties have joint custody, with N.G. being in E.W.’s primary care. It spells out B.G.’s parenting time with N.G. as follows: • Overnights from Saturday at noon until Sunday at noon; • Mondays after school until 6 p.m. [13] B.G. seeks shared parenting in the final order. She feels that both parents should be given “equal rights” with respect to the child, and that a shared parenting arrangement would reduce the “restrictive gatekeeping” that she says E.W. exercises. She believes that E.W. and her mother are “working together to limit her time” with N.G. [14] E.W. seeks sole custody, primary care and decision-making. He does not feel that the parties can cooperatively parent N.G., pointing out that they were directed to participate in a parenting program, but that only he attended. He asks the court to specify B.G.’s parenting time, and to set out a detailed parenting order, to reduce the conflict between the parties. [15] I must consider the evidence in the context of the factors outlined in the Parenting and Support Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 160, at s.18: Powers of court 18 (1) On application by a parent or guardian or, with leave of the court, on application by a grandparent or other person, the court may make an order respecting (a) custody; (b) parenting time; (c) a parenting arrangement dealing with any of the areas set out in subsection 17A(3); (d) a parenting plan made under Section 17A; and (e) any other matter the court considers appropriate. ... (4) Subject to this Act, the father and mother of a child are joint guardians and are equally entitled to the custody of the child unless otherwise (a) provided by the Guardianship Act; or (b) ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. (5) In any proceeding under this Act concerning custody, parenting arrangements, parenting time, contact time or interaction in relation to a child, the court shall give paramount consideration to the best interests of the child. (6) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all relevant circumstances, including (a) the child’s physical, emotional, social and educational needs, including the child’s need for stability and safety, taking into account the child’s age and stage of development; (b) each parent’s or guardian’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent or guardian; (c) the history of care for the child, having regard to the child’s physical, emotional, social and educational needs; (d) the plans proposed for the child’s care and upbringing, having regard to the child’s physical, emotional, social and educational needs; (e) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage; (f) the child’s views and preferences, if the court considers it necessary and appropriate to ascertain them given the child’s age and stage of development and if the views and preferences can reasonably be ascertained; (g) the nature, strength and stability of the relationship between the child and each parent or guardian; (h) the nature, strength and stability of the relationship between the child and each sibling, grandparent and other significant person in the child’s life; (i) the ability of each parent, guardian or other person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate on issues affecting the child; and (j) the impact of any family violence, abuse or intimidation, regardless of whether the child has been directly exposed, including any impact on (i) the ability of the person causing the family violence, abuse or intimidation to care for and meet the needs of the child, and (ii) the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require co-operation on issues affecting the child, including whether requiring such co-operation would threaten the safety or security of the child or of any other person. ... (7) When determining the impact of any family violence, abuse or intimidation, the court shall consider (a) the nature of the family violence, abuse or intimidation; (b) how recently the family violence, abuse or intimidation occurred; (c) the frequency of the family violence, abuse or intimidation; (d) the harm caused to the child by the family violence, abuse or intimidation; (e) any steps the person causing the family violence, abuse or intimidation has taken to prevent further family violence, abuse or intimidation from occurring; and (f) all other matters the court considers relevant. (8) In making an order concerning custody, parenting arrangements or parenting time in relation to a child, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child, the determination of which, for greater certainty, includes a consideration of the impact of any family violence, abuse or intimidation as set out in clause (6)(j). R.S., c. 160, s. 18; 1990, c. 5, s. 107; 2012, c. 7, s. 2; 2012, c. 25, s. 2; 2014, c. 19, s. 1; 2015, c. 44, s. 19. [16] E.W. and B.G. both love their daughter very much. They both want what’s best for her, though they disagree on what parenting arrangements are in her best interests. [17] I will address each factor enumerated above: • N.G. is only 7.5 years of age. She cannot meet her own needs. As with all children, she needs a stable, secure home and stable, secure family relationships. Although she spends a lot of time with her grandmother and has stayed overnight with her mother, she identifies her primary home with E.W. • I must consider the willingness of each parent to support the other’s involvement with N.G. E.W. has not supported B.G.’s involvement in the child’s life in the past year. B.G. has told N.G. things that could erode her trust in E.W. Sadly, they have both damaged N.G.’s relationship with the other to some degree. • N.G. has been in E.W.’s care for most of her young life, after living with her grandmother from infancy. B.G. has been involved, but not in a primary caregiving role. • E.W. provides for N.G.’s physical, educational, and social needs at present, with assistance from the grandmother. Given the exposure to her parents’ conflict, both parents have failed to meet the child’s emotional needs. E.W. hasn’t arranged for therapeutic support for N.G., which Dr. Landry recommended, and B.G. has shared inappropriate information with N.G., jeopardizing her emotional health. • N.G. is enrolled in a French school, so her linguistic needs are being met. There was no evidence led on the child’s spiritual, religious, or cultural beliefs. • N.G.’s views are not known, as she is too young to express them. However, Dr. Landry’s second report provides insights into her worldview, which is helpful. • Both parents have a strong and loving bond with N.G., though B.G.’s bond must be re-established after a prolonged period of no in-person contact. • N.G. has a half-brother, with whom she’s close, as well as a maternal grandmother who plays a large role in her life. That is a stable, secure relationship that has greatly benefited the child since birth. I am not convinced that B.G. will nurture that relationship, given their strained relationship. E.W. promotes and relies on N.G.’s relationship with her maternal grandmother. • The parents have been unable to cooperate in the best interests of the child. There is a lengthy and consistent history of conflict. • B.G. characterizes E.W.’s interactions with her as “abuse”. Other than criminal charges for which E.W. has been acquitted, and which were laid at the instance of B.G., the evidence doesn’t satisfy me that domestic abuse occurred. Neither do I accept B.G.’s claim that her relationship with her mother is “abusive”. This may be her perception, but the evidence doesn’t support it. [18] I conclude, based on all of the evidence and considering the above factors, that it is in N.G.’s best interests to be in the joint custody of her parents, but in E.W.’s primary care. [19] I will explain why I reject B.G.’s claim for shared parenting. First, changing the parenting arrangement would jeopardize any sense of stability and security N.G. enjoys in her present home. Secondly, it would likely subject her to increased conflict between the parties. And finally, B.G. is not in a position to parent N.G. on a shared basis, given her health concerns. [20] B.G. frames her submissions in terms of parental “rights”. But those “rights” are trumped by the best interests of the child. So although Dr. Landry suggests in his first report that “ideally”, the parents would share care of N.G. to avoid further conflict, he concluded that “This is not likely at the current time.” I agree. [21] B.G. also asks the court not to “punish” her for having a mental illness. This decision isn’t about punishment. It’s about what parenting plan is in the child’s best interests, taking into consideration the evidence as a whole, and the legislative factors. [22] Shared parenting requires a level of cooperation that is not present in this case. Communication is a huge piece of shared parenting. Its absence, along with the history of conflict, confirms that shared parenting isn’t a realistic option now, or in the foreseeable future. [23] The lack of effective communication means that the parties cannot consult on decisions involving N.G. Therefore, E.W. will be the parent to make decisions involving N.G.’s health, education and general welfare. This includes when and whether it’s appropriate to educate N.G. about her mother’s spiritual beliefs, and whether she needs to be tested for a hereditary musculoskeletal condition. [24] B.G. will have the right to access the child’s health and educational records without E.W.’s express consent, and she will be entitled to discuss N.G.’s welfare and progress with third parties providing N.G. with care or services. This includes teachers, physicians, dentists, counsellors, and therapists. [25] I will deal next with the parenting time that B.G. will exercise with N.G. Dr. Landry says that B.G.’s health issues leave her susceptible to stress and anxiety. This tells me that shorter visits, which will not tax her ability to cope, are appropriate. The current schedule provides that. [26] I decline to extend B.G.’s parenting time in an effort to “maximize” her time with N.G., as the pattern of parenting prior to the pandemic shows that the current schedule appropriately balances the child’s needs and B.G.’s ability to meet those needs in terms of parenting time. [27] I therefore direct that the schedule established under the last interim order be continued. This will be the “regular schedule”. [28] The regular schedule will continue throughout the year, with the following changes for school breaks: (a) During N.G.’s Christmas break, which starts the day after the last official day on the school calendar until the day before school resumes on the school calendar, B.G. will have N.G. from Monday at noon until 6 p.m.(instead of after school until 6 p.m.). She will continue to have parenting time overnight Saturday (as in the regular schedule) during Christmas break. (b) During March break, B.G. will have N.G. from Monday at noon until 6 p.m. (instead of after school until 6 p.m.). She will continue to have parenting time overnight Saturday (as in the regular schedule) during March break. [29] In the context of B.G.’s parenting time, E.W. raised other concerns that I will address: • E.W.’s concerns regarding B.G.’s untreated mental health; • E.W.’s concern that B.G. exposes N.G. to adult conversations, media and games; • E.W.’s concern that B.G. is introducing N.G. to new and different men during her parenting time; • The high level of conflict between the parties; and • Exposure of N.G. to B.G.’s unique spiritual beliefs. [30] Dealing with E.W.’s first concern, B.G. acknowledges that she has not followed Dr. Landry’s recommendation that she seek cognitive behavioural therapy. She says that she intends to do so, yet there’s no evidence that she has initiated the process. For now, she continues to see her psychiatrist, but only on a “talk therapy” basis due to the pandemic. She also takes prescribed medication. [31] I accept Dr. Landry’s recommendation that B.G. must pursue cognitive behavioural therapy to help her “rewrite” her “existing schemas”, which impact her interactions with E.W. I also suggest that B.G. avail herself of the resources that Dr. Landry outlines at page 30 of the 2018 report. [32] E.W.’s second concern is that N.G. has been told things that no child her age should ever hear. In addition to information about the court process, B.G. told N.G. that her mother’s friend was murdered. B.G. must realize that her daughter is not her confidante. She must not share adult conversations or worries with N.G. [33] Of particular concern is the comment made by the child to Dr. Landry that her father “did not want [her] to be born”. As Dr. Landry notes, that would be very distressing for any child to hear, and it would be especially difficult for a child who’s already anxious and dealing with other stressors. In telling N.G. these troubling things, B.G. has placed an extraordinary burden on the shoulders of her young daughter. That type of deliberate damage to the child’s trust and love for the other parent is unacceptable, and it must never happen again. [34] E.W. is also concerned that N.G. is permitted to watch “scary” movies at her mother’s home, and that she’s been allowed to play violent and/or adult-themed games. According to Dr. Landry’s report, she also listens to adult-themed music (hip-hop laced with profanity). None of this is appropriate for a 7.5 year old child. [35] Next is E.W.’s concern that B.G. is introducing N.G. to new men during her parenting time, despite a direction from C.P.S. in early 2020. I accept E.W.’s concern. Parenting time is meant for B.G. and N.G. It’s not a time to introduce her to strangers, especially during a pandemic. B.G. must focus on her relationship with N.G. She cannot re-establish a secure relationship with the child while sharing her attention with others during parenting time. [36] Next, it’s clear that N.G. has seen and heard a lot of arguments and conflict. Sadly, when asked to draw a picture of her family, she pictured herself standing apart from her family members. When asked what she was doing, she told Dr. Landry that she was “just doing nothing… I was tired”. To add to the picture of a child who’s been exposed to too much strife, she expressed resignation with her situation, telling Dr. Landry “that’s how my life rolls”. [37] B.G. says that E.W. and her mother are responsible for the conflict. E.W. points to her actions as the catalyst. Neither has insight into the role their actions have played in getting to this point. [38] Although Dr. Landry confirms that E.W.’s concerns with B.G. are not unreasonable, he’s been rigid in his approach to parenting. He’s taken unilateral actions to change the parenting schedule under the interim order, such as when he planned a birthday party for the child during B.G.’s parenting time. He’s also been a “restrictive gatekeeper” in terms of managing the risk he perceives that B.G. represents to N.G. This all “triggers” B.G., who feels that E.W. unreasonably interferes with, and dictates the terms of, her parenting time with N.G. [39] However, B.G.’s untreated mental illness plays a larger role in the conflict than she recognizes or accepts. For that reason, I will include terms in the parenting plan that address her mental health needs. I am also directing E.W. to reconnect with counselling, to learn how to better co-parent in a high conflict situation. [40] E.W. also expresses concern that N.G. has been exposed to witchcraft. B.G. identifies as a witch, and she practices witchcraft in the home. A child of 7.5 years of age, who is already exhibiting signs of anxiety and stress, and who is at risk of developing further mental health challenges, is far too young to be exposed to witchcraft. That’s not to say that B.G. cannot eventually share her spiritual beliefs with N.G. However, she must not do so unless, and until, E.W. agrees it’s time. [41] B.G. says that she will not allow N.G. to visit the basement of her home where the alter is located, and that she won’t try to introduce N.G. to witchcraft. I am concerned about her willingness to comply with this restriction. She may view it as an infringement on her religious freedoms, much as she views the requirement to wear a mask as an infringement of her personal liberties. If that’s the case, B.G. must realize that her right to practice her beliefs is not affected by my decision. It is only the sharing of her beliefs with N.G. that is. [42] All of these concerns are addressed in the detailed parenting plan that I’ve attached as Schedule “A” to my decision. The parties are urged to review it carefully and often, to be sure they understand their respective responsibilities. [43] One final note: the maternal grandmother is prepared to facilitate B.G.’s parenting time. She did so in years past, but had to withdraw her offer due to conflict with B.G. So did other facilitators. The grandmother’s offer is a generous one, given the strained relationship with her daughter. The maternal grandmother’s willingness to facilitate parenting time is dependent on mutual cooperation and civil treatment. B.G. must also realize that poor treatment of her mother around N.G. hurts the child as well, as she shares a close relationship with her grandmother. ISSUE #3: Should make-up time be ordered? [44] When E.W. terminated in-person contact between N.G. and B.G. in March, 2020, the reasons he offered included: 1. His health conditions, which he says make him more susceptible to a severe form of Covid-19 infection; 2. B.G.’s views on the use of a mask in public spaces; and 3. B.G.’s refusal to limit her social circle. [45] I’ll start with the first reason. E.W. filed an affidavit with a handwritten note from a physician attached. In pretrial conferences, both parties were advised to seek legal advice about how to advance all necessary evidence in support of their position. As self-represented litigants, they are subject to the same rules of evidence and procedure that apply in all litigation before the court. [46] The note from Dr. MacDougall does not meet the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 55, so I decline to consider it. There is no other admissible evidence to support E.W.’s claim that he has a health condition which would render him more susceptible to a severe form of Covid-19 infection, should he contract it. [47] The next concern is with B.G.’s willingness to wear a mask in public spaces. E.W. says that: • He watched a video of B.G. on social media, wherein she “interviewed” people on the street about their views on the pandemic while not masked or physically distanced; • She considers the pandemic to be a hoax; and • She has publicly expressed anti-mask sentiments. [48] On cross-examination, G.B. agreed with E.W. that: • She doesn’t consider the current situation an “actual pandemic”; • She thinks that current public health directives are “a bit much”; • She believes there’s been an “over reaction” to the risk posed by Covid-19; and • She doesn’t agree with being compelled to wear a mask. [49] E.W.’s next concern is with B.G.’s views on the public health directive to limit social contacts. He says that during the first wave of the pandemic, in particular, he was concerned that B.G. was not limiting her contacts, thus increasing the chances of exposing herself and N.G. to the virus. He was especially concerned that N.G. would arrive home with the virus and infect him. [50] B.G. doesn’t deny E.W.’s allegations, but she says that she will follow health directives if ordered by the court. It’s reasonable to infer from this statement that B.G. hasn’t been following public health directives to date, and in particular, that she hasn’t been limiting her social contacts. [51] I’m satisfied that E.W. had valid concerns about B.G.’s compliance with public health directives, and the potential impact of her actions on N.G. and him in early 2020. [52] The problem is that E.W. failed to allow any in-person contact after June, 2020 when the province eased gathering limit restrictions and other pandemic measures. N.G. was denied all in-person contact with her mother for almost a year. That’s a long time in the life of a young child. [53] I find that part of the reason E.W. terminated in-person contact was because he finds it difficult to deal with B.G. They have a history of poor communication and conflict. Police and C.P.S. have been involved on numerous occasions, and he’s been charged criminally as a result of B.G.’s complaints, though acquitted each time. Even when their contact is limited to texts, their exchanges are fraught. B.G. escalates easily, and E.W. responds by becoming frustrated and entrenched. [54] Refusing to impose make-up time would reward E.W.’s unilateral termination of in-person contact; yet imposing immediate make-up time could jeopardize N.G.’s health, given the ongoing pandemic and B.G.’s views about its validity. I will therefore defer make-up time until the summer of 2021, when Covid case numbers are predicted to fall, and more people will be immunized. [55] Starting on July 4, 2021, B.G. will have additional parenting time on Sundays, extending the return time to 6 p.m. rather than noon. That extra time will be effective until November 28, 2021 inclusive. B.G. hasn’t engaged in cognitive behavioural therapy, so longer periods of parenting time are not in the child’s best interests in the immediate future, even to make up lost time. CONCLUSION [56] It is in N.G.’s best interests to have a healthy, stable relationship with both of her parents. The following parenting plan at Schedule “A” addresses the child’s best interests and needs. MacLeod-Archer, J. SCHEDULE “A” (A) PARENTING TIME 1. B.G. will have parenting time every Saturday from noon overnight until Sunday at noon; 2. She will also have parenting time on Mondays after school until 6:00 p.m. 3. B.G. will have make-up time as outlined above, effective July 4, 2021. 4. During the summer break and March breaks, B.G.’s parenting time will run from Mondays at noon until 6:00 p.m., instead of after school. 5. Parenting time will be facilitated by B.G.’s mother. If she withdraws her services or is unavailable, E.W. will advise B.G. by text and arrange for the child to travel by school bus to B.G.’s home after school on Mondays during the school year. If the maternal grandmother withdraws or is unavailable on weekends, E.W. will advise B.G. by text and she will retrieve N.G. from E.W.’s home on Saturday at noon, and return N.G. to E.W.’s home the following day at noon, at her expense. During the summer break and March break, if the maternal grandmother withdraws her services or is unavailable, B.G. will retrieve the child from and return her to E.W.’s home. In the event B.G. must attend E.W.’s home, she will not leave the vehicle, nor engage in any discussions or interactions with B.G. or her mother. (B) GENERAL 1. Both parents will comply with public health directives relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. 2. The parents will make every effort to facilitate a positive relationship between N.G. and the other parent. 3. The parents will respect each other’s privacy and, towards that end, will not initiate discussion or questioning N.G. about the other parent’s personal lives and activities. 4. The parents will not interfere directly or indirectly into the life, activities, or routines of N.G. when they are with the other party, and neither parent will schedule activities during N.G.’s time with the other parent, including life celebrations that fall on the other parent’s time. 5. Neither parent will expose N.G. to (or allow N.G. to watch or play) adult-themed or rated movies, television, streaming, games or other media, and in particular, neither will expose N.G. to media portraying paranormal, supernatural, violent or sexualized stories or events. 6. B.G. will not expose N.G. to symbols relating to her spiritual beliefs, including the alter and symbols which are displayed or used in the mother’s home. 7. Both parents will encourage and support N.G. in her counselling to address the emotional consequences of the parental conflict to which she’s been exposed. (C) COMMUNICATION 1. The parents will communicate by email or text. For time sensitive matters, when N.G. is ill or needs medical attention, the parents will communicate by text. 2. Each parent will respond to appropriate communications within 24 hours. Repeated, demanding, inappropriate, or abusive communications need not be responded to. Copies of written communications will be retained, and in the event of future court proceedings, will be disclosed. 3. All communications, written or otherwise, will be child-focused, cordial, and to the point. 4. Neither parent will disparage the other parent or members of their extended family to N.G., or in her presence. 5. The parents will not speak with N.G. directly (or within her presence) about any issues related to this proceeding, nor show her any documents relating to it. Neither parent will discuss or share adult subject matter with N.G., including but not limited to police involvement, child protection involvement, arguments between the parents, B.G.’s views and beliefs regarding the paranormal or supernatural, her practice of witchcraft, either party’s health, or the parenting arrangements. 6. The parents will not ask N.G. to relay information between them, or request additional parenting time through her. 7. The parents will not communicate with each other at transition times, either overtly or covertly, including by gesture. Transitions may not be video or audio recorded. The same rules apply if the maternal grandmother is present at transitions. (D) CHANGES TO SCHEDULE 1. B.G. must not cut short her scheduled time with N.G., or cancel her scheduled parenting time less than 24 hours in advance. 2. In the event B.G. cancels her parenting time for any reason, she will not be entitled to make-up parenting time. 3. E.W. may only cancel parenting time if N.G. is sick. In that case, E.W. must immediately contact B.G. to advise of N.G.’s illness. Subject to the make-up times specified in A (3), if the child is sick on a Monday, then parenting time will be made up the next day N.G. attends school, from after school until 6 p.m. In the case of cancelled Saturday parenting time, B.G.’s parenting time will be made up the next day, from Sunday at noon until Monday morning, with the child being delivered to school for first bell in the morning. In summer or March break, N.G. will be returned to her father’s home on Sunday at noon. (E) SOCIAL MEDIA 1. Neither parent will post any comments, music, poems, or photos on social media about the other parent, or about any disputes between the parents, whether they name the other parent or by implication. Any existing posts shall be immediately removed by the party who posted it. (F) THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTION 1. E.W. must arrange for N.G. to engage with a counsellor to ensure that she has the benefit of therapeutic support to deal with the emotional impact of her parents’ conflict. Dr. Landry’s second report must be provided to the counsellor (unabridged) as background. 2. B.G. is encouraged to re-read the report prepared by Dr. Landry dealing with N.G.’s needs. 3. B.G. must initiate and comply with a therapeutic plan established by a qualified clinician for cognitive behavioural therapy, to address the concerns outlined in Dr. Landry’s two reports. Both of Dr. Landry’s reports must be provided (unabridged) to the clinician at intake. C.B.T. must continue for a minimum of 20 hours. 4. E.W. must initiate and attend at least 8 hours of individual counselling to help him better co-parent in a high conflict situation.