Austin v. Austin

2000 BCSC 625 Citation: Austin v. Austin 2000 BCSC 625 Date: 20000412 Docket No.: D1721 Registry: Powell River IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: MICHAEL JOHN AUSTIN PETITIONER AND: LORI COLLEEN AUSTIN RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE COLLVER The Petitioner appeared in person The Respondent appeared in person Date and Place of Hearing: March 13, 2000 Powell River, B.C. [1] Michael Austin ("the father") and Lori Austin ("the mother") were married on June 30, 1985 and were divorced on September 8, 1999. These reasons concern quantum of support and access schedules and arrangements for their children, Holly and Nicholas, who are 11 and 9 years of age. [2] The children live with their mother, in Richmond. She works as a secretary (temporary assignments), but wants to return to school to train as a hypnotherapist. [3] The father teaches school in Powell River. Pursuant to one of the eight orders made since the parents separated in August 1996, Holly and Nicholas are to spend every other weekends with their father. That regime has not worked, although several judges have tried to fine-tune it. [4] Before the father contracted to teach in Powell River (he will not be eligible to obtain a permanent position until he completes two more summer school sessions and obtains his teacher's certificate) the parties were living on Saltspring Island. The mother did not want to move to Powell River, and only stayed one week before returning to the Lower Mainland. Since then, substantial difficulties have been encountered in the parties' attempts to juggle ferry schedules so that the children can see their father on alternate weekends. [5] The mother's relatives live in the Fraser Valley, while the father's are on Vancouver Island (at or near Courtenay). In addition to his own problems with access, the father is of the view that the mother has been unsympathetic with respect to the children's need to have contact with his family. [6] Unfortunately, there is no obvious or mutually acceptable solution to the dilemma. [7] Insofar as the children's time with their father is concerned, one answer would be to put the children on Coastal Airlines flights to and from Powell River every other weekend. That however, is beyond the parents' means. Even the mother's ability to get the children to ferry terminals seems problematic, given the state of her finances. [8] Because the parents' affidavits seemed wholly concerned with their respective difficulties, I suggested that it would be appropriate to arrange for the children to be interviewed by a family justice counsellor, to determine their wishes for minimizing what must seem to them to be an unduly complicated access schedule. In my view, the frequency of the trips to Powell River should be determined by the children, rather than the parents. Neither parent seemed opposed to that prospect. [9] Meanwhile, in response to the parents' respective Notices of Motion, I am prepared to order the following: 1. Until an alternative is arranged, the children will spend the last weekend of each month at Powell River, with the mother delivering them to the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal on the Friday evening; 2. In the event that the father chooses to have the children travel to Courtenay, and so notifies the mother one week in advance, the mother will deliver the children to the Tsawwassen ferry terminal on the Friday evening; 3. In either of the above instances, the mother will meet the Horseshoe Bay or Tsawwassen ferries on the Sunday evening; 4. The father will have the children with him during the school spring break each year, with the same travel arrangements to prevail; 5. The father will have the children with him for the month of August each year, with the same travel arrangements to prevail; 6. The parents will share the Christmas school break (travel to take place on Boxing Day), with the mother having the children from the close of school to Boxing Day 2000, the schedule to be reversed in 2001 and to alternate thereafter; 7. Based upon his annual income of $48,668.16, the father will pay monthly child support of $678 as of April 1, 2000, and will provide the mother with post-dated cheques in that amount for twelve months; 8. The father will continue to be responsible for medical and dental coverage for the children; and 9. The mother will arrange to have the children interviewed by a family justice counsellor, in Richmond, to determine what if any variation of the above arrangements may be appropriate. [10] Because neither party has counsel, I have prepared, signed, and entered an order containing the above provisions, and direct that copies be provided to the parties, together with a copy of these reasons. "R. Collver, J." The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Collver