M.A.N.R. v. D.J.S.

2018 BCSC 2136 M.A.N.R. v. D.J.S.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: M.A.N.R. v. D.J.S., 2018 BCSC 2136 Date: 20181203 Docket: E160506 Registry: Vancouver Between: M.A.N.R. Claimant And: D.J.S. Respondent Before: The Honourable Justice Young Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Claimant: G. A. Lang and B. J. Ingram Counsel for the Respondent: C. Linde Place and Dates of Trial/Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. September 4-7, 2018 September 10 - 14, 2018 October 22, 24 and 26, 2018 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. December 3, 2018 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.. 5 BACKGROUND.. 6 PARENTAL ALIENATION AND ESTRANGEMENT. 6 Dr. Amy Baker's Report 7 Factors for Assessing whether Alienation is Present 8 Factor 1: Evidence that the disfavoured parent had an adequate relationship with the child prior to the current contact refusals/breach in relationship. 8 Factor 2: Evidence of absence of founded abuse or neglect on the part of the disfavoured parent 8 Factor 3: Evidence that the favoured parent has engaged in behaviours consistent with alienation. 8 Factor 4: Evidence that the child exhibited behaviours consistent with alienation. 10 Adverse Effects of Parental Alienation. 10 PRELIMINARY MATTERS OF ALCOHOL ABUSE AND FAMILY VIOLENCE. 11 Alcohol and Drugs. 12 The Claimant's Allegations. 12 The Respondent's Reply to the Claimant's Allegations. 13 Analysis. 14 Allegations of Family Violence. 15 The

Claimant's Allegations. 15 The Respondent's Answer to the Claimant's Allegations. 15 Analysis. 16 HAS THERE BEEN PARENTAL ALIENATION OR IS S.R.S.'S ESTRANGEMENT FROM THE RESPONDENT JUSTIFIED?. 17 Factor 1: Is there evidence that the respondent had an adequate relationship with S.R.S. prior to the current contact refusals/breach in relationship?. 17 Factor 2: Did the respondent abuse or neglect S.R.S.?. 18 S.R.S.'s Complaints. 18 Complaints Regarding L.S. 18 The Christmas Baking. 19 The Backpack. 19 The Broken Souvenir 20 Wrestling Injury. 20 Impaired Driving by Grandfather 21 S.R.S.'s Behavioural Issues in the Fall of 2015. 21 The Claimant's Observations. 21 Observations of S.R.S.'s Teacher and School Psychologist 22 The Respondent and L.S.'s Observations. 22 The Respondent's Mother's Observations. 22 February 19, 2016 Termination of Parenting Time. 23 Report to Gina Vanderham.. 24 Ms. Vanderham's Report to MCFD.. 25 MCFD's Investigation. 25 Further Reply by the Respondent to the Allegations of Abuse. 27 Hitting S.R.S.'s ear with a baseball and damaging his hearing. 27 Throwing a book at S.R.S.'s stomach. 27 Allegations of hitting, slapping, and demeaning S.R.S. 27 Meetings between S.R.S. and the respondent and his family after February 2016. 27 Medical Interventions. 28 Dr. Kneifel 28 Dr. Slater 29 Jessica Willis. 29 Dr. Krywaniuk's Section 211 Report 30 Challenges to the

Report 31 Dr. Krywaniuk's Conclusions. 32 Analysis and Conclusion on Factor 2. 34 Factor 3: Has the claimant engaged in alienating behaviours?. 35 Analysis and Conclusion on Factor 3. 39 Factor 4: Has S.R.S. Exhibited Behaviours Consistent with Alienation?. 40 Analysis and Conclusion on Factor 4. 41 CONCLUSION ON WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN PARENTAL ALIENATION OR ESTRANGEMENT. 41 WHICH REUNIFICATION PROGRAM IS MOST SUITABLE FOR THIS FAMILY?. 42 Legal principles. 42 Families Moving Forward Program.. 43 Multi-Day Family Intervention. 44 Suspension of Contact with the Favoured Parent 44 Reach Reunification Program.. 45 Expert Opinion on Reunification Therapies. 46 Dr. Baker's Report 46 Dr. Krywaniuk's Opinion. 46 ANALYSIS AND DECISION.. 47 DISPOSITION ON PARENTING MATTERS. 48 1. Parenting Responsibilities. 48 2. The Reach Program.. 49 3. Parenting Time. 50 SUPPORT. 51 CONTEMPT OF COURT. 53 Master Taylor's Order 53 The Consent Order 54 FURTHER APPLICATIONS. 54 COSTS. 54

INTRODUCTION [1] In February 2016, the parties' 13-year-old child, S.R.S., abruptly refused to see or communicate with the respondent. Except for two brief meetings, S.R.S. has continued to refuse to see his father. [2] The respondent accuses the claimant of alienating S.R.S. from him. The claimant says that S.R.S.'s estrangement is justified. [3] This is the first time the parties have sought a parenting order in court. They have operated under a verbal agreement since their separation in 2010. [4] The parties agree that S.R.S. and the respondent need to participate in a reunification program in order to repair their relationship. However, they disagree as to which program is most appropriate. [5] In order to identify the proper therapeutic program, it is necessary for the Court to review the events leading up to the termination of parenting time and seek to understand S.R.S.'s reaction to those events. It is a subjective analysis, which must be made with some understanding of S.R.S.'s character, temperament, and experiences. [6] There are two collateral issues that must also be addressed. The respondent seeks a finding that the claimant is guilty of contempt of court for disobeying the terms of two interim orders. [7] Finally, the claimant, for the first time, seeks an order for child support retroactive to March 1, 2016. [8] Accordingly, these reasons address the following issues: 1. Has there been parental alienation or is S.R.S.'s estrangement from the respondent justified?

2. Which reunification program is most suitable for this family?

3. What parenting time arrangement is in the best interests of S.R.S.?

4. Who should make parenting decisions for S.R.S.?

5. Is the claimant guilty of contempt of court for disobeying interim court orders?

6. What child support amount should the respondent pay, and when should it commence?

BACKGROUND [9] The claimant and respondent met in 2000 and started living together in 2001. S.R.S. was born in 2003. [10] According to the claimant, an incident occurred on September 8 or September 9, 2009, which ultimately led to the parties' separation. The respondent's version of the incident is very different from the claimant's, but he agrees that the relationship deteriorated and the parties eventually separated in February 2010. [11] Thereafter, the parties co-parented S.R.S. for six years on an equal time basis until S.R.S. refused to see the respondent in February 2016. [12] In 2013, the respondent started a new relationship with L.S. In September 2015, the respondent and L.S. married.

PARENTAL ALIENATION AND ESTRANGEMENT [13] The label of "parental alienation" is blame-laden. It suggests that a favoured parent has campaigned against the rejected parent and altered the child's perception of that parent. In a case of true alienation, there will be little objectively reasonable cause for the child's rejection of the parent: N.R.G. v. G.R.G., 2015 BCSC 1062 at paras. 277-278. [14] Estrangement, on the other hand, occurs when the child understandably refuses contact with a parent because of that parent's behaviour. In other words, there is a logical and rational reason for the child's rejection of the parent. [15] I accept the premise that in many cases, elements of alienation and estrangement may coexist. [16] In Williamson v. Williamson, 2016 BCCA 87, the Court of Appeal adopted Justice Barrow's description of parental alienation in D.S.W. v. D.A.W., 2012 BCSC 1522. Barrow J. stated that at the core of parental alienation is: ... the notion that the child's decision to refuse to have a relationship with the targeted parent is without justification or without convincing reason. If there is a reason given by the child for taking the extreme step of refusing to have a relationship with a parent, it will often be out of all proportion to the decision taken. The reasons for such decisions need to be assessed with the particular personality and experience of the

child involved. What may seem a thin or unconvincing rationale for one child may have a much more convincing force in the context of the personality and experience of another child. Dr. Amy Baker's Report [17] The respondent tendered an academic report by Dr. Amy Baker, dated June 6, 2018. The purpose of the report is to aid the Court in understanding the concept of parental alienation. Dr. Baker has not met the parties and does not apply her principles to the present case. The claimant accepted Dr. Baker as an expert on parent-child relationships and parental alienation. She did not wish to cross-examine Dr. Baker. Accordingly, I declined to permit Dr. Baker's attendance at trial because I found it unnecessary. [18] Dr. Baker's report is instructive. It describes the evidence that is required to make a finding that alienation is the most likely primary cause of a child's disaffection from a parent. She defines an "alienated child" as a child who unjustifiably rejects one parent (the "disfavoured parent") and aligns himself with the other parent (the "favoured parent"). Factors for Assessing whether Alienation is Present [19] Dr. Baker identifies four factors relevant for assessing whether alienation is the primary cause of the child's rejection of one parent and alliance with the other. Factor 1: Evidence that the disfavoured parent had an adequate relationship with the child

prior to the current contact refusals/breach in relationship [20] Evidence of a prior adequate relationship supports a finding of alienation because the flaws of the parent, which are now being offered as a basis for rejection, evidently did not interfere with the relationship in the past. Factor 2: Evidence of absence of founded abuse or neglect on the part of the disfavoured parent [21] It is imperative to rule out that the disfavoured parent has engaged in abusive or neglectful behaviour that would warrant fear, hatred, and rejection by the child. Factor 3: Evidence that the favoured parent has engaged in behaviours consistent with alienation [22] Dr. Baker lists 17 behaviours that favoured parents can engage in to encourage a child to unjustifiably reject the other parent. They are: 1. bad mouthing or speaking ill of the other parent within the child's hearing; 2. limiting contact with the other parent; 3. interfering with communication with the other parent; 4. interfering with symbolic communication, making it difficult for the child to think about, talk about, or look at pictures of the other parent; 5. withholding love and approval by becoming emotionally cold and distant when the child indicates positive feelings toward the other parent; 6. telling the child that the other parent does not love him or her; 7. allowing or forcing the child to reject the disfavoured

parent and inducing the child to justify his or her rejection by focusing on the negative aspects of that parent; 8. creating the impression that the other parent is dangerous; 9. confiding in the child by sharing personal information about the other parent or about the legal proceedings, which induces the child to feel anger or shame toward that other parent and protective of the parent who is engaging in this behaviour; 10. forcing the child to reject the other parent by creating situations in which the child will personally inform the disfavoured parent that he has been excluded from important events and experiences in the child's life; 11. asking the child to spy on the other parent; 12. asking the child to keep secrets from the other parent; 13. referring to the other parent by first name when speaking with the child and encouraging the child to do the same; 14. referring to a stepparent in the favoured parent's home as mom or dad; 15. withholding medical, social, or academic information from the disfavoured parent and keeping the disfavoured parent's name off such records; 16. changing the child's name to remove association with the disfavoured parent; and 17. undermining the authority of the disfavoured parent. Factor 4: Evidence that the child exhibited behaviours consistent with alienation [23] Dr. Baker describes eight behaviours that children exhibit when they become

alienated: 1. a campaign of denigration of the disfavoured parent; 2. weak, frivolous, and absurd reasons for denigration of the disfavoured parent; 3. lack of ambivalence toward both parents by idealizing the favoured parent despite his or her obvious flaws, and demonizing the disfavoured parent despite his or her obvious positive attributes; 4. strenuous insistence that the favoured parent played no role in the rejection of the disfavoured parent (referred to as "independent thinker phenomenon"); 5. lack of guilt regarding poor treatment of the disfavoured parent; 6. automatic support for the favoured parent in all parental conflicts; 7. presence of borrowed scenarios, for example, the use of words, phrases, and concepts that are not understood, cannot be defined, and which originate in the ideas and beliefs of the favoured parent; and 8. spread of animosity to friends and family of the disfavoured parent by rejecting formerly beloved friends, neighbours, and family, based on their association with the disfavoured parent. Adverse Effects of Parental Alienation [24] Dr. Baker appeals to courts to intervene with alienated children and families because she views alienation as a form of child abuse. Her report explains that parental alienation can negatively affect a child's identity and development. Alienating behaviours by the favoured parent convey to children that they are

unloved by the disfavoured parent and that they are inherently bad because the disfavoured parent is a part of them. The favoured parent's love is perceived as conditional upon the child's rejection of the disfavoured parent. [25] Children exposed to parental alienation can have difficulty developing healthy adult relationships because they have not been taught to effectively manage and resolve interpersonal conflict. Research indicates that exposure to alienating behaviours and the loss of a parent due to alienation is associated with long-term negative effects. These include, low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, difficulty trusting others, high rates of divorce, and intergenerational transmission of alienation. Dr. Baker asserts that children should not be allowed to reject one parent unless that parent is abusive because they do not have the cognitive maturity to make such a life altering decision. [26] Despite vehement claims of wanting nothing to do with the disfavoured parent, Dr. Baker reports that some alienated children secretly wish to maintain a relationship with that parent. She cautions that alienated children may appear to be happy and high functioning and may assert a strong preference to remain with the favoured parent. However, the Court should look beyond the child's expressed preferences to understand the family dynamics that have resulted in a breach of the relationship between the child and the disfavoured parent. Courts should resist the pressure to conclude that nothing can be done to repair the relationship. [27] I analyse the evidence with these principles in mind.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS OF ALCOHOL ABUSE AND FAMILY VIOLENCE [28] Section 37 (1) of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (the FLA) stipulates that the best interests of the child is the only consideration when the Court is making an order respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements, or contact with a child. Section 37 (2) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for determining what is in a child's best interests. One of those factors is the impact of family violence on a child's safety, security, and sense of well-being. [29] The Court must only consider evidence of parental conduct if it substantially affects a factor set out in s. 37(2) and only to the extent that it affects that factor. [30] In this case, the allegations of drug and alcohol abuse, and family violence are relevant to my assessment of each parent's capacity to act in the best interests of S.R.S. and to support one another in that role. Alcohol and Drugs The Claimant's Allegations [31] The claimant alleges that the respondent is an alcoholic and is addicted to drugs. She described incidents, prior to their separation, when the respondent drank and did drugs with friends and returned home and kept her up until the early morning. She alleges that he has done the same thing to S.R.S. [32] The claimant says that the respondent's father is also an alcoholic. She claims he is drunk every day and drives while

intoxicated. On occasion, he has driven S.R.S. while intoxicated. [33] The claimant is critical of the respondent's family's consumption of alcohol. She stated that this was a significant contributing factor to the breakdown of her relationship with the respondent. She has also been critical of her brother for drinking, but reports that he is now sober. [34] The claimant admitted that she came from an unhappy family. Her father was an alcoholic and drug user. He left her mother when she was three years old. She had no relationship with him. Her mother remarried when she was approximately nine years old. She grew up in a step-family that did not love her. She had a poor relationship with her parents until their later years. Both parents are now deceased and she is estranged from her step-father. She blames alcohol for much of this difficulty. She described fear of abandonment as "her wound". [35] While she and the respondent were in a relationship, the claimant found that she was drinking every day. This scared her so she "quit cold turkey". She does not want alcohol to be part of her life. The Respondent's Reply to the Claimant's Allegations [36] The respondent denies being an alcoholic or a drug addict. He acknowledged that he did drink more when he was younger and occasionally experimented with illegal drugs such as cocaine and magic mushrooms. He testified that he did not

use cocaine often and was not particularly enamored with it. He uses marijuana but not regularly. He gave essentially the same answers about drug use in the Adult Self-Report questionnaire for Dr. Krywaniuk's section 211 assessment. [37] The respondent was questioned numerous times throughout the trial about his drinking. He gave various answers all suggesting that he was a social drinker. When completing the Adult Self-Report questionnaire, the respondent admitted to being drunk on 10 occasions in the previous six months. L.S. said the respondent was drunk on nine occasions in the past six months. When asked about these answers, the respondent noted that he completed the questionnaire right after the Christmas season in January 2017. He considered being "drunk" to mean over the legal limit to drive. [38] The respondent testified that his employer has the ability to randomly test him for alcohol and drugs. There is not a zero tolerance policy for alcohol, but employees are not permitted to be drunk or drive under the influence. The employer has a zero tolerance policy for drug use. The respondent did not indicate if he has ever been tested. [39] In examination in chief, the respondent said that his father consumed three beers per night and that he was not an alcoholic. He did not drink and drive. In cross-examination, the respondent admitted that his father probably drinks more

alcohol than he should. He has wine every night. He has seen his father drunk on multiple occasions. The respondent's brother, M.S., said the same thing about his father. His father drinks a couple of glasses of wine or maybe more per night. [40] The respondent's father did not testify at trial. No negative inference is drawn as he is recovering from cardiac surgery. [41] After their separation, the claimant and respondent exchanged a string of emails discussing their relationship. In one email, the respondent wrote: "I drink. You don't work." His explanation was that the claimant had developed the idea that alcohol was bad, sobriety was good, and there was nothing in between. She had a zero tolerance policy for alcohol in the house, which extended to the respondent's family. Analysis [42] The respondent appears to have been a heavy drinker during his university years as many young adults are. Based on the evidence at trial, I conclude that he is now a moderate drinker. The fact that he was drunk 10 times in the six months prior to the Adult Self-Report questionnaire suggests that he is more than a social drinker which I would consider to describe a light occasional drinker. However, I have no evidence that alcohol has negatively affected any aspect of his life other than his relationship with the claimant and her influence on S.R.S. [43] Based on the evidence I have heard, I

find that the respondent's father is a heavy drinker. Although I cannot find that he drinks and drives, I suspect that he may have done so based on what S.R.S. reported to his mother, which I will describe below. [44] It is clear that the respondent's family is very defensive about drinking and the use of the label, "alcoholic" to describe any member of their family. [45] The claimant appears to be overly sensitive about the consumption of alcohol. This likely stems from her negative past life experiences. [46] As discussed further below, I find that S.R.S. has also become oversensitive to the consumption of alcohol because of his mother's understandable fear and distrust of it. Allegations of Family Violence The Claimant's Allegations [47] The claimant accuses the respondent of several incidents of family violence: 1. When she was five months pregnant, she alleges that the respondent kicked her in the face, split her lip, and gave her a black eye.

2. On another occasion, she alleges that the respondent threw a tomato at her. It hit her arm and bruised her.

3. On another occasion, she alleges that the respondent grabbed her and threw her out of the bathroom. She says she grazed her arm on the door jam.

4. The claimant alleges that in September 2009, the respondent came home drunk and she asked him to sleep on the couch. He was angry. He came into the bedroom, sat on top of her, and punched her in the back of the head. The Respondent's Answer to the Claimant's Allegations [48] The respondent responded to these allegations as follows: 1. In response to the allegation that he kicked the claimant in the face when she was pregnant, the respondent recalled an incident when he was lying on his stomach and the claimant sat on top of him straddling his back and tickling his feet. Out of reflex, he kicked his heel back. It struck her in the lip and she got a fat lip. It was an accident that they laughed about afterward.

2. The respondent admits to tossing a tomato at the claimant underhanded. He denies bruising her.

3. The respondent denies tossing the claimant out of the bathroom or grazing her arm.

4. The respondent does admit to hitting the claimant in the back of the head while she was lying on her stomach in bed. He explained that in September 2009, he went to a concert with his friends. He promised to come home early but stayed out until 1:00 AM. The claimant was very angry with him. He was not expecting her aggressive reaction. It was a shock to his system. He wanted her to stop screaming so he struck the pillow that was covering her head. He apologized for it afterwards. [49] On June 27, 2013, the respondent wrote to the claimant by email: And yes. I hit you. Once. I admit it. It shames me. I never denied hitting you. To myself. To you. Or to my parents. I hate that I did that. I am so sorry that I did that to you. Deeply sorry. You should never have had to experience that. Resorting to physical violence is horrendous, and there were many a dark night I hated myself for what I did. I hope you can forgive me. Analysis [50] Section 1 of the FLA sets out the definition of family violence: "family violence" includes (a) physical abuse of a family member, including forced confinement or deprivation of the necessities of life, but not including the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or others from harm, (b) sexual abuse of a family member, (c) attempts to physically or sexually abuse a family member, (d) psychological or emotional abuse of a family member,

including (i) intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property, (ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or prevention of, a family member's financial or personal autonomy, (iii) stalking or following of the family member, and (iv) intentional damage to property, and (e) in the case of a child, direct or indirect exposure to family violence; [51] The incident of the respondent kicking the claimant in the mouth appears to be an accidental injury arising from horseplay. [52] Throwing a tomato at someone during an argument may not be physical abuse but it is intimidating. It is difficult to determine on the conflicting evidence I have heard whether this level of intimidation constituted family violence. [53] If the respondent picked the claimant up and threw her out of the bathroom then this would constitute family violence. However, I cannot make this finding of fact based on the conflicting testimony I have heard. [54] The incident where the respondent hit the claimant in the back of the head constitutes family violence. The incident would be less severe if the respondent hit a pillow covering her head. This is not how the claimant describes it. Either way, the respondent admits to punching the claimant in the back of the head. [55] These incidents are relevant because they affect the claimant's ability to support the

respondent's parenting. She is more likely to believe complaints of violence raised by S.R.S. because of her experience with the respondent. She may also be more likely to amplify complaints made by S.R.S. [56] I will now analyse the evidence in the context of Dr. Baker's four factors in order to assess whether alienation is the cause of S.R.S.'s rejection of the respondent. HAS THERE BEEN PARENTAL ALIENATION OR IS S.R.S.'S ESTRANGEMENT FROM THE RESPONDENT JUSTIFIED? Factor 1: Is there evidence that the respondent had an adequate relationship with S.R.S. prior to the current contact refusals/breach in relationship? [57] As noted above, the parties previously co-parented S.R.S. without a formal agreement or court order. The claimant testified that things went well. The respondent stated the co-parenting relationship was cordial but challenging. He said that the claimant made unilateral decisions without consulting him. [58] The respondent's observation was that S.R.S. was happy to come back to his home every other week. One week before parenting time was terminated, S.R.S. asked the respondent to take him to a baseball tryout at UBC. Both parties agree that this occurred and that the day went well. S.R.S. did very well at the tryout and made the top-tier team. [59] The evidence supports a finding that the respondent had an adequate relationship with S.R.S. until the termination

of parenting time in February 2016. It was certainly not perfect, but S.R.S. was able to overlook the respondent's flaws and continue a relationship. Factor 2: Did the respondent abuse or neglect S.R.S.? [60] As Dr. Baker indicated, it is imperative to rule out the possibility that the child's estrangement is justified by abuse or neglect on the part of the disfavoured parent. I will review the complaints made by S.R.S. and the behaviours he demonstrated leading up to the termination of parenting time. S.R.S.'s Complaints Complaints Regarding L.S. [61] L.S. met S.R.S. four months after she started dating the respondent in 2012. They started living together in February 2013 and S.R.S. spent every other week with them. L.S. said S.R.S. and she were cautious at the beginning but slowly developed what she thought was a friendship. L.S. said she was not aware that S.R.S. thought she was unkind to him until she read the section 211 report. [62] S.R.S. told his mother that when he went on a hike with L.S., he took a knife for protection. L.S. was very surprised to hear that S.R.S. had said this. She testified that they had a wonderful time on the hike and went to the respondent's parents' house for lunch afterwards. There was no sign that S.R.S. was fearful of her. [63] When asked why she thought S.R.S. would tell people he took a knife, she responded that maybe he thinks he is

supposed to have an issue with her. He is caught in the middle of his parents. She expressed understanding of how difficult it likely was for S.R.S. to adjust to his father having a new partner. [64] The claimant alleges that L.S. ridiculed S.R.S. about his long hair by saying that he looked like a girl and that people would think he was gay. S.R.S. gave in and got a haircut but was upset about it afterwards. L.S. denied this. [65] S.R.S. complained to the claimant that L.S. bullied him to contribute money to buy a birthday present for the respondent. L.S. denies pressuring S.R.S. to do this. She asked S.R.S. if he wanted to contribute to his father's birthday gift and he said that he could. The Christmas Baking [66] S.R.S. told the claimant that the respondent and L.S. forced him to purchase baking supplies when he wanted to bake gifts for Christmas. [67] L.S. and the respondent testified that the respondent had most of the ingredients needed for the Christmas baking except for vanilla. They suggested that S.R.S. could contribute to the Christmas gift by buying the vanilla. L.S. said S.R.S. was not forced to do so; it was just a suggestion. The Backpack [68] S.R.S. told the claimant that he was upset that the respondent and L.S. made him purchase a new backpack with his own money when his backpack was stolen. He was shamed for losing it. [69] Both the respondent and L.S.

responded to this allegation. S.R.S. lost his first backpack early in September of 2015. The respondent purchased a nice replacement backpack for him. About a week after he received the replacement backpack, S.R.S. forgot it at the skate park. When he went back to get it, it was gone. Since he had lost two backpacks in two weeks, the respondent told him he had to contribute money to replace it. The respondent was trying to teach S.R.S. responsibility and the value of money. He denies shaming S.R.S. The Broken Souvenir [70] S.R.S. complained that L.S. accused him of breaking a souvenir goat skull when she had actually broken the item. He said that his father and L.S. interrogated him for two days and made him stay in his room until he confessed. They ridiculed him. [71] L.S. responded to this allegation. The goat skull was a souvenir from the respondent's childhood. S.R.S. accidently bumped into a table and the goat skull fell off and broke. He would not take responsibility for the accident. L.S. said they did not intend to punish him, but tried to hold him accountable. Wrestling Injury [72] In early February 2016, S.R.S. suffered a neck injury. S.R.S. said he was wrestling with the respondent and the respondent dropped him on his head. The respondent then shamed S.R.S. for not ducking and rolling properly and said the injury was S.R.S.'s fault. [73] The respondent tells a

different story. He, L.S., and S.R.S. were at Spanish Banks on the Family Day weekend. He was sitting on the beach and S.R.S. tackled him. The respondent was not expecting the tackle and S.R.S. went over his shoulder and landed on his head and then on his back. [74] L.S. testified that she was very frightened by the incident because she thought S.R.S. could have done serious damage to his neck. She panicked and did say, "make sure you tuck your head in next time". She was quite shaken up by the incident and S.R.S. was taken aback by her reaction. [75] The respondent said that S.R.S. had an out-of-character emotional response that did not fit the moment. He became upset and weepy. It was quite surprising. The respondent rubbed his back and they went home. [76] I accept the respondent and L.S.'s explanation of this event. I find that it was an accident but that S.R.S. was hurt, embarrassed, and very upset by this incident. Impaired Driving by Grandfather [77] S.R.S. stayed with his grandparents for three weeks in September 2015 when the respondent and L.S. were on their honeymoon. The respondent's father drove S.R.S. across town to and from school. When S.R.S. returned to the claimant's home, he was very upset because he knew his grandfather had not been fit to drive. He described his grandfather as having nosebleeds, sores on his arm, and shaking. [78] The claimant called the

respondent's mother to complain. She testified that she received the same response that she always gets from the respondent's family: "there is no problem". The respondent's family does not admit that the respondent's father drinks to excess. The respondent, his mother, and his brother all deny that the respondent's father drives while impaired. [79] In November 2015, S.R.S. spent another week with his grandparents. The claimant said S.R.S. was afraid to have the respondent's father drive him to Britannia Mines. He cried when he told the claimant about this. The respondent, his mother, and his brother deny this allegation. S.R.S.'s Behavioural Issues in the Fall of 2015 The Claimant's Observations [80] In the fall of 2015, S.R.S. was resistant to going to the respondent's house. He developed a pattern of temper tantrums. He referred to L.S. as "Meana" rather than her name. He refused to eat, shower, or pack his bag on the day he was to transition to the respondent's home. [81] The claimant testified that on S.R.S.'s first night back at her home, S.R.S. would burst into tears and cry for hours. He was having nightmares. [82] The claimant repeatedly asked S.R.S. if he wanted to go back to his father's house and he said that he did until February 2016. [83] The claimant testified that S.R.S. displayed other behavioural problems in September and October 2015. He took his best

friend's backpack for two days and refused to return it. He got into more fights with his schoolmates. He pushed over a chair at school. This disturbed behaviour was increasing toward Christmas. [84] The claimant described S.R.S. as constantly twitching in December 2015. His grades were down. He was being picked on by other boys. Observations of S.R.S.'s Teacher and School Psychologist [85] S.R.S.'s homeroom teacher, with whom he spent several hours during this time, did not note any of these behaviours. The school psychologist also did not note any of these behaviours. [86] S.R.S. reported having a good relationship with his grade seven homeroom teacher. The teacher indicated that S.R.S. had several positive interactions with peers in grade seven. [87] S.R.S. allegedly told his homeroom teacher that he did not do his homework on one occasion because his dad had gone crazy and hurt him. He was angry because the teacher did not listen to him. The teacher denied that S.R.S. told her this. She testified that she would have investigated such a disclosure if it was made to her. The Respondent and L.S.'s Observations [88] L.S. reported that in early 2016 before the termination of parenting time, she and the respondent were talking with S.R.S. about high school options. They asked S.R.S. what he thought and he was very hesitant to state an opinion. He said that perhaps he wanted a

fresh start. He broke down, cried, and said that he felt like he had one hand tied behind his back and an AK-47 pointed at him. He went to the bathroom to calm himself down and they decided not to press him any further. The Respondent's Mother's Observations [89] The respondent's mother described an incident that occurred sometime in 2016 when she asked S.R.S. to turn off his lights and go to sleep. He was reading a good book. She repeatedly asked him to turn his lights off and he did not comply. Finally, she raised her voice and spoke to him sternly. S.R.S. burst into tears. He sobbed and convulsed and appeared terrified. She had never observed S.R.S. react so profoundly to a minor scolding. February 19, 2016 Termination of Parenting Time [90] S.R.S. had agreed to be the ring bearer at the respondent's brother's wedding on February 20, 2016. The respondent and his brother, M.S., played baseball with S.R.S. a few weeks before M.S.'s wedding. M.S.'s observation was that S.R.S. seemed excited about the upcoming event. [91] The claimant testified that S.R.S. did not want to go to the wedding primarily because he was afraid that his grandfather was going to drive him. She did not discuss this with the respondent or offer to drive S.R.S. [92] The claimant met with a lawyer and filed the Notice of Family Claim on February 16, 2016. She then took S.R.S. to Victoria because S.R.S. was

afraid of the respondent's reaction when he did not show up for the wedding. [93] On February 19, 2016, the claimant emailed the respondent and said: I have [S.R.S.] with me. We are entering the legal process around guardianship. The documents from my lawyer will be served to you at 6 PM at your house this evening. I regret it has come to this. Regards Nicole sent from my iPhone [94] On February 22, 2016, when they got back from Victoria, the claimant saw the respondent's vehicle circling the block around her residence. The respondent's father was at the claimant's door. She was afraid and telephoned the police. [95] On February 23, 2016, counsel for the claimant wrote to the respondent advising him that S.R.S. had been expressing to the claimant his strong negative views about his relationship with the respondent and the respondent's treatment of him. The claimant, through her counsel, informed the respondent that she was choosing to homeschool S.R.S. to protect him from any retaliation from the respondent. [96] The claimant did send S.R.S. back to school, but he missed many days of instruction. She said that he was experiencing extreme anxiety. His report card for grade seven shows that he missed 44 days of school. He also missed 28 days of school in grade eight and 47.5 days in grade nine. Report to Gina Vanderham [97] The claimant attended counselling with Gina Vanderham

throughout February 2016. She also saw Ms. Vanderham around the time of the separation in 2010. [98] Ms. Vanderham testified at trial. She appeared to be an advocate for the claimant. [99] Ms. Vanderham testified that she saw the claimant on five occasions in 2016. The claimant told her that she was in crisis with her son. [100] On February 29, Ms. Vanderham spoke with S.R.S. alone for about 10 to 20 minutes. It appears that prior to this meeting, the claimant told Ms. Vanderham that the respondent hit S.R.S. [101] Ms. Vanderham asked S.R.S. if his father hits him. He told Ms. Vanderham that the respondent was mean to him, yelled at him, and hit him once or twice a month when he was drunk. [102] S.R.S. reported that L.S. hated him and made him feel dumb. He said that when he got into fights at school and was punching another kid, he imagined it was his stepmother's face. [103] Ms. Vanderham testified that she did not get the impression that the claimant was directing S.R.S. to make these complaints. Ms. Vanderham's Report to MCFD [104] Ms. Vanderham initiated a complaint to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD). She reported that the respondent was an alcoholic and used cocaine. The claimant told MCFD that she suspected that the respondent and L.S. used cocaine together. [105] Ms. Vanderham reported that S.R.S. disclosed that his father frequently yelled at

him. He also told his mother that his grandfather drove him while drunk. He said his father hits him when he is hung over and that he consumed about three beers per night but often drinks way more. She said that the respondent lost his temper and threw a baseball at S.R.S. so hard that he subsequently lost 30% of his hearing. [106] Ms. Vanderham reported that while wrestling on Family Day at Spanish Banks, the respondent lost his temper, dropped S.R.S. on his head and then shamed S.R.S. for not rolling his head to protect himself. I have found this allegation to be untrue. [107] Ms. Vanderham reported that S.R.S. said his stepmother bullied him and frequently put him down. The respondent and L.S. ridiculed and mocked S.R.S. MCFD's Investigation [108] MCFD interviewed S.R.S. He reported that his dad's wife was mean to him. His dad hit him. His dad threw a book on his stomach. He hit him hard on the back of the head. He reported the incident when he was blamed for the broken souvenir goat skull. He said the respondent and L.S. drank much more than a few beers and glasses of wine. They got really grumpy when they were hung over. His dad complained to him about how slow his mom was and his mom complained to him about how mean his dad was. His grandpa was always drunk. His grandpa shook and bled from his skin. [109] S.R.S. was asked to make five wishes. His first wish was that L.S.

was gone. The second wish was that he had space from his father. His third wish was that his father would be sober. His fourth wish was that his father's family would be sober. Finally, he wished that he would not be hit if he broke a rule. [110] MCFD interviewed the respondent for three hours. The respondent did not admit to being an alcoholic. He said he occasionally drank beer but not to the point of intoxication. He admitted that L.S. smoked marijuana, but not when S.R.S. was around. He denied spanking S.R.S. He acknowledged tossing a book at S.R.S. He described S.R.S. tipping his hat off and so he tipped S.R.S.'s hat back. [111] MCFD did not perceive these incidents to be violent or abusive. Rather, they found they were typical father-son interactions. [112] MCFD interviewed S.R.S.'s teacher. She advised MCFD that S.R.S. had missed 12 days of school because the claimant was keeping him home with her. She thought the respondent seemed to be on the ball, stable, and followed through on his word. She described the claimant as being lovely but not all there. The claimant had significant organizational challenges. She commented that the claimant was not stable psychologically. She was just different. She described S.R.S. as being a lovely child, but said he had a temper. [113] Ian Simons, a representative from MCFD, testified at trial. He was present during some of the initial

telephone call made by the claimant and Ms. Vanderham to MCFD. He worked with Michelle Chan, the social worker in charge of the child protection investigation. [114] Mr. Simons testified that Ms. Vanderham called MCFD after the investigation. His impression was that she was trying to influence the child protection process with exaggerated concerns. [115] On April 14, 2016, Ms. Chan wrote to the respondent confirming that she had completed the investigation and did not have any child protection concerns regarding S.R.S. being in the respondent's care. She encouraged the respondent to continue to connect with the South Vancouver Youth Centre counsellor, Jessica Willis. MCFD closed its file. Further Reply by the Respondent to the Allegations of Abuse Hitting S.R.S.'s ear with a baseball and damaging his hearing [116] The respondent responded to this allegation further at trial. He testified that he was pitching balls to S.R.S. at a park near his home. S.R.S. wanted him to pitch overhand. One pitch did strike S.R.S.'s ear. S.R.S. cried for a minute or two. After that, they continued their practice. [117] S.R.S. was diagnosed in 2009 with hearing loss in kindergarten. After that he had fluctuating issues with his hearing and 2 bouts of ear infections. He was examined by Dr. Paul Moxham on April 4, 2011 and was found to have decreased pressure in the left ear and normal pressure in

the right ear. His audiogram was completely normal and he was found to have fluctuating eustachian tube issues. [118] The claimant must have known this information when she alleged that S.R.S.'s hearing loss issues were caused by the baseball. It appears from the medical report that S.R.S. had fluid in his inner ear from ear infections. I find that the claimant must have known this when she accused the respondent of damaging S.R.S.'s hearing. Her testimony was misleading on this point. Throwing a book at S.R.S.'s stomach [119] The respondent could not recall the book-throwing incident. He admitted that he and S.R.S. tended to toss things back and forth to each other. It is possible that he tossed S.R.S.'s agenda notebook at him. Allegations of hitting, slapping, and demeaning S.R.S. [120] The respondent denies any allegation that he hit, slapped, or demeaned S.R.S. Meetings between S.R.S. and the respondent and his family after February 2016 [121] Around March 8, 2016, the respondent attended a "Gold Program" meeting at S.R.S.'s school. Without hesitation, S.R.S. came in and sat down at the same group of student desks with the respondent. He did not seem afraid. They conversed. [122] The current Gold Program students took the prospective students for a tour. All of the students came back except S.R.S. It was clear to the respondent that the claimant had grabbed S.R.S.'s

backpack from the classroom and took him away. The respondent did not see S.R.S. again until September 2017. [123] The respondent and S.R.S. met for hot chocolate in September 2017. The respondent testified that the meeting went well. S.R.S. was initially awkward and stone faced when they met but he warmed up after a few minutes and smiled. He asked about L.S.'s pregnancy and told the respondent about a baseball camp that he was attending. They made small talk. The respondent testified that he did not press S.R.S. for information. They hugged at the end of the meeting. The respondent thought it went well. No further meetings were scheduled. [124] According to the claimant, S.R.S. felt sad and dejected after the meeting. He said the respondent pumped him for information. He felt interrogated. S.R.S. was expecting the respondent to apologize at the meeting so that they could move on. [125] The respondent's brother, M.S., described his relationship with S.R.S. as warm and friendly. Most of what they did together was sports related. They attended baseball games, BC Lions games, and soccer games together. S.R.S. always appeared excited to see him until an incident after the termination of parenting time when he attended one of S.R.S.'s baseball games. The claimant was there. M.S. had not spoken to S.R.S. since before his wedding. When he approached S.R.S., S.R.S. was almost in tears

and quietly repeated, "please go away, please go away". S.R.S. was clearly very uncomfortable. [126] The respondent's mother attended baseball games and received the same uncomfortable reaction from S.R.S. Medical Interventions Dr. Kneifel [127] Dr. Kneifel is the claimant's and S.R.S.'s family doctor. She did not appear at the trial although she had been subpoenaed. Counsel did not wish to pursue an order compelling her attendance. Counsel for the respondent used a report by Dr. Kneifel during cross-examination of Dr. Krywaniuk. The report was not admitted into evidence in this trial. The claimant says that S.R.S. made allegations to Dr. Kneifel, but I do not have Dr. Kneifel's evidence to corroborate that statement. Dr. Slater [128] Dr. Slater is a youth and adolescent psychiatrist. She prepared a consultation report on May 9, 2016. It was not filed as an expert report in these proceedings. S.R.S. made similar allegations of abuse to her. The claimant testified that Dr. Slater diagnosed him with acute stress. Jessica Willis [129] Jessica Willis is a counsellor with Milieu Children and Family Services in Vancouver. MCFD recommended this counselling to the family. For a period, S.R.S., the claimant, and the respondent met with her regularly for individual counselling sessions. [130] Ms. Willis was not called to give evidence at this trial. By consent, the parties filed a report

prepared by her on May 18, 2016. The information below comes from that report. [131] Ms. Willis assessed S.R.S. on a Child and Adolescent Functioning Assessment Scale. [132] She assessed S.R.S. as having a severe level of impairment on the "home scale" because the shared parenting arrangement had been interrupted. [133] She assessed a severe rating in the "school/work scale" because S.R.S. was only attending school intermittently due to perceived threats to his safety. [134] She assessed a moderate impairment in the "behaviour scale" as S.R.S. was having difficulty regulating himself in interactions with his mother due to being overwhelmed by stress. [135] She assessed a severe impairment in the "moods/emotions scale" because S.R.S. reported being scared to attend school periodically because of the perceived safety threat of his father and the feeling of being overwhelmed. [136] She assessed a minimal to no impairment rating on the "thinking/ substance use, community, and self-harm behaviour" scale. [137] S.R.S. told Ms. Willis that he would like to have a relationship with his father in approximately six months with the condition that his father receive counselling and acknowledge that he had a problem related to anger and substance abuse. [138] The claimant stated she was supportive of S.R.S. reuniting with the respondent and re-establishing the relationship in the

future. [139] The respondent demonstrated a desire to reconnect with S.R.S. and support him to the best of his ability as a parent. [140] The respondent said Ms. Willis advised him that S.R.S. wanted communication. She recommended that he provide a letter. He provided a short letter that said something like "I love you S.R.S. None of this is your fault. I cannot wait to see you." [141] Shortly after Ms. Willis delivered the letter, the claimant cancelled her services. Dr. Krywaniuk's Section 211 Report [142] Dr. Krywaniuk prepared a section 211 report on February 21, 2018. He met with the claimant and S.R.S. and with the respondent and L.S. between January 2017 and April 2017. He met S.R.S. a second time in November 2017. He was prepared to meet with S.R.S. again in October 2018 but the meeting did not happen for reasons discussed below. Challenges to the Report [143] Both parties accepted Dr. Krywaniuk's qualifications as an expert. However, he was extensively cross-examined on potential bias. He has had a friendly, professional relationship with the respondent's counsel in the past. He had lunch with the respondent and his counsel during the trial, which potentially compromised the appearance of neutrality. However, I do not think this establishes bias. Based on Dr. Krywaniuk's forthright answers, I am satisfied that they did not discuss the case. [144] Dr. Krywaniuk was also

cross-examined on the fact that he did not interview collateral witnesses offered by the claimant. Ryan Irvin, a long-time friend of the claimant, testified that he left a message for Dr. Krywaniuk and Dr. Krywaniuk did not return his telephone call. Mr. Irvin had nothing to say about the issues in this trial. He appeared in court only to say that Dr. Krywaniuk did not return his call. [145] One would think that the claimant would call these alleged collateral witnesses to show that their evidence would have been important for Dr. Krywaniuk's assessment. However, the claimant called no one to support her evidence. I do not know if any of the claimant's collateral witnesses had any material evidence to contribute. Accordingly, the claimant has not established that Dr. Krywaniuk's assessment is flawed for failure to interview collateral witnesses. [146] The claimant alleged that Dr. Krywaniuk interviewed S.R.S., but cut him off and would not let him speak negatively about his stepmother. I reject that submission. Dr. Krywaniuk was cross-examined on this point and described his questioning technique. He routinely allows people to say what they want to tell him. With children, his practice is to ask about school, friends, and activities and introduce other issues in an open-ended fashion. Dr. Krywaniuk's Conclusions [147] Dr. Krywaniuk found the claimant's version of various

events, including S.R.S.'s refusal to meet with the respondent, highly inconsistent with what S.R.S. told him. [148] His two interviews with S.R.S. indicated that S.R.S. very desperately wanted to see the respondent and recognized quite poignantly that he and his father are missing out because of lack of contact. Dr. Krywaniuk stated at pages 8-9 of his report: ... [S.R.S.] insists that all his father has to do is "apologize" for the "abuse". During my discussions with him, I asked [S.R.S.] to describe various events that he saw as being abusive. What he described, at least on the surface, were very trivial events and at one point he said he wasn't even sure his father realized that he had done something to hurt [S.R.S.] because he had only brushed by in a hurry and caused [S.R.S.] to lose his balance and fall on the couch. Even with relatively extensive discussion about the issues, [S.R.S.] did not describe to me the kind of hitting and hurt that [the claimant] said he described to her. I had the impression that [S.R.S.] was stretching very hard to have these events interpreted as somehow being abusive. [S.R.S.] readily became tearful when discussing this situation and his comments indicated he clearly understood that he and his father are being deprived of their father/son relationship. At the same time he was quite adamant that he was not going to back down from his request

that his father "apologize". As indicated, there was a desperate quality to [S.R.S.'s] plea and it seems that he does not quite know how to extricate himself from the situation. As is the case in many circumstances where there is a custody issue, it appears quite clearly to me that [S.R.S.] is caught between his parents. It appears to me that [the claimant's] life at present has a fairly limited scope and that she needs to have [S.R.S.] with her to feel fulfilled as a mother and a person. My understanding is that she is not in a relationship of her own and that she is only partially economically self-sustaining. There were indications from [the claimant's] comments that she was not happy about the breakup of her relationship with [the respondent] and there were comments from various individuals that she was angry and perhaps jealous when [the respondent] began his relationship with [L.S.] and finally married her. Her apartment is certainly adequate but is relatively austere and has a temporary feeling to it even though she has lived there for a number of years. It appears to me that [S.R.S.] intuitively is aware of his mother's emotional needs and that he senses she feels very alone when he is not with her. [The claimant] commented that her parents didn't deny their behaviour to her and didn't change but she forgave them despite this. In trying to understand the current

situation, there is quite a good likelihood that [the claimant] is projecting her own disappointments with her family of origin on to [S.R.S.] and his relationship with his father and stepmother. There may be a sense of abandonment associated with this. This would account for the need to find similar faults in [the respondent] and [L.S.] that she recalls in her parents from her own upbringing. [149] In Dr. Krywaniuk's opinion, S.R.S. does not want to make his mother feel lonely, but also does not know how he can maintain a relationship with his father at the same time. He suggests that S.R.S. feels obliged to feel the emotional needs of the claimant. [150] When Dr. Krywaniuk saw S.R.S. six months after his first interview, he was still unable to get any disclosure of "abuse" beyond what appeared to be a minor incident that he would not consider to be abusive from the descriptions S.R.S. gave. He is of the opinion that the claimant's reports of "abuse" were strong amplifications of S.R.S.'s rather pallid complaints. [151] In Dr. Krywaniuk's opinion, the perceived safety concerns come from the claimant rather than S.R.S. She has conveyed to S.R.S. that he is unsafe with his father. [152] Dr. Krywaniuk is not surprised that S.R.S. has developed anxiety in response to the situation. He has to reconcile his mother's perceptions or reactions with his own experiences. S.R.S. gets

pulled into the claimant's reality when they are together which ends up confusing him. I also see evidence of this in the meetings that S.R.S. had with the respondent and his family at the baseball games. He is most uncomfortable if the claimant is also present. [153] Dr. Krywaniuk said at page 9 that it seemed to him that S.R.S. was undermining attempts to resolve the issue by refusing to accept any concessions from his father. [154] At page 14 of his report, Dr. Krywaniuk stated the opinion that this is a case of a high level of estrangement bordering on alienation. Analysis and Conclusion on Factor 2 [155] The respondent was a reasonably straightforward witness. He gave clear, concise answers and was not prone to exaggeration. [156] I found L.S. to be a forthright and believable witness. She appeared sympathetic to S.R.S.'s reaction to having a new stepmother and being stuck in the middle of his parent's dispute. I find she genuinely tried to befriend S.R.S. [157] S.R.S. complained about his grandfather driving while impaired. There is no proof that this occurred, but I have found that his grandfather is a heavy drinker and may have driven S.R.S. after having consumed alcohol. [158] The respondent seemed uncomfortable when questioned about his father's drinking and about his own drinking. I believe he was less candid about his own alcohol consumption as his questionnaire

prepared for Dr. Krywaniuk indicates. [159] S.R.S. has described incidents that he interprets as abusive. He blames the respondent for his neck injury and L.S. for ridiculing him after the injury. He blames the respondent for throwing a book at his stomach and for tipping his hat off by striking him on the back of the head. He was not happy when the respondent tried to teach him some accountability, which in my view was appropriate parenting. Through an adult lens, these incidents do not appear to be abusive, but from the perspective of an extremely sensitive child, they are. There is some indication in Dr. Krywaniuk's report that S.R.S. may be less committed to his earlier interpretations of these incidents. [160] It appears that S.R.S. has adopted the claimant's aversion to alcohol. He complained bitterly about his father consuming alcohol in his presence or being grumpy when he was hung over. I find that these things likely did occur. [161] It is possible that S.R.S. did not feel comfortable complaining to the respondent about his concerns. The respondent does not appear to take any responsibility for S.R.S.'s hurt feelings. He believes that S.R.S.'s estrangement is entirely the claimant's fault. This position lacks insight. [162] MCFD did not find the incidents complained of to be abusive. Dr. Krywaniuk came to a similar conclusion. I place little weight on any reports made

to Dr. Kneifel and Dr. Slater as I do not have their testimony or reports. I accept that S.R.S. made the same allegations to them that he made to MCFD. [163] I cannot find that there is a complete absence of abuse. Rather, I accept Dr. Krywaniuk's opinion that there has been an amplification of abuse by S.R.S., likely fostered by the claimant. [164] In conclusion, I find there is some evidence to explain S.R.S.'s rejection of the respondent but it is a thin or unconvincing rationale to borrow Justice Barrow's words. [165] I will examine S.R.S.'s behaviour in further detail below after examining the evidence of the claimant's behaviour. Factor 3: Has the claimant engaged in alienating behaviours? [166] I found that the claimant was prone to exaggeration. For example, she insisted that Dr. Krywaniuk interrogated her for 2 ½ hours on whether or not she was suicidal. She said he was obsessed and would not give up. He was so fixated on getting a confession about suicidal ideation that his hair was flying about. [167] Dr. Krywaniuk said that he does question parties about suicidal ideation. That portion of the interview generally takes about half an hour. He said he is not a histrionic person and that was certainly not my observation of him on the witness stand. I prefer his evidence to the claimant's. [168] Dr. Krywaniuk was of the opinion that the claimant may have reconstructed

historical events to fit her new narrative. I see some evidence of this. [169] For example, the claimant refused to accept the respondent's apology about staying out late when she was pregnant years earlier. This is because she has projected that the respondent has done the same thing to S.R.S., namely, drinking and keeping S.R.S. up late. There is no evidence that he did this to S.R.S. [170] A concerning example is the claimant's accusation that the respondent damaged S.R.S.'s hearing. In a police report, she stated that "One time [the respondent] had been drinking and became so outraged he threw a ball at S.R.S.'s head. The force was so great that S.R.S. lost hearing in one ear". The claimant must have known that this was untrue. As noted above, S.R.S. was diagnosed with hearing loss in kindergarten related to repeated ear infections. [171] The claimant has involved S.R.S. in this litigation in a most disturbing fashion. [172] She allowed S.R.S. to read the section 211 report. She said that she and S.R.S. laughed about comments made by Dr. Krywaniuk about the claimant. The claimant also proposed that S.R.S. testify at this trial. Her stated reason was that S.R.S. did not think that Dr. Krywaniuk listened to him and needed his voice to be heard. She said she was not concerned about subjecting S.R.S. to cross-examination. [173] In my decision to decline to interview S.R.S., I

ordered that S.R.S. be provided a further opportunity to be interviewed by Dr. Krywaniuk before the continuation of the trial on October 22, 2018 and that Dr. Krywaniuk provide a written summary of his impressions of that interview. [174] Dr. Krywaniuk did make further appointments to see S.R.S. I was advised that S.R.S. attended at his office alone and waited out in the public corridor of the building, but did not enter the reception area. Accordingly, Dr. Krywaniuk had no knowledge that he was there and did not interview him. [175] I find it troubling that the claimant left it up to her 14-year-old son to find his way to Dr. Krywaniuk's office rather than driving him there. The claimant has a vehicle, and she does not work so she has ample time to escort her son to appointments that she considers important. She resigned all responsibility for the appointment, leaving it in the hands of the child. Apparently, a further appointment was made for 9 AM on October 22, 2018, but S.R.S. did not attend. [176] I am satisfied that S.R.S.'s views are accurately described by Dr. Krywaniuk in the section 211 report. [177] I am only aware of one incident where the claimant was heard to badmouth the respondent within earshot of S.R.S. She contacted the respondent's mother on Super Bowl Sunday and was very upset. She told the respondent's mother that the respondent had been physically abusive

to her. She said S.R.S. was in the apartment during the call and likely overheard the conversation. [178] When asked by Dr. Krywaniuk about the respondent's positive attributes, the claimant was very complementary. On the witness stand, she spoke very highly of the respondent except for when he was drunk (which she likely had not seen in seven years since their separation). [179] There is ample evidence that the claimant has allowed S.R.S. to reject the respondent. The claimant testified that she repeatedly asked S.R.S. if he still wanted to see his father and gave him permission to cancel contact. When S.R.S. finally told her that he did not want to see his father, she did nothing to encourage him to change his mind. The claimant did not attempt to discuss S.R.S.'s concerns with the respondent or to question them. [180] In 2017, Dr. Krywaniuk wanted S.R.S. to have some contact with his father prior to the section 211 assessment. The claimant said that S.R.S. told her he did not want to go. She thought that was right and did not encourage him to go. [181] These are examples of the claimant placing the responsibility in the hands of the child. She has resigned all responsibility to encourage the relationship between S.R.S. and the respondent. [182] There is substantial evidence that the claimant has interfered with communication between S.R.S. and the respondent. She cancelled

parenting time on February 19, 2016. She took S.R.S. to Victoria for the weekend and only sent the respondent a text as she was boarding the ferry. She kept S.R.S. home from school so that the respondent could not contact him. When the respondent attended a Gold Program orientation and interacted positively with S.R.S., the claimant removed S.R.S. from the orientation. The claimant withheld S.R.S. from his grade seven graduation because she knew the respondent wished to attend it. [183] The claimant became hostile about the respondent's family's continued attendance at S.R.S.'s baseball games. She made numerous complaints to the police. On one occasion, she drove her car around the block, parked it behind where the respondent's family members were watching the game, and revved her engine in a threatening manner. [184] As noted above, Dr. Krywaniuk believes that any concerns about safety come from the claimant and not from S.R.S. There is evidence that the claimant has created an impression that the respondent is dangerous and that S.R.S. is not safe in his care. [185] The claimant has been resistant to therapeutic intervention. She testified that after S.R.S. attended two or three meetings with Ms. Willis, S.R.S. refused to return because Ms. Willis had communicated a "blame reversal apology" from the respondent. She stated that S.R.S. felt the "blame reversal apology did not

show any intelligence". The claimant thought his logic was correct. She believed that if the counsellor did not address or understand the "blame reversal apology" then she was the wrong person to act as a mediator. [186] The claimant professed to having been hopeful that she and the respondent could have resolved the problem. She believed that if they had had a better counsellor they may have resolved it. Yet in a letter from her lawyer dated March 10, 2017, the claimant refused any counselling by Marcella Blancato or any other counsellor. In cross-examination, she said the reason was that she believed the counselling offered would involve S.R.S. being alone with the respondent. [187] The claimant has also discussed the reunification therapy options with S.R.S. When she discussed the Families Moving Forward program with S.R.S., he said he would not go to a "pray the gay away camp". The claimant found this humorous and encouraged his rejection of the program. She said her "son will never consent to it. His words were 'my body will never cross the threshold'." She clearly believes it is acceptable for S.R.S. to reject a therapy that I might order. It gives me concern that she will again resign responsibility to the child and fail to support an order made by this Court. [188] The claimant has completely undermined the respondent's authority as a parent over the last two

years. [189] The claimant has withheld medical, social, and academic information from the respondent. She began enrolling S.R.S. in activities in the fall of 2015 without consultation. In February 2016, she neglected to tell the respondent about S.R.S.'s trip to emergency. She enrolled S.R.S. in a two-week reading program without informing the respondent. She allowed S.R.S. to leave the country so that he could attend a baseball camp in Florida and ensured S.R.S. was on his way before informing the respondent. Analysis and Conclusion on Factor 3 [190] I conclude that the claimant has engaged in behaviours consistent with alienation. I find that the claimant has: 1. Reconstructed historical events to fit her new narrative and projected her concerns onto S.R.S.; 2. Exaggerated S.R.S.'s concerns when reporting them to third parties; 3. Inappropriately involved S.R.S. in this litigation; 4. Denied any responsibility for encouraging S.R.S.'s relationship with the respondent and placed the responsibility in the hands of S.R.S.; 5. Applied a passive attitude toward counselling and intervention; 6. Interfered with communication between S.R.S. and the respondent, and between S.R.S. and the respondent's family; 7. Undermined the respondent's authority as a parent; and 8. Withheld medical, social, and academic information from the respondent. Factor 4: Has S.R.S. Exhibited Behaviours

Consistent with Alienation? [191] Some of S.R.S.'s behaviours are consistent with what Dr. Baker identifies as "factors consistent with alienation". S.R.S. can articulate reasons for denigrating the respondent but they are fairly insignificant. [192] There is evidence of S.R.S. borrowing scenarios or phrases from his mother. I am certain that the phrase, "blame reversal apology" did not come from a 13‑year‑old. S.R.S. was adamant that the respondent must apologize and then S.R.S. could see him and feel safe. Of course, this makes little sense if S.R.S. truly felt unsafe with the respondent at any time. [193] S.R.S. has rejected former beloved extended family members. As described above, S.R.S. seemed sad and uncomfortable when he was approached by his uncle, M.S., and his paternal grandmother at a baseball game. He told them, "please go away - just go away". S.R.S. and M.S. had previously enjoyed a good relationship. M.S. said S.R.S. was always happy to see him. He found S.R.S.'s reaction at the baseball game disturbing. S.R.S. was on the verge of tears. It was not a face that M.S. had seen in the past. [194] S.R.S. has rejected the respondent and informed him through the claimant that he is being excluded from important events in S.R.S.'s life. These include his grade seven graduation and his baseball tournaments and games. He refused to see his grandmother before she attended

hospital for cancer surgery. S.R.S. has an 11-months-old half-sister whom he has never met. [195] However, other behaviours of S.R.S. are inconsistent with alienation. In particular, Dr. Baker suggests that alienated children often show a lack of guilt regarding the poor treatment of the disfavoured parent. S.R.S. showed exactly the opposite to Dr. Krywaniuk. He appeared profoundly sad and even cried over the situation. He made it clear that he does want to have a relationship with his father. He does not wish the respondent to be harmed. There are certain conditions that he wishes to impose on their reunification, but he is willing to pursue it. Analysis and Conclusion on Factor 4 [196] S.R.S. does not appear to be truly alienated. He is conflicted. He has displayed some behaviours consistent with alienation but not many. His ambivalent behaviours and the fact that he still wants a relationship with the respondent suggests that he is estranged, but not alienated.

CONCLUSION ON WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN PARENTAL ALIENATION OR ESTRANGEMENT [197] I agree with Dr. Krywaniuk's assessment that this is a situation of severe estrangement bordering on alienation. [198] S.R.S. is a very sensitive child whose feelings are easily hurt. Although the incidents he identifies as abuse do not constitute abuse in the minds of professional adults, they do in his mind. There were catalysts to S.R.S.'s reaction. He did not make up his concerns, but he did amplify them. [199] The claimant has contributed to S.R.S.'s amplification of these incidents. She has supported S.R.S.'s rejection of his father's home. She is adamantly opposed to alcohol and S.R.S. has taken the same position. [200] I do not believe the claimant has intentionally sought to alienate the respondent. She thinks she has done the right thing by supporting S.R.S. in his irrational rejection of his father. [201] This is not a case where the child has completely rejected one parent. S.R.S. is willing to reengage with the respondent on certain terms. [202] If these parents had a functional co-parenting relationship, they might have sat down with S.R.S., discussed his hurt feelings, and resolved the matter within weeks if not immediately. Unfortunately, this family lacks the tools to take these positive steps. The claimant does not want S.R.S. to be forced into the respondent's care without prior

counselling and proper support. [203] I am most concerned about the claimant's passive and indifferent approach to resolution. She may be incapable of more. WHICH REUNIFICATION PROGRAM IS MOST SUITABLE FOR THIS FAMILY? [204] By the end of the trial, the parties had narrowed the therapeutic options to two programs. The claimant prefers the Vancouver-based Reach Program offered by Dr. Susan Gamache. The respondent prefers the Ontario-based Families Moving Forward program offered by Dr. Shely Polak. [205] I must determine which intervention is most appropriate for S.R.S in light of s. 37 of the FLA. This is an initial guardianship and parenting order and therefore, I need not find a material change in circumstances. [206] Before analysing the two programs, I will briefly review the direction courts have provided on selecting appropriate therapeutic interventions. Legal principles [207] The starting point is an acknowledgment that it is contrary to the best interests of a child to become unjustifiably estranged from a parent whether as a result of alienation or a combination of factors: J.M.G. v. L.D.G., 2016 ONSC 3042 at para. 103. [208] Forced participation in a reunification program is not always in the best interests of the child. The Court must consider the factors set out in s. 37 (2) of the FLA such as the child's emotional well-being, need for stability, strength of

relationships with different parents and the ability of the parents to cooperate on issues affecting the child: K.M.H. v. P.S.W., 2018 BCSC 1318 at para. 47. [209] In Williamson, the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered a residential reunification program involving a change of custody to be a draconian order. The Court said that such a drastic order should never have been considered absent a finding of alienation, and absent careful consideration of alternative remedies. The Court noted that the residential reunification program had been described as a "last resort" (M. v. M., 2015 BCSC 1297 at para. 153), "drastic" (N.R.G. v. G.R.G., 2015 BCSC 1062 at para. 322), and "draconian" (L.D.K. v. M.A.K., 2015 BCSC 226 at para. 106). The Court encouraged future courts to consider a range of mechanisms available to address alienation. [210] The respondent relied on a number of cases where extreme alienation was found including, C.J.J. v. A.J., 2016 BCSC 676; J.A.F. v. J.J.F., 2018 BCSC 84; J.C.W. v. J.K.R.W, 2014 BCSC 488. In those cases, the Court was prepared to order residential reunification therapy. [211] I have reviewed the authorities provided by both counsel which describe a variety of possible interventions. Families Moving Forward Program [212] The respondent proposes the Families Moving Forward Program of Dr. Shely Polak. Dr. Polak attended the trial by video in order

to explain her program. She did not offer opinion evidence on this particular family whom she has not met. [213] Dr. Polak has a doctorate of social work and specializes in services related to families impacted by separation and divorce. Her graduate study research focused on children who resist parental contact post-separation, and high conflict separation and divorce. She works together with Dr. Barbara Jo Fidler who is a clinical developmental psychologist. Two other members of her team hold Masters of Social Work degrees and provide services to families experiencing separation and divorce. [214] Families Moving Forward offers a range of clinical and educational interventions depending on the nature and severity of the parent-child contact problem. All referrals are screened through a clinical intake consultation in order to assess which intervention plan matches the circumstances of that family. Intervention could be on an outpatient basis or could engage a multi-day intervention usually conducted in a vacation setting for a period of three to four days. In some cases the intervention involves only the disfavoured parent and the child, and in other cases the favoured parent also participates. [215] Cases are categorized as mild, moderate, or severe. Dr. Polak testified that this classification depends on whether the parties are willing to cooperate. She would not know in

which category this family would fall until a clinical intake was completed. Multi-Day Family Intervention [216] The multi-day family intervention is intended to jumpstart a shift in family alliances and behaviours, and reintegrate the child with the disfavoured parent. All family members participate in various combinations: individually, as a family group, and in parent-child and co-parent dyads. Typically, these interventions take four days. Aftercare recommendations, including for outpatient services, are provided at the conclusion of the family intervention. The multi-day family intervention is not suitable where the parent-child contact problem is severe. Suspension of Contact with the Favoured Parent [217] In severe cases, in which the Court orders an interim suspension of contact, the program will provide a two-part blended sequential intervention. First, the child and disfavoured parent spend three days with two or three therapists at a vacation setting or, in some cases, in the family home. The second part involves the voluntary participation of the favoured parent with one therapist for three days, typically at the therapist's office. Upon completion of the second part, subsequent interventions are tailored to meet the needs of the family with court oversight. The goal is to re-establish parenting time between the favoured parent and child. [218] Dr. Polak provided a

template court order, recommended for severe cases where the child is removed from the favoured parent and placed in the care of the disfavoured parent for a period of 45 to 90 days. In such cases, interruption of contact with the favoured parent is considered necessary to ensure therapy is not sabotaged. [219] It is possible to have follow-up care provided by another clinician who is geographically closer to the family. Reach Reunification Program [220] Dr. Susan Gamache testified at the trial about the Reach Program. This program is offered in the Vancouver area. It is a non-residential program conducted in the clinicians' offices. [221] The Reach team includes a court designate to provide feedback to counsel or the Court. Reach therapists do not testify for either parent in order to protect their therapeutic relationship with their client. [222] The Reach process begins with a court order or consent order. The team is comprised of six senior psychologists and child therapists with a high level of expertise and experience in family law, custody and access assessments, and integrated divorce services. [223] The program provides in-depth therapeutic intervention for families with disrupted parent-child relationships using a family systems approach. Reach assigns a therapist for each family member who then work as a team to understand the whole family. The program does not use a

coercive approach to reunification. My understanding is that the program has some flexibility. The goal is to understand what is occurring and to resolve relationship problems in order to facilitate reunification. Expert Opinion on Reunification Therapies Dr. Baker's Report [224] Dr. Baker states that depending on the severity of the alienation, there may be times when no contact with the favoured parent is advisable. Transfer of custody to the targeted parent would be advisable if the alienating parent has already failed to modify his or her behaviour in response to legal and mental health directives to cease the alienating behaviours. Dr. Krywaniuk's Opinion [225] Dr. Krywaniuk agreed that in some cases, the appropriate response to estrangement or alienation is to place the child with the disfavoured parent without contact with the other parent. However, in this case, Dr. Krywaniuk is unsure that S.R.S. could accept this due to his concern for his mother's emotional needs. It appears that the claimant had not given him the emotional permission to have a relationship with his father despite what she has stated. [226] Dr. Krywaniuk recommends that the claimant take parenting classes and counselling to help her understand and resolve the issues underlying her current approach to parenting. She needs to understand that it is incumbent on her to support a positive image of the

respondent for S.R.S. [227] Dr. Krywaniuk has stated that S.R.S. is quite emotionally fragile so he will need to be engaged very carefully and sensitively. He will need assurance that his mother will survive emotionally. He will also need to have his mother make it known to him that she wholeheartedly supports his relationship with his father. [228] He recommends that S.R.S. and the respondent attend a family unit reunification counsellor to re-establish the father-son relationship. As part of this, he would suggest that S.R.S. stay with the respondent exclusively for perhaps one month or more to assist in re-establishing their relationship. If the claimant is unable to restrain herself from promoting estrangement or alienation, it may be necessary to place restrictions on her role as a parent. L.S. should also be brought into the overall reunification process. [229] Dr. Krywaniuk suggested that the strength of Dr. Polak's program is the increased intensity of on-site, continuous therapy, delivered in one location at one time. Dr. Gamache's program may be less intensive as therapy is distributed over a period of time. Thus, it may take longer to reach a result and if the intervention is not intensive enough, desired results may not ever occur. [230] Dr. Krywaniuk believes this family may require a more intensive approach off the top.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [231] My focus has to be on the best interests of S.R.S. I find an immediate reversal of custody to be too severe for this situation. I must keep in mind Dr. Krywaniuk's comment that S.R.S. is quite emotionally fragile and needs to be engaged carefully and sensitively. He will need assurance that his mother will survive emotionally and that she supports his relationship with his father. S.R.S. may not cope with being completely removed from the claimant's care and placed in the respondent's care. [232] I have found that this is not a severe case of alienation. It is a hybrid case of estrangement bordering on alienation. The claimant has engaged in alienating behaviours. However, the respondent's conduct toward the claimant and S.R.S., and his inability to see that he has any responsibility for S.R.S.'s estrangement has also contributed to the situation. [233] The focused approach of the Families Moving Forward program in Ontario is attractive because the parties would receive intensive therapy over a short time, prearranged with no opportunity to retreat or avoid. I have concerns about the claimant's capacity to commit to therapy. [234] A program that requires ongoing payment, scheduling and attendance will provide many opportunities for the claimant to avoid it. [235] My grounds for this concern are found in the evidence. The claimant was not proactive in

driving S.R.S. to Dr. Krywaniuk's office prior to October 22, 2018 to be interviewed. The claimant cancelled counselling with Jessica Willis because the respondent's letter did not conform to what she thinks a true apology should be. She rejected counselling when it was recommended for the family in 2017. [236] I find that the claimant is more likely to actively participate in counselling if it is a program that she has proposed. S.R.S. is also more likely to engage in a program that the claimant endorses. [237] I prefer Dr. Gamache's program, which employs a family systems model, assigns a counsellor for each family member, and does not use a coercive approach to reunification. [238] It is my view that the best approach for this family would be to have a focused period of counselling for one to two weeks, followed by ongoing counselling for each family member for a minimum of one year. [239] I find that it is in the best interests of S.R.S. for the claimant and respondent to continue to share guardianship and work towards an equal parenting time regime as quickly as is warranted and recommended by the Reach Program.

DISPOSITION ON PARENTING MATTERS 1. Parenting Responsibilities [240] The parties are to share parenting responsibilities but if the claimant continues to exclude the respondent from parenting decisions, I will consider allocating those responsibilities to the respondent.

2. The Reach Program [241] The claimant and respondent will forthwith retain Dr. Susan Gamache and the Reach Program in Vancouver to work towards the resolution of parenting issues involving S.R.S. The claimant and respondent are to actively participate in counselling sessions as recommended by Dr. Gamache. [242] The parties will support S.R.S. in participating in the Reach Program and the claimant and respondent are hereby restrained and enjoined from undertaking any actions or omissions which may jeopardize the success of the Reach Program with respect to S.R.S. [243] The claimant and the respondent will promptly sign and return any and all releases, intake applications, sureties and other forms and documents required by Dr. Gamache and the Reach Program. [244] The claimant and the respondent will promptly provide any information and documentation required and requested by the Reach Program. [245] The court designate of the Reach Program may contact the court with respect to matters arising from the resolution of reunification between S.R.S. and the respondent and the treatment recommendations of the Reach Program and all such communications must be in writing and must be copied to the lawyers for the claimant and the respondent. [246] The claimant and the respondent will each pay one-half of the fees required by the Reach Program, and each party will forthwith provide his or

her share of the retainer fees required by the Reach Program as well as his or her credit card information as required by the Reach Program. [247] The court designate of the Reach Program will provide a report to the Court no later than three months from the initiation of the intervention and may from time to time report to the Court and provide oral evidence on any aspect of the treatment of S.R.S., the claimant, and the respondent. [248] Dr. Gamache and the therapists engaged by the Reach Program may communicate with the lawyers for the claimant and the respondent and with medical professionals, mental health professionals, social workers, and other third parties with information about the parties and S.R.S. as they may deem necessary for the treatment of the family. [249] The process prescribed by the Reach Program is not confidential and communications between and among Dr. Gamache, the therapists engaged by the Reach Program, and other persons are not protected by or subject to therapist-patient confidentiality. [250] The parties will cooperate with the process prescribed by the Reach Program for a period of up to 12 months, or such further and longer period as the parties may agree or this Court may order. [251] The parties will follow the timeline prescribed by the Reach Program for the implementation of the parenting time or contact arrangements ordered by this Court. [252] Either party may apply for directions and other orders as may be necessary in the event of the noncompliance of a party or S.R.S. with the treatment recommendations of the Reach Program.

3. Parenting Time [253] The claimant submits that parenting time with the respondent should commence immediately on a gradual basis increasing over ten weeks to a shared parenting regime. [254] I am mindful that Dr. Krywaniuk's opinion is that S.R.S. should stay exclusively for a period of one month with the respondent to re-establish a relationship with him. [255] I accept Dr. Krywaniuk's recommendation and order that S.R.S. stay exclusively with the respondent for one month commencing after he has engaged in sessions with his REACH therapist and, at that therapist's discretion, has had some joint sessions with the respondent. The commencement date for the one month is at the discretion of the therapist. I appreciate that some counselling may be required before S.R.S. is willing to commence parenting time with the respondent. If that is the case, the Reach Program will have discretion to implement a gradual reintroduction parenting time regime with liberty to apply to Court for further direction if needed. [256] Following the one month parenting time with the respondent, the parties will resume an alternating week parenting regime. [257] S.R.S. has not spent Christmas with the respondent or his extended family in several years. The parties are ordered to share parenting time during the school winter break so that S.R.S. spends time with each parent during this holiday. In the

event that an agreement cannot be reached, they have liberty to apply to court for further direction. [258] During the respondent's parenting time he is to limit his consumption of alcohol to one to two drinks in a day so that he is not impaired when S.R.S. is in his care. I do not believe it is necessary to impose a term related to drugs because I do not believe this is an issue. The alcohol restriction is made to address S.R.S.'s apparent sensitivity to it. The respondent is not to permit S.R.S. to be driven by his grandfather. [259] The parties are already ordered to refrain from speaking to S.R.S. about this litigation. The respondent is to advise his family that they are not to discuss any aspect of this litigation with S.R.S.

SUPPORT [260] The claimant testified that she previously did not apply for spousal support or child support because the respondent's mother threatened her. L.S. denies that she did this. [261] The respondent said he did not pay child support or spousal support because he did not think he had an obligation to do so. It is possible that he did not think he was obliged to pay child support when he and the claimant were sharing equal parenting time and he did not have legal counsel. However, after February 2016, I find it difficult to believe that the respondent was not aware of his child support obligations given that he was represented by counsel. [262] The claimant seeks child support from March 1, 2016 to the present. [263] The respondent's Child Support Guidelines income is not in dispute. It was $97,409 in 2016 and $98,665 in 2017. According to pay stubs, it appears his Guidelines income will be $88,915 in 2018. [264] I agree with the claimant's submission that child support is the right of the child. [265] The claimant's submissions did not take into account the fact that the 2011 child support tables were in effect until November 22, 2017. The respondent's retroactive child support obligations up until November of 2017 must be determined in accordance with those tables. [266] I order the respondent to pay child support to the claimant in the amount of $899 per month,

commencing March 1, 2016 and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter until and including December 1, 2016. [267] I order the respondent to pay child support of $910 per month to the claimant commencing January 1, 2017 and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter until and including November 1, 2017. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant $935 on December 1, 2017. [268] I order the respondent to pay $850 per month from January 1, 2018 and continuing on the first day of each and every month until further order of the Court. [269] The respondent made submissions about imputing income to the claimant on the basis that she is intentionally under-employed and relies on charitable gifts from her brother, S.R. I adjourn that application until the parties are sharing equal parenting time. I grant liberty to the respondent to make this argument at that time.

CONTEMPT OF COURT [270] The respondent seeks a declaration that the claimant is in contempt of the order of Master Taylor dated September 13, 2016. He seeks a further order that the claimant is in contempt of the consent order of June 12, 2018 on the basis that she removed S.R.S. from British Columbia without written consent of the respondent or court order. The respondent seeks an order that the claimant be fined $10,000 for each instance of contempt. Master Taylor's Order [271] The respondent says the claimant breached the following terms of the order: 2. S.R.S.'s continued attendance at [redacted] High School is subject to review at the conclusion of each semester based on certain criteria, including: c. S.R.S. must attend school every day unless it is pre-approved or arranged with the respondent, or he is ill and if so, he shall obtain a medical note from a doctor. d. S.R.S. shall not be unreasonably tardy for School, or any more than a few per term.

3. The parties shall select and jointly pay for a tutor for S.R.S. through the Learning Disabilities Association of Vancouver at the commencement of his September 2016 school term. The Program Coordinator shall interview S.R.S. and review his psycho-educational report, IEP, and recent report cards to evaluate S.R.S.'s needs. Each parent shall have access to S.R.S.'s tutor and any progress reports prepared by the tutor. [272] The respondent provided school records showing that S.R.S. was absent from school 28.75 days in 2017. S.R.S.'s absences from school were not supported with medical notes except for a few incidents when doctor's notes were provided after the fact. None of the absences were preapproved or arranged with the respondent. [273] In December 2016, the claimant put S.R.S. in an English reading camp without consulting or informing the respondent. S.R.S.'s attendance record at his high school showed that he attended school for one day in December 2016. [274] The claimant has clearly and blatantly breached Master Taylor's order and provided no reasonable excuse for doing so. She says she essentially made a mistake. I find she is in contempt of court for breaching the order. The Consent Order [275] On June 12, 2018 the parties entered into a consent order that S.R.S. not be removed from the province of British Columbia without a court order or the written consent of the

claimant. I suspect it was intended to say "the respondent". [276] The respondent seeks a finding that the claimant is in contempt of this order because she permitted S.R.S. to leave the country and attend a baseball program in Florida without the respondent's consent. The claimant said she thought she just had to inform the respondent. She did not realize that she was required to obtain his consent. [277] Due to the flaw in this order, which I suspect is a clerical error, I cannot make a finding of contempt. [278] I impose a fine on the claimant $5,000 for breaching the terms of Master Taylor's order. I accept the submission of the respondent that I should suspend this sentence pending the determination of the claimant's cooperation and performance in the counselling program.

FURTHER APPLICATIONS [279] I seize myself of all further applications in this matter for 12 months from the release of this decision.

COSTS [280] The parties are at liberty to provide written submissions of no more than 10 pages each on the issue of costs. The claimant's submissions must be received no later than January 11, 2019. The respondent will have 14 days to respond and the claimant will have seven days to reply. "B. M. Young, J." The Honourable Madam Justice Young