S.D.H. v. T.H.

2016 BCSC 1217 S.D.H. v. T.H. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: S.D.H. v. T.H., 2016 BCSC 1217 Date: 20160704 Docket: E091663 Registry: Vancouver Between: S.D.H. Claimant And T.H. Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Greyell Supplementary Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Claimant: S.G. Label Counsel for the Respondent: S.N. Mansfield Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. June 27, 2016 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. July 4, 2016 [1] The parties appeared before me on June 27, 2016 to settle the order arising from my reasons indexed as S.D.H. v. T.H., 2016 BCSC 380 ("Reasons"). [2] When the application was brought there were initially a number of issues upon which the parties could not agree. Prior to and at the hearing the parties resolved many of the outstanding matters. [3] The matters which could not be resolved concerned: 1. The appointment of a parenting co-ordinator; 2. The parenting responsibilities of the claimant as a guardian of N.H. and M.H. in relation to the parenting responsibilities I granted to the respondent and the authority of the parenting co-ordinator to make determinations; 3. Whether the respondent can schedule summer activities for N.H. and M.H. during the claimant's parenting time in the summer. 4. Clarification of the parenting time and schedule imposed in my reasons. Parenting Coordinator [4] At the commencement of the hearing I was advised the parenting coordinator who had been agreed to had resigned. I did not inquire as to the reasons. [5] Given the time which had transpired since my decision, in which I had directed the parties to appoint a parenting coordinator within 30 days of my Reasons being issued, I directed the parties to agree on a parenting coordinator forthwith or each was to provide me with the names of three such coordinators by 4:00 p.m. the day of the hearing and I would pick one, failing agreement. [6] I am advised the parties have now mutually agreed Craig Neville will be named as the parenting coordinator. Parenting Responsibilities [7] This issue does not require any change to either party's draft order as submitted and accordingly I declined to deal with it. Scheduling of Activities During Other Party's Parenting Time [8] The Reasons provide for a detailed protocol concerning parenting time. At para. 21 (para. 32 of that protocol, I stated "[n]either party will interfere with the other's parenting time whatsoever, either directly or indirectly " and at para. 33 "[n]either party will schedule appointments during the other party's parenting time or act in any manner that interferes with the other's parenting time"). [9] Neither party is to schedule a child's summer activities during the other party's parenting time, without consent. Parenting time [10] At paragraph 149 of my Reasons I imposed the following parenting schedule: By changing paragraph 3 covering the Father's Access to provide that: 3. The Father will have parenting time with [M.H.] and [N.H.] as follows: a. On one of his alternate weekends (the weekend to be agreed to by the parties and fixed) from after school on Friday until 8:00 p.m. the following Monday evening. The alternating of weekends shall commence on the implementation of this Order. b. Commencing September 1, 2016, the Father's parenting time in the extended weekend referred to in the above paragraph will be extended for the entire week such that his parenting time will be for that full week with return to the Mother by Sunday at 8:00 pm; and c. Commencing September 1, 2017, the Father will have time extended on his other alternating weekend from after school on Friday to Monday at 8:00 p.m.; [11] Paragraph 3 of the Final Order (referred to in the preceding paragraph) provided: 3. During the school year, the Father shall have access (to M.H. and N.H. as follows: a) On alternating weekends from Friday at 5:oop.m. until Sunday at 4:p.m. with the exchanges occurring at the Mother's address b) During the weeks(s) following any non-access weekend, a structured evening visit such as Cubs or another activity, either individually or as a group, depending on the children's commitments to activities and recommended services; c) Such additional access as may be determined by the Mother, based on the children's academic and behavioral needs and the Father's willingness to follow professional's recommendations and support the Mother's parenting. [12] The claimant position is: 7. The overarching disagreement between counsel arising from the Reasons is with respect to the Claimant's regular parenting time commencing September 1, 2016. The Claimant's understanding is that the schedule is based on the standard four week rotation. The Respondent is taking the position that it is a five week rotation. The difference between a four and five week rotation is critical because the amount of time the children will have with their father and the length of time in between is significantly impacted. [13] The respondent submits: 2. Parenting time - the substantive issue which the parties have been unable to resolve is the interpretation of your Lordship's Reasons at paragraph [149] (4)(3)(b): "Commencing September 1, 2016, the Father's parenting time in the extended weekend referred to in the above paragraph will be extended for the entire week such that his parenting time will be for that full week with return to the Mother by Sunday at 8:00 pm " 3. In the Claimant's version, commencing in September of 2016, the regime of 'alternating weekends' established in the May 31, 2012 Final Order is no longer applicable. More particularly, the Claimant interprets your Lordship's Reasons to subsume what was formerly the Respondent's weekend (at the end of his new 'extended weekend'), without allowing her the following weekend. The effect is to create a four-week rotation out of which he has the Children for three weekends plus Monday to Friday between two of those weekends. 4. The Respondent interprets paragraph [149] (4)(3)(b) to maintain the regime of alternating weekends, with one of the Claimant's 'weekends' being in fact 9 days long, followed by a resumption of alternating weekends. The effect is to create a five week rotation, with the Claimant having the Children for three weekends plus Monday to Friday between two of those weekends. [14] The effect of the schedule imposed in my Reasons is to grant the claimant three weekends parenting time and the respondent one week parenting time in a four week period. The reasons also refer to "alternating weekends" in several paragraphs. It was not my intention to interrupt the alternating weekend regime set in place under the Final Order. Specifically, I did not intend to grant parenting time to the claimant which would disrupt alternate weekend parenting time with each parent. [15] Upon this matter being drawn to my attention by the parties and as the Order arising from the Reasons has not been entered yet I amend para. [149] (4)(3)(a) and (b) of the Reasons to read: By changing paragraph 3 covering the Father's Access to provide that: 3. The Father will have parenting time with [M.H.] and [N.H.] as follows: a. On one of his alternate weekends (the weekend to be agreed to by the parties and fixed) from after school on Friday until 8:00 p.m. the following Monday evening. The alternating of weekends shall commence on the implementation of this Order. b. Commencing September 1, 2016, the Father's parenting time in the extended weekend referred to in the above paragraph will be extended for the entire week such that his parenting time will be for that full week with return to the Mother by Friday at 8:00 pm; and c. Commencing September 1, 2017, the Father will have time extended on his other alternating weekend from after school on Friday to the following Monday at 8:00 p.m.; d. Commencing September 1, 2018 the Father and the Mother will share parenting time. [16] Each party will bare their own costs for this application. "Greyell J."