In a family law proceeding, the parties were unable to agree on the appointment of a counsellor for their child.
The court reconsidered a prior endorsement after discovering that the respondent’s written submissions had not been included due to a clerical error.
Upon reviewing both parties’ submissions and the qualifications and availability of proposed counsellors, the court revoked the earlier endorsement and issued a new order appointing a counsellor for the child.
The court appointed the applicant’s proposed counsellor as the primary choice and designated an alternate if the first counsellor declined.
The order also addressed parental cooperation with counselling and allocated responsibility for payment of counselling costs, including coordination with the mother’s benefit plan.
