Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2019-12-17

Court File No.: Sudbury D95-18

Between:

Tamara Galea Babin, Applicant

— AND —

Aaron Babin, Respondent

Trial

Before: Justice H.A. Mendes

Heard on: October 2, 2019 and October 3, 2019

Reasons for Judgment released on: December 17, 2019

Counsel

Tamara Galea Babin — applicant mother on her own behalf

Aaron Babin — respondent father on his own behalf

Judgment

Mendes J.:

Nature of the Case

[1] The issues for the Court to determine on the applicant mother's custody application are:

1. The ongoing parenting-time schedule for the three children with the parents;
2. Should the children be baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at the age of eight years old;
3. What should be the transportation arrangements for the pick-up and drop-off of the children;
4. Should there be a reduction in the quantum of child support payable by the respondent father to the applicant mother for the three children lower than the set-off sum of child support.

Position of the Parties

[2] The parties confirmed their position regarding the above four (4) issues at the commencement of trial as set out below.

1) Parenting time arrangement: The applicant mother seeks that the status quo remain such that the respondent father have the children week one from Saturday at 8:00 a.m. to Monday at 3:00 p.m. and week two from Saturday at 8:00 a.m. to Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. The respondent father seeks to have the children on a week-about basis.

2) Baptism: The respondent father wants the children to be baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at the age of eight years old. The applicant mother wants the children to wait until they are adults to make their own choice.

3) Transportation: The respondent father seeks that the parents equally share the transportation of the children for parenting time. The applicant mother seeks that the respondent father be responsible for the pick-up and return of the children but she will assist from time to time.

4) Child support: The applicant mother seeks child support payable by the respondent father in accordance with his income, but is prepared to consider a reduction as per the direction of the Court. The respondent father seeks to pay a reduced sum of child support, less than the set-off sum, in the amount of $300 per month.

Background

[3] The parties, Tamara Galea Babin, the applicant mother (hereinafter referred to as "the mother") and Aaron Babin, the respondent father (hereinafter referred to as "the father") were married on July 19, 2008 and separated in or about September 2016. They have three children from their marriage, Noah Babin born 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "Noah"); Linnaya Babin born 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "Linnaya") and Jacob Babin born 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Jacob").

[4] Following their separation, the parties made two agreements regarding custody and access in or about May 2017, which they both signed without witnesses. The first agreement dated May 15, 2017 was typed and set out that the parties agree to joint custody of the children and that the mother will have custody of the children during the weekdays and the father will have custody of the children on the weekends. The second agreement, which was hand written, added that the father was to pay to the mother child support in the sum of $300 per month.

[5] The mother commenced this application on March 12, 2018 seeking that the status quo remain but claimed an order for child support; custody; access and a restraining/non-harassment order against the father.

[6] The father filed an answer on April 10, 2018 seeking a shared parenting arrangement; that the children be permitted to be baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; that the parties share transportation for parenting time and that he pay a reduced sum of child support to the mother for the children.

Law & Analysis

[7] The governing test that the court must apply in this case when considering the appropriate parenting time regime for the children as well as the issue of the children's baptism is pursuant to section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act that being the best interests of the child. Section 24 is set out as follows:

Merits of application for custody or access

24 (1) The merits of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, in accordance with subsections (2), (3) and (4). 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1).

Best interests of child

(2) The court shall consider all the child's needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person, including a parent or grandparent, entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child's family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the child's care and upbringing;

(b) the child's views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child's care and upbringing;

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) any familial relationship between the child and each person who is a party to the application. 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1); 2009, c. 11, s. 10; 2016, c. 23, s. 7 (1, 2); 2016, c. 28, s. 2.

[8] With respect to the issue of child support, Section 3, Section 7, Section 9 and Section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines, found as a regulation under the Family Law Act states:

Presumptive rule

3. (1) Unless otherwise provided under these guidelines, the amount of an order for the support of a child for children under the age of majority is,

(a) the amount set out in the applicable table, according to the number of children under the age of majority to whom the order relates and the income of the parent or spouse against whom the order is sought; and

(b) the amount, if any, determined under section 7.

Special or extraordinary expenses

7. (1) In an order for the support of a child, the court may, on the request of either parent or spouse or of an applicant under section 33 of the Act, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child's best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the parents or spouses and those of the child and to the spending pattern of the parents or spouses in respect of the child during cohabitation:

(a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the custodial parent's employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment;

(b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child;

(c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;

(d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child's particular needs;

(e) expenses for post-secondary education; and

(f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.

Definition, "extraordinary expenses"

(1.1) For the purposes of clauses (1) (d) and (f), "extraordinary expenses" means

(a) expenses that exceed those that the parent or spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that parent's or spouse's income and the amount that the parent or spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate, or

(b) where clause (a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account,

(i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the parent or spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the parent or spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate,

(ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities,

(iii) any special needs and talents of the child,

(iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and

(v) any other similar factors that the court considers relevant.

Sharing of expense

(2) The guiding principle in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1) is that the expense is shared by the parents or spouses in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any, from the child.

Subsidies, tax deductions, etc.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1), the court must take into account any subsidies, benefits or income tax deductions or credits relating to the expense, and any eligibility to claim a subsidy, benefit or income tax deduction or credit relating to the expense.

Shared custody

9. Where a parent or spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the order for the support of a child must be determined by taking into account,

(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the parents or spouses;

(b) the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and

(c) the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent or spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.

Undue hardship

10. (1) On the application of either spouse or an applicant under section 33 of the Act, a court may award an amount of child support that is different from the amount determined under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9 if the court finds that the parent or spouse making the request, or a child in respect of whom the request is made, would otherwise suffer undue hardship.

Circumstances that may cause undue hardship

(2) Circumstances that may cause a parent, spouse or child to suffer undue hardship include,

(a) the parent or spouse has responsibility for an unusually high level of debts reasonably incurred to support the parents or spouses and their children during cohabitation or to earn a living;

(b) the parent or spouse has unusually high expenses in relation to exercising access to a child;

(c) the parent or spouse has a legal duty under a judgment, order or written separation agreement to support any person;

(d) the spouse has a legal duty to support a child, other than a child of the marriage, who is,

(i) under the age of majority, or

(ii) the age of majority or over but is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to obtain the necessaries of life;

(e) the parent has a legal duty to support a child, other than the child who is the subject of this application, who is under the age of majority or who is enrolled in a full-time course of education;

(f) the parent or spouse has a legal duty to support any person who is unable to obtain the necessaries of life due to an illness or disability. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 10 (2).

Standards of living must be considered

(3) Despite a determination of undue hardship under subsection (1), an application under that subsection must be denied by the court if it is of the opinion that the household of the parent or spouse who claims undue hardship would, after determining the amount of child support under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9, have a higher standard of living than the household of the other parent or spouse.

Standards of living test

(4) In comparing standards of living for the purpose of subsection (3), the court may use the comparison of household standards of living test set out in Schedule II.

Reasonable time

(5) Where the court awards a different amount of child support under subsection (1), it may specify, in the order for child support, a reasonable time for the satisfaction of any obligation arising from circumstances that cause undue hardship and the amount payable at the end of that time.

Reasons

(6) Where the court makes an order for the support of a child in a different amount under this section, it must record its reasons for doing so.

Issue #1: Parenting Time

[9] What should be the ongoing parenting time arrangement?

[10] The parents have shared time with the children since separation on a rotation such that the mother has the children during the weekdays and the father has the children during the weekends.

[11] The Office of the Children's Lawyer (hereinafter referred to as "the OCL") was involved in this matter and a report was completed pursuant to section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act by Jeannine Denis on January 21, 2019.

[12] The recommendations of the OCL were as follows:

1. The parents shall share joint custody of the children;
2. The father shall have parenting time every Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to Monday at 3:00 p.m. one week followed by every Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. the next week;
3. The parents shall share the responsibility of the exchange;
4. The mother to have the children on Mother's Day from 1:00 p.m to 6:00 p.m.;
5. The father to have the children on Father's Day from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.;
6. The parents are to share the Christmas holidays as agreed upon;
7. The parents are to have one full week during the summer months to be able to go on a vacation;
8. The parents are to communicate by text message and consider using the app Our Family Wizard;
9. The communication is to be about the children only regarding appointments, health, education and any other relevant information;
10. The parent with the children in their care is responsible to take the children to their health appointments. Both parents can attend the appointments, school meetings or school events;
11. The parties are to inform the other immediately in case of an emergency;
12. The parties are to inform the other 10 days in advance of any change of address or telephone number;
13. If the parties cannot agree upon a major decision, they shall bring the matter to court for consideration;
14. The children shall be permitted to be baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints;
15. The parents shall be flexible in the parenting schedule given that both parents suffer from a permanent health condition, should one of them experience a flare-up; and
16. The parents shall ensure that the children attend school on time.

[13] After receiving the report from the OCL, the parents agreed to the interim order of Justice R.W. Lalande dated January 23, 2019 which provided that the parties have joint custody of the children and that the parents share time with the children as per the recommended schedule of the father having the children one week from Saturday at 8:00 a.m. to Monday at 3:00 p.m. and the following week from Saturday at 8:00 a.m. to Tuesday at 3:00 p.m.

[14] The mother sets out that the children are doing well with the current regime and that she worries that changing the current regime will be too traumatic for the children, especially Jacob, as he does not do well with change.

[15] The mother and her fiancé, Adam McFadden (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. McFadden") stated that after the parenting time regime changed in January 2019 the children struggled and were crying. However, this was rectified after two to three visits. The mother also stated that Jacob struggled and regressed with his potty training when Mr. McFadden went on a planned trip during the summer of 2019 and was not around for a period of time. The father reported that after the separation, the children were very upset and expressed that they want more time with him and this has continued to this date as Jacob will cry when he leaves the father's home.

[16] Both Jacob and Noah have learning disabilities. Noah is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (hereinafter referred to as "ADHD") and Jacob is in the process of being assessed by the Child and Family Services Centre. Both parents report that the children, Noah and Jacob, struggle with school and the mother believes that changing homes a week at a time would make it harder for the boys. Linnaya does not have any struggles at school and she is excelling.

[17] Both parents are committed to assisting the children with their education and schooling and are active with same. Both parents work with the children regarding their school work as well as additional resources such as the Wordplay techniques suggested for Jacob with his vocabulary and speech from the North Bay Regional Health Centre from December 2017 to October 2018.

[18] The weekday routine for the children at the mother's home is that the children typically wake up at 6:00 a.m., if the mother has to work, so she can bring them to daycare. If the mother is not working the children are able to sleep in until 7:30 or 7:45 a.m. The current schedule provides for an exchange every Saturday at 8:00 a.m. and while the children do not fight about sleeping in, the mother confirms that the children would like to sleep in if they had the option, the boys until about 9:00 a.m. and Linnaya until noon if you let her but the mother will wake her up around 10:00 a.m.

[19] The mother does not have a weekend with the children, as that the father has the children every Saturday. The mother therefore plans activities on Fridays for the children and Friday is known as 'Friday Family Fun Day'.

[20] Linnaya is very close with her mother and the mother believes that a week is too long for the children to go without seeing either parent. Over the summer of 2019 when each parent had one full week with the children, when the father was to have the children for his week, Linnaya did not want to attend. However, Linnaya did go with the father and he reported that there were no issues over the week.

[21] The mother and Mr. McFadden do not reside together, however, they spend time together and have overnight visits at each other's home with the children. The children have a close relationship with Mr. McFadden and when the mother has the children in her care, they spend time at either of their homes with no set schedule, as to which night they will spend at the mother's home and which night they will spend at Mr. McFadden's home, but the majority of the time, approximately 75%, is spent at the mother's home.

[22] The father suffers from Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia (hereinafter referred to as "HSP") and he is followed by a neurologist. The father's diagnosis of HSP means that his nerves deteriorate as he ages which affects the use of his legs and arms. The father seeks to have the parenting time changed to a week-about basis so that he can recuperate every other week and over the weekend when he does not have the children in his care, rather than working Monday to Friday and then having the children each weekend.

[23] The mother also suffers from various health ailments including chronic diarrhea, chronic pain and anemia. The mother underwent a subtotal colectomy in 2012 and suffered complications during her pregnancies arising from her health issues. During the marriage there were periods of time when she was bedridden due to her medical ailments and so the father was responsible for the parenting of the children.

[24] As a result of both parents' medical ailments, the OCL in the report set out that any schedule of parenting time must be flexible to accommodate the parents when either of them has a medical flareup or emergency.

[25] Both parents have a close and loving relationship with the children and this was confirmed by the OCL. The children also expressed to the OCL that there are no issues at either home and they all feel safe and loved at both homes.

[26] I accept that both homes are stable and the mother and father are committed to providing the children with guidance, education, necessaries of life and meeting their needs.

[27] The OCL recommends that the parents jointly parent the children and that they make all decisions for the children together. The parents have agreed to this recommendation. The OCL also sets out that the parents share time with the children on a 3-4/4-3 rotating two-week schedule such that the parents have equal time with the children which the parents agreed to on a temporary basis in January 2019.

[28] Both parents as well as Mr. McFadden reported that the children were initially affected by a change in the parenting time schedule. The father states that the children, namely Noah and Jacob, want more time with him and Jacob is upset when he has to leave the father. The mother and Mr. McFadden state that in January 2019 when the schedule was changed there were some issues, but the children did adjust to the schedule within a short period of time.

[29] The children are still young and I find that a week-about arrangement is a long time for the children to go without seeing either parent. While ideally a week-about arrangement would allow the parents both time to recuperate in the off-week given that they both work, their respective health issues and it will afford them time to tend to their personal errands, I do not believe that a seven-day rotation is in the children's best interests.

[30] Neither parent, nor the OCL provided any information that a change to the current schedule would negatively impact the children. An adjustment period for a new schedule with young children can be expected, as was the case when the schedule was adjusted in January 2019, but the children did settle in to the new routine after a few exchanges. Further, there is no set routine or schedule at the mother's home for when she and the children will stay at Mr. McFadden's home during the weekdays.

[31] Given the above, I believe that the sharing of parenting time should continue, but that a 3-2-2 schedule is appropriate such that the children will reside with the parents on a week-about basis with the exchange to be on Fridays after school, however the parent who does not have the children for the week shall have time with the children on Tuesdays after school overnight to Wednesday morning before school so that the week is broken up and the children do not go more than 3 days without seeing either parent.

[32] In addition, the holiday times shall be shared between the parents as previously agreed which shall include Mother's Day with the mother; Father's Day with the father; one full-week during the summer months of July or August for each parent and a sharing of time over Christmas as agreed between the parents. The parents shall also maintain a flexible and reasonable approach to varying parenting time as mutually agreed to accommodate holidays, birthdays, special events and medical flareups or emergencies.

Issue #2: Baptism

[33] Should the children be baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at the age of eight years old?

[34] Both the mother and father were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The parties were married in the church and attended the church together as a family. After the parties separated the mother left the church but the father remains practicing.

[35] The father would like the children to participate in the religious ceremonies associated with the church, such as baptism at the age of eight years old. The mother does not agree with the children being baptized at the age of eight years old and would like the children to make this decision for themselves when they are adults just as she did. The mother feels that the children are influenced religiously by the father and that is why they wish to be baptized.

[36] The father attends church with the children each week and the children have made friends and developed relationships with their friends at church. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints children are baptized at the age of eight years old as this is the age of accountability. Once baptized the children may attend meetings and for males, they may receive the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood.

[37] The OCL reviewed the issue of baptism with Noah and the child indicated that he wants to be baptized so that he can receive the spirit as it is part of his religion. Noah also knows that his mother will not allow it at this time and that she wants him to wait until he is older. In the OCL report from January 2019 the OCL set out that there is no evidence to suggest that having the children baptized would be harmful and as such recommended that the mother give her consent. At trial the OCL confirm that the children have formed quite a few friendships at church as they attend every Sunday and the children confirmed that they enjoy attending church.

[38] Given that both parents are part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; they both participated in the church during the marriage; that the children have developed a connection with the church and made close friends at church, it is appropriate that the children participate in the religious ceremonies at the appropriate age with their peers.

[39] As such, the children shall be baptized at the age of eight years old, and they shall be entitled to participate in other religious ceremonies with the church at the appropriate age with their peers.

Issue #3: Transportation

[40] What should be the transportation arrangements for the pick-up and drop-off of the children?

[41] The current schedule is such that the father picks up the children each Saturday and returns them to school on Monday or Tuesday. The father is seeking that the parties share the transportation of the children. The mother is not seeking a change to the transportation arrangement but is prepared to assist the father from time to time.

[42] The OCL report set out that the parties should share the responsibility of the exchange of the children for the parenting time arrangement.

[43] The parties live about a nine-minute drive between the two homes and both parties have a vehicle and are able to drive the children. In light of the new parenting arrangement, the parties will pick-up and return the children directly to and from school from September through to June.

[44] During the summer months of July and August, given the shared parenting time arrangement, it is appropriate that the parties share the transportation arrangements for the children. As such the parent commencing their time with the children shall be responsible to pick-up the children from the other parent's home by 5:30 p.m. unless agreed upon otherwise.

[45] The parent who has the children Tuesday overnight to Wednesday shall be responsible for the pick-up and return of the children to and from the other parent's home with the Tuesday pick-up to be no later than 5:30 p.m. and the return of the children to be no later than 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday.

Issue #4: Child Support

[46] Should there be a reduction in the quantum of child support payable by the father to the mother for the three children lower than the set-off sum of child support?

[47] The father is employed by Sudbury Developmental Services and in 2018 earned income of $48,035. The mother is employed by the March of Dimes Canada and in 2018 earned income of $17,267. Based on the father's 2018 income, child support for three children is $940 per month. Based on the mother's 2018 income, child support for three children is $261 per month. The set-off sum of child support is $679 per month.

[48] The father is currently paying child support in the reduced sum of $500 per month set out in the Order of Justice R. W. Lalande dated January 23, 2019 which commenced as of September 1, 2018.

[49] The mother set out in her evidence that she is agreeable to the father paying a reduced sum of child support and believed that $700 would be fair.

[50] The father believes that when you look at each party's financial statements their incomes are equal, and he feels that paying child support in the sum of $500 per month is damaging him financially as his expenses are high and he does not qualify for the subsidies that the mother receives for items such as rent. As such, paying child support at the rate of $500 per month impacts the standard of living he can provide for the children. The father offered that child support could be paid at the rate of $300 per month.

[51] The parties have shared parenting time with the children since separation and will continue to do so. The starting point for calculating the child support for this family must take in to consideration the amount of child support set out in the table for each parent; the increased costs of the sharing of time of the child as well as the condition, means, needs and other circumstances.

[52] The father has advanced a claim for undue hardship, however, the factors the court must consider that may cause undue hardship include:

• one parent having an unusually high level of debt reasonably incurred to support the family;
• unusually high expenses in relation to exercising access to a child;
• a legal duty to support another child; or
• a legal duty to support a person who is unable to obtain the necessaries of life due to illness or disability.

[53] None of the aforementioned factors apply to the case at hand in relation to the father, nor are his living expenses exceptionally high. The only debts that the father has of significance, other than his vehicle loan of $48,000 are that of two credit cards totaling approximately $3,500 and a consolidation loan of $12,000.

[54] The direct set-off sum of child support accounts for the increased cost of the sharing of parenting time with the children; coupled with the fact that the father is eligible to receive half of the Canada Child Tax Benefit from the Canada Revenue Agency and that both parties should be proportionately sharing the section 7 expenses for the children for namely daycare, the child support to be paid by the father to the mother is fixed in the sum of $679 per month commencing January 1, 2020.

[55] The current daycare arrangements are such that the father is paying for his cost and usage and the mother is paying for her cost and usage. Daycare is a true section 7, special and extraordinary expense for the children. As such, the mother should be paying a proportionate share of both hers as well as the father's daycare expense in the amount of 26.5% and the father should be paying a proportionate share of both his and the mother's daycare expense in the amount of 73.5% and this shall commence as of January 1, 2020.

Decision

[56] Based on the above, the following Final Order shall be made in this matter as follows:

(1) The parties, Tamara Galea Babin and Aaron Babin shall have joint shared custody of the children Noah Babin born 2009; Linnaya Babin born 2010 and Jacob Babin born 2014.

(2) The parties shall both be entitled to obtain information from third parties involved with the children including but not limited to doctors, nurses, dentists, teachers, principals, coaches and counsellors and each party shall keep the other advised of which third parties are involved with the children and provide contact information for the third parties.

(3) Commencing Friday, December 27, 2019, the parties shall share parenting time with the children on a week-about basis with the exchange of the children to be on Fridays after school with the respondent father to commence his week on December 27, 2019. However, the parent who does not have the children for the week shall have the children on Tuesdays from after school overnight to Wednesday before school.

(4) The pick-up and drop-off of the children for parenting time shall be directly to and from school. If there is no school, the parent who is commencing their time with the children on the Friday shall be responsible for the pick-up of the children from the other parties' home by no later than 5:30 p.m., unless agreed upon otherwise.

(5) The parent who has the children Tuesday overnight to Wednesday shall be responsible for the pick-up and return of the children to and from the other parents' home with the Tuesday pick-up to be no later than 5:30 p.m. and the return of the children shall be no later than 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday unless agreed upon otherwise.

(6) If the children are not otherwise with the applicant mother for Mother's Day, she shall have them from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the applicant mother to be responsible for the pick-up and return of the children during this time.

(7) If the children are not otherwise with the respondent father for Father's Day, he shall have them from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the respondent father to be responsible for the pick-up and return of the children during this time.

(8) Each party shall be entitled to one full week with the children during the summer months of July or August, or as agreed upon, to be able to go on a vacation with the children. The parties shall agree upon the full week vacation by June 1st each year with the applicant to have first choice in even-numbered years and the respondent to have first choice in odd-numbered years.

(9) The parties shall share time over the Christmas Holidays as agreed upon, with the schedule to be determined by December 1st each year with the applicant to have first choice in odd-numbered years and the respondent to have first choice in even-numbered years.

(10) The parties shall maintain a flexible and reasonable approach to varying parenting time, as mutually agreed upon, to accommodate holidays, birthdays, special events as well as medical flareups or emergencies.

(11) The children shall be baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at the age of eight years old and the children shall be entitled to participate in other religious ceremonies at the same age as their peers.

(12) The respondent father, Aaron Babin shall pay to the applicant mother, Tamara Galea Babin the set-off sum of child support for the children Noah Babin born 2009; Linnaya Babin born 2010 and Jacob Babin born 2014 in the sum of $670 per month based on the Applicant's 2018 income of $17,267 and the Respondent's 2018 income of $48,035 and the Child Support Guidelines commencing January 1, 2020. The support shall be paid in bi-weekly installments of $309.23 every two weeks.

(13) The parties shall proportionately pay towards the children's section 7 special and extraordinary expenses for namely daycare with the applicant mother's share being 26.5% and the respondent father's share being 73.5% commencing January 1, 2020.

(14) The parties shall annually exchange their income tax returns and notices of assessment by May 30th commencing in 2020.

(15) All other claims made in the application dated March 12, 2018 and answer dated April 9, 2018 are hereby dismissed.

Released: December 17, 2019

Signed: Justice Heather-Ann Mendes