ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: D-19,341/11
DATE: 20131106

BETWEEN:

SHANON KATHERINE ABIGAIL MACNEIL
Applicant

– and –

CLINT ANTHONY JUDE MACNEIL
Respondent

Réjean Parisé, for the Applicant.

Nicola Munro, for the Respondent

HEARD: October 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 2013

gauthier, j.

Overview:

[1] The contest between the parties is about sole custody versus joint custody, and how much time the children will spend in the care of each parent. I heard evidence relating to those issues over the course of four days.

[2] A secondary issue is whether or not the costs associated with the children’s extracurricular activities are proper s.7(1)(f) Child Support Guideline expenses.

[3] My Decision with regard to s. 7 expenses will be released separately from these Reasons.

[4] The parties had requested that I grant them a Divorce, however I was not provided with an original Marriage Certificate or a Clearance Certificate.

Facts:

[5] Shanon MacNeil (“the Wife”) is 42 years of age. Clint MacNeil (“the Husband”) is 38 years old. The parties married on July 27, 2002, and separated on July 12, 2009.

[6] According to the testimony of the Wife, there had been two prior separations: in 2005, the Husband was away from the matrimonial home for approximately a month and a half, during which he had no contact with the children( in fact the only child at that time was Kayleigh); in 2008, the Husband was away from the family home for a three month period. He came to the home to see the children on one occasion, according to the Wife, in that three month period.

[7] On July 12, 2009, the Husband assaulted the Wife. She sustained two broken ribs, a split lip, extensive swelling and bruising to her eyes, as well as bruises to her back. The Wife was hospitalized for 1 ½ days. She was away from work for the six week period it took for her to recover from the beating.

[8] The Wife did not want the children to know about the assault, but she had to provide some explanation for the very obvious injuries she had sustained, particularly to her face. She told the children that she had been involved in a motor vehicle accident. She requested that the Husband not contradict her on this explanation. He agreed.

[9] The Husband was charged with aggravated assault. On November 13, 2009, he pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of simple assault. He received a conditional discharge after having completed one year of probation which included a non-communication condition except for access to the children.

[10] For two weeks following the assault, the Husband had no contact with the children. He resided with his mother as a condition of his bail, and later of his Probation Order, in the mother’s one bedroom apartment at a local Co-operative, until December, 2010.

[11] There are three children of the marriage: Kayleigh, born November 5, 2003, (10 years old), Lochlan, born May 24, 2006 (7 years old) , and Breeghan, born January 15, 2008 (5 years old).

[12] All three children attend St. Bernadette School in the City of Greater Sudbury, and are in the care of the Wife. The children are in grade 5, 2, and Senior Kindergarten, respectively.

[13] The Husband has access every alternate weekend, from Friday after school until Monday morning, and on Tuesdays and Thursdays, after school until 7:00 p.m. The weekday access is usually exercised at the Husband’s mother’s home, where the children have made friends with other children who reside in the Co-Operative.

[14] The access arrangement has been in place since early in 2011.

[15] The Wife is employed at the Canada Revenue Agency and the Husband is a teacher at St. Charles College, which is located approximately one half kilometre from St. Bernadette School.

[16] The Husband resumed contact with the children in late July or early August, 2009. The Wife had proposed a schedule whereby the care of the children rotated between the parents, every two or three days. That regime continued either until the end of 2009 or early 2010, or according to the Husband, until the summer of 2010.

[17] For the summer of 2010, the Husband had frequent (he says daily) contact with the children. He would pick them up at the day care, and bring them to the matrimonial home.

[18] According to the Wife, the Husband would remain at the matrimonial home and put the children to bed on occasion. They did not regularly have dinner together in the matrimonial home, and the only reason that she agreed to the Husband being present in the home was to attempt to normalize things for the children. The Husband did not stay overnight, and there was no attempt at reconciliation. The Husband had no place to exercise the access to the children in the summer of 2010 as his mother had requested that the children not have overnight visits at her residence. This was another reason the Wife allowed the Husband to spend time at the matrimonial home.

[19] During the summer of 2010, the parties attended two or three weddings together. They also took part in activities with the children, as a family, such as travelling to Manitoulin Island and to Wonderland.

[20] There is no agreement regarding the extent of contact the Husband had with the children in the fall of 2010, although the Husband maintains that he continued to see the children every day; the pattern developed in the summer continued through to November, 2010, when the casual arrangement for access that had existed in the summer ceased. According to the Wife, she had been telling the Husband that he needed to secure suitable accommodation so he could exercise access to the children. She did not want him doing so at the matrimonial home after the expiry of the Husband’s Probation Order.

[21] For his part, the Husband maintains that, between July and November, 2010, the parties were reconciled albeit that the Husband continued to reside at his mother’s home.

[22] In November, the Wife announced that the reconciliation was over and the Husband was no longer welcome to exercise access in the matrimonial home.

[23] In December 2010, the Husband began renting a three bedroom home and he moved into that residence. He continues to occupy it. There is no evidence to suggest that the home is not appropriate for the children.

[24] The Husband conceded that, for the year 2010, the children spent the majority of the time with the Wife.

[25] The Husband began to exercise access to the children every alternate weekend, and Tuesdays and Thursdays, in early 2011.

[26] During the summer of 2011, the children were in the care of each of the parents on a “week about” schedule.

[27] Their day time was spent at the day care, even on the weeks when they were with the Husband.

[28] The alternate weekend and Tuesdays and Thursdays schedule resumed in the fall of 2011 and continued until the summer of 2012. For the summer, the children were in the care of each parent, again on a “week about” schedule, however, they did not attend the day care on the weeks when they were with their father.

[29] The “week about” summer schedule was in place again in the summer of 2013, and, once again, the children did not attend day care when they were with the Husband.

[30] After the separation, the Wife remained in the matrimonial home until August, 2011 when the mortgagee bank exercised its rights under the mortgage, and the home was lost. The Husband made the mortgage payments, in the amount of $1,340 bi-weekly, until December, 2010, at which time he stopped. There is some dispute about the amount of arrears owing as of December, 2010.

[31] The Wife has been residing in a spousal relationship with John Malette since the fall of 2011. The couple intends to marry once the Husband and Wife are divorced. The home of the Wife and Mr. Malette is described as very loving. Mr. Malette is very involved with the children and their activities. By all accounts, the children and Mr. Malette get along very well. Mr. Malette has two sons from his earlier marriage. The older son, Cody, is attending McGill University and is said to be very attached to the MacNeil children. The younger son, Jake is in high school. He visits and stays overnight at the MacNeil/Malette residence on a regular basis.

[32] The three children were described by the Wife as follows:

Kayleigh: This child is doing really well in the French school. She is “a ball of fun”.

Lochlan: He is doing reasonably well in school, although he has had some trouble with his developmental milestones. He has issues with his gait. He also had speech difficulties and spent a year and a half working with a speech therapist. Lochlan takes medication for his severe allergies. Bed wetting was a problem until about a year ago. Lochlan was particularly attached to Cody, who resided in the MacNeil/Malette household on a full-time basis, until he went away to University this fall.

Breeghan: This child apparently speaks better French than her siblings. She is a “loud” child, who is “happy as a lark”.

[33] By all accounts, the children are happy, secure, and well-adjusted. They do well while in the care of each of their parents. And, to the credit of both the Husband and the Wife, the children have been kept out of any arguments or disagreements between the parties. For that they are to be congratulated.

[34] The Wife commenced the Application for relief under both the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act, on January 25, 2011. The Application included claims for sole custody of the children, spousal and child support, equalization of net family properties, and divorce.

[35] On January 27, 2011, an emergency motion for child support was heard. Hennessy J ordered that the Husband pay child support in the amount of $1,574 per month effective December 1, 2010.

[36] On February 25, 2011, the Husband delivered an Answer claiming a divorce, sole custody of the children, child support, and equalization of net family properties.

[37] By way of Notice of Motion dated September 8, 2011, the Husband sought an Order for joint and shared custody of the children.

[38] I heard that motion and made the following Order on October 24, 2011:

(a) Husband’s motion dismissed;

(b) Husband to have temporary access to the children Tuesdays and Thursdays from the time the Husband picks up the children at day care, until 7:00 pm when he shall return the children to the Wife;

(c) Husband to also have access on Friday when he picks up the children from day care until Monday morning when he returns the children to school. That access to be extended to Tuesday morning if on a long weekend.

[39] On July 12, 2012, Del Frate J. heard the Husband’s motion for summer access. He ordered a “week about” schedule and determined that the children did not need to attend day care during the weeks they were going to be in the care of their father.

[40] On August 15, 2012, a further Temporary Order was made along the following terms:

1. The respondent, Clint MacNeil shall pay to the applicant, Shanon MacNeil for the support of the three children Kayleigh MacNeil born November 5, 2003, Lochlan MacNeil born May 24, 2006 and Breeghan MacNeil born January 15, 2008, $1718.00 monthly, starting September 1, 2012 based on the respondent, Clint MacNeil’s anticipated approximate 2012 income of $93,230.00.

2. The respondent, Clint MacNeil shall attend as soon as possible at the applicant Shanon MacNeil’s premises to retrieve his canoe.

3. Each parent has the same right as the other to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of his or her child.

4. If a care provider will not release such information to the parent then the other shall sign whatever direction or consent the care provider may require as protocol.

5. The request for a divorce is severed from the corollary relief.

6. The matter is adjourned to the trial coordinator to fix a date for a continued settlement conference and trial management conference.

7. That unless the support order is withdrawn from the Family Responsibility Office the Director of the Family Responsibility Office shall collect the support owing under the order and the Director shall pay the monies to the person to whom they are owed.

8. For as long as child support is paid, the payor and recipient, if applicable must provide updated income disclosure to the other party each year, within 30 days of the anniversary of this order, in accordance with section 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines.

[41] The trial of this matter proceeded on October 15, 16, 23, 24, and 25, 2013.

Wife’s Position:

[42] The Wife has always been the primary parent of the three children. She took a one year maternity leave after the birth of each of the children. She took care of the household and the children while the Husband worked. After she returned to work, she continued to be the parent who attended to meals, bedtime, medical appointments, etc., all the while “running” the home.

[43] Throughout the marriage, the Husband was not very involved with the children. He spent virtually all of his free time on the internet, “chatting” with other women. He was not an active participant in the life of this young family. He chose to engage in chats with other women over spending time with his family, and he did so knowing how his use of the internet hurt the Wife.

[44] The current arrangement, which has been in place for some time provides the children with a sense of stability, continuity, security, and a sense of where their “home” is. The current arrangement reflects to a large extent what existed during the marriage, that is, that the Wife was the primary caregiver.

[45] The order that the court will make should reflect the nature of the relationship that exists between the parties and the children; it should not create a new or different relationship.

[46] In order to continue to be an effective primary parent, the Wife needs to have the time with the children that she has had to date, in accord with the existing arrangement.

[47] The Husband’s conduct around financial issues shows his lack of concern about the welfare of the children. In June of 2010, the Husband “froze” the parties’ joint bank account, without advance notice to the Wife. That created significant difficulties for the Wife, as several monthly bills associated with the family, which had been covered by automatic withdrawal, were no longer being paid. In December, 2010, the Husband ceased to make the mortgage payments on the home occupied by the Wife and the three children.

[48] Despite having told the day care provider that he would pay the holding fee for the three children in June of 2012, and despite having made that representation as well to Justice Del Frate on the hearing of the summer, 2012 access motion, the Husband never paid the fee. As a result, it became impossible for him to pick up the kids at day care. The court order permitting him to pick up the children had to be amended as a result of that.

[49] Despite no longer incurring the mortgage payments, the Husband did not voluntarily commence to pay child support. Rather, the Wife was forced to bring a motion for child support, on an emergency basis. The Husband defended that motion, arguing that there was no emergency.

[50] Despite the fact that the Wife suffered a vicious beating at the hands of the Husband, she nonetheless encouraged contact between the Husband and the children at a time when she was still reeling from traumatic events around the assault. She was able to put the best interests of the children ahead of her own interests.

[51] The Husband has chosen to not be accessible for the children. He does not have a cell phone and will not take calls at his school. If there is a need for him to attend to one or more of the children, he cannot be reached. This is not the attitude of a concerned, involved parent. This is another example of the Husband deliberately choosing to be difficult to access, contrary to the needs of the children.

[52] The Wife criticized the care that the Husband gives the children. She said that he babies them. He brushes their hair and brushes their teeth, and does not let them tend to their own personal hygiene, which they are able to do. She took issue with the Husband using pull up diapers on Lochlan at the age of 7.

[53] According to the Wife the “week about” arrangement was “a nightmare”. The children had stayed up too late and were tired. They had to be coached to follow the rules of the home each time they returned from spending a week with their father.

[54] The Wife does not trust the Husband and fears him. They do not communicate at all except by way of email. Joint custody or joint parenting in this situation would be untenable.

The Husband’s Position:

[55] The Husband seeks joint custody and a week about parenting schedule.

[56] Rather than focusing on the past, the parties should be looking forward in planning for the children. While the Husband acknowledges that he was spending too much time on the internet during the marriage, he maintains that he nonetheless was engaged in the life of the children. I heard from Sandro Spatafora, who was a neighbour to the parties from 2007 to 2009. He testified that he frequently saw the Husband with the children, playing, or taking them canoeing, etc. He characterized the Husband as a “hands on” parent.

[57] The Husband points to the shared arrangement which was in place for several months after the separation, and the week about schedule in the summers, and suggests that he is capable of seeing to the children’s needs and it would be better for the children to have more time with him.

[58] The Husband suggests that the Tuesday and Thursday access is not ideal in that there is much rushing around to accommodate activities, dinner, homework, etc. It is difficult to get everything done, and have some quality time with the children when they have to be returned by 7:00 o’clock.

[59] The Husband keeps the children busy when they are with him. They engage in various activities that the children enjoy a great deal. They have books and games and other personal effects at the Husband’s home. Lochlan has his own bedroom, and Kayleigh and Breeghan share a bedroom. The children are comfortable there.

[60] The school at which the Husband teaches is close to the children’s school and the Husband can drive the children to school and pick them up after school as he is finished teaching around the same time as the end of the children’s school day.

[61] On the issue of communicating by email, the Husband suggests that it is not unusual for separated parties to communicate with each other in that fashion. Additionally, it avoids confrontation, is simple, and provides a record of the parties’ discussions.

[62] With regard to the financial issues, the Husband paid the mortgage for as long as he was able to. In December, 2010, he needed to provide first and last month’s rent on the residence he had rented, and therefore could not make the mortgage payment.

[63] The Husband regrets having assaulted the Wife. He maintains that he has taken responsibility for his actions, and the Wife has no need to fear him.

Applicable Statutory Provisions:

[64] Section 16 of the Divorce Act governs this proceeding. Subsections (8), (9), and (10) apply.

16 (8) FACTORS – In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of the child.

16 (9) PAST CONDUCT – In making an order under this section, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of that person to act as a parent of a child.

16 (10) MAXIMUM CONTACT – In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child an, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.

Analysis:

Sole Custody versus Joint Custody:

[65] The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 1625 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 275, underscored the need for parties to be able to communicate effectively with each other to address the needs of their children. At paragraph 11 the Court said this:

The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate with the other parent does not, in and of itself, mean that a joint custody order cannot be considered. On the other hand, hoping that communication between the parties will improve once the litigation is over does not provide a sufficient basis for the making of an order of joint custody. There must be some evidence before the court that, despite their differences, the parents are able to communicate effectively with one another. No matter how detailed the custody order that is made, gaps will inevitably occur, unexpected situations arise, and the changing developmental needs of a child must be addressed on an ongoing basis.

[66] The evidence shows that, prior to the trial in this matter, the Wife did believe that it might be possible for the parties to effectively communicate about the children. In an email to the Husband dated February 2, 2012, she said this:

I am open to having an amicable relationship where the needs of the children come first and we can discuss their needs.

[67] For his part, the Husband also believed that there could be personal communication. In an email dated May 28, 2010, he said this:

For the time being I think we should keep the new schedule you suggested whereby I have the children every Wednesday till 7:30 p.m. and every other weekend till Sunday night at 7:30 p.m. until we can sit down face to face and make more arrangements.

[68] The Wife’s position now is that the parties are unable to communicate effectively to address the needs of the children. The evidence supports her position. Although a number of the emails filed in the trial appear to reflect courteous communication, it is not consistently so.

[69] Further, it is clear that the Husband does not wish to communicate with the Wife in any other manner than by email. He suggests that this form of communication is effective and efficient and would permit them to properly address any issue around the children.

[70] I acknowledge that in certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for parents to communicate with each other about their children in this fashion. The fact that the Husband is not prepared to engage in any other form of communication does not, by itself, lead me to conclude that joint custody is not appropriate for this family.

[71] I have, however, come to the conclusion that joint custody is not in the best interests of the children in this case. It would not reflect the realities of how these three children have been parented by each of the parties to date. It is clear that it is the Wife who has, since the birth of each of these children, been the primary care giver, the planner for the children, and the one who attended to virtually all their health needs. The Husband acknowledged that he spent an inordinate amount of time on the internet while the parties were together.

[72] In virtually all instances it has been the Wife who has initiated communication about issues or events relating to the children. The Husband agreed that the Wife puts the needs of the children ahead of her own, that she has shown good judgment in the care of the children, and that the children are thriving.

[73] Of the two parents, it is the Wife who has more consistently put the children’s best interests first. Despite the fact that she had suffered a terrible beating, the Wife was able to recognize that the best interests of her children would only be served if she kept the fact of the assault from them. She was also able to recognize, at that difficult time, and subsequently, that the children wanted to spend time with their father, and that it was in their interests to do so. The evidence establishes instances of the Wife offering additional access to the Husband, outside of the parameters of whatever arrangement was in place. One example of that is the Wife offering the Husband access to the children on Father’s Day, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., when the children were scheduled to spend the weekend with her.

[74] The Husband did not offer the same for Mother’s Day, when the children were with him for the weekend.

[75] The Husband refused the Wife’s request to be permitted to spend some time with the children at Christmas, 2011, when Christmas Day fell on a weekend when the children were with him. He refused to deviate from the court order, even for this very significant holiday. The Husband conceded that the children would have benefited from spending time with both parents on Christmas Day. He did not put the children’s best interests ahead of his own. He could have accommodated a couple of hours on Christmas day. He chose not to do so.

[76] Notwithstanding that refusal, the Husband requested that he have additional time with the children at Christmas, 2012, when he was to have the children from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Christmas day (it was a Tuesday). The Wife refused. Although the Wife would not agree to additional time, the Husband still was able to spend some time on Christmas Day with the children.

[77] The Husband’s refusal to voluntarily pay child support once he had stopped making the mortgage payments without notice to the Wife suggests that he was not focussing on the best interests of his children. He forced the Wife to bring a motion, on an emergency basis, then argued that the hearing should be adjourned until after a case conference. There was no dispute that the Wife and the children were occupying the home for which payments were no longer being made, there was no dispute about the amount of the Husband’s income, which was more than $30,000 more per year than the Wife, and that there was no child support being paid.

[78] In his dealings with the children’s day care, the Husband did not put the children’s best interests ahead of his own. I heard from Jennifer Bailey, from the Cedar Park Day Care that, on occasion, the Husband was late in picking up the children and on one occasion he picked up the children more than one hour after the appointed time, choosing to stay at his school and do schoolwork. The Husband consistently failed to follow the pick-up and drop off protocol, for example dropping the children off in the hallway when the day care policy was that the children were to be brought right into the classroom. Jennifer Bailey’s testimony suggests that the Husband was difficult to deal with.

[79] The Husband neglected to pay the $300 holding fee which was meant to secure the places for the children at the day care. He also neglected to pay a late fee. Different arrangements for pick up and drop off had to be made as a result of the Husband’s actions.

[80] The Husband has not been readily accessible to the children. Jennifer Bailey testified that the Husband had asked the day care to call him if an issue arose with the children on his days (Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday). An issue did arise. Jennifer Bailey attempted to reach the Husband but was unable to do so. When there was no response to her message after 30 minutes, she called the Wife.

[81] The Husband related an event involving Kayleigh calling his home, very distressed because she couldn’t find her mother in the house. Kayleigh had to leave a message, on the Husband’s land line, which he did not get until the next day. As it turns out, the Wife was in the backyard when Kayleigh was looking for her in the residence.

[82] There are two things that are significant about the above event. Firstly, although the Husband tape recorded the rather dramatic call and lead it as evidence in the trial, in order to, in some fashion attack the Wife’s parenting, he could not recall that Kayleigh had called back just a few minutes later to say everything was all right. That does not ring true to me, given the dramatic nature of the first telephone call. Secondly, again, notwithstanding the distress that could be heard in his daughter’s voice, the Husband did not return her call. He said he certainly would have called back had he received her message the same day that she called. He did not get her message until the next day. Had Kayleigh truly been in distress, the Husband was not available to help her.

[83] The Husband has taken the rigid position that he will not take telephone calls while he is in the classroom, save and except for emergencies. If one of his children is ill and the child’s school needs to have a parent pick up the child, and that occurs on the Husband’s day (or any day for that matter), it is not unreasonable to expect that the Husband would make himself available if needed. He has chosen not to do so.

[84] All of the above factors have lead me to conclude that the need to put the children first, and the cooperation and communication required for a successful joint custody arrangement are absent in this case.

[85] A realistic and practical approach to the question of custody dictates that the Wife should continue to be the person who makes the decisions for the children. She should continue to have the ultimate parental responsibility for the care, upbringing, and education of the children.

The Access:

[86] The children want to spend time with their father and it is in their best interests to do so. By all accounts, the children enjoy their time with the Husband, and they are well cared for while with him.

[87] The Wife did raise some concerns about the children being over tired when they come back from a week at their father’s, and there was a concern about Lochlan being seriously sunburned in 2012, while in the care of the Husband, however, I did not hear from the Wife that she was seriously concerned about the Husband’s ability to take care of the three children. It is not unusual for children to have to readjust to being in one household, after having been in another.

[88] There is no suggestion that the Husband is in anyway incapable of meeting the needs of the children day to day.

[89] He did so in the time that the rotating schedule was in place in 2009, at a time when the children were younger and would have required more intensive parenting.

[90] He has done so in the summer months and also for one week in April, 2013, while the Wife was out of the country.

[91] And, while the Wife described the Husband as having been an absentee father during the time the family was together, she called him a “great father” while they were together. I refer to two emails, dated February, 2005, and September, 2007.

[92] The evidence suggests that the Husband was less engaged with the children than he could have been, prior to the separation, but that has changed since the parties separated more than four years ago. Since that time, the Husband has spent regular and extended time with the children, especially since 2011 when the shared summer arrangement was put in place.

[93] Other than the Husband’s shortcomings as a parent that I have alluded to earlier in this Ruling, it seems that he is capable of having the children in his care for extended periods of time, and capable of providing them with a safe and nurturing environment.

[94] The evidence establishes that there is much affection between the children and their father, and that there is much interaction and laughter when they are together.

[95] I am also satisfied, on the evidence, that the current arrangement of access on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3:00 o’clock until 7:00 o’clock is not ideal. When one considers the need to do homework, to have dinner, and to accommodate certain of the children’s extracurricular activities, it is easy to see how that access period would feel “rushed”, both for the parent and more particularly for the children. And it will not become any easier as the children get older and become involved in more and more social and extra-curricular events.

[96] I have concluded that it is best to eliminate the weekday access and to replace it with a regime of access that provides more consistency and eliminates the pressure of condensed weekday access.

[97] The children will continue to have their primary residence with the Wife, but will spend every third week with the Husband.

[98] Commencing the week of November 17th, 2013, the arrangement will be as follows:

• From Monday, November 18 until Friday November 22, the children will be in the care of the Wife.

• The Husband will have access from after school on Friday, November 22, until 7:00 pm on Sunday, November 24 at which time the children will be returned to the Wife.

• They will be with the Wife from November 24 at 7:00 p.m., until Monday, December 2, after school.

• The Husband will have access from Monday, December 2, after school, until Sunday, December 8, at 7:00 p.m.

[99] The pattern will repeat itself. The children will be in the care of the Wife for a two week period with the Husband having access in the intervening weekend, from Friday after school until Sunday, at 7:00 p.m. Thereafter, the Husband shall have access from the Monday after school, following the Wife’s weekend with the children, until the very next Sunday, at 7:00 p.m.

[100] There will be telephone contact, between the children and each of their parents, at least once per week.

[101] The Husband shall have the children one week during the Christmas break alternating between the first week of the break on even years being Friday at 3:00 p.m. commencing the holiday up to Friday at 3:00 p.m. the following Friday regardless of what dates Christmas Eve/Day and Boxing Day falls in that year, the Wife shall have the children the second week of break on odd years being Friday at 3:00 p.m. to the following Friday at 3:00 p.m., regardless of when New Year’s Eve/Day falls.

[102] The regular access schedule will be suspended during the Christmas break and will resume at its conclusion.

[103] In even years, the children will spend the first week following the Christmas break with the Husband. In odd years, the children will spend the first two weeks following the Christmas break with the Wife.

[104] It appears that the parties are prepared to alternate the March Break week with the children. It is not clear from the evidence who enjoyed the March break with the children in 2013.

[105] Whichever parent did not have the children for the March Break in 2013 will have that time (from Friday after school until Sunday, in every even numbered year, commencing 2014). The regular schedule will be suspended for that time period.