Court File and Parties
BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-1635-01 DATE: 20181206 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Jonathan James Reid Applicant – and – Danielle Hollie Victoria Tindale Respondent
Self-Represented
J. David Harris-Lowe, for the Respondent
HEARD: November 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, and December 4, 2018
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MACPHERSON J.:
INTRODUCTION
[1] This trial dealt predominantly with mobility and custody and, of course, the related aspect of access with respect to the child, Charlee Karen Hollie Reid.
BACKGROUND
[2] The parties commenced cohabitation on February 13, 2013 and were married on October 12, 2014. The parties separated on July 1, 2015.
[3] There is one child of the marriage, Charlee Karen Hollie Reid, born March 15, 2013.
[4] In 2017 the parties resolved all custody and access issues on a final basis on consent. The consent was turned into the final order of Justice Wood dated October 20, 2017. The order provided the parties with joint custody of Charlee and primary care to the Respondent, Ms. Tindale. The Applicant, Mr. Reid had parenting time approximately 40 percent of the time. For the past year, the Mr. Reid has exercised overnight access six nights out of every 14 day period.
[5] Ms. Tindale married her new husband, Vincent Diorio, on November 10, 2018. Mr. Diorio resides in Wisconsin. Ms. Tindale and Mr. Diorio have one child together, Vincenzo, who was born May 29, 2018.
[6] On February 7, 2018 Ms. Tindale communicated to Mr. Reid her desire to move to Wisconsin with Charlee so she could live with her husband. As Mr. Reid opposes Charlee’s move, Ms. Tindale commenced this Motion to Vary the October 20, 2017 final order of Justice Wood.
[7] If permitted to move to Wisconsin with Charlee, Ms. Tindale proposes that she and Charlee would reside with her husband. Ms. Tindale would work for her husband’s trucking company in Wisconsin, earning far in excess of her current salary. Her work schedule would be flexible enough that Charlee would not require day-care.
[8] Ms. Tindale proposes an annual access arrangement between Charlee and Mr. Reid as follows: for two weeks in each of May, June, July, and August; one week in December, January and the month containing the child’s March Break (likely March), as well as a long weekend in each of September, October, November and February.
[9] Mr. Reid opposes the proposed move. He is requesting Charlee reside with him when Ms. Tindale moves to Wisconsin. Mr. Reid currently resides in his mother’s home. Mr. Reid proposes to remain in his mother’s home with Charlee until he has completed construction on a new house. He has purchased a building lot and has a survey. Although permits have not been obtained, he is hopeful that construction will begin in the spring.
[10] If Charlee was to live with Mr. Reid, he proposes liberal and generous access between Charlee and the Ms. Tindale. He would enroll Charlee in a new school in the neighborhood that he currently resides in.
[11] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer filed a report, authored by Ms. Mink, dated September 28, 2018. The report was disputed by Mr. Reid. The OCL recommends that the joint custodial arrangement continue and that Ms. Tindale be permitted to move to Wisconsin with Charlee. The OCL also proposes an access regime that mirrors the proposal made by Ms. Tindale. The OCL recommends that Ms. Tindale be responsible for transporting Charlee for access.
There are three issues for determination:
- Custody
- Mobility
- Access
LAW
Material Change in Circumstances
Divorce Act
[12] Pursuant to section 17 of the Divorce Act, a court may make an order varying custody and access to the children.
[13] Section 17 (9) mandates the court to give effect to the principle that the children should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the children.
[14] Section 17 (5) mandates the court to satisfy itself that there has been a material change in the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children and then take into consideration the best interests of the children as determined by reference to that material change in circumstances.
[15] As the custody and access provisions are pursuant to the final order of Justice Wood dated October 20, 2017, there must be a material change in circumstances in order to consider a change in the custody and access provisions. This material change in circumstances must be a change, if known at the time of the order, would likely have resulted in different terms of the order.
[16] According to the SCC in Gordon and Goertz, once there has been a material change in circumstances, the court must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child’s needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them. The inquiry is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order and evidence of the new circumstances. The custodial parent’s views are entitled to great respect. Each case will turn on its own unique circumstances with the best interests of the child the only issue in the particular case. The judge should carefully consider:
a) The existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent; b) The existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent; c) The desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents; d) The views of the child; e) The custodial parent’s reason for moving; f) Disruption to the child of a change in custody; g) Disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools, and the community she has come to know.
[17] Section 24 of the CLRA states the following:
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 parent or grandparent, entitled to or claiming custody of or access to a 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.
ANALYSIS
Material Change in Circumstances
[18] I find there has been a material change in circumstances for the following reasons. The parents have a joint custodial order with the child residing with Ms. Tindale approximately 60 percent of the time and with the child residing with Mr. Reid approximately 40 percent of the time. After the final order was made, Ms. Tindale met an individual with whom she married and had a son. She intends to move to Wisconsin and the proposed move would certainly and significantly impact access. For these reasons there has been a material change in circumstances since the order was made on October 20, 2017.
[19] Accordingly, I now turn to the question of custody, and a consideration of the factors set out in section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (hereinafter the CLRA) as well as the factors to be considered according to the SCC in Gordon and Goertz in assessing the mobility issue.
Best Interests of the Child
The love, affection and emotional ties between the child and, i) each person, including parent or grandparent, entitled to or claiming custody of or access to a 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;
[20] I conclude from all of the evidence that Charlee has love, affection and emotional ties with both parents. She has emotional ties with many extended family members on both the maternal and paternal sides of the family. These include the paternal and maternal grandparents together with their respective spouses; great grandparents; uncles; an aunt and cousins. There are also friends and members of the community that have been supports in Charlee’s care and upbringing. Charlee’s primary parent is Ms. Tindale. Mr. Reid has been an active parent from Charlee’s birth. Following the separation there was more limited contact until the parties resolved in a joint custodial arrangement. This arrangement has worked very well for Charlee.
The child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;
[21] Charlee is five years old. Her views and wishes have not been ascertained. Regardless, her age and level of maturity, lead me to conclude that any views and preferences she might have in respect of any of the issues of custody, access or mobility would be given little, if any, weight.
The length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;
[22] Charlee has experienced some disruption in her first five years. She was a little over two years old when her parents separated. Initially the parenting arrangements were informal. It was not until Charlee was 3 ½ that overnight access with her father commenced, in earnest. Just over a year ago the current access regime was finally formalized.
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;
[23] Both parties are willing and able to provide Charlee with guidance and education and the necessaries of life. Indeed they have been doing just that as joint custodial parents and, from all reports, it has been going well.
The plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;
[24] Both parents submitted a plan to care for Charlee. Both parents are capable of meeting the needs of Charlee. Both parents are enthusiastic about parenting. Mr. Reid, in particular, testified that he was never afforded an opportunity to be the primary parent. He indicates that he has always desired 50 % of the parenting time and would very much look forward to being the primary parent. Ms. Tindale has been the primary parent. She has organized most professionals like doctors, dentists, and daycare. She has done a good job and welcomes the opportunity to continue to do so.
The existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent;
[25] Currently, the parents have a joint custodial order that results in Ms. Tindale having parenting time approximately 60 percent of the time and with Mr. Reid having parenting time approximately 40 percent of the time. This arrangement has been in place since the order of Justice Wood dated October 20, 2017. While it has only been a year, the custody and access order has been followed and has worked well for Charlee. It was clear from all the evidence provided that both Ms. Tindale and Mr. Reid love Charlee. It was also clear from the evidence that they are both able to provide Charlee with day to day care. Both parents have extended family members that are committed to Charlee.
The existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent;
[26] Following the parties’ separation, Charlee remained living with Ms. Tindale. Initially contact between Charlee and Mr. Reid was informal and confined to day visits. Over the course of time parenting time was formalized to a schedule that has worked well for all parties. Charlee enjoys her time with Mr. Reid and it is a relationship of significance.
The desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents;
[27] Charlee is a very lucky little girl. She has the great fortune of having two parents that are committed to her care and wellbeing. Both parents love her and want what is best for her. Both parents have the skills to parent. Both parents proffered appropriate plans that acknowledged the importance of the other as a permanent and positive influence on Charlee.
The custodial parent’s reason for moving;
[28] Ms. Tindale is 35 years old. In 2016 she met Vince Diorio. Mr. Diorio lives in Wisconsin. Mr. Diorio owns a transport company with 6 semi transport trucks and in the range of 30 owner operated vehicles that he contracts with. Ms. Tindale has worked for Toronto Dominion Bank since 2009. The Respondent and Mr. Diorio were married on November 10, 2018.
[29] After Ms. Tindale completes her maternity leave, it is proposed that she will, over time, assume the office manager role for her husband’s company. She will receive a salary of $108,000.
[30] I find Ms. Tindale’s desire to move to Wisconsin is not as a result of any motive adverse to Charlee’s best interests. She is newly married. She and her husband have an infant. She wishes to live with her husband. The decision to move was not made in an impulsive way. Ms. Tindale and Mr. Diorio have known each other for over two years.
Disruption to the child of a change in custody;
[31] Mr. Reid proposes a change in custody. There is no doubt in my mind that he has the parenting skills and the dedication to make the transition as seamless as possible. That said, since the separation, Mr. Reid has had some challenges. He lost his job. After moving in with his mother, they had a disagreement and, so, he moved in with his girlfriend. He and his girlfriend ended their relationship following an incident in St. Lucia and Mr. Reid returned to his mother’s home.
[32] There will be further disruption should Charlee be placed in the custody of Mr. Reid. As stated, Mr. Reid currently lives with his mother. This will require a move for Charlee from the home of Ms. Tindale to the home of Mr. Reid. That said, she is accustomed to residing there 40 percent of the time. Mr. Reid’s plan is to build his own home on a lot that he owns. This plan is in the early stages and it will be some time, I expect, before that comes to fruition. It will, of course, require Charlee to move residences a second time. Further, Mr. Reid proposes moving Charlee’s school. This will be another disruption for her.
[33] There is no doubt that the biggest disruption to Charlee, with this proposal, is the disruption associated with not seeing Ms. Tindale, her primary parent, as regularly as she has been. In addition, there will be significant disruption to Charlee being separated from her brother, Vincenzo.
Disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools, and the community she has come to now;
[34] Charlee has extended family members that love her unconditionally. This is a tremendous asset to her in both the near and distant future. There is no doubt that a move to Wisconsin will be disruptive to Charlee’s relationships with all members of her extended family but, most particularly, with her father, Mr. Reid. It will no longer be simple to attend extracurricular activities. Special family functions that are not scheduled well in advance will likely mean that Charlee cannot be a full participant.
[35] Both plans proposed by the parties will result in disruption to Charlee. Under both plans she will change schools and her community. Regardless of the plan, there will be disruption to relationships. There will be repercussions to the parenting time with Mr. Reid should Charlee and Ms. Tindale move to Wisconsin. There will be repercussions to the parenting time with Ms. Tindale should Charlee not be permitted to move to Wisconsin. The relationship between Charlee and one parent will be impacted.
[36] The report from the Office of the Child’s Lawyer comments on Mr. Reid’s proposed plan as being “vague”. I agree. Much of it is done in broad strokes with little detail. The proposed access arrangement, the school, the living arrangements, both short term and longer term, are not well flushed out. For example, following a six day trial I am still unsure what the access arrangements would look like. I don’t know who would pay for the cost of transportation. I don’t know the method of transportation proposed.
[37] Ms. Tindale’s plan is detailed in terms of access, schools, and accommodation. It includes methods of transportation for access and it proposes that she will cover the cost of the transportation. It also includes research into various activities that Charlee could participate in like swimming, skating and gymnastics.
Analysis
[38] Charlee is a very lucky little girl. She has two parents that love her and describe her as the centre of their world. I believe that the sentiment expressed by both parents was sincere. Both parents have sufficient skills that would permit them to parent Charlee to majority. Both parents have appropriate plans. The mother’s plan is much more structured and flushed out as to detail. That is consistent with her personality which has been described in testimony as organized and detail oriented.
[39] The father’s plan is void of details but, in terms of broad strokes, a plan that is also appropriate although still maturing. Interestingly his plan is consistent with his personality which is described in testimony as flexible and relaxed. Indeed, although Ms. Mink preferred the plan of Ms. Tindale over that of Mr. Reid, she acknowledged that both plans were reasonable. She acknowledged a difference in parenting styles, again consistent with their personalities. At Ms. Tindale’s home there is an emphasis on routine and structure while at Mr. Reid’s home, the parenting style is more flexible and relaxed. That is not to say that Mr. Reid’s home is void of routine, it isn’t. But, it is a much less structured parenting style. Indeed, Charlee has benefitted from exposure to both styles of parenting and I am not particularly persuaded that either parenting strategy will be, in the long term, superior to the other.
[40] It was also refreshing to hear both parties speak favourably about the other. Ms. Tindale spoke of the good relationship that Charlee has with her father and Mr. Reid frequently described Ms. Tindale as a good mother. Perhaps that is why the joint custodial arrangement has worked to date and I am confident that regardless of the plan selected, Charlee will do very well. Indeed that was a sentiment embraced by some of the witnesses.
Concerns expressed by Ms. Tindale
[41] I have considered the concerns expressed by Ms. Tindale regarding Mr. Reid. I was not persuaded that the father’s mental health challenges have or would impact his parenting in any significant way. In that regard I accept the evidence of Dr. Ismael, Ms. Mink and Mr. Reid. In addition, he has done what I consider to be a most admirable job over the past year in putting Charlee’s needs first.
[42] I was not persuaded that Mr. Reid’s February 8, 2018 telephone call to Ms. Tindale asking her to pick up Charlee, stating that he was done, in any way took away from his commitment to her. Indeed, he has through his actions and through his words demonstrated a commitment to Charlee that cannot and will not be jeopardized by a single utterance which, I conclude on the evidence before me, was an anomaly.
[43] I was not persuaded that the interactions between Mr. Reid and the police were compelling enough to preclude a consideration of him being the primary parent. I heard very little about the details surrounding the incident in St. Lucia. The balance of the interactions with authorities, if true, demonstrated poor choices and a lack of maturity.
[44] I am not persuaded that there is a concern with the level of hygiene Charlee receives at her father’s place. She is 5 and I would expect at the end of a busy and active day that she will have soiled clothing and messy hair from time to time.
Concerns expressed by Mr. Reid
[45] I have considered the concerns expressed by Mr. Reid regarding Ms. Tindale. I am not even a little bit convinced that there has been alienation or attempts at alienation by Ms. Tindale. Alienation is a clinical term and none of the indicators of alienation were present in the evidence before me in this case.
[46] I am not persuaded that Ms. Tindale’s introduction of Charlee to Crown of Life Lutheran School was in violation of the joint custody order. I see it more as a fact finding exercise rather than as making a custodial decision.
[47] I am not persuaded that the religious component of the curriculum at Crown of Life is of particular significance to Ms. Tindale. I accept her evidence and that of Mr. Diorio that the motivating factor in selecting the school was classroom to teacher ratios rather than religion. I am not persuaded that the religious aspect of the enrollment is of particular concern to Mr. Reid. He does not champion another religion for Charlee that would make this Lutheran school objectionable.
[48] I am not persuaded that the questions posed by Ms. Tindale regarding the one and only trip that Mr. Reid and Charlee have enjoyed were inappropriate. Indeed they were appropriate and consistent with Ms. Tindale’s personality of being detail oriented and concerned with structure and routine.
[49] I am not persuaded that Ms. Tindale actively interfered with the relationship between Charlee and the paternal side of the family. The fostering of extended family relationships while the parties were together was a joint one. Post separation the onus of fostering the relationship with extended family members on the paternal side of the family fell squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Reid. It makes sense that it was done and facilitated during his 40 percent parenting time. Similarly, post separation the onus of fostering the relationship with extended family members on the maternal side of the family fell squarely on the shoulders of Ms. Tindale.
[50] I was not particularly concerned by the contact between Mr. Diorio and law enforcement. Again, as with Mr. Reid, the details raised a question of maturity. Ms. Mink did not find the contact particularly alarming and continued to recommend the move the Wisconsin. Indeed I am in agreement with Mr. Reid’s testimony when he said Ms. Tindale would not expose Charlee to someone dangerous. It is noteworthy that I was much more concerned with the very late disclosure of the information as opposed to the content.
[51] Finally, I was not persuaded that Ms. Tindale would not abide by a court order in the future. She has always abided by the court ordered access. I believe the concerns over the health card not being passed back and forth were not pressing then and are not pressing now.
[52] That said, there were three things that weighed heavily on my mind as I considered the evidence.
(1) First, most of Charlee’s extended family resides in Ontario. Indeed there is an army of friends and relatives that love her and have demonstrated and expressed a commitment. Charlee has a very close relationship with her cousin Marly, and her paternal aunt, Ms. Jennifer Reid. Charlee has a close relationship with her paternal grandfather, Ernie Reid. I was very impressed by the balanced testimony of both Mr. Ernie Reid and Ms. Jennifer Reid. There is also a significant relationship between Charlee and Mr. Peter Leclair and with her paternal grandmother, Mary-Ann Leclair. Similarly, there is a significant relationship between Charlee and her maternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Tindale. While I did not hear testimony from Eric or Kyle Tindale, they were described positively by all parties although the relationship between them and Charlee pale in comparison to the relatives aforementioned. A move to Wisconsin would, as a result of geography, make a continuation of those relationships more challenging. Indeed, the relationship between Charlee and Mr. Reid, would be most significantly impacted.
(2) Secondly, Charlee has always resided with her mother and, there is no doubt, that she is and has always been the primary parent. She took one year of maternity leave following Charlee’s birth. Following the parties separation in July 2015, Charlee continued to reside with her mother. Following the birth of Vincenzo, Ms. Tindale took maternity leave again. Ms. Tindale has been ever present and the person who has provided the most care to Charlee from birth to present. Ms. Tindale is also the individual who predominantly organized day-care, doctors and dentist appointments. To change custody and permit Charlee to reside in the custody of her father with parenting contact with her mother would significantly impact Charlee.
(3) Thirdly, Charlee has a brother, Vincenzo. By all accounts she was excited to have a brother and is hands on in terms of helping care for him to the extent that she is able. Naturally she wants to change diapers and help bath Vincenzo. This relationship, while still in its infancy, will be a significant relationship to Charlee as she matures to adulthood. It is desirable that siblings, where possible, be raised together where they can provide each other with affection and support.
[53] With those three concerns in mind, I turn again to both proposed plans.
[54] Ms. Tindale has put forward a compelling proposal that will minimize disruption in terms of parenting time with Mr. Reid. While the distance to drive to Richfield, Wisconsin is not insignificant, it is a one hour flight from Toronto. Ms. Tindale has proposed a very ambitious parenting regime that would see Charlee spend a significant quantity of time with Mr. Reid and Charlee’s extended relatives each year. She has committed to pay for the costs associated with access and will have access to her parent’s home in Ontario when she brings Charlee for visits. This will assist in making access less onerous both physically and financially.
[55] By contrast, the father’s access plan is vague and uncertain. He proposes that Ms. Tindale be able to see Charlee whenever she wants. I believe he is sincere. It sounds good, but what does it actually mean?
[56] From my analysis the plan proposed by Ms. Tindale is superior. She has encouraged and facilitated a parenting arrangement with Mr. Reid in the past. She has proposed a realistic, detailed and thoughtful regime of contact between Charlee and Mr. Reid going forward. It permits Charlee to continue to reside with her primary parent and to reside with her brother eliminating those two concerns. Further, the parenting plan proposed is solid and will ensure that Charlee will continue to maintain the relationships already formed with members of the family. Geography may impact the relationship but Ms. Tindale’s plan is sound and, an organized and detailed plan should lead to fewer disruptions and conflict.
[57] By contrast, while the father’s plan will maintain relationships with extended family members, Charlee would be removed from the day to day care of her primary parent and she will be separated from her sibling. When I weigh the evidence and consider the best interests of Charlee, I have to permit her to move to Wisconsin with Ms. Tindale.
[58] The trajectory of Charlee’s life will change. I believe that Mr. Reid was genuine and sincere when he said that he loves being a dad and that Charlee is not only his world but she is his heart walking on the outside of him. Accordingly, this will be very difficult for him to hear. However the distance, despite the new path, that bond cannot and will not be broken. For the reasons aforementioned, I believe that this is the decision that is in Charlee’s best interests.
ORDER
[59] There will be a final order as follows:
Joint Custody
The parties shall have joint custody of the child, Charlee Karen Hollie Reid (“Charlee”) born March 15, 2013.
The parties will consult with each other prior to making major decisions respecting Charlee’s welfare. In the event that they are unable to agree, they will follow the recommendations that they receive from a relevant professional.
The Respondent Mother shall be entitled to move to Richfield, Wisconsin with Charlee. If required, the Applicant Father shall cooperate in facilitating this move, including signing any documents required for the move to occur.
Each parent shall be responsible for day to day decision making relating to Charlee while she is in his or her care. Neither the Respondent Mother nor the Applicant Father shall interfere with the other parent’s day to day parenting.
Residence and Schedule
Charlee shall reside primarily with the Respondent Mother.
Charlee will reside with the Applicant Father at the following times: a. Two consecutive weeks immediately following school (referred to as May access). There shall also be two consecutive weeks in each of June, July and August at times to be agreed upon between the parties. If there is no agreement, the Applicant Father shall select the weeks in odd numbered years and the Respondent mother shall select the weeks in even numbered years. The choice of weeks is to be communicated to the other parent, in writing, no later than the 31st day of March each year. b. One week in each of December and January and at Charlee’s spring break. The parties shall agree on the weeks for December and January. If there is no agreement, the Applicant Father shall select the weeks in even numbered years and Respondent Mother shall select the weeks in odd numbered years. The choice of weeks is to be communicated to the other parent, in writing, no later than the 31st day of October each year. c. One long weekend, to coincide with holidays, school holidays or PD days in each of September, October, November and February.
Holiday care shall be structured as follows: a. Christmas: December 24th at 4:00 p.m. until December 25th at 4:00 p.m. with the Respondent Mother in even numbered years and with the Applicant Father in odd numbered years. b. Mother’s day to be with the Respondent Mother, where feasible, having regard to the above noted schedule. c. Father’s day to be with the Applicant Father, where feasible, having regard to the above noted schedule.
The Respondent shall facilitate reasonable access upon reasonable notice between the Applicant Father and Charlee in Wisconsin. The Court recommends, but does not order, that there be a minimum of four visits each year in Wisconsin with one in each of September, October, November and February.
Both parties shall have contact with Charlee when in the other’s care through the use of telephone, email and video calling. Charlee shall be permitted to speak privately with each parent.
The Respondent Mother shall be responsible for arranging and paying for the cost of transporting Charlee to and from Wisconsin to Penetanguishene for her visits with the Applicant Father in the Penetanguishene area.
The Respondent Mother shall not move Charlee’s permanent residence outside of Wisconsin without providing the Applicant Father with 60 days notice and obtaining his written consent or a court Order from a court of competent jurisdiction.
The parties shall be able to take vacations with Charlee and shall provide each other with detailed itineraries of their vacation plans, including flight information, route information and hotel accommodations at least seven days before a vacation is scheduled to commence. The non-travelling parent will sign any travel documentation that is required.
Communication
The parties will communicate with each other to arrange all these visits well in advance of each visit.
The parties shall notify each other of their addresses, telephone numbers and email information and shall keep each other apprised of any changes to this information.
The Respondent Mother and the Applicant Father shall communicate with each other for the purposes of: a. arranging and facilitating access; b. consulting about major decisions; c. conveying/sharing necessary information to the other about Charlee’s health concerns, emergency treatment(s), ongoing medical remedies (such as medication) and school assignments and/or events schedule for Charlee; d. arranging for travel; e. consulting about payment for extraordinary or special expenses; and f. arranging for the exchange of documents.
The parties shall not make negative comments about the other parent to or in Charlee’s presence and shall take appropriate steps to ensure that third parties abide by this condition.
The parties shall remain courteous with each other at all times in their communications and interactions with each other.
Parenting
Both parties shall have independent access to the records and information respecting Charlee’s health and welfare including medical, dental, education and recreational issues. The Respondent Mother shall provide the Applicant Father with contact information so he can obtain information from these providers.
In the event that any professional involved with the child requires the consent of the other parent before providing information to him or her, that parent shall execute all necessary consents immediately upon request.
Both the Respondent Mother and the Applicant Father shall be listed as Charlee’s emergency contacts as appropriate having regard to their living in different jurisdictions. Both parents shall have the right to make minor emergency medical decisions respecting Charlee while the child is in their care. Both parties will notify the other immediately if the child experiences a medical emergency when the child is in their care.
Each parent shall provide the required permissions and insurance releases to organizations for school and extracurricular activities so that Charlee may attend.
Health Care
Charlee’s health card shall travel with her between the parents’ residences or other health insurance documentation as is necessary for Charlee to access appropriate health care shall be provided to each of the parents. The Respondent Mother shall ensure that Charlee has appropriate health care coverage for when she is in Wisconsin and in Ontario that matches the health care coverage currently available to her in Ontario.
The Respondent Mother and the Applicant Father shall maintain medical, extended health and dental coverage, if available, through his or her employment for Charlee as long as it is available to him or her and for so long as Charlee qualified under the eligibility terms of the benefit.
Financial Issues
The Respondent Mother and the Applicant Father shall provide updated income disclosure to the other each year, in accordance with s. 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines and shall do so by June 1st of each year. This shall include a complete copy of his or her previous year’s tax return with all attachments, schedule and notes of assessment and re-assessment (the latter as soon as they are received).
The Respondent Mother and Applicant Father shall each inform the other when their employment changes. He or she shall provide the other with the contact information of any new employer, the rate of pay and hours of work pursuant to the employment contract or, in the case of loss of employment, the termination date and anticipated income source, in writing, within seven days of such change.
The Respondent Mother and the Applicant Father shall inform the other of the proposed reasonable special or extraordinary expenses that she or he wishes to enrol the child in such season.
Neither parent shall unreasonably withhold their consent for enrolment in recreational, school or other similar activities.
The Respondent Mother and the Applicant Father shall each reimburse the other for his or her share of the expenses incurred and shall do so within 21 days after receiving a copy of the receipt or invoice for services, unless the parties agree in writing otherwise.