IN THE FAMILY COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: A.L.H. v. M.R.H., 2006 NSFC Date: March 29, 2006 Docket: FWMCA-No. 025728 Registry: Shubenacadie Between: A.L.H. Respondent Revised Decision: The text of the original decision has been revised to remove personal identifying information of the parties on February 5, 2009. Judge: The Honourable Judge Corrine Sparks, J.F.C. Heard: December 21, 2005 January 18, 2006 February 14, 2006 February 15, 2006 February 28, 2006 Written Decision: March 29, 2006 Counsel: Kerri Robson, representing A.L.H. Brian Stephens, representing M.R.H. By the Court: [1] This is request for variation of the primary care arrangements for two children: D.R.M.H. and M.M.J.H. who are eight and seven years of age respectively.  Pursuant to the Maintenance and Custody Act A.L.H. applies for a change in the primary care arrangements, and M.R.H. requests a dismissal of the current application to vary in order to preserve the present arrangement vesting primary and day to day care and control of the children with him, subject to access times with their mother. For ease of reference, A.L.H. is alternatively referred to as “the mother”, and likewise M.R.H. is alternatively referred to as “the father” throughout this decision. Nature of the Testimony: [2] During the hearing, twelve witnesses including the parties themselves testified. As is all too common on custody application of this nature, much of the testimony has been focused on the human shortcomings of the parties, without meaningful link to the overall welfare of the children. Reams of character evidence tends to reach point of diminishing returns for litigant, meaning the probative value becomes elusive and seemingly amorphous. Indeed, the testimony of some relatives and others who testified on behalf of each party can be described as character witnesses, and their testimony was largely inconsequential regarding the primary consideration before the Court determination of the best interests, and the most suitable parenting plan to meet the short and long term needs, of D.R.M.H. and M.M.J.H. (“M.H.J.H.”). Having said that, all of the testimony has been reviewed and weighed by the Court; however, this decision will only address the salient evidence before the Court with an apparent nexus to the welfare of these two young boys. [3] The parties have three children; S., D.R.M.H. and M.M.J.H.. S. who is nine years of age, the eldest child of the relationship, resides with her maternal grandparents (actually the biological maternal grandmother and the step- grandfather, for ease of reference they are referred to as “the grandparents”). She has expressed her desire to remain in the day to day care of her grandparents, who reside next door to the residence of her father, M.R.H.. As will be explained more fully later, the maternal grandparents are involved with the upbringing of all three children; and even though D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H. do not actually physically reside with their grandparents, the grandparents nevertheless provide much more than traditional grand parental guidance and input. Rather, the grandparents fortunately have been an independent source of support and encouragement for all three children during the long-standing tumultuous and, at times, violent relationship between these two parents. Indeed, M.R.H. proposes to relocate in tandem with the grandparents as they plan an imminent move from the [name of place removed] area. He, as will be explained, relies on the grandparents for financial and emotional support for the children as well as for direct, hands on, child caring responsibilities. Previous Family Court History: [4] In 2001 the parties, without benefit of legal counsel, consented to custody order granting the mother sole custody of the three children of the marriage ,with the father enjoying reasonable access. In 2003, as result of ongoing mental health disturbances the mother had to be hospitalized. Consequently, D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H. were placed in the joint custody of the parents with the primary and day to care and control with the father. [5] It was undisputed in the evidence that the parties agreed it would be preferable for the boys to reside with their father; rather than being apprehended and eventually placed in care with the local child protection agency. It was also understood by the parties that the children would be returned to the mother’s primary care once she was released from hospital, and became stabilized after suitable mental health interventions and treatment. However, the boys were not returned to her care, and consequently the mother, shortly after her release from hospital, filed this application for a variation of the primary care and control order. [6] In a nutshell, the mother alleges the children, while in the care of their father, are not receiving suitable or appropriate parenting. She states the children are subjected to substandard hygiene and are exposed to constant illicit drug use by the father as well as inadequate supervision and guidance. She more specifically asserts the children are improperly and irregularly bathed, exposed to daily and troublesome drug use by the father, emotionally upset by series of broken promises by their father and exposed to violent physical and verbal attacks by the father against her and her current common-law partner. [7] On the other hand, the father states his chief concern is about the emotional and mental well being and stability of the mother. He argues the mother has had serious and longstanding mental health issues in the past requiring hospitalization (at least twice) and he believes the short term and long term stability of the children could not be assured if they are placed back in her primary care and control [8] Elaboratively, the father maintains the mother, although seemingly stabilized with her mental condition, has history of short term relationships with other men. These relationships, he submits, are with men who the mother meets while hospitalized. He says in the past these relationships have been of short duration and have resulted in frequent moves by the mother. Furthermore, he adds, the mother’s troubling misconduct both pre- and post-hospitalization, has been characterized with incessant harassing telephone calls late at night, or in the early morning hours to him as well as his friends and relatives. Regarding his drug usage, he admits to smoking drugs (marijuana) daily, but denies smoking drugs in front of the boys. Rather, he contends, that he uses an empty laundry room for his regular drug use. Besides this, he states when he is seasonally employed, as roofer with local company, he routinely smokes drugs on his way to his job and immediately after he completes his work. shall have more to say about his drug habit later. Section 19 Court Ordered Assessment: [9] Due the nature of the conflict between the parties as well as the mental health concerns affecting the mother, the Court ordered Section 19 custody and access assessment pursuant to the Maintenance and Custody Act. Danny Nau prepared an assessment for the Court, which identified and outlined various advantages and disadvantages to the parenting style of each parent. While he opined the boys may receive suitable parenting from each parent, in the end he preferred the parenting security offered by the mother notwithstanding her ongoing mental health challenges. [10] Danny Nau is an experienced assessor who has prepared many assessments for the Court in the past. On the witness stand he carefully explained the procedure he used in assessing the parenting abilities of each parent. However, he notably preferred the interactive parenting style of the mother, although he explained both parents are emotionally connected to the children and can provide adequate guidance. In short, he recommends the joint custody arrangement be maintained for the children, but with change of the primary care provision of the order. He, furthermore, acknowledges the ongoing communication difficulties between the parties. He states in his report at page 20: [A.L.H.] has made mistakes in her past as parent and this may be her last time to ensure that she can consistently care for her children. She appears motivated to be an effective parent at this time and both her mental health support and Family and Child’s[sic] Services personnel commented that she is functioning well and able to parent. [M.R.H.] is good parent but to this author the deciding feature in this matter was that [A.L.H.] can provide much more direct parenting than [M.R.H.] at this time. There also appeared to be an agreement ...that when [A.L.H.] was stable on her medications and mental health issues she would again resume primary care responsibilities of the children...... It is my opinion that because of the uncertainties in this matter primary care be reviewed at the beginning of the coming school year, or earlier, depending upon the circumstances. [11] During cross-examination, the key underpinnings of the assessment were not significantly challenged, nor was the procedure utilized by the assessor questioned. No substantial or compelling reason was presented to the Court to disregard or earnestly question the key recommendations of the assessor. Thus, on balance, conclude the assessment is comprehensive and informative in its recommendations to the Court. The assessment recommendations are, therefore, regarded as weighty factor in determining the best interests of these two boys. Thus, in the present circumstances, the recommendation for primary care to be transferred to the mother in the Section 19 assessment is favorable factor in support of the mother’s application to vary. Mental Heallth Services in Place for A.L.H.: [12] Susan Pirie, Community Mental Health Nurse, testified and explained the mental health history of A.L.H. which dates back to 1992. The mother is diagnosed with Bipolar Mood Disorder with psychotic features. Susan Pirie, as part of an interdisciplinary team, which includes psychiatrist, psychologist and other nurses, monitors A.L.H.’s symptoms by regular follow up appointments at medical clinic in Lower Sackville. In addition to periodical monitoring, A.L.H. is prescribed five daily medications Risperidone (anti- psychotic medication to control racing thoughts at night), Clonazepam (anti-anxiety medication), Clomipramine (anti-depressant), Trazadone (anti-depressant) and Lamotrigine (mood stabilizer). [13] A.L.H. is described, by Susan Pirie, as being consistent with regular appointments and, even in the face of extraordinary circumstances concerning the present litigation, to be progressing well with her out patient treatment plan. Ms. Pirie opines if A.L.H. continues to participate in the program customized for her, as well as take her medication, there are no apparent impediments to her providing daily caring for the boys. It was clear, however, that the recent and increasing late night telephone calls had not been disclosed to Susan Pirie by the mother. [14] Regarding relapses, it was explained if there is sudden change or trauma, relapse could be triggered. But relapse does not automatically require re‑hospitalization and may be treated by quick intervention on the part of the mental health team assigned to A.L.H.. Furthermore, Susan Pirie states the possibility of relapse is slight if A.L.H. continues to be compliant with her treatment program. Specifics of the mother’s treatment plan are outlined in Susan Pirie’s report, exhibit #3. Present Circumstances of the Children: [15] The father is primarily responsible for the care of the boys, although when he is seasonally employed as roofer, the children arise very early at 5:30 a.m. After they are out of bed, they then go to their maternal grandparents’ residence where they are permitted to sleep longer until it is time to catch the bus for school. The maternal grandparents feed them breakfast and prepare their lunches. After the father returns home from his roofing job, around 8:30 pm, the children are then taken to their home for the night. At times, there have been disputes about the appropriateness of the school lunch ingredients provided by the father. There have also been disputes over the purchase of winter snow suits and outerwear for the children, with the grandparents claiming to have purchased these clothing items when they were not forthcoming from the father. [16] When the father is not employed, he states he is responsible for the children and, as in the past, he attends to their daily needs. He says the children are bathed every second day, and as mentioned earlier he says he does not use drugs in the presence of the children. The father has no driver’s license, and is unable to drive motor vehicle, having accumulated myriad of driving infractions to add to his already lengthy criminal record. So, he is dependent upon the maternal grandparents to transport the children for medical and dental appointments. There is no public transportation as they reside in rural area. The father has no motor vehicle, no valid driver’s license, no telephone service, and from time to time no running water in his home. Apparently, the last time the water was disconnected for non payment, he and the boys, went to live temporarily with his new lady friend. [17] Contrastingly, the children spend weekend parenting time with the mother who asserts the children are unkept and unclean when they come to spend parenting time with her. She states the children want to stay with her as they, especially D.R.M.H., is disillusioned about his father as his father has repeatedly disappointed him with continual broken promises. For example, she explained phone conversation which took place in her livingroom when D.R.M.H. was promised by his father he would come to pick him up. This turned into an emotionally charged scene for D.R.M.H. as he began to cry and yell out repeatedly calling his father “a liar”. Eventually, D.R.M.H. became so irritated and emotionally distraught he urinated in his pants on his mother’s sofa. [18] As well, D.R.M.H. suffers from asthma and his mother states that D.R.M.H. arrives for weekend visits with her without his puffer. The father responds by saying he sends the puffer with D.R.M.H. to the grandparents home and D.R.M.H. is suppose to have his puffer in his school bag. [19] Additionally, there have been several disputes over the weekend parenting times, with pickup times resulting in the unfortunate involvement with the father’s relatives. These disputes frequently resulting in vitriolic and hateful verbal exchanges. Regrettably, there has also been police interventions for enforcement of these weekend visits with the mother due to confusion over the designated pick up place and time. As result of habitual friction and violence associated with these worrisome encounters between the parties, the father has been convicted of criminal charges and he is presently awaiting sentencing on at least one charge. Sadly, at least one encounter took place in front of the children who were in the back seat of car when their mother was subjected to disparaging name calling by the father. Not only have the insults been directed toward the mother, but also toward her current partner. On balance, find these violent events have been initiated by the father. For instance, A.L.H. was in the driveway of her friend when M.R.H. was driving by in his car (which it seems he was driving illegally). He pulled up in the driveway and initiated an offensive verbal exchange between himself and A.L.H.. Eventually, the local police were called and M.R.H. was charged criminally. completely reject M.R.H.’s explanation that he was attempting to confer with the mother about access difficulties. Rather, believe it was sickening attempt to lull the mother into yet another argument with him. [20] The father, as mentioned earlier, states the mother, as in the past, continues to make harassing phone calls to him, his sister and other family members and friends. note number of calls to former friend of M.R.H.’s, T.M., for instance, occurred before the most recent hospitalization of A.L.H.. Even though A.L.H. downplays the number of recent telephone calls, find repeated harassing phone calls have been made directly to M.R.H. and his former friend, T.R.. These more recent telephone calls, however, tend to be of harassing and intimidating nature with reference to burning down dwelling (T.R.’s) and with repeated use of invectives about lack of character, laced with accusations of disparaging rumors being circulated in the community about A.L.H.. Contextually, understand A.L.H.’s preoccupation with negative opinions of her to be part of her mental condition as explained by the Community Health Nurse, Susan Pirie, in her testimony. That said, fully understand the fearful effect these disturbing calls would have on any individual, especially in the wee hours of the morning. [21] Needless to say, these repeated harassing phone calls cannot be condoned by the Court, but it is far more significant for the Court to focus on any indicia of progress by A.L.H. since her recent hospitalization and the implementation of her current treatment plan. Thus, the more recent harassing calls undoubtedly, have had an unsettling effect and call into question the effectiveness of the treatment plan presently in place for A.L.H.. These calls, however, would not negatively impact on the day to day care and control of the children unless, of course, there is an escalation in other symptoms connected with A.L.H.’s mental disorder. In this sense, there is risk for D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H., if they are placed in the primary care of their mother. Thus, this becomes an unfavorable factor for placement of the children with their mother. [22] Since the litigation, the relationship between the parties has deteriorated significantly, and therefore the Court questions the viability of joint custody arrangement between the parties. Apart from the tortuous incident in the driveway of the mother’s friend the circumstances of violence and intimidation by the father toward the mother and her current partner, are more than troubling for the Court. More broadly speaking, however, these incidents call into question the good judgment of the father and his overall ability to stay clear of violent and intimidating confrontations with A.L.H.. In my view, the father’s criminality and propensity to initiate violent encounters Superstore, local shopping mall, etc). between himself and the mother can only be seen as an unfavorable factor for the children to remain in his primary care. [23] Apart from the above concerns, the children seem to be dependent upon considerable support from their grandparents. When testifying about the puffer, the father did not acknowledge his responsibility, as parent, to ensure the puffer accompanies D.R.M.H. when he goes to his mother’s on the week end. Additional instances which illustrate parental irresponsibility are stated in detail below to provide the context for individual and specific concerns, but also to allow for recognition of the cumulative effect of these apparent parental failings. [24] First, D.R.M.H.’s hand was inadvertently slammed in the door as he was leaving to visit his grandparents. Accidents will happen from time to time, however, the father merely bandaged the child’s hand and sent him along. Apparently, D.R.M.H.’s hand was so severely bruised and swollen he could not write at school and, furthermore, his mother had to take him to the emergency department of the local hospital on the weekend. This was very painful injury for D.R.M.H.. [25] Second, D.R.M.H.’s’s poor supervision during New Year’s Eve while he was ostensibly in his father’s care. His father was having New Year’s Eve party and several guests had arrived at his home. It seems one of the guests was driving his car to the party when his car ran off the road fairly close to the father’s residence. In any event, the father left the home, and D.R.M.H., in order to pick up more friends to join his soiree. It seems no one in the house was left in charge of D.R.M.H.. Thus, just before midnight D.R.M.H. was observed by his grandfather outside in his pajamas, roaming around unsupervised in dark and cold circumstances. After the local police arrived to inquire about the car off the road, the grandfather, luckily, intervened and shepherded the child directly to his own home. D.R.M.H. was frightened by this time. Notably, D.R.M.H. was removed from the home without any questions being asked by M.R.H.’s party guests. D.R.M.H. stayed with his grandparents for the entire evening. The father called the grandparents around 1:30 am after rejoined the New Year’s Eve party. [26] Third, one of the boys recently won an award at school and his father could not even muster enough energy to visit the school for the presentation. The father does not appear to place high value on participation in school activities. [27] Fourth, D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H. recently missed dental appointment. The grandparents made arrangements for the boys, along with their sister, to be transported for dental appointment. The father’s sole responsibility was to have the children next door at the appointed time, but this did not occur; rather the children missed their dental appointment ,and no valid explanation was presented to the Court for this except sleeping in late. [28] There are other examples ( boys missing school, etc. without a valid reason, at the whim of their father) described in the evidence which could be recounted here, but suffice to say individually and cumulatively these various incidents paint a picture of a parent who is unable to meet the needs of his children on a daily basis. have detailed the concerns raised by the mother in order to give examples of the grim circumstances facing these two young children. These concerns encapsulate conglomerate of parental missteps and deficiencies. These parental deficiencies cumulatively heavily militate against permitting the children to remain in the physical care of their father. [29] On the subject of drug use by M.R.H., make the following observations. Although counsel spent considerable time focussing on the father’s drug smoking habits and whether such drug usage occurred in front of D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H., do not find this to be the most disturbing aspect of persistent and ongoing drug use by M.R.H.. Let me say, firstly, if a parent struggling at the poverty level is smoking drugs regularly, and financially supporting a drug habit, this will automatically divert from already meager funds available to adequately provide amenities for their children. In the present circumstances, my impression is that D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H. are living in squalor, and this level of severe impoverishment is, at least, in part, worsened by the father himself as he continually diverts scarce funds to support his drug habit. Secondly, D.R.M.H. has an asthmatic medical condition yet the father continues to smoke drugs in the home. Smoking these drugs, in my view, may have already had, and will likely continue to have, an adverse effect on D.R.M.H.’s medical condition. It seems, to me the father has placed a higher priority on his intimate relationship with marijuana, and possibly other drugs, over his primary responsibility as protector of his son. Thirdly, the father has demonstrated foolhardy and high risk behavior as he has admitted to using drugs daily including using drugs while traveling to and from his employment. He works in dangerous trade in the roof repair business. Thus, his physical well being is compromised by his daily drug use, in my opinion. He does not appear to appreciate he is placing D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H.’s short and long term care at peril. It seems to me, the persistent and daily use of marijuana has created malaise which operates as direct obstacle for the adequate provision of daily care by M.R.H. for D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H.. Contrasting Parenting Plans: [30] The mother, who is cohabiting with new partner, states that her mental condition has stabilized with constant supervision and prescription medication. She has secured term employment through job search agency and hopes to secure full‑time employment with her current employer. She proposes to have the children in her care, in two bedroom apartment. She plans to keep them in their current school in the [name of place removed] area. If she continues her present employment, she has made arrangements for the boys to receive after school care at local child care centre. After she completes her daily employment she would pick up the children, and return home to spend the evening with them. She says there would be ongoing contact between the boys and their father. She proposes every second weekend as she too would like to participate in weekend activities with the boys. [31] The mother’s plan is well conceived; however, it is the execution of her plan which causes concern for the Court. Rhetorically, it must be asked if she can withstand the daily pressure of raising two active boys, especially when this is coupled with the ongoing strain of poor relations with the father. Also of concern to the Court is the mother’s past habit of consuming alcohol while taking prescribed medication According to her supervising nurse, Susan Pirie, the mother is now taking at least five drugs daily, and if she consumes alcohol excessively this will compromise her recovery, and thus find her parenting ability. [32] In juxtaposition is the current parenting plan of the father. He states primary care should not change as the children are doing fairly well. He says he is providing adequately for the boys and this arrangement should not be disturbed Furthermore, he asserts the local child protection agency have contacted him, but have discontinued their investigation. However, the Court, knowing full well the demands on local child protection agencies, takes absolutely no solace in the fact that they were called to the father’s home, but did not proceed with full investigation. Conclusions: [33] Lamentably, in the present circumstances the children are at considerable risk if placed in the primary care and control of either parent. D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H. are emotionally close to both parents; however, am satisfied and find the father, through his uncaring, self absorbed and reckless actions, has compromised his emotional bond with D.R.M.H. especially. I, furthermore, find the father is not presently providing the physical amenities of life for these two growing boys. His type of parenting, if one can call it parenting, falls very short of the expectations of the court. find he offers substandard parenting which has and will continue to compromise the safety and over all development of D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H.. It is next to impossible to envisage the short term and long term needs of these boys being met by the parenting plan of the father. And, although there will be challenges ahead for the mother, she appears to be more conscientious with her approach to parenting. She will have outside support from her own parents, plus support from her community through the after school program and the local protection agency. She has submitted that her current partner is source of support; however, the relationship is fairly short in duration and moreover the mother has history of short term relationships. Thus, cannot find this to be reliable source of support for the mother. On balance, however, even though the children will face risk while in the mother’s primary care, the risk is narrower than the risk facing them if they remain in the primary care of their father. [34] have also considered the agreement between the parties for the return of the children to their mother’s care once she received mental health treatment. While this is not binding or overriding factor, in custody dispute such as this, it is factor nonetheless. It is relevant here because A.L.H. has been the primary caregiver of these two boys from their very early age. Even though, from time to time, due to her recurrent mental condition, she has relied heavily on others ,including her parents, to assist with periodic care for the boys. The boys are familiar with her parenting style, and moreover they will at least be provided with basic amenities while in their mother’s care. [35] In my view, in the present circumstances, the Court must be focused on minimizing the risk for these two young boys. After all, it is their best interests which must be utilized as barometer to determine the most appropriate primary care arrangement for them, and not the wishes or preferences of either parent. See King v. Low (1985) 1985 CanLII 59 (SCC), 44 R. F. L. (2d) 113 (S.C.C.). Additionally, it must be remembered the Court need not choose the best parent, but rather the Court must determine which parent has put forth the most appropriate parenting plan to meet the short and long term needs of the children. See Gillis v. Gillis (1995) 1995 CanLII 4416 (NS SC), 145 N.S.R. (2d) 241. [36] Given the precarious nature of the well being of these two children, it would be advisable to review this matter in six months time. Nevertheless, the Court has grave misgivings about the operation of joint custody order in the face of violence and ongoing conflict between the parents. The court joint custody order does not appear to meet the requirements prescribed in Rivers v. Rivers, (1994) 1994 CanLII 4318 (NS SC), 130 N.S.R (2d) 219 (N.S.S.C.). Having said that, the Court has not been requested to vary the order to sole custody in favor of the mother. In the present circumstances, it is fitting to ensure the children are insulated, as much as possible, from ongoing conflict between the parents. Therefore, the transfer of primary care to the mother shall be conditional upon the fulfillment of several provisions and prohibitions outlined below. To clarify, should the parents be unable, or unwilling to, co-operate and comply with the court directives, the Court will consider a report of neglect under Section 24(2) of The Children and Family Services Act. The transfer from the father to the mother shall take place during the Easter weekend as this will be less disruptive for the children. [37] In the present circumstances, find under Section 37 of the Maintenance and Custody Act, on the balance of probabilities, the circumstances of D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H. have deteriorated to the extent that the father is not providing daily amenities for them. Furthermore, his parenting abilities have slipped dangerously to level which compromises the emotional and physical welfare of them. Furthermore, find the father is suffering from malaise which has prevented him from providing “good enough parenting” to D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H. and his malaise is, on the balance of probabilities, attributable to his prolonged, unabating and reckless use of drugs. find, based upon all of the evidence, the requisite change pursuant to Section 37 of the Act has been established. [38] In summary, the following order shall go forward: D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H. are hereby placed in the day to day and primary care and control of A.L.H., effective Easter weekend on April 15th,2006 at 9:00 am. Primary care arrangements are contingent upon A.L.H. disclosing to her mental health care givers, preferably to Susan Pirie, the recent harassing phone calls made by her. Also, any alcohol consumption by her is to be reported. This is to take place before the children are transferred on April 15th, 2006. Primary care and access shall be reviewed by the court on or before September 30th, 2006. There shall be no direct contact whatsoever between the parties, and any contact necessary to facilitate access should be through third party, such as the grandfather, J.H.. M.R.H. shall enjoy reasonable access upon reasonable notice which may include access every second weekend, but it will not include overnight access unless and until there are suitable arrangements in place for D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H. for example, food, water, lights, etc.). M.R.H. shall not be under the influence of illicit and non- medically prescribed drugs either immediately before or during access visits. M.R.H. shall ensure both children are not in the presence of smoke from marijuana or other substances. M.R.H. is prohibited from permitting D.R.M.H. and M.H.J.H. to travel in motor vehicle which is not duly registered and insured under the Motor Vehicle Act. Other reasonable access shall take place as the parties can agree upon from time to time. My gratitude is extended to counsel for their able assistance with this matter. Counsel for A.L.H. is kindly requested to prepare an appropriate Court order for signature. [48] Order accordingly. Corrine E. Sparks, J.F.C.
Although the mother initially had sole custody of the parties' two children, they were placed in the joint custody of both parents, with primary care and control with the father, when the mother was hospitalized due to mental health disturbances. When the children were not later returned to her care, the mother brought an application to vary the primary care arrangements, alleging that the children were not receiving suitable and appropriate parenting while in the father's care. The father, who lived close to the maternal grandparents and relied upon them extensively for the care of the children, questioned the mother's emotional and mental health and stability. The transfer of primary care of the children to the mother is conditional upon the fulfillment of several provisions and prohibitions, including the mother's disclosure to her mental health caregivers of any alcohol consumption and the recent harassing phone calls made by her; should the parents be unable or unwilling to cooperate with the court directives, the court will consider filing a report of neglect under the Children and Family Services Act; primary care and access will be reviewed by the court in six months time. The children were at considerable risk if placed in the primary care of either parent; the evidence showed that the father was unable to meet the children's needs on a daily basis; in addition to his questionable parenting judgment, his regular daily drug use in circumstances where the family lived in poverty and one child had an asthmatic medical condition showed that he placed a higher priority on his relationship with marijuana than his primary responsibility as protector of his children. Although the mother's parenting plan was well-conceived, the court questioned whether she could withstand the daily pressure of raising the children and noted her past habit of consuming alcohol while taking medication.