Family Law — Custody — Status quo.

   An interim custody order leaving two children aged seven and three with their father was granted until a home study report could be considered and a final disposition made.  The conduct of the parents with respect to custody was discussed.  [Nova Scotia Law News, Vol. 14, No. 6.]

   Gregory M. Warner, Q.C., for the Plaintiff.

   Flora I. Buchan, for the Defendant.

   FREEMAN Co. Ct. J.:— This is an application by Marlene Peterson, estranged wife of Dale Peterson, for an order to vary an Ex Parte Order under The Infant's Custody Act dated March 22, 1988 granting Dale Peterson interim custody of the children of the marriage, Jeffery Dale Peterson aged seven and Stacey Lynn Peterson aged three. Jeffery was born June 9, 1980 and Stacey, February 27, 1985.

   Mrs. Peterson is twenty-seven years of age and has been married to Mr. Peterson for eight years. The couple resided with Mr. Peterson's mother, Eunice Peterson, at East Green Harbour, Shelburne County, for the first few years of their marriage before they built their own home a short distance away across the road. The evidence indicates that the new house is spacious, well equipped, well furnished, with a large back yard equipped as a playground for the children. In addition, the Petersons own a summer home by a lake in Canada Hill where they spent much time each summer and where the children enjoyed an abundance of outdoor recreational activities.

   Dale Peterson owns a trucking company in which his wife is a nominal shareholder. With clients chiefly in the fishing industry there are seasonal peaks and lulls in business activity and some cyclical variations, but in general the company has done well and provides the family with an ample income. The company owns three trucks and engages three drivers; Mr. Peterson had formerly driven one of the trucks but now can confine his activities to managing the company and filling in occasionally as a spare driver. The company operates from the Peterson home and Mrs. Peterson played an active role as bookkeeper and, it would appear, as an assistant manager. Her duties included receiving trip reports from drivers, keeping records, doing the banking, and assigning drivers in her husband's absence.

   Mrs. Peterson's parents William and Dorothy Langille and her sister Wendy reside nearby in Lockeport, where she was raised. Mr. Peterson's parents are divorced but his father Archie Peterson and step-mother, Sandra Peterson also live nearby.

   Dale and Marlene Peterson enjoyed a social life that included attending dances once or twice a month, dining out somewhat more frequently and entertaining and being looked after the children. All witness agreed she was an excellent mother.

   Dale and Marlene Peterson appeared close and were frequently in one another's company outside the home. Mrs. Peterson accompanied her husband on business trips to Halifax and elsewhere, and he occasionally accompanied her shopping for the groceries and children's clothes. In addition to her role in the business, Mrs. Peterson kept the home and looked after the childrin. All witness agreed she was an excellent mother.

   From outward appearance, at least, the family appeared to be a stable and happy one with superior material benefits and a favoured way of life.

   Marlene Peterson's evidence was that she had suffered physical abuse at her husband's hands. This was supported by the evidence of her mother and sister. It was clear there was no love lost between them and Dale Peterson. In addition there was evidence of physical violence on Dale Peterson's part before the couple were married. Therefore it could have been no surprise to her that he harboured such a predisposition. In a statement to police made March 17th, 1988 she said, "He's always had a temper but lately he's been able to control it more than years ago." There is no evidence of any worsening of behaviour on the part of Dale Peterson which led to the breakup of the marriage. There is no evidence of intolerable cruelty on his part; his conduct had been tolerated by Marlene Peterson through eight years of marriage and two children. He had no inkling his marriage was in trouble. There was no urging by Marlene Peterson to undertake counselling or other steps in an effort to cure problems with the marriage, which might have been expected in appropriate circumstances by a mother with the best interests of her children at heart.

   The marriage came to a conclusion and the ideal lifestyle of the children ended, because Marlene Peterson allowed herself to become infatuated with Norman Smith, a driver who joined their company on January 4th, 1988. That factor appears to be the only fresh element which could account for the sudden deterioration in the marital relationship in March of 1988. Dale Peterson had no warning of it, and events burst upon him like a bombshell when he discovered his wife in a motel room with Norman Smith on March 15th.

   This matter has been brought under The Infant's Custody Act, Section 2 is as follows:

   The law of custody is developing as well under Section 16 of The Divorce Act (1985) which refers to conduct as follows:

   While one enactment expresses the proposition in the negative and one in the positive, the positions are essentially similar. Under The Infant's Custody Act, the only conduct relevant to the consideration of custody pertains to the ability of the person whose conduct is under review to act as a parent of a child. The effect of the break-up of the marriage will be with the children through their lives; they are now children of a broken home. The breakup is the primary responsibility of Marlene Peterson, and it is a heavy one. It is not, however, the only factor nor perhaps the most crucial one, to be considered in dealing with the custody of the children.

   Conduct by the parties vis a vis one another does not necessarily have a bearing on parenting ability. On the other hand nothing can be more in the best interests of a child than to have a stable, loving home with both parents present and playing a positive role in the happiness, development and security of the child. A parent who deliberately elects to destroy such a home, or who by committing matrimonial offences elects to gamble with its continuance, demonstrates an indifference to the best interests of the child that may properly be considered a factor in any decision respecting custody. See Vasper v. Vasper (1981) 28 B.C.L.R. 252 (S.C.) and Skubovius v. Skobuvius (1977) 1 R.F.L. (2d) 284 (Man.Q.B.); Schreiner v. Schreiner (1986) 49 Sask. R. 119 (Q.B.); Bolton v. Bolton (1976) 26 R.F.L. 284 (P.E.I.S.C.); B. v. B. (1977) A.R. 181; Busch v. Busch (1985) 49 R.F.L. (2d) 157 45 (Sask. R.) 189 C.Q.B.

   The events leading up to the situation in which Marlene Peterson was discovered by her husband began when Norman Smith was hired in January, 1988, as a driver for the trucking company operated by the Petersons. A friendship developed between the Petersons and Mr. Smith and his girlfriend, Linda Westhaver. Mr. Smith and Ms. Westhaver attended social events with the Petersons and on more than one occasion were overnight quests in the Peterson home. All Peterson drivers had to report frequently to the home, from which the business was conducted, to review their records and file them with Marlene Peterson.

   Douglas Wolfe, who operated a service station within sight of the Peterson home, testified that Norman Smith began lingering there longer than was usual, on one occasions for almost three hours. Eunice Peterson, mother of Dale Peterson, said she detected a change in Marlene during the month prior to March 14, 1988. There is no evidence of adultery on the part of Marlene Peterson prior to March 15, 1988, but it appears evident that an attraction was developing between herself and Norman Smith. That in turn may have had a bearing on the quarrel Marlene Peterson had with her husband about a family vacation which occurred on March 14th. Dale Peterson applied physical force to his wife in the course of the quarrel; it was not the first time he had done so, and that background may have further magnified the effect of the quarrel. In any event, it resulted in her not returning the the matrimonial home, but in going to the home of her parents. That afternoon she made contact with Smith, purportedly to give him instructions about his trucking assignments and there was further contact between them the next day. She met his truck on the road on March 15th while she was proceeding toward Bridgewater while he was returning from a trip to Lunenburg. Both vehicles stopped and they held a conversation. At that point Mrs. Peterson says she was unclear as to her destination but was going to Bridgewater to get away from her home environment to think about her matrimonial situation. Smith says she was upset and expressed a need to talk when they met on the road. They agreed to meet at Silver's Garage in Bridgewater when he returned from his next trip to Lunenburg. Mrs. Peterson kept the appointment about 9:00 p.m. on March 15th and invited him back to the motel room she had taken. After an hour's conversation they found themselves in bed together. They were discovered there by Dale Peterson accompanied by Linda Westhaver about 11 p.m.

   It is difficult to believe these circumstances unfolded quite as innocently or as coincidentally as Marlene Peterson would have us believe. Her hand can be detected on the tiller of the preceding events. She was however upset and confused, coping with the husband's aggressiveness during their quarrel and her own attraction to Smith. The element of self-deception was no doubt present. I do not find that it has been proven beyond a balance of probabilities that the act of adultery in which she was discovered represented a deliberate intention on her part to gamble with the fortune of her children, nor to put her desires ahead of the interests of the children. That was, however, the effect of her actions. It is conduct relevant to her ability to act as a parent of the children.

   From the time that Marlene Peterson left home following their quarrel on March 14th until the evening of the fateful Ides of March there is nothing remarkable in the conduct of the husband. He behaved as a concerned husband and father distressed and puzzled by his wife's behaviour, and without suspicion as to her interest in Norman Smith. He made frequent attempts to communicate with her, and took the children with him for an outing when he had to visit Halifax overnight on business.

   His father, Archie Peterson and his wife, Sandra were in Halifax and he was in contact with them. During the evening of March 15th he talked by telephone with Linda Westhaver, who communicated her suspicion as to a relationship between Marlene Peterson and Norman Smith. Acting on those suspicions he went to Bridgewater where he was joined by Linda Westhaver in an attempt to find his wife. It was an error of judgement on his part, given his suspicions, for him to take the children with him on such a mission rather than leaving them with his father and Mrs. Peterson.

   Dale Peterson and Linda Westhaver went to the Mariner Motel, where they found the family car driven by Mrs. Peterson. After knocking at the door of the motel unit and getting no answer, Dale Peterson kicked it in. Marlene Peterson and Norman Smith were in bed together under the covers wearing no clothes.

   A violent confrontation ensued.

   Much turns on the question of whether Mr. Peterson was armed with a metal implement which he used as a weapon. Marlene Peterson has described it as a lead bar or part of the leaf spring of a car. Norman Smith described it as a piece of flat bar, either a chain saw blade or something similar. Mr. Smith says Mr. Peterson tossed it on the back of his truck when he left.

   The report of Dr. B. Mathison who treated Mrs. Peterson for her injuries at the South Shore Regional Hospital says she was hit by a metal bar over the head. By that I take it the doctor meant her injury was consistent with that from a blow from a metal bar. The medical report states Mrs. Peterson had a 4-5 inch laceration in the right frontal area requiring eight sutures and a one centimeter laceration in the right parietal area requiring one suture. In addition the report stated:

   Mrs. Peterson was held for observation of her head injury and discharged on March 17th, 1988. The evidence of the injuries supports a finding that an implement of some sort was used.

   Mr. Smith stated in his evidence that when Dale Peterson entered the motel room "He had a bar in his hand. He made a swipe at me and hit me behind the ear." He suffered a cut and bruising on the back of his head. "He hit me four times in the ribs with the edge of the bar...he came down across my thumb with the bar." Mr. Peterson grasped Mr. Smith by the "privates" and was shouting that he intended to emasculate him. Some injury resulted.

   Marlene Peterson screamed for her husband to stop before he killed Mr. Smith, and at that point he left Mr. Smith and turned on her. Mr. Peterson, it should be remarked, is a powerfully built man who stated he was six feet two or three inches tall and weighed 245-250 pounds. Smith is not as large but did not testify as to his size. Mrs. Peterson is slightly built and of average height.

   Mr. Peterson testified that when he went to the motel he knocked at the door and when no one answered he kicked it in. He found Mr. Smith and Mrs. Peterson in bed and hauled the sheets off. He said Norman Smith hit him first. "I grabbed him by the hair of the head and the privates. He hit me first. I was defending myself." He said Marlene Peterson and Linda Westhaver got in a scuffle. "Marlene jumped on my back. Norman Smith got away and ran outdoors." As Mr. Smith was getting away, Mrs. Peterson grabbed Dale Peterson's legs and tripped him. "I kicked myself clear." "I went outside after Mr. Smith. He ran around the truck with no clothes on."

   When asked about the statement in Mrs. Peterson affidavit that he was brandishing a bar, Mr. Peterson replied: "No. She's trying to make me serve time for something I'm not the cause of."

   In his own affidavit he says "I did not have a lead bar with me." On cross-examination he said: "I had no lead bar. I had nothing." He said that if Mr. Smith and Mrs. Peterson gave evidence of a lead bar they would be lying.

   Linda Westhaver accompanied Mr. Peterson into the motel. She would have known if he was armed. She was not called to testify on his behalf. Either Mr. Peterson was carrying a metal bar or similar implement with him or he was not. If he was, the fact is a significant indication of a premeditated intention to inflict serious injury on his wife or her lover, and thus of a predisposition to extreme violence on his part that must be taken into account in considering the interests of the children. Moreover, such a finding would be critical to his credibility as a witness, both generally and with particular regard to his efforts to play down his tendency toward violent behaviour.

   In his evidence Mr. Peterson seemed evasive as to the implement. He denied using a "lead bar", and in fact the implement was probably of steel or another metal. Only on cross examination did he say he had no implement. His version of the fight was less consistent with the injuries sufferred by Mr. Smith and Mrs. Peterson than was their account. He appeared to feel no remorse for the injuries he inflicted and to feel his actions were justified by the misconduct of his wife and her lover.

   Mrs. Peterson testified with a controlled bitterness but seemed honest in her answers. Mr. Smith appeared to be a truthful witness. I accept his testimony in prefernce to that of Mr. Peterson.

   I find that Mr. Peterson broke into the motel room carrying a metal bar as a weapon. What he discovered beyond the door brought his world crashing down around his head. It was a moment of intense trauma and provocation, and he can be forgiven much. A reaction of unreasoning anger, even a resort to violence, would be human and understandable. But it must not be forgotten that he went armed to inflict serious injury if his suspicions were confirmed. His actions carried him beyond the limits that civilized society can condone, and he faces criminal charges.

   In the present context, he displayed a lack of ability to control his violent tendencies that must be considered relevant to his ability to act as a parent of a child.

   After Marlene Peterson had been knocked to the floor bleeding and naked, their seven year old son Jeffery appeared at the door of the motel. Both Mr. Smith and Mrs. Peterson testified they had heard Dale Peterson tell Linda Westhaver to go and get him. They said Dale Peterson took his son by the hand and told him to look at his mother. Dale Peterson denies this and says Jeffery got out of the truck by himself and came to see what was going on. Linda Westhaver was not called as a witness. Even Dale Peterson's version exhibits a lack of parental wisdom in taking his young children along on the mission he had undertaken, for he must have known that if his suspicions were confirmed the children would be exposed to a situation from which they should have been protected.

   Having made a finding as to Dale Peterson's credibility, I accept the evidence of Norman Smith and Marlene Peterson as to this incident. Even if I had not made the prior finding, I would prefer their evidence as more consistent with the events which led Jeffery to the motel door, and the awful scene which he then witnessed. I find that Dale Peterson deliberately made Jeffery witness his mother's anguish and humiliation. That is conduct relevant to the ability of Dale Peterson to act as a parent of a child.

   While there is evidence of other violent conduct on the part of Dale Peterson, only two incidents involving the children require consideration.

   Until March, 1985, Wendy Langille, a teacher in the Lockeport schools and a sister of Marlene Peterson, had been close to Jeffery and played a role in his upbringing. She was with Jeffery in an upstairs room while guests were in the Peterson home and Dale Peterson was watching television with several friends downstairs. Jeffery, then four, was "overtired and cranky" and his mother asked him to tidy up the room. He protested with loud crying. Dale Peterson "came charging up the stairs" and hit the child three times. "He weighs 260 pounds; he raised his hand over his head and swung it. It was not a slap." Wendy Langille intervened: "Dale drove my head completely through the gyproc wall." She suffered a black eye and facial swelling. Following the incident "He banned the children from our lives for 1 1/2 years."

   Dale Peterson says that was the only occasion when he spanked Jeffery, and it involved only one slap to the bottom.

   Again, Wendy Langille's version is preferred to Dale Peterson's. The trifling incident he describes would hardly have given rise to the assault on Wendy or the banishment of the children from her life for 1 1/2 years. The disproportionately violent reaction to the crying of a four year old is conduct relevant to the ability of a person to act as a parent of a child.

   The other incident was described by Marlene Peterson. Dale Peterson became provoked with Jeffery before the child left for school one day. Dale Peterson kicked him in the chest. Apparently it was not a severe kick and the boy then left for school. Dale was "still very upset after Jeffery left. He shoved his hand through the door." That is the behaviour of a person with dangerously weak control over his violent predisposition. It is conduct relevant to his ability to act as a parent of a child.

   Marlene Peterson said she would fear for the safety of the children if her husband had custody. "If he loses control of his temper, if he's done it to me, why not to them?" She said, "The kids are afraid of him. They will not provoke him. They know how he acts." She said he had grabbed her and shoved her around many times. "Whenever he was in a foul mood it would end up to be abuse on me."

   Dale Peterson was arrested on assault charges on March 15th, 1988 but with the co-operation of his parents retained the de facto custody of the children until the ex parte order of March 22nd. After that date he appears to have allowed generous access almost on a daily basis for a period, but has since restricted it to one afternoon during the week and an overnight visit for one or two nights on weekends. The only two-night visit was April 9th and 10th. He says he has restricted visits because of statements in Marlene's affidavit that he interpreted to mean he was being accused of using her access for his own convenience.

   Since the incident in mid March he has been responsible for looking after all of the children's needs and has sought, and received, minimal assistance from his mother or others. There is nothing to suggest he is not doing a fine job, and witnesses generally agreed the children appear to be clean, well-fed and well cared for. He has made some changes in his method of managing the company which enables him to spend more of his time at home. Stacey accompanies him on banking or other business errands while Jeffery is at school. Eunice Peterson, his mother, testified she had given notice from her job at a supermarket and had been engaged by Dale Peterson to work full time for his company, doing the work which had been done by Marlene Peterson, for a wage of $300.00 per week. This arrangement will permit her to assist in the care of the children. She is a youthful grandmother, and enjoys a good relationship with Marlene Peterson and her family as well as with the children. The scheme is a sound one and has much to recommend it, not least that the children have the stabilizing factor of continuing to live in the home they are used to, with all persons of importance in their lives, excepting their mother, in the relationship they have always known.

   Counsel for the mother argues that the status quo cannot be considered the status quo in the true legal sense because the interim order was without notice and was in the nature of an emergency measure. Rather, she says, status quo should be understood with regard to their relationship with their mother, their chief care giver who was the central fixture in the home and in the family life they knew since birth. The point is well taken, but may be lost on the children. Status quo to them must mean the way things are from day to day.

   It is a consideration only respecting interim as opposed to permanent custody, and it is only one factor among many to be considered in assuring the best interests of the children. If the status quo, however it is interpreted, must be disturbed in the best interests of the children, such must be the case. But the term should not be allowed to become a new name for the tender years argument. In considering the status quo, I have taken into account the cases cited by counsel, including Papp v. Papp et al (1969) 8 DLR(3d) 389 (Ont. C.A.); Neil v. Neil & Waldron (1976), 28 R.F.L. 256 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. R. (1983) 34 R.F.L.(2d) 277 (Alta C.A.); Skjonsby v. Skjonsby (1973) R.F.L. 135 (Sask. Q.B.); Dyment v. Dyment (1969) 2 O.R. 748 (Ont. C.A.); Cropper v. Cropper (1974), 16 R.F.L. 112 (Ont. C.A.); Wahl v. Pavle (1985), 49 R.F.L.(2d) 370 (B.C.C.A.); Wine v. Wine (1976) 27 R.F.L. 128 (Ont. H.C.); Burke v. Burke (1980), 50 N.S.R.(2d) 251 (N.S.S.C., T.D.).

   The law was well summarized by Chief Justice Cowan (as he then was) in the Burke case:

   The rule requiring more cogent evidence to disturb the status quo in matters of interim custody is explained by Spencer J. in the Cameron case:

   In short common sense must determine whether it is in the best interests of the children for them to be moved from one parent to another, and in interim matters a change should not be made without sound reason.

   Marlene Peterson seeks to take the children to live with her in her parents' home. The household would then consist of William and Dorothy Langille, Marlene Peterson and the children. Wendy Langille, who has also been living with her parents, would go back to her own home.

   The house is in Lockeport, and witnesses for Mr. Peterson criticized it too small. However, it proved adequate when the Langille children were growing up and I am satisfied as to its present adequacy. Dorothy Langille testified the children would be welcome there, and she appears to love them and to enjoy a good relationship with the.

   Marlene Peterson at this stage of her life is somewhat unsettled. If her affair with Norman Smith has run its course she will be able to begin putting her life back together. If not, that will continue to be a destabilizing influence. Mr. Smith has been married twice and his former common law relationship now appears to be over. There is no suggestion in the evidence of any long-term committments between Mr. Smith and Mrs. Peterson.

   Mrs. Peterson at present is unemployed and without income. Her income from the trucking business appears to have been in the nature of wages resulting from her employment then rather than dividends. Her own holding in the company was not substantial. While an order for maintenance for the children would follow a change in their custody, the question of spousal support is not before the court.

   An award of custody might improve Mrs. Peterson's financial circumstances, but that is not a factor in the consideration of the best interests of the children.

   From the point of the matrimonial well being of the children, the mother's present proposal is inferior to that of the husband which was discussed under the heading of Status Quo.

   The principle that a child of tender years should be with the mother was discussed by Chief Justice Cowan in the Burke case (supra):

   The doctrine, if such it is, has been questioned in the years since the Burke case on the principle that assumptions of the suitablility for various rules based upon the sex of the party concerned can no longer by justified.

   The position was strongly and recently stated by Bartlett J. of the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division in Dawe v. Dawe (1988) 11 R.F.L.(3d) 265 at 269-70:

   While that may not reflect the present position in Nova Scotia, the tender years doctrine must give way to a consideration of facts in each case. The best interests of the children must be paramount.

   I am satisfied that both parents care deeply for their children. Both enjoy their company and participate in activities with them. Both are situated so they can devote as much time as is necessary to the care of the children. Both have adquate parenting skills, although I must impute the greater measure of skill to the mother. She has been the chief care-giver, and the closeness of the relationship between the mother and the children cannot be disputed. Her involvement with the day to day needs of the children over the years is clear, and so is the close bonding that would result from such involvement. Prior to the breakup however the family unit as a whole was a close one, and I am not satisfied on the evidence that the emotional attachment of the children so favours one parent over the other that it should be a deciding factor.

   It is in the interests of the children to have the closest possible continuing relationship with both parents. It is favourable to them that regardless of the home in which they reside they will remain in a community in which they are surrounded by family and friends.

   The husband has expressed concern that if the children were to reside with their mother their attitude toward him would be influenced by Dorothy Langille who acknowledged she does not like him, and Wendy Langille, with whom he has a poor relationship. Marlene Peterson gave the impression of feeling bitter towards her husband. I have a concern that the Langille home is an environment hotile to Dale Peterson.

   On the other hand the attitude of Eunice Peterson, who is to be employed in her son's home and who would play a substantial role in the lives of the children, continues to be warm and loving toward Marlene Peterson, whom she says she regarded as a daughter. While there was some bewilderment as to the turns events had taken on the part of the friends and relatives of Dale Peterson who testified, Marlene Peterson was generally spoken of with affection and respect. Dale Peterson remains bitter respecting the incident of adultery, which has had such a profound impact on his family, but appears to continue to respect his wife as the mother of his children.

   I find that there is a greater likelihood of the children retaining an affectionate relationship toward both parents if they continue to reside with the father.

   There remains the question arising from the conduct of the parties on March 15th which has been discussed earlier.

   While the mother in all likelihood did not consciously and deliberately put the future of her children at risk, the consequences of her conduct are now manifest. Whether she would allow her priorities to become distorted in a future situation cannot be assured. However, as a practical effect of her infatuation she now finds herself in an unsettled situation in which the best she can offer the children is a home with her parents while she seeks to get her life in order.

   Dale Peterson, by his actions on March 15th, has faced the court with the gravest concern as to whether the future of the children should be entrusted to him even on an interim basis. The incidents of his past conduct involving the children had been laid to rest and has only been brought forward to demonstrate that the blind anger he showed in the confrontation with his wife and Mr. Smith is capable of being unleashed on the children. His involvement of Jeffery in the scene at the motel gives rise to concerns of the most serious nature as to Mr. Peterson's fitness as a parent.

   Mrs. Helen Blau, the psychologist who testified as an expert witness for the husband, says the children are content with their father and show no signs of fear or stress. To a degree, Mrs. Blau's great experience and wisdom in matters of this kind compensate for the briefness of her observation of the children. She saw the children for only a few minutes and has never interviewed Mrs. Peterson. Mrs. Blau's views are always deserving of respect, but in the present circumstances cannot be accorded great weight.

   This matter has been set down for final disposition after consideration of a home study report on July 29th, 1988.

   In the interim I find, not without deep misgivings, that the best interests of the children will be served by continuing the interim custody order of March 29th, in that the children shall remain in the care and custody of Dale Peterson, but subject to a further order to ensure that the children have increased access to the mother.

   Jeffery's school is near the Langille home. Stacey attends pre-school. They will be on their summer vacation long before this matter returns to court. I am prepared to order that Marlene Peterson shall have the children from 3:30 p.m. Friday until 7 p.m. Sunday every second weekend beginning May 27th, and from 3:30 p.m. each Tuesday to 3:30 p.m. Wednesday every week beginning May 25th. When Dale Peterson is to be away from home he shall offer Marlene Peterson the opportunity to keep the children with her before arranging for their care by another person. On weekends when Mrs. Peterson is not to have the children for overnight visits, she shall have them with her for a two-hour visit on the Friday, Saturday or Sunday, times to be arranged by the parties to suit their mutual convenience.

   Because Mrs. Peterson is without income, Dale Peterson shall pay her $50.00 each week commencing on the date of the first access visit for the maintence of the children while they are visiting with her.

FREEMAN Co. Ct. J.