2 total
Court refuses to suspend access and orders joint expert selection for reunification therapy.
Cross-motions in a family law matter concerning parenting time and therapeutic reunification.
The mother sought to suspend an existing access order pending a future motion date, while the father sought an order appointing a specific professional to conduct reintegration or reunification therapy between him and the children.
The court declined to suspend the existing access order and emphasized the urgency of commencing reintegration therapy.
Given the parties’ lack of mutual trust in the proposed experts, the court directed the two proposed professionals to consult and jointly recommend a neutral third professional to undertake the therapy.
The matter was scheduled to return before the court for an update on the selected professional.
Interim spousal and child support granted; preservation order denied.
The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following separation after a long-term marriage.
The respondent brought cross-motions seeking a preservation order over property, amendment of pleadings, and child support for an adult child.
The court declined to order table child support for adult children due to insufficient evidence regarding their status as children of the marriage but ordered table support for the minor child based on the respondent’s income.
Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court found a prima facie entitlement to interim spousal support and ordered monthly payments within the guideline range.
The respondent’s request for a preservation order under the Family Law Act was dismissed due to lack of evidence of dissipation of assets or prima facie entitlement to equalization.
