Angi Tomiris Panzaru

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking ongoing and retroactive child support, and contributions to section 7 expenses, based on an imputed income for the respondent father.

The respondent, a taxi driver, disputed the income and provided incomplete financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent had not adequately complied with disclosure obligations, imputed an annual income of $60,000 for 2024 and $21,500 for the preceding three years, and ordered ongoing and retroactive child support accordingly.

The court also ordered the respondent to contribute to past and ongoing section 7 orthodontic expenses and awarded the applicant full indemnity costs due to the respondent's failure to provide timely and full disclosure.

The father brought a contempt motion against the mother for breaching prior court orders regarding parenting time and information sharing concerning their child.

The court found that the mother had intentionally failed to facilitate the child's relationship with the father, withheld medical and school information, and interfered with the child's communication with the father.

The judge determined that the mother's actions constituted willful disobedience and that she had not taken reasonable steps to comply with the orders.

As a remedy, the court ordered a change in the child's primary residence to the father, with the mother's contact suspended for 60 days, and granted the father temporary sole decision-making authority.

The decision emphasized the importance of upholding court orders and the negative impact of parental alienation on children.

The respondents brought motions for access to their incapable mother, whose personal care and property were managed by the applicants as joint guardians.

The motions became moot when the mother passed away before an order could be finalized.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that while the respondents were entitled to some measure of success on the access issue, their unreasonable conduct precipitated the motions.

The court concluded that a no-costs order would best serve the objectives of indemnification, sanctioning unreasonable conduct, and encouraging settlement of remaining estate issues.