Christina T. Rorabeck

The respondent husband brought a motion for equal regular parenting time and holiday time, while the applicant wife brought a cross-motion seeking a different parenting schedule and retroactive child support.

The parties had previously entered into a separation agreement providing for joint custody and liberal access for the husband, which had been gradually expanded.

The court dismissed the husband's motion for equal parenting time, finding that he failed to establish a pre-separation shared parenting status quo or explain why the current arrangement should be altered on an interim basis, and instead granted the wife's proposed schedule.

The court also granted the wife's request for retroactive child support based on the husband's full income, including overtime, effective October 1, 2020.

A mother sought leave to appeal an interim order granting temporary access between children and their paternal grandparents in a family law proceeding.

The moving party argued that the motion judge failed to properly consider the children’s views and preferences under s. 64 of the Children's Law Reform Act, declined to interview the children despite their request, and did not wait for a report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court found that the motion judge had already ordered observational visits specifically to obtain independent evidence of the children’s views and preferences, which was available on the motion.

The decision not to personally interview the children was a discretionary choice given the evidence before the court.

The court held that the correctness of the interim order was not open to very serious debate and did not raise a matter of public importance warranting appellate review.