Danica Francis

The respondent, Christopher Eric Waltham, brought a motion to change a 2005 child support order, seeking termination of his obligation retroactive to the child's 18th birthday and a reduction of arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's health issues and ODSP qualification.

Despite late formal notice, the court exercised discretion to retroactively decrease support to January 1, 2017, citing the respondent's understandable fear of the applicant.

The child support obligation was terminated as of August 31, 2018, as the child was no longer a minor, not in full-time education, and not unable to withdraw from parental charge.

Arrears were recalculated and significantly reduced, with most held funds to be returned to the respondent.

The applicant father sought to change existing parenting orders, requesting sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, a 120-day no-contact period for the mother, and a police enforcement order, alleging the mother was alienating the children.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking to suspend or supervise the father's parenting time, citing the children's resistance due to the father's alleged behavior.

The Children's Lawyer did not support either drastic request, suggesting clinical intervention.

The court dismissed both motions, finding insufficient evidence to support a drastic change in parenting arrangements on an interim basis, and ordered existing parenting orders to continue with attempts at contact, emphasizing the need for clinical intervention and judicial oversight.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother, alleging she failed to comply with court orders regarding parenting time and telephone contact with their two children.

The court reviewed the history of parenting time issues, including incidents where the children did not transition to the father's care and conflicting accounts of the mother's efforts to facilitate contact.

Applying the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for contempt, the court found that while the children were not in the father's care on certain dates, the father failed to prove the mother intentionally breached the orders, except for one instance due to a family emergency, for which no contempt finding was warranted.

The court also found ambiguity in some order provisions regarding telephone calls and parenting time exchanges.

The father's contempt motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that contempt is a tool of last resort, especially in family law, and that the best interests of the children are paramount.