David R. S. Pentz

This is a complex family law case involving a dispute over parenting arrangements between separated parents.

The applicant sought an order to temporarily remove the children from the respondent's primary care due to her alleged failure to meaningfully participate in court-ordered reunification therapy.

The case evolved over seven years from a simple application to confirm parenting time into a comprehensive examination of parental alienation, estrangement, and the children's resistance to contact with their father.

The court found that the respondent engaged in systematic alienating conduct that prevented the development of a meaningful father-child relationship, but ultimately declined to reverse custody due to the children's ages and entrenched positions.

The applicant sought to vary child support back to January 1, 2021, based on the respondent's increased income.

The respondent agreed to some historical adjustment but sought to pay no ongoing child support due to alleged health reasons.

The court determined the cessation dates for child support for the three eldest children.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed and imputed income to him for 2023 ($25,000) and from July 1, 2024 ($30,000), rejecting his claim of inability to work due to health issues.

The court calculated child support arrears, adjusting for income changes and changes in dependent status, fixing total arrears at $18,000 as of August 31, 2024.

The court declined to order a payment plan for arrears, citing the respondent's failure to provide financial disclosure and plan for increased obligations.

Ongoing child support was set at $459 per month for the two youngest children.

The Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin brought a motion to continue an interim order placing a child in temporary care, while the respondent mother cross-moved for the child's return.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe a risk of harm existed due to the mother's mental health challenges but determined the child could be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The court dismissed the Society's motion to continue the placement and granted the mother's cross-motion, ordering the child's return to her care under specific supervision conditions.

The applicant father sought a declaration that the respondent mother was non-compliant with an interim consent order regarding family reconciliation therapy and requested a financial penalty.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing the order was frustrated and seeking the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court found the respondent mother non-compliant, rejecting her reliance on the Health Care Consent Act and her claims of therapist bias or children's refusal.

The court emphasized the mother's chronic delays, lack of prioritization of parenting time and therapy, and failure to exercise parental authority.

The court ordered the respondent mother to pay a $1,500 penalty and immediately comply with the therapy order, and dismissed her request for OCL involvement, noting the children's advanced age and the closing window for reconciliation.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking production of police reports, setting aside final Minutes of Settlement, primary residence of the children, and restricting the respondent's parenting time.

The motion was prompted by a recent incident at the respondent's home involving her former partner.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Minutes of Settlement to be a binding contract, and that the applicant was aware of the respondent's past concerning behaviors when the agreement was made.

The court found no present danger to the children and declined to exercise *parens patriae* jurisdiction, advising the applicant to pursue a motion to change if a material change in circumstances occurs after the settlement is incorporated into a final order.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement that resolved parenting time and eliminated his child support arrears, or alternatively, to vary his child support obligations due to financial hardship.

The court granted summary judgment on the parenting issues, finding no genuine issue for trial.

However, the court refused to enforce the settlement regarding child support arrears, holding that parents cannot bargain away a child's right to support, and directed that issue to trial.

The court also granted a temporary order reducing ongoing child support and arrears payments based on the father's reduced 2021 income.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring their two teenage daughters to return to in-person schooling.

The respondent admitted non-compliance, citing the children's refusal and her own beliefs aligned with a religious organization during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Bouchard v. Sgovio, the court declined to make an immediate contempt finding, instead utilizing its broad enforcement powers under Family Law Rule 1(8) to order the respondent to take specific steps to enroll the children for the upcoming school year.

The contempt motion was adjourned to monitor compliance.

This family law application, initiated in 2010, proceeded to trial in 2017 to resolve outstanding issues of equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, s.7 child support expenses, and a lump sum spousal support claim.

The court made specific findings on asset valuations for equalization, resulting in an equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent.

Post-separation adjustments were also confirmed as owed by the applicant.

For child support, the respondent was ordered to contribute to specific extraordinary expenses, including music lessons, tutoring, art therapy, and certain uninsured prescription costs.

A lump sum spousal support of $12,000 was awarded to the applicant, credited against her payments to the respondent, recognizing her efforts to regain self-sufficiency after a significant back injury and surgery post-separation.

A divorce order was also granted.