David R. S. Pentz

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 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.

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.