3 total
Spousal support arrears rescinded and ongoing obligation terminated after payor significantly overpaid time-limited support.
The respondent brought an uncontested Motion to Change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation and rescind over $216,000 in accumulated arrears.
The original 2002 order required support until three months after the applicant completed an educational program, but the respondent failed to pay voluntarily, leading to extensive garnishment by the Family Responsibility Office starting in 2012.
The court found that the respondent had significantly overpaid his total time-limited support obligation by mid-2017 and lacked the financial means to pay the remaining arrears.
The motion was granted, the arrears were rescinded in their entirety, and the ongoing support obligation was terminated.
The court declined to award costs to a father against a mother in a child protection proceeding, finding her conduct did not meet the high threshold of bad faith.
This decision addresses the issue of costs between parents in a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The father, J.N., sought partial indemnity costs from the mother, J.M., arguing that he was successful and that J.M. acted unreasonably and prolonged the matter.
The court reviewed the high threshold required for awarding costs between parents in protection cases, emphasizing that costs should only be awarded for extreme unreasonable conduct or bad faith.
The court found that although J.M. initially resisted conceding primary residence, she acted reasonably in later efforts to resolve the matter, and no findings of fact or breach of court orders were made against her.
The protection application was withdrawn on consent, and the court declined to order costs, highlighting the importance of good faith and proportionality in such proceedings.
The court granted the mother primary care and ordered the father to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.
This trial addressed parenting time arrangements and child support obligations for the parties' child, Kyler, including a retroactive child support claim.
The applicant sought primary care and full guideline child support with retroactivity to May 2021, while the respondent sought a shared parenting schedule and set-off child support.
The court found that despite a mediation memorandum, a shared parenting arrangement was not consistently in place, and the child primarily resided with the applicant.
The court dismissed the respondent's request for shared parenting, granting the applicant primary care with liberal and generous parenting time for the respondent.
Retroactive child support was awarded to the applicant, but only from September 1, 2023, as effective notice for an earlier period was not established.
