Dr. Burke Baird

The father sought costs following a 28-day trial regarding a Motion to Change Final Order and related motions.

The court found that the father was overwhelmingly successful on the parenting issues, which consumed 85% of the trial time, while the mother was successful on the child support issues.

The court concluded that the mother's conduct throughout the litigation, including her repeated unsubstantiated allegations of abuse and alienation of the child, amounted to bad faith.

The father was awarded full recovery costs for the parenting issues, offset by the mother's costs for the child support issues.

The court ordered the mother to pay $138,157 in costs, structured as a $50,000 lump sum payment with the balance to be set off against the father's child support arrears and ongoing child support obligations.

The mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking to restrict the father's parenting time to supervised visits based on numerous allegations of abuse and neglect.

The father sought a resumption of his parenting time, a declaration that the mother breached the existing order, and a retroactive reduction in child support.

Following a lengthy trial, the court found that the mother's allegations were unsubstantiated and that she had engaged in a pattern of parental alienation and family violence by repeatedly subjecting the child to medical and child protection investigations.

The court ordered a gradual resumption of the father's parenting time, progressing to alternate weekends and equal holiday time.

The court also ordered the mother to undergo a psychiatric assessment and engage in parenting coaching.

The father's claim for a retroactive reduction in child support was dismissed due to a lack of effective notice.

In the context of a family law trial, the court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of expert opinion evidence from a pediatrician regarding alleged child maltreatment.

The applicant father sought to exclude the evidence entirely, arguing the expert was a litigation expert who failed to comply with procedural rules and lacked impartiality.

The court found the pediatrician was a participant and non-party expert, and admitted his viva voce evidence and most of his report, but excluded specific paragraphs opining on whether the child suffered maltreatment specifically in the father's care, finding those conclusions lacked necessity and threshold reliability.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to have two children placed in extended society care with no parental access.

The children had been apprehended following severe physical abuse and restraint by the respondent parents.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the material facts of the abuse were established and the parents' parenting capacity assessments indicated a high risk of future harm.

The motion was granted, the children were placed in extended society care, and parental access was denied as it was not in the children's best interests.

The applicant children's aid society sought a temporary order to keep three children in the care and custody of their father, subject to society supervision, following their apprehension from the mother and stepfather.

The apprehension was triggered by suspicious bruising on the youngest child, which a medical assessment concluded was highly suspicious for inflicted injury.

The mother and stepfather opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children and offering an alternative explanation for the bruising.

The court found the society's evidence credible and trustworthy, concluding there were reasonable grounds to believe the children would be at risk of harm if returned to the mother and stepfather.

The court granted the society's motion for temporary care and custody with the father.