Dr. Hansen

The applicant father sought to review and terminate spousal support and adjust child support pursuant to a 2012 Separation Agreement.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in support to 2013, alleging the father hid income from the sale of his business.

The court found no blameworthy conduct by the father and denied the retroactive claim due to the mother's failure to give effective notice.

The court imputed $390,000 in annual income to the mother, finding she was intentionally underemployed and failed to utilize her substantial investment portfolio to generate income, despite her obligations under the Separation Agreement.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate after one additional year, and child support was adjusted prospectively based on the parties' current incomes.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision on a motion to change a final custody order.

The trial judge had found a material change in circumstances but ordered that the parties continue to have joint custody of the child with a parallel parenting regime, and that the child's primary residence remain with the respondent mother.

The father argued he should have been granted sole custody.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no errors of law, her findings of fact were supported by the evidence, and she made no palpable and overriding error in determining that joint custody remained in the child's best interests.