Following a family trial in a high-conflict parenting and support dispute, the court held that the children's best interests favoured primary residence with the father, with structured parenting time to the mother and final decision-making authority to the father subject to prior consultation.
The court relied heavily on the statutory best-interests framework, the history of conflict, the children's views and preferences, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer evidence in finding the father better able to meet the children's emotional and physical needs and more likely to support their relationship with the other parent.
The court rejected the mother's claim that the father stood in loco parentis to her older child, finding the evidence insufficient to establish a settled parental intention under the governing step-parent support framework.
The court also found the mother intentionally underemployed, imputed income to her under the Drygala framework, ordered ongoing child support payable by her, quantified the father's retroactive child and spousal support underpayments, and directed that those arrears stand as a credit against her support obligation.
