Stephen Cross

The applicant father moved for increased parenting time with the parties' two-year-old child.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the current schedule should remain in place until the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) completed its investigation.

The court noted concerns regarding family violence, including evidence that the applicant had caused a black eye to his older daughter from a previous relationship.

The court dismissed the motion for increased parenting time and adjourned the matter to allow for the completion of the OCL report.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking 23 heads of relief, primarily alleging that the applicant father breached the parenting time and therapy provisions of their Minutes of Settlement regarding their two adult children with disabilities.

The father brought a cross-motion to strike the mother's affidavit evidence under Rule 1(8.2) of the Family Law Rules, arguing it was inflammatory and irrelevant.

The court found that the father had not done enough to facilitate the parenting schedule for the younger child and ordered him to take specific affirmative steps to ensure compliance and support reunification therapy.

The father's motion to strike was dismissed as moot, as the impugned forms are presumptively inadmissible at trial.

The father appealed a final family arbitration award that resolved parenting, child support, spousal support, and property issues.

He alleged procedural unfairness, bias, and errors in the arbitrator's parenting and financial decisions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court held that the arbitrator's decisions, including imputing income due to the father's non-disclosure and awarding primary residence to the mother, were amply supported by the evidence and entitled to significant deference.