Gregory Steven Parrack

This motion to change a divorce order addressed child support and special expenses.

The respondent (payor) sought a retroactive reduction in child support due to decreased income and a change in special expense contributions.

The applicant (recipient) sought a retroactive increase in child support and contributions to various special expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances for child support, imputing income to the payor for one year of underemployment, and retroactively adjusted support from January 1, 2019.

The payor's request to change life insurance was dismissed.

For special expenses, the court largely upheld the original order's requirement for consultation and agreement, finding the payor liable for childcare and school uniforms where consultation occurred or was unreasonably withheld, but denying other claims where the recipient failed to consult.

This family law trial addressed the allocation of parenting time for three young children.

The father sought equal parenting time, arguing it would reduce conflict and affirm his role.

The mother sought to maintain the existing interim biweekly schedule, emphasizing the children's need for a stable "home base." The court, prioritizing the children's best interests, ordered the continuation of the mother's proposed regular parenting schedule, finding it more practical and stable given the children's ages, school, and the distance between homes.

However, the court granted the father's request for a week-about schedule during summer holidays, recognizing the reduced logistical pressures during that period.

The decision highlighted ongoing parental conflict and the importance of child-focused communication.

A child protection trial involving six children where the Children's Aid Society sought findings that all children were in need of protection and sought Crown wardship for the four oldest children and a supervision order for the two youngest twins.

The respondent parents denied virtually all allegations.

The court conducted a complex hearsay voir dire regarding children's out-of-court statements and ultimately found all six children in need of protection based on evidence of harsh, authoritarian parenting, excessive physical discipline, emotional abuse, and exposure to domestic violence.

The court made three of the four oldest children Crown wards and ordered the youngest child returned home under intensive supervision, with the second-oldest child also returned home under supervision to maintain sibling bonds.

A motion by the maternal grandfather (R.W.) to vary an interim order placing two young children in the temporary care and control of the Children's Aid Society.

The grandfather sought placement of the children in his home.

The court applied the test under subsection 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act, finding a material change in circumstances but ultimately dismissing the motion.

The court found that while the grandfather's application merited consideration, insufficient evidence regarding the children's needs, the grandfather's ability to manage the older child's special medical needs (spina bifida), and unresolved concerns about the grandfather's marijuana use and financial obligations created too much uncertainty to warrant moving the children prior to trial.

The court emphasized the importance of continuity for very young children and the risk of multiple placements.