Jane E. Caspers

This is a costs endorsement following motions to change child support and custody arrangements between former partners.

The applicant sought retroactive child support adjustment back to 2003 and prospective support, while the respondent sought termination of his child support obligation and support from the applicant.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party, having achieved termination of his support obligation effective March 1, 2017, and obtaining support from the applicant.

The applicant was partially successful in obtaining a three-year retroactive adjustment (2014-2017) and some section 7 expense contributions, but her 15-year retroactive claim was rejected.

The court awarded costs to the respondent.

Two motions to change were brought regarding child support and section 7 expenses for an adult child (age 18) who had relocated from the mother's residence to the father's residence.

The father sought termination of his child support obligation and retroactive child support from the mother.

The mother sought ongoing child support, retroactive adjustment of child support based on undisclosed income increases, and retroactive section 7 expenses.

The court found the child was no longer entitled to ongoing support as she was not pursuing post-secondary education.

The court ordered retroactive child support adjustment limited to 2014-2017 based on the three-year principle, awarded partial section 7 expenses (child care and medical/orthodontic costs), and dismissed claims for private school fees and extracurricular activities.

Net arrears were fixed at $7,686.50 payable by the father to the mother.

A family law trial concerning custody and access of an 11-year-old child following the separation of the parents.

The parties agreed to joint custody but disputed primary residence.

The father sought primary residence, citing the mother's interference with access and her night-shift work schedule.

The mother sought to maintain primary residence, relying on the status quo and her historical role as primary caregiver.

The court granted primary residence to the father, finding that despite the mother's long-standing caregiving role, the child's consistent preference to live with his father, the mother's deliberate obstruction of access, and concerns regarding the child's academic performance and safety while the mother worked nights warranted a change from the status quo.

The court emphasized the importance of the child's voice and applied "Katelynn's Principle" in considering the child's mature and thoughtful views.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a comprehensive consent order dated September 10, 2013, which granted the applicant mother sole custody of three children with the respondent having alternate weekly access.

The respondent sought joint custody and primary residence of two of the children, citing the mother's potential relocation to Cambridge as a material change in circumstances.

The respondent also sought to terminate child support for the eldest child.

The court found that the mother was not relocating and currently resided near the respondent.

The court determined that the respondent had not established a material change in circumstances and that the issues raised had already been comprehensively addressed in the existing order.

The court adopted a proportionate, expeditious process consistent with principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin, ordering the respondent to file a written response addressing why the motion should not be dismissed.