The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.
The applicant mother sought a divorce and determination of child and spousal support.
The respondent father claimed retroactive child and spousal support, and argued that the applicant's income should include pre-tax corporate income from her dental technology business or be imputed at a higher level.
The court held that retroactive support must be specifically pleaded, which the respondent failed to do.
Even if pleaded, the test for retroactive support was not met and any amounts would have been offset by the respondent's child support obligations.
The court declined to attribute corporate pre-tax income or impute income to the applicant, finding her business decisions reasonable due to her mental health and the company's financial realities.
The court ordered the applicant to pay ongoing spousal support of $233 per month based on a non-compensatory, needs-based claim, and found no ongoing monthly child support was payable by either party due to a set-off in their hybrid custody arrangement.
