Jose Bento Rodrigues

The applicant father brought a motion to reinstate access to his 11-year-old son after the respondent mother unilaterally terminated it.

The mother argued the father was cruel, the child did not want to see him alone, and the father could not care for the child's special medical needs.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and was filled with hyperbole.

The court held that financial disputes do not justify terminating access and ordered a gradual reinstatement of the father's parenting time.

The court declined to order a police enforcement clause, finding it would be counterproductive.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claims for equalization of net family property and a beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home.

The parties had separated in 2006, settled all matters through a Minutes of Settlement in 2007, and reconciled at the end of May 2007.

Upon reconciliation, the wife received a disability payment which was deposited into the husband's account and used to pay household bills and mortgage.

The husband later transferred the home to his mother.

The trial judge upheld the validity of the Minutes of Settlement and dismissed the wife's claims.

The appellate court affirmed, finding that the Minutes of Settlement clearly expressed the parties' intention to exclude future property from equalization upon reconciliation, and that the wife failed to establish a resulting trust claim.

This family law application proceeded to trial regarding equalization of net family property, a trust claim over the matrimonial home, and a restraining order.

The court upheld a 2007 separation agreement as valid and binding, which explicitly precluded further equalization upon reconciliation and subsequent separation.

The applicant's claim for a resulting, implied, or constructive trust over the Rutherford Road property against her former husband and mother-in-law was dismissed, as she had legally transferred her interest in 2007, and the former husband had subsequently transferred it to his mother in 2010.

The request for a restraining order was denied due to lack of evidence.

The court ordered the discharge of a certificate of pending litigation and that the applicant vacate the property.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order dated November 6, 2008, seeking to reduce his child support obligations for his 22-year-old daughter and to reduce his support arrears.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought a concurrent default proceeding.

The court found that while there had been a change in circumstances since 2008 due to the father's additional health issues and age, the father's evidence was not credible and he had demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with support obligations.

The court reduced the arrears from approximately $19,267 to $12,000 and set ongoing child support at $250 per month based on an imputed income of $30,440 per annum.

The court ordered the father to repay arrears at $200 per month during the child's entitlement period and $450 per month thereafter, with a default order providing for jail time for non-compliance.