Karinda Lynn Dockrill

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support, seeking to terminate his $1,400 monthly payments due to his early retirement and the applicant wife's increased income.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on both parties' increased incomes and the husband's early retirement.

However, the court held that the wife was still entitled to support given the length of the marriage and her economic disadvantage.

Spousal support was reduced to $700 per month for 12 months, and thereafter to $1 per year until the husband turns 65, at which point it will terminate.

The applicant mother sought an interim order for table child support from the respondent father, pending trial.

The parties had a history of agreements for joint and shared custody with no child support, given their similar incomes and shared expenses, even after relocations due to military postings.

The mother argued that the shared parenting arrangement was no longer feasible and that she had primary care of the children for at least 75% of the time, thus triggering table support under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The father contended that their agreements, which anticipated mobility and provided for no child support, should be respected, and that the court has discretion under the Family Law Act to deviate from Guidelines if special provisions benefit the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling reason to depart from the agreed-upon status quo on an interim basis, noting the similar incomes and substantial time each parent spent with the children, leaving the determination of changed circumstances to the trial judge.

The applicant bankrupt brought a motion arguing that a previous family law costs award of $25,280, which was ordered to survive bankruptcy, was released because the respondent creditor failed to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings.

The court held that while the failure to file a proof of claim prevented the respondent from sharing in the bankruptcy distribution, it did not release the debt under section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The costs order survived the bankruptcy discharge, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the motion.