Lauren Bale

Following a seven-day trial on the issue of regular access, the court determined the appropriate parenting schedule for a three-year-old child.

The mother, who had primary residency by agreement, sought to limit the father's access to two overnights every fourteen days, citing past incidents of domestic violence and concerns about his parenting.

The court found that while three incidents of violence did occur during the relationship, the father is a capable and loving parent.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered an expanded access schedule for the father, including mid-week overnights, tailored to accommodate his continental shift work schedule.

The applicant mother sought parental support under section 32 of the Family Law Act from her adult daughter, claiming a need for $3,000 per month.

The applicant alleged she had provided care and support to the respondent from birth until age 16, when the respondent chose to live with her father.

The respondent opposed the claim and sought a restraining order, alleging a history of physical and emotional abuse, alienation from her father, exposure to domestic violence, and ongoing harassment including criminal charges and civil litigation.

The court found the applicant had not established entitlement to parental support on the basis of need, had not provided adequate care or support given the emotional and psychological abuse inflicted on the respondent, and that the applicant's unconscionable conduct constituted an obvious gross repudiation of the mother-daughter relationship.

The court dismissed the parental support claim and granted a restraining order.

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.