2 total
The court awarded sole custody to the father due to poor parental communication and imputed the mother's income for child support.
This amended ruling addresses a father's motion to change and a mother's cross-motion to change, primarily concerning custody, child support, and special expenses for their child.
The court found that the parties' inability to communicate effectively and their fundamental disagreements rendered joint custody unworkable.
Considering the child's best interests, particularly the father's ability to provide a stable home and the mother's past breaches of orders and lack of educational support, sole custody was granted to the father.
The mother's income was imputed to $30,000 for child support purposes, and the father's income remained at $36,000.
Special expenses under s. 7 of the Divorce Act, including recreational cheerleading, are to be shared equally, with the father solely responsible for the additional costs of competitive cheerleading.
The court emphasized the need for both parents to support the child's interests and improve communication.
The court ordered parallel parenting and equal time-sharing in a high-conflict custody dispute, rejecting the mother's request for sole custody and supervised access.
This trial addressed parenting arrangements, child support, and loan repayment between separated parents.
The court ordered a parallel parenting regime, granting the mother decision-making for education and the father for health, with extracurricular decisions alternating.
The children's time with the father was gradually increased to an equal "2-2-5-5" schedule during the school year and "week about" during the summer, and a parenting coordinator was appointed.
The father was ordered to pay accumulated special and extraordinary expenses and to repay loans from the mother's parents, with ongoing child support based on an income offset.
The court found the mother's animosity towards the father negatively impacted the children and her decision-making.
