Marion E. Jackson

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking child support after one of the parties' two children moved primarily into his care and he lost his employment.

The respondent mother opposed, claiming undue hardship and seeking retroactive support based on the father's previously undisclosed higher income.

The court found a material change in circumstance but imputed income to the father, finding his career change resulted in underemployment.

After considering the shared custody framework under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines and the parties' financial circumstances, the court rejected a strict set-off and ordered the mother to pay $750 per month, while also calculating retroactive arrears owed by both parties.

In a high‑conflict custody, access, and child support proceeding, the responding parent brought a motion to strike the other party’s application and materials due to repeated failures to comply with court orders for financial disclosure, costs, and child support.

The court confirmed that Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules permits sanctions such as striking pleadings for non‑compliance but emphasized that the remedy must be used sparingly, particularly where the best interests of a child are engaged.

Given that custody and parenting issues required a full evidentiary record, striking the pleadings would risk impairing the court’s ability to determine the child’s best interests.

Instead, the court imposed financial consequences, fixed arrears and costs, ordered payment efforts and questioning on financial disclosure, and maintained restrictions on further motions without leave.