Mark E. Skursky

The respondent brought a motion to file an amended answer over three-and-a-half years after filing the original answer, seeking to change final orders that had been in place for nearly three years.

The respondent sought joint custody with shared residency, substantially increased access, termination of child support obligations, and dismissal of the applicant's spousal support claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an amended answer should not be accepted in proceedings to amend final orders, and that accepting it would disadvantage the applicant and restart the entire litigation.

The court held that the proper forum for such requests is a motion to change, not an amended answer under the Family Law Rules.

The mother brought a motion to change a custody and access order, seeking supervised access for the father and increased child support.

The father responded seeking increased access.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a suspension of access following an assault incident in February 2013 and an increase in the father's income from $23,600 to $40,000 per year.

The court ordered a gradual resumption of access, beginning with overnight visits at the paternal grandmother's home before transitioning to the father's residence, along with alternate weekend access and mid-week visits.

Child support was set at $360 per month based on $40,000 annual income.

The court rejected the mother's request to impute higher income and declined to modify the section 7 expense sharing arrangement.