Martin Christopher Schulz

The Appellant Father appealed an order granting the Respondent Mother exclusive right to consent to ADHD medication for their child and choose treatment providers.

The appeal raised numerous alleged errors of fact and law, including the motions judge's findings on the pediatrician's recommendations, the effectiveness of medication, the father's willingness to cooperate, the interpretation of a prior communication order, the consideration of the child's views, the application of the Health Care Consent Act, and the admissibility of medical evidence.

The appellate court dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law, but clarified the wording of the original order to ensure the child's right to consent was preserved.

The father, M.G., appealed a lower court order granting the mother, J.A.B., exclusive right to consent to ADHD medication for their son.

In the context of this appeal, M.G. brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence, including a 2010 study, case conference briefs, a missing transcript excerpt, and school records.

The motion was opposed by J.A.B. The court applied the three-part test for fresh evidence on appeal from *Sengmueller v. Sengmueller*, finding that none of the proposed evidence, except for a missing transcript portion, was likely to be conclusive of an issue on appeal.

The motion to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed, with an order to cure any missing transcript portion.

Following a family law trial involving property division and claims for retroactive child and spousal support, both parties sought costs and asserted that they were the more successful party.

The court found that the applicant achieved greater success on the property issues, particularly as much of the respondent’s evidence on those matters was rejected.

However, the respondent was more successful regarding retroactive child and spousal support.

Neither party beat their respective settlement offers and the court concluded that overall success was divided.

As a result, the court declined to award costs.