3 total
The court terminated child support effective April 2008, finding the child had not withdrawn from parental control prior to turning eighteen.
The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order dated July 10, 1996, which required him to pay $200.00 per month for the support of his son.
The issue was limited to determining when the child became ineligible for support.
The respondent argued the child ceased to be eligible in November 2006 when he was 16 years old, had moved out, was not in full-time school, and had withdrawn from parental control.
The applicant contended the child remained in her care until 2008 when he turned 18 and was not in full-time school.
The court found the evidence inconclusive but determined the child had not withdrawn from parental control prior to age 18.
However, the court concluded that by spring 2008, when the applicant moved out of her home, the child was either not living with his mother or not attending school full-time, making him ineligible for support.
The court granted the father sole custody of the child following the mother's default and a favorable parenting assessment.
The applicant, D.B., sought sole custody of his child, A.W.-B., born July 2010, under the Children's Law Reform Act.
The child had been apprehended by the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel following unexplained serious injuries in October 2010.
Following comprehensive Pathways assessments in summer 2011, the child was placed in D.B.'s care under society supervision.
The respondent, J.W., the child's mother, failed to file responding material and was noted in default.
The court granted sole custody to D.B. based on his demonstrated parenting ability, the respondent's inadequate parenting capacity as identified in the Pathways assessment, and her irregular access attendance.
The respondent was ordered to provide financial disclosure for determination of child support and special expenses contributions at a future return date.
Court refuses blanket travel ban but varies access exchange location.
The moving party sought a non‑removal order preventing the custodial parent from travelling with the child to Dubai and also sought changes to the pickup and drop‑off arrangements for access.
The court declined to make a blanket prohibition or authorization regarding international travel because no specific travel plan was before the court and circumstances could change.
The existing order requiring travel notice remained in force, though the notice period for travel to Dubai was extended to 90 days due to concerns associated with a non‑Hague Convention destination.
The court varied the access exchange terms, requiring the parties to conduct weekend exchanges in Kingston to more fairly distribute travel burdens and facilitate the child's relationship with the moving parent.
