Michael J. Stangarone

Following a family law motion concerning access to children of the marriage, the successful party sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court considered the factors in Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance of the issues, the time expended, and the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct.

The court found that the unsuccessful party engaged in egregious and unreasonable conduct that repeatedly frustrated the other parent’s access and marginalized the parental relationship.

Full recovery costs were justified to sanction this conduct.

The court awarded $12,000 in costs and ordered that the award be set off against child support if unpaid by a specified date.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking various relief after the applicant mother unilaterally cancelled their daughter's First Communion and denied access.

The mother argued that the Minutes of Settlement were not enforceable because a formal order had not been taken out.

The court rejected this argument, finding the mother's conduct shocking and indicative of a systematic attempt to marginalize the father.

The court granted the father's requests to reschedule the Communion, ordered police enforcement for access, issued a non-disparagement order, permitted the father to provide the children with cell phones, ordered the mother to reimburse the father for the cancelled event's costs, and granted make-up access.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking remedies for the respondent mother's breach of a court order requiring participation in reunification therapy with the children.

The mother sought to terminate the therapy and requested a new custody assessment.

The court found the mother in clear breach of the consent order by unilaterally terminating the therapy.

The court declined to strike the mother's pleadings or impose a fine, but ordered the immediate resumption of therapy and required the mother to reimburse the father for half the costs of the therapy to date.

The mother's requests to remove the therapist and for a new assessment were dismissed, and the matter was expedited to trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to compel the respondent father and a non-party corporation to produce extensive financial documents and answer undertakings to determine the father's income for spousal support purposes.

The father brought a cross-motion to compel the mother to answer undertakings.

The court ordered extensive third-party corporate disclosure, finding that the father's complex corporate and trust structures necessitated broader production to fairly determine his income.

Both parties were also ordered to answer specific undertakings and refusals.