The respondent father brought a motion to set aside a temporary consent order dated November 6, 2017, which permitted the applicant mother to amend her application to include a child support claim for an additional child and required the father to provide specified financial disclosure.
The father also sought an investigation for professional misconduct against the duty counsel and the mother's counsel.
The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of fraud, collusion, deceit, negligence, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence.
The father had participated in negotiating the consent order, received advice from duty counsel, signed the consent knowingly, and took a fresh step by filing an amended answer before objecting to the order.
The court awarded costs against the father.
