ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 6549/11
DATE: 2012-11-28

BETWEEN:

PAPRAS SUDHAKAR
Applicant

– and –

SHARYU SUDHAKAR
Respondent

Papras Sudhakar, Self Represented

Sharyu Sudhakar, Self Represented
Bruce Robbins, Children’s Lawyer

Heard: November 28, 2012

DESOTTI, J.

1As I indicated to the parties, including the Children’s Lawyer, my reasons for my endorsement would follow my order.

2The parties were married in India on June 11, 1995. They were divorced by Justice Campbell on August 10, 2001. There are two children of this marriage, Sachin Sudhakar born February 29, 1996 and Sarika Sudhakar, born September 13 th , 1997. Presently, the children are 16 and 15 years of age. Mr. Robbins is the Children’s Lawyer and has sought the assist of a social worker, a Mr. DeRoche.

3The parties have been in frequent and consistent conflict since their separation. They have denigrated one another in front of their children and both children are tired of the endless conflict and negative assertions by one against the other.

4Frankly, the applicant father has been most uncooperative in all of these proceedings and his ‘foot dragging’ over the sale of the home and his resistance to the sale has caused and created a significant legal expense to the respondent mother. The constant battle over access to the children or contact with the children has alienated both children. The applicant’s daughter refuses to see her father and the respondent son has apparently had little contact with his mother.

5In my order, I did not change custody of the son but allowed for primary residence to the applicant father. I have also ordered that no further applications be allowed without leave of the court as there has been a total disregard for previous court orders and the applicant father has persistently sought to engage in warfare of one kind or the other. The respondent mother is not without her faults with respect to this litigation but her negative reaction is in response to what she believes is a systematic attack on her or her children and an attempt to avoid paying child support.

6The applicant father has indicated that his parents have significant assets in India and he taps into these resources to supplement his Disability Pension. He describes how he will, when his son attends the University of Western, pay for all of his son’s university expenses and will as well return to India to start up a pharmaceutical business with money from his parents. He also intends to pay for his daughter’s university expenses as well.

7In response to this offer, I indicated that should he proceed to pay for his children’s higher education that any arrears of child support and the significant cost awards would be vacated upon verification of the payments of these university expenses.

8I am most disheartened by the conduct of the parties towards one another and their insistence of bringing their children prominently into this conflict. Nevertheless, I have awarded the respondent mother significant costs in this matter as I believe she had no choice but to incur these expenses to defend the order of Justice Heeney and to finalize this matter before me today.

9Finally, the child support award is a modest amount given that the applicant father has proclaimed himself to be on the threshold of becoming a millionaire. Even this small amount of $290.00 per month is resisted by the applicant father, although he readily acknowledges that he has the ability to obtain significant monies from his parents should he so request same.

10As ordered, I am stating to the parties that no further proceeding can be launched against the other party without leave of this court.