Ontario
Superior Court of Justice
Court File No.: FC-04-2335-1
Date: 2013 Dec 31
Between
Antonietta Bruni, aka Toni
Applicant
– and –
Danial Keedi, aka Daniel, Dani, Danny, Keddi, Kheedi, Martinez
Respondent
Self-Represented
Odette Rwigamba, for the Respondent
Heard: November 7, 2013 at Ottawa
Belch J.
Decision on Motion to Vary
[1] The parties to this proceeding, a motion to vary, are Daniel Keedi, respondent, father, and moving party, and Antonietta Bruni, applicant, mother, and responding party.
[2] The parties agree this court is to address child support, both Guideline and Section 7 expenses and in addition, a restraining order against the respondent father.
[3] The parties were married, then separated, and are now divorced. They are the parents of two children, Dante age 9 and Lucas age 11.
[4] The parties are no strangers to the court process having been involved in both criminal, the respondent charged with assault of the applicant, and family law proceedings which resulted in the order of October 10, 2007 granting the mother sole custody of the two children with access to the father in accordance with the children’s best interest. In addition, father, on an annual income of $60,000 was ordered to pay guideline support in the amount of $902 monthly, to maintain a life insurance policy, as well as medical/dental/health insurance benefits available through his employer.
[5] The incomes of the parties are, the father, $61,739 annually, and mother, $74,952 annually.
[6] Guideline support based on fathers $61,739 for two children is $916 monthly.
[7] Father seeks a reduction in guideline support because he is also the father of seven additional children. His proposal is to treat all nine children equally. His counsel submits an equal monthly amount would be $291.77 or $583 for these two children. Counsel arrives at this result by taking the table amount for six children, $1751, dividing this by six, multiplying the result by three, adding $1751 plus $875 together, and dividing by nine. Using this method guideline support for the two children would be $583 monthly rather than $916 in total.
[8] Father’s counsel advises he currently pays a total of $400 monthly for three other children, $300 monthly for one child, another child at $100 monthly and one at $250 monthly making the $916 monthly he pays for two children disproportional.
[9] Mother, not only disagrees with the proposed guideline reduction, but brings her own motion to vary which would require father pay section 7 expenses for the two children in proportion to their respective incomes.
[10] Mother identifies section 7 expenses as follows: $1638.56 monthly for a live-in nanny who cares for the children while mother works overtime to meet household expenses; summer camp expenses of $91 monthly and extracurricular activities of $60 monthly.
[11] Father argues a live-in nanny is a luxury neither can afford and he simply has no money for section 7 expenses when he cannot meet the demands of the mandated guideline support.
Restraining Order
[12] Mother also seeks a restraining order because of a previous assault by father on her for which he served time in jail and she claims to live in fear of him. Father is opposed to the restraining order on the basis the assault happened many years ago and he has not harmed her since.
Analysis and Conclusion
[13] Addressing the restraining order, the court notes restraining orders are discretionary and after examining existing case law further notes reasonable fear, harassment, and annoyance can be the basis for such an order. Mother’s material speaks of fear and is suggestive of annoyance as well. At the same time, these parents are attempting to work out access arrangements which, out of necessity, will require some form of communication. Taking everything into consideration, the father is restrained from annoying or harassing mother and communication between them about the children is left to the terms of whatever agreement or court order is made respecting access. This order of restraint is limited to a term of five years from the date of this order as it is expected the children will, by then, be old enough to arrange any access themselves.
[14] With respect to section 7 expenses, while I appreciate a live-in nanny greatly assists mother to earn extra income needed to meet the needs of the children, given father’s income and the needs of all nine children, I cannot order him to contribute to the expense of the nanny. While I believe he should be assisting with summer camp and extracurricular activities, faced with the demands of guideline support and being aware that couples will sometimes disagree about what constitutes a section 7 expense in view of their financial circumstances, I believe it is more workable to stay with guideline support to avoid more confrontation, accordingly, there will be no order for father to pay any section 7 expenses at this time.
[15] It is hard not to accept an argument that all nine children be treated equally. On the other hand, mother is working extra hours just to make ends meet and suggests father could do the same. If he exercises meaningful access with all of the other children, I have no idea of whether mother’s suggestion is realistic .Other than the stated amounts father pays for the other children which amount to $1050 monthly, I have no details of the financial circumstances in the other households. For example, do the other mothers work outside of the home and have ability to contribute to their children? Do any of the other mothers have significant others who can contribute to the expense of the children?
[16] There is no evidence of what money father has available for the most recent child born this past year in his current relationship. From his counsel’s representations, all nine children should be treated equally I assume it would be $291 monthly. To pay guideline support for nine children, he must pay $2626 monthly or $660 more than he currently pays. Will he increase the amounts paid to the other children if this court lowers the existing order? Again, there are no details.
[17] In an attempt to strike some balance in the competing positions of father at $583 monthly and mother at $916 monthly, I exercise my discretion in recognition of his legal duty to support his other children and reduce the guideline amount in this case to $400 per month per child or $800 in total.
Costs
[18] I do not have the position of the parties on costs or whether or not there were offers to settle made, however, given both parties enjoyed some success, there will be no order as to costs.
Belch J.
Released: December 31, 2013
Court File No.: FC-04-2335-1
Date: 2013 Dec 31
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Antonietta Bruni, aka Toni
Applicant
– and –
Danial Keedi, aka Daniel, Dani, Danny, Keddi, Kheedi, Martinez
Respondent
DECISION ON MOTION TO VARY
Belch J.
Released: December 31, 2013