Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-22-29716-000 Date: 2023-07-25 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Edna Ebrahimi, Applicant And: Mesrobe Mazakian, Respondent

Before: M.D. Faieta J.

Counsel: Sunny-Venn Vincent, for the Applicant Diana Vasilescu, for the Respondent

Heard: March 23, 2023

Endorsement

[1] The parties separated in November 2021 after ten years of marriage. There are two children of the marriage: Anabel, age 11, and Adeline, age 8. The Applicant mother, age 52, resides in the former matrimonial home with the children and her parents. The Respondent father, age 44, resides with his parents. Both parties receive social assistance. The Applicant receives $1,635 per month and the Respondent receives $414 per month. The Respondent is a master electrician. The Applicant states that the Respondent is capable of earning a significant income that is much greater than his stated income. The Respondent states that he is disabled and unable to work.

[2] By Order dated November 15, 2021, the Respondent pays $1,270 per month for child support for two children from a previous relationship, based on the Respondent’s anticipated income from private disability benefits, described below, of $66,000 per year. See Mazakian v Olivieria, Court File No. 208/07, Superior Court of Justice, Peterborough, Ontario. RBC denied the Respondent’s claim. The Respondent owes arrears of about $12,000 as of March 1, 2023.

[3] The Applicant mother brings a motion for a temporary order that:

(a) imputes income of $170,000 per year to the Respondent father. (b) the Respondent pay child support for the two children commencing April 1, 2023. (c) the Respondent pay spousal support to the Applicant in the amount of $1,888.00 per month. (d) the Respondent pay arrears of child support of $2,999.00 commencing May 1, 2022.

[4] The Respondent father brings a cross-motion for a temporary order that he have one overnight per month with his two daughters.

Issue #1: Should an income of $170,000 per year be imputed to the Respondent father?

[5] The Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 (“the Guidelines”) serve to “… establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation”: See Guidelines, s. 1(a).

[6] Under the Guidelines, the amount of child support generally does not turn on proof of their needs: S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.), 2006 SCC 37, paras. 38, 44-48. Instead, the amount of child support is based the number of children being supported and the income of the payor parent as shown on their income tax return unless that amount does not “fairly and fully” reflect the payor’s income: See Guidelines, s. 16; Mason v Mason, 2016 ONCA 725, para. 161;

[7] A spouse’s total income may be imputed as an amount greater than the total income shown on their income tax return when a spouse is capable of earning more money than their declared income or they have failed to disclose financial information. Subsection 19(1) of the Guidelines states:

The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following:

(a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse. …

(f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so; …

[8] In Duffy v. Duffy, 2009 NLCA 48, at para. 35, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal found that the imputation of income provisions of the Guidelines reflect the following principles:

1. The fundamental obligation of a parent to support his or her children takes precedence over the parent's own interests and choices.
2. A parent will not be permitted to knowingly avoid or diminish, and may not choose to ignore, his or her obligation to support his or her children.
3. A parent is required to act responsibly when making financial decisions that may affect the level of child support available from that parent.
4. Imputing income to a parent on the basis that the parent is "intentionally under-employed or unemployed" does not incorporate a requirement for proof of bad faith. "Intentionally" in this context clarifies that the provision does not apply to situations beyond the parent's control.
5. The determination to impute income is discretionary, as the court considers appropriate in the circumstances.
6. Where a parent is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, the court may exercise its discretion not to impute income where that parent establishes the reasonableness of his or her decision.
7. A parent will not be excused from his or her child support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations or interests. Nor will it be acceptable for a parent to choose to work for future rewards to the detriment of the present needs of his or her children, unless the parent establishes the reasonableness of his or her course of action.
8. A parent must provide proper and full disclosure of financial information. Failure to do so may result in the court drawing an adverse inference and imputing income.

[9] More recently, the principles that govern the imputation of income in a child support case were described by Madsen J. in Evans v. Evans, 2023 ONSC 3919, at para. 77, as follows:

a. Section 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines provides that the court may impute income to a parent in appropriate circumstances. Those circumstances include but are not limited to circumstances where the spouse is intentionally unemployed or underemployed, other than as required by the needs of the child, or the reasonable health or educational needs of the spouse: see s. 19(1)(a). Other circumstances include where the parent failed to provide income information when under a legal duty to do so: see s. 19(1)(f). b. Imputation is one method by which a court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. c. The three-part test for the imputation of income is set out in Drygala v. Pauli (2002), 164 O.A.C. 241, at para. 23, as follows: i. Is the spouse intentionally underemployed or unemployed; ii. If so, is the intentional or unemployment required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child, or reasonable health needs; iii. If the answer to (ii) is negative, the court must decide whether to exercise its discretion to impute income, and if so, determine the amount to be imputed in the circumstances. d. There is no need to find an intention to evade support obligations to find that a spouse is intentionally underemployed or unemployed. That a spouse is earning less than they are capable of earning will suffice. e. A person making a decision to start a business in which he or she has no experience may result in a finding that he or she is intentionally underemployed: Dang v. Hornby (2006), 33 R.F.L. (6th) 113 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 24; Ruszczak v. Scherbluck, 2012 ONCJ 14, at para. 28; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719. Where a party chooses to pursue self-employment, the court will examine whether this is a reasonable choice in the circumstances: see Smith v. Smith, 2012 ONSC 1116, at para. 81. A parent cannot pursue an improvident career path at the expense of the child: see Evans v. Gravely (2000), 15 R.F.L. (5th) 74 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 11. See also Tillmans v. Tillmans, 2013 ONSC 5500, at para. 99. f. If a party chooses to pursue self-employment as an alternative income earning path the court will examine whether this choice was reasonable in all of the circumstances, and may impute an income if it determines that the decision was not appropriate having regard to the parent's child support obligations: see Lawson v. Lawson (2006), 81 O.R. (3d) 321, at para. 36; Smith, at para. 81. g. Parents can take jobs which generate less income as long as the decision is reasonable. However, a support payor cannot select a job merely because it suits his or her purposes. When an employment decision results in a significant reduction of child support, it must be justified in a compelling way: see Riel v. Holland (2003), 177 O.A.C. 162 (C.A.), at para. 23; B.(G.T.) v. B.(Z.B.), 2014 ONCJ 382, at para. 66; Rilli v. Rilli, at paras. 18-26. h. Courts have a significant degree of discretion when imputing income: see Menegaldo v. Menegaldo, 2012 ONSC 2915, at para. 49. In determining an amount to impute, the court must have regard to the parent’s capacity to earn an income in light of factors such as employment history, age, education, training, experience, health, and available employment opportunities. The court looks to the amount of income the payor could earn if he or she worked to capacity: see Lawson, at para. 36. i. The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made: see Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, 248 O.A.C. 168, at para. 28; Banning v. Bobrowski, [2007] O.J. No. 3927 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 10. j. Where income has been imputed in an initial Application, the issue will generally be res judicata on a Motion to Change: see Bemrose v. Fetter, 2007 ONCA 637; Nejatie v. Signore, 2014 ONCJ 653. Imputation is a fact, not an estimate or a guess. Trang v. Trang, 2013 ONSC 1980, at para. 51. Where income has been imputed, a support payor will need to demonstrate a material change since the making of the imputation order: see Ruffolo v. David, 2016 ONSC 754 (Div. Ct.), at para. 20.

[10] The Respondent father, age 44, emigrated to Canada with his parents when he was about four years old.

[11] The Respondent started working as an electrician in 2004 and is a master electrician.

[12] In March 2013, the Respondent incorporated Mez’s Quality Electric Limited (“the Company”) under which he provided electrician services. He states that he was healthy and worked at full capacity on installing electrical wiring in the construction of custom-built homes.

[13] The Respondent states that he suffered a shoulder injury as a result of a slip and fall in 2017. No particulars of this incident are provided. The Respondent states that his income has dwindled since that time.

[14] Between 2017 and 2020, the Respondent states that he continued to work at a reduced capacity because he could no longer keep his arm above his head for long periods of time and switched to service calls in government housing which was less demanding than wiring full homes. This type of work was also less financially lucrative than work on custom homes. The Respondent states that he suffered a significant reduction in his income which led to him experiencing “significant mental health issues including depression, anxiety and panic attacks”. The Respondent states that he continues to struggle with his shoulder injury and mental health.

[15] Due to his health issues, the Respondent states that in April 2020, the Company filed a Consumer Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3. The Company owes $27,000 in taxes. In fact, the exhibit appended to his affidavit shows that it was the Respondent that filed a consumer proposal on April 23, 2020. The cause of his insolvency was described as follows:

No work since COVID-19. Injured two years ago and out of work for 9 months with income reduced by 50% when able to return to work. Court battle for child support over 1 ½ years further reducing my income.

[16] Although the Respondent states that he has not been physically able to work as an electrician since April 2020, he incorporated another company, Ontario Wide Electric Ltd in April 2021 which he closed seven months later.

[17] The Respondent’s Notices of Assessment show that his total income for 2019-2021 was as follows:

2019– $39,237 2020 - $31,633 2021- $18,600

[18] The Respondent relies on the following medical evidence:

(1) Two, identical, one-page letters from his family doctor, Dr. M.K. Law, dated October 26, 2017 and March 26, 2018 state:

Mr. Mazakian suffers from chronic anxiety disorder, degenerative OA AC joints (shoulder), chronic mechanical low back pain, degenerative posterior medial meniscus (left knee). These medical conditions prevent Mr. Mazakian from earning his previous income as he is required to work fewer hours per day.

(2) A letter, dated April 4, 2019, from Dr. Wayne Potashner to Dr. Law states:

I evaluated [the Respondent] in my office today at your request on April 3, 2019. I have seen him in the past for some pain in his thoracic spine after a fall and also for some shoulder difficulties in his right shoulder which we injected in October 2017. Subsequent to that injection, he did very well and he has resumed his activities as a master electrician. Over the [last] several weeks, he has had increasing difficulties again in his right shoulder especially … .

In summary, this gentleman who is an electrician presents with significant difficulties on the right shoulder as opposed to the left shoulder which is not as badly involved. We discussed the options available. He did respond well to an intra-articular steroid injection. He has asked for us to administer one again today. With that in mind, we have injected the area with corticosteroid. …

[19] The Respondent’s application for disability benefits through his private insurer, RBC Life Insurance Company, application for Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits and application for income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program have been denied.

[20] In October 2020, the Respondent applied to RBC for disability benefits. He received benefits for six months. A letter dated February 17, 2022 from RBC indicates that the Respondent did not claim to be unable to work due to a shoulder injury but rather due to anxiety and depression. RBC denied the Respondent’s claim as they were “not able to reliably establish impairment due to a mental health condition”. Their letter advised the Respondent that his claim was no longer approved. It states:

… According to the Client’s Statement of Disability signed on October 21, 2020, you were unable to work in your occupation as a Master Electrician beginning in June 2020 due to anxiety and depression. We received an Attending Physician’s Supplementary Statement on October 16, 2020 that was completed by Dr. Gulati, your psychiatrist, as part of your initial claim submission.

As you will recall, we previously approved your claim for Individual Disability for the period of July 24, 2020 to January 14, 2021. At the time of our initial decision we had received medical from Dr. Gulati that stated that you were doing well as of January 14, 2021 and that you were stable from a psychiatric perspective. You expressed that you continued to be unable to work due to your medical condition, and we requested additional information from Dr. Gulati and Dr. Law to determine ongoing impairment due to anxiety and depression. Based on our review of the information received, we determined that an Independent Medical Examination (IME) would be necessary to better understand your claimed medical condition and associated restrictions and limitations. …

While we understand that you are claiming to be experiencing symptoms that prevent you from returning to work, it appears that these reported high levels of symptoms are inconsistent with your presentation at several medical appointments with your psychologist, counsellor and family physician. We also note that despite you reporting trauma-related symptoms, Dr. Klassen was unable to identify any traumatic events that would have caused these claimed symptoms. …

As you can see above, your policy requires you to be under appropriate care for the medical conditions causing your inability to work in order to be eligible for Individual Disability Benefits. … Based on all of the information received to date, it appears that you have not been fully compliant with the medical recommendations made by your treating physicians.

Furthermore, there are a number of inconsistencies between your claimed symptoms and inability to work, and the medical facts on file from both your treatment providers and Dr. Klassen. We have been unable to confirm your restrictions and limitations at this time and we have ben unable to link the reported restrictions and limitations to a mental health condition. We are not able to reliably establish impairment due to a mental health condition. … As such, your claim is no longer approved and we have closed your file accordingly.

[21] By letter dated January 25, 2023, the Respondent’s application to ODSP was denied. A letter dated June 16, 2022 states “Unable to work even under little stress for at least 12 months. Needs short term disability”. The letter from the program states:

The Disability Adjudication Unit has reviewed your disability and has found that you do not meet the program’s definition of a person with a disability. This is because:

• You do not have a substantial physical or mental impairment that is continuous or recurrent.
• Your impairment does not substantially restrict you from taking care of yourself, participating in community life or working.

[22] The Respondent has requested an internal review of the denial of his ODSP application.

[23] Subsequent to the denial of his ODSP application, the Respondent has applied for a CPP disability benefit. A decision has not been received. A copy of the application was not provided however a report from Dr. Law, dated February 7, 2023 states that he has diagnosed the Respondent with major depressive disorder, chronic anxiety disorder, panic attacks and hiatus hernia. He states that he has not recommended that the Respondent stop working. Dr. Law states that the Respondent’s psychiatrist, Dr. Gulati, recently retired and told the Respondent to stop working in April 2022.

[24] The Respondent denies the Applicant’s evidence that he currently earns cash profit of $3,500 to $4,000 each week “flipping high end cars”. Although the Respondent acknowledges that his father is a mechanic, he states that he has never “flipped” cars and is not able to do so given his physical limitations, pain and mental health issues. However, the Respondent has attached a text message from May 2021 which shows that the picture of an automobile sent by the Respondent which states “I can give it a coat of paint we can sell it for $15,000 just got posted”.

[25] The Respondent’s sister, Seta Moore, states that the Respondent is a “sociopath”. Amongst other things, Ms. Moore states that she has “… witnessed the Respondent telling his wives that he is broke and has no income for child support he gets up at 6:00 am and goes to work fulltime either doing electrical or fixing houses”. Ms. Moore further states that the Respondent buys houses and hides them under his parents’ names. No evidence was offered to support these assertions which are denied by the Respondent.

[26] The Applicant seeks that $170,000 per year in income be imputed as she believes that he earns $100,000 working as an electrician and a further $70,000 by selling exotic cars. There is no evidence to support these bald assertions. The Applicant also notes that the parties applied to lease a rental property in 2017 at which time the Respondent indicated on the application that he earned $300,000 gross and $60,000 per year net. The Respondent was still working as an electrician on a full-time basis at the time that this lease application was submitted.

[27] The Applicant’s affidavits include numerous undated text messages between the parties which appear to have been sent prior to their separation. Although the Applicant suggests that they show that the Respondent is renovating a house and falsely claiming to his insurer that he cannot work, many of these messages are unclear and require explanation. However, it is clear from those messages that the Applicant appears to be supportive of his actions.

[28] Having considered the largely contradictory evidence filed, I find that the Respondent has failed to establish that his health prevents him from working at all. The evidence from his disability insurance claims suggests that the Respondent’s assertion of been unable to work are overstated. At the very least, it appears that the Respondent continues to work on buying, repairing and selling cars. It makes little sense that he would have incorporated Ontario Wide Electric Ltd in April 2021 if he was unable to continue to work as an electrician. On the other hand, the Applicant’s submission that the Respondent’s income is $170,000 per year is an inflated guesstimate. In the circumstances and given the Respondent’s own statement to a prospective landlord in 2017 that he was earning $60,000.00 per year, I find that it is appropriate, on an interim without prejudice basis, to impute an income of $60,000 per year to the Respondent.

Issue #2: Interim Child Support

[29] Although the parties separated in November 2021, the Applicant seeks that child support commence on May 1, 2022. No explanation was provided.

[30] The Respondent states that he currently pays child support of $200 per month from the $414 per month that he receives from Ontario Works.

[31] He states that on March 31, 2021, the parties sold a property for $100,000.00. He states that the parties used those funds to support themselves until the date of separation. Since separation, the Respondent states that he has used the money left from the sale, as well as payments from RBC for temporary disability support, to pay $800 per month in child support to the Applicant. The Respondent states that he stopped making such payments when the funds ran out.

[32] The Respondent states that he has paid the following amount towards child support:

$800 – On January 2, 2022, February 15, 2022, March 28, 2022, October 6, 2022 $200 – On October 11, 2022, November 20, 2022, December 16, 2022, January 10, 2023, February 7, 2023, and March 3, 2023.

[33] Aside from their own two children, the Applicant mother claims child support for her 17-year-old son from an earlier relationship. The Applicant’s son resided with the parties during their marriage, however the Respondent denies that he is a “child of the marriage. The Notice of Motion indicated that child support was being sought for two, not three, children. This claim was only raised in the Applicant’s Factum and little evidence is available to assess the merits of whether the third child is a “child of the marriage”. I find that it is appropriate to dismiss this claim and that it be addressed at trial rather than by a further motion.

[34] Given that there is no dispute that the Applicant is entitled to child support for two children, I find that it is appropriate to order that interim child support of $915.00 shall be paid effective May 1, 2022.

Issue #3: Interim Spousal Support

[35] A court may make an interim order requiring a spouse to secure and/or pay such sums for as the court thinks is reasonable for the support of the other spouse, pending the determination of an application for spousal support: Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 15.2(2). (“Divorce Act”)

[36] In making an order for spousal support, including an order for interim spousal support, the court shall take into consideration, the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and the following objectives (a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown. (b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage (c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage. And (d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time: Divorce Act, ss. 15.2(4), (6).

[37] The entitlement to spousal support under the Divorce Act, must rest on one or more of a compensatory basis, needs basis or contractual basis: Hendriks v Hendriks, 2022 ONCA 165, paras. 41-43.

[38] On a motion for interim spousal support, the following additional principles, outlined by Harvison-Young J., as she then was, in Teitler v. Dale, [2017] O.J. No. 182, at para. 23, apply:

1. On applications for interim support the applicant’s needs and the respondent’s ability to pay assume greater significance.
2. An interim support order should be sufficient to allow the applicant to continue living at the same standard of living enjoyed prior to separation if the payor's ability to pay warrants it.
3. On interim support applications the court does not embark on an in-depth analysis of the parties’ circumstances which is better left to trial. The court achieves rough justice at best.
4. The courts should not unduly emphasize any one of the statutory considerations above others.
5. On interim applications the need to achieve economic self-sufficiency is often of less significance.
6. Interim support should be ordered within the range suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise.
7. Interim support should only be ordered where it can be said a prima facie case for entitlement has been made out.
8. Where there is a need to resolve contested issues of fact, especially those connected with a threshold issue, such as entitlement, it becomes less advisable to order interim support.

[39] The Applicant states that she has a university degree and is a former legal secretary/law clerk. She states that the Respondent did not allow her to work after they were married. She stayed home and looked after the needs of the Respondent and her children. The Applicant states that she cannot work as the result of an automobile accident that occurred on August 30, 2016 which injured her neck and back as a result. The Respondent states that the Applicant is not disabled and is able to work. The Applicant has submitted no medical evidence to support her assertion that she is disabled and unable to work.

[40] Given the disputed underlying facts related to entitlement, I dismiss the Applicant’s motion for spousal support. This issue is best left to trial where a determination can be made on a full record.

Interim Parenting Order

[41] The Respondent father states that he when left the matrimonial home to live with his parents, the Applicant tried to eliminate him from his daughter’s lives. Initially she refused any parenting time and refused to provide any information about the children. In December 2021, the Respondent resumed parenting time with the children. He has parenting time with his children every other Sunday from 11 am until 6 pm. He has frequent contact with the children via messaging apps. The Respondent had overnight parenting time with the children for two evenings commencing December 27, 2022 following the court’s intervention at a case conference. There were no issues that arose from the overnight parenting time. The Applicant states that the children enjoy their time with the Respondent however complain that their paternal grandmother, with whom the Respondent resides, is “mean, cold, arrogant and withdrawn”. These allegations are denied by the Respondent.

[42] The purpose of an interim parenting order is to provide stability to the children and the parties pending trial. It has been long established that the status quo will be maintained on an interim motion for a parenting order unless cogent evidence that the best interests of the child dictates otherwise: Papp v. Papp, [1970] 1 O.R. 331 (C.A.), para. 34; Gray v. Canonico, 2020 ONSC 5885, para. 48.

[43] The status quo may be established by reference to the parents' practice or the child's routine prior to separation, by any consensual arrangement made after separation, or by court order: Gray, para. 48.

[44] In assessing the best interests of the child, the Court must give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security and well-being: Divorce Act, s. 16(2); Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 24(2) (“CLRA”) have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child: Divorce Act, s. 16(6); CLRA, s. 24(6); Knapp v. Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305, para. 34.

[45] In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including

(a) the child's needs, given the child's age and stage of development, such as the child's need for stability; (b) the nature and strength of the child's relationship with each spouse, each of the child's siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child's life; (c) each spouse's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other spouse; (d) the history of care of the child; (e) the child's views and preferences, giving due weight to the child's age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained; (f) the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage; (g) any plans for the child's care; (h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child; (i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child; (j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things, (i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and (ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and (k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child: Divorce Act, s. 16(3); CLRA, s. 24(3).

[46] Given that she refused to permit the children to have parenting time with the Respondent for a lengthy period immediately after their separation. I have doubt regarding the Applicant’s assertion that the children do not like having overnight parenting time with the Respondent at his parent’s home. It is in their best interests for the children to spend more time with the Respondent in order to strengthen their parent/child relationship. Out of an abundance of caution, the Respondent should also address the children’s reported feelings with his mother in order to ensure that his home is comfortable for them. The Respondent’s motion for increased parenting time is modest and it is granted.

Order

[47] Temporary order to go as follows:

(1) On a without prejudice basis, the Respondent’s income is imputed at $60,000.00 per year. (2) Commencing on May 1, 2022, and continuing on the first of each month thereafter, the Respondent shall pay child support to the Applicant for the children, namely, Anabel Mazakian, born May 28, 2012 and Adeline Mazakian, born October 11, 2014 in the sum of $915.00 per month based on an imputed income of $60,000.00 per year in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines. (3) Support Deduction Order to issue. (4) The Applicant’s claim for interim spousal support is dismissed. (5) The Respondent, Mesrobe Mazakian, shall have parenting time with the children, namely, Anabel Mazakian, born May 28, 2012 and Adeline Mazakian, born October 11, 2014 as follows: (a) Starting on July 30, 2023 and on every fourth Sunday thereafter, the Respondent shall have parenting time from 11 a.m. until 6 p.m.; and (b) Starting on August 12, 2023 and on every fourth Saturday thereafter, the Respondent shall have parenting time from Saturday at noon until Sunday at 6 p.m. (6) The parties shall attend a combined Settlement Conference / Trial Management Conference on November 7, 2023 at 10:00 am. (7) Any party that seeks their costs of these motions shall deliver their costs submissions by August 4, 2023. Responding costs submissions shall be delivered by August 11, 2023. Each costs submission shall be a maximum of three pages exclusive of any offers to settle and bill of costs.

Mr. Justice M.D. Faieta Date: July 25, 2023