Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FC-23-00000013-0000
DATE: 2024-11-06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
BETWEEN:
Kristen Geuze
Applicant
J. Nabuurs, for the Applicant
- and -
Rhyan Aaron Beal
Self-Represented
Respondent
HEARD: October 15, 16, and 18, 2024
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J. R. HENDERSON
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] The applicant, Kristen Geuze, and the respondent, Rhyan Beal, lived together in a common-law relationship from approximately 2008 until January 2022. They have three children, namely Lauren born April 17, 2010, Ethan born February 28, 2018, and Aidan born November 10, 2021. The children have been in the primary care of the applicant since the separation.
[2] The parties resolved some of their parenting issues by way of written consents that were signed at the start of the trial. The outstanding issues that are the subject of this decision include the primary residence of the children, parenting time, decision-making responsibility for the children, and child support payable by the respondent, including arrears.
FINDINGS OF FACT
[3] The parties started living together in Toronto, Ontario in early 2008. They moved to Grimsby, Ontario in approximately 2009 and they have generally lived in the Niagara area since that time.
[4] The respondent was the primary breadwinner. He had several unskilled jobs until he started working at NRB Welding in approximately 2011. At NRB, he became a welder, and he has been able to use his welding skills to earn a good income working for various businesses thereafter.
[5] In 2020, the respondent’s taxable income was $61,354. In 2021, his taxable income was $62,795. Toward the end of 2021, he lost his job at Zwart Systems. Then, he started working again at NRB Welding.
[6] After the separation in 2022, the respondent worked at both NRB and Ellis-Don, but he had some periods of unemployment. His 2022 and 2023 income tax returns and notices of assessment were not introduced into evidence at the trial. In March 2024, the respondent started a new job as a welder at Steelcon earning the equivalent of $66,000 per year.
[7] During the early years of cohabitation, the applicant generally did not have employment, although she earned small amounts of money by doing some piecework and by working a few hours per week at a pizza restaurant.
[8] In approximately 2019, the applicant started operating a daycare business out of the parties’ home. She has continued to operate that home daycare after the parties separated. Her taxable income for 2022 was $15,587, and her taxable income for 2023 was $12,681.
[9] By November 2021, both parties agreed that their relationship was failing. Both parties sought out the company of other people, and the respondent acknowledged that he was drinking heavily. At the time, the parties were renting a large older home on Williams Street in Beamsville, Ontario.
[10] There was an incident at the Beamsville home on January 20, 2022, that led to the separation. There had been an argument between the applicant and the respondent, and the respondent consumed a large amount of alcohol. He went into the basement and strung a rope so that a noose was hanging from the basement ceiling. He threatened, or attempted, to commit suicide. The applicant confronted the respondent in the basement and attempted to intervene.
[11] The parties’ daughter, Lauren, observed the argument and observed her father drunk in the basement threatening to commit suicide. The applicant’s mother and a family friend attended the home to assist the parties. Thereafter, the respondent vacated the home.
[12] Immediately after the respondent left the Beamsville home, he stayed with a family friend, Sue. Shortly after the separation, the respondent was arrested in February 2022 for impaired driving and spent the night in jail.
[13] The three children remained in the Beamsville home with the applicant. The parties agreed that parenting time for the respondent should be supervised at first given the circumstances of the separation. Therefore, for the first few months, while the respondent was living with Sue, the respondent had regular dinner visits with the children, supervised by Sue.
[14] The respondent started to rent his own residence starting in approximately April 2022. Thereafter, the respondent requested increased and unsupervised parenting time, and the applicant agreed to change the respondent’s parenting time.
[15] For approximately the next year, the applicant and the respondent had an arrangement whereby the respondent had parenting time with the children on alternate weekends from Friday to Sunday, overnight every Wednesday, and every Sunday during the day. Generally, the parties followed this revised parenting schedule, although it was often adjusted depending upon the circumstances of both parties.
[16] In May 2023, the respondent did not renew his lease on his residence and was without a home. He started living in the spare rooms or on the couches of his friends. He has resided with friends since that time.
[17] Commencing in May 2023, because he did not have a suitable residence, the respondent agreed that it would not be appropriate for him to have overnight parenting time; however, the respondent had a strong desire to spend time with his children. Accordingly, the parties agreed on an updated parenting time schedule that provided for the respondent’s parenting time in a two-week cycle. In week one, parenting time was on Friday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and in week two, parenting time was on Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
[18] The respondent has exercised parenting time with Ethan and Aidan on this updated schedule for the last 17 months. I accept his evidence that during his parenting time he tries to take the children to parks, museums, or movies. They do not spend overnights with him. The respondent’s parenting time with Lauren is discussed below.
[19] The respondent testified that he hopes to soon have a new residence; during the trial, he was awaiting receipt of a tenancy agreement for a rental home in Grimsby starting November 1, 2024. Once he has obtained a new residence, the respondent wishes to have the children overnight. The applicant will agree to that request if the respondent obtains a suitable residence.
[20] The applicant continues to live in the Beamsville home and continues to run her home daycare out of the Beamsville home. The applicant’s new partner, Adam, moved into the Beamsville home in February 2022, shortly after the parties’ separation. The respondent has been very critical of the applicant’s relationship with Adam, the applicant’s decision to let Adam move into the home, the applicant’s decision to operate her business instead of seeking employment, and the way in which the applicant spends her money.
[21] On June 8, 2023, Walters J. made a temporary order that the respondent pay child support of $774 per month, commencing June 15, 2023, based on income of $38,259 per year. Since the June 2023 order, the respondent has only paid a total of $800 in child support.
[22] There have been some troublesome incidents with respect to all three children since the separation. In the spring and summer of 2022, it was revealed that the applicant was having adult discussions with Lauren about his relationship with her mother and his dislike or distrust of Adam. In my view, these discussions were clearly inappropriate. The respondent now acknowledges that he should not have been speaking with Lauren about these issues.
[23] In the summer of 2022, Lauren told the respondent that she was non-binary and talked to him about her gender identity. I find that the respondent did not react well to Lauren’s disclosure as he was critical and unaccepting of Lauren’s view. On the witness stand, the respondent acknowledged that he had a “nasty argument” with Lauren about these issues. The net result was that Lauren became extremely upset about her relationship with the respondent.
[24] Following Lauren’s disclosure to the respondent, Lauren began to show signs of mental health problems. She started to harm herself. This led to a significant argument between the parties in which the respondent was abusive and aggressive toward the applicant. The applicant was aware of Lauren’s gender identity issues and her troubled relationship with her father, and she arranged for Lauren to commence counselling.
[25] On January 8, 2024, MacNeil J. made a final order, on consent, that the respondent’s parenting time with Lauren shall be in accordance with Lauren’s views and preferences. The parties agree that this final order should remain in place.
[26] There have also been some incidents involving both Ethan and Aidan. For example, at one point the respondent discovered that Adam had spanked Ethan. This caused the respondent to become angry and critical of the applicant. To the applicant’s credit, after the respondent told her about Ethan being spanked, the applicant spoke with Adam and informed him that he was not to spank the children at any time.
[27] There was also an incident in which Ethan told the respondent that he had fallen into a fire while under Adam’s care. I note that Ethan had not been burned or physically harmed in any way. However, this revelation sparked a prolonged, angry confrontation between the respondent and the applicant.
[28] Another incident occurred when the respondent picked up Aidan from the applicant’s residence and drove with Aidan to Huntsville, Ontario for a short vacation. Aidan had been complaining about a sore arm to both of the parties, and when the respondent took him to a hospital in Huntsville it was discovered that there was a dislocation in his arm. The respondent claimed that the applicant had hidden this injury from him. The applicant testified, and I accept, that shortly before the respondent picked up Aidan, Aidan had slipped in the bathtub and she had grabbed him by his arm. I find that she had informed the respondent when he picked up Aidan that Aidan had a sore arm.
[29] Both parties have contacted Family and Children Services (“FACS”) in the past. The only call made by the applicant to FACS was in January 2022, shortly after the respondent’s suicide attempt, when she called for advice. The respondent made at least two complaints to FACS, one in 2022 when he complained about abuse of the children by the applicant and Adam, and one in 2023 when he complained about Adam. FACS conducted investigations, but they closed their files quickly without any negative findings.
[30] The parties use the Talking Parents app to communicate about the children. The excerpts from the Talking Parents app that were filed as exhibits show that the parties’ communications on the app often go far beyond the children’s issues. The respondent often uses aggressive and abusive language on the Talking Parents app to blame the applicant for problems with the children. In particular, the respondent regularly criticizes the applicant for failing to enroll the children in extracurricular activities, and he alleges that the applicant spends money on items such as a computer and a television rather than children’s activities. He is also critical of many of the day-to-day decisions made by the applicant about the children.
THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
[31] At the commencement of the trial, by way of two written consents, the parties agreed to many parenting orders, including orders regarding holidays, disclosure, right to information, travel, relocation, and section 7 expenses. I will make those orders in accordance with the consents filed.
[32] The applicant requests an order that the children’s primary residence remains with her and that the current parenting time schedule for the respondent continue without any change. The applicant agrees that the respondent’s parenting time with Ethan and Aidan will be extended to include overnights on Fridays and Saturdays of week one of the schedule when the respondent obtains a suitable residence.
[33] The respondent’s position is that Ethan and Aidan should reside an equal amount of time with both parties, effective immediately. If he does not have a suitable residence for overnights, he asks for parenting time during the day on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of every week, plus alternate Thursdays. When he obtains a suitable residence, he asks for a rotating 3/4 day weekly schedule.
[34] Regarding decision making, the applicant requests that she have sole decision-making responsibility for the children. I note that the terms of the consents filed include ancillary terms that require the parties to keep each other informed and permit both parties to have direct dealings with the children’s teachers, coaches, and health care providers.
[35] At the start of the trial, the respondent asked for joint decision-making responsibility and conceded that the applicant should have tie-breaking authority if there is a deadlock. However, in closing submissions the respondent asked that he be granted the tie-breaking authority.
[36] Regarding child support, the applicant requests child support payable by the respondent retroactive to February 1, 2022, with an increase as of October 1, 2024 based on the respondent’s increased income. The respondent submits that he should not pay child support prior to the June 2023 temporary order, and thereafter child support should be at a reduced rate.
PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND PARENTING TIME
[37] The Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”), requires that, in making a parenting order or contact order, “the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child.” In doing so, the court is required to consider “all factors related to the circumstances of the child” and “give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.” The CLRA lists a number of factors related to the circumstances of the child that should be considered. See s.24(1), (2), and (3) of the CLRA.
[38] I find that the children’s primary residence has been with the applicant since the separation in January 2022, and that all three of the children have been in the primary care of the applicant since that time.
[39] The applicant has operated a home daycare out of the Beamsville home at all relevant times, and accordingly the applicant has been present and available for the children at all times. I find that the applicant is a warm, nurturing person who deeply loves her children. The children are well cared for when they are in the applicant’s care.
[40] I find that the respondent also deeply loves his children and wants to do what is best for them. He is protective and proactive about his children, so much so that he is extraordinarily persistent in advocating for what he feels is in their best interests. I have no concern for the children’s physical welfare while they are in the respondent’s care.
[41] The difficulty for the respondent is the emotional component of his interactions with the children and the applicant. I find that the respondent continues to be upset about the separation, about the fact that his children do not live with him, and about the fact that Adam now lives with his wife and children. I find that when issues arise about the children, the respondent tends to react impulsively and aggressively. He tends to lash out at the applicant and blame her for any problems with the children. Moreover, the respondent acknowledges that he has had inappropriate discussions with Lauren about the details of his relationship with, and separation from, her mother.
[42] In my view, this emotional and aggressive behaviour by the respondent has contributed in part to Lauren’s ongoing mental health issues and may yet affect the two younger children. That is, the respondent’s tendency toward an intense emotional reaction to troublesome issues may cause emotional harm to the children, the extent of which may not yet be known.
[43] Stability is an important factor in determining the best interests of the children. In the present case, I find that all three of the children have an immediate need for stability. In this case, I refer to both physical stability in the children’s home environment and emotional stability in the children’s relationships with their parents.
[44] I find that the applicant is more capable than the respondent of providing psychological and emotional stability for the children. I find that the applicant usually handles day-to-day issues with the children in a balanced, even-tempered way. This results in the children being more settled and secure in the applicant’s care. Therefore, the children’s emotional and psychological well-being is better served if they have primary residence with the applicant.
[45] In addition, if the children are primarily resident with the applicant, the children will primarily reside in the home in which they have lived for many years. This continuity of their physical residence will provide the children with enhanced stability and security.
[46] The respondent submits that he is about to obtain a new permanent suitable residence, and therefore he can offer a good stable home for the children on a long-term basis. For everyone’s benefit, I hope that the respondent in fact obtains adequate housing, but his past residential history has been inconsistent. He has lived in spare rooms or on couches of friends for the past 17 months. The fact that he is about to rent a new residence is a positive step, but it does not necessarily mean that his transience will definitely end. It may simply amount to another change in his residential history.
[47] Moreover, in cross-examination, the respondent answered questions about his budget if and when he obtains his proposed residence. The respondent acknowledged that he can only pay his anticipated expenses, including rent and truck payments, if his mother contributes approximately $950 per month to his expenses, which she is willing to do at present. However, the respondent’s budget does not include any expense for child support. The respondent testified that if he was ordered to pay periodic child support, he would likely break his lease for his new residence and look for another place. This does not give the court confidence that he will have stable long-term housing.
[48] The provision of childcare is also a factor in considering primary residence. On this issue, I accept that both parties have adequate plans for childcare while they have parenting time with the children. The applicant runs a home daycare and therefore the children will remain with her in her home when they are not at school. For his part, the respondent’s job schedule is such that he works Monday to Thursday every week in 12-hour shifts. His work schedule allows for him to have the children in his care every Friday through Sunday, as is his request.
[49] Another important factor in the primary residence decision is a party’s “willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent” as set out in s.24(3)(c) of the CLRA. In my view, this factor strongly favours the applicant’s position. The evidence is that the respondent is very critical about the applicant’s ability to care for the children, the decisions that the applicant has made regarding her relationship with Adam, the applicant’s decision to continue running a home daycare, and how the applicant spends her money.
[50] The respondent acknowledges that he has already discussed his criticisms of the applicant with his daughter Lauren. Given the respondent’s lack of emotional regulation, I expect that he will also discuss his criticisms of the applicant with Ethan and Aidan. In any event, I find that the respondent is disrespectful of the applicant, and that he makes his displeasure with the applicant known to the children.
[51] Finally, the respondent’s position is based on the premise that he will obtain a new residence, that the new residence will be suitable, that he can accommodate having the children with him every day that he is not working, and that he will be physically and emotionally supportive of the children. The respondent’s plan is commendable, but it is based on events and factors that have not yet occurred. In my view, a court should not make an order for parenting time based on a hope that one party will make significant changes to their present circumstances.
[52] For all these reasons, I find that it is in the best interests of the three children that they primarily reside with the applicant. As agreed, the respondent’s parenting time with Lauren shall be in accordance with her views and preferences.
[53] These reasons also support an order that the respondent’s parenting time with Ethan and Aidan continue without any change. Therefore, the respondent’s parenting time with Ethan and Aidan shall be on alternating weekends. On the first weekend, parenting times will be on Friday from 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m., Saturday from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and Sunday from 12:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. On the second weekend, the respondent shall have parenting time with Ethan and Aidan on Sunday from 12:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.
[54] In addition, I order that the parenting time schedule will be reviewable when and if the respondent obtains a new residence. If the residence is deemed to be suitable by the applicant, then the respondent’s parenting time with Ethan and Aidan will be expanded to include overnights on Friday and Saturday of the first weekend.
DECISION-MAKING RESPONSIBILITY
[55] Since the separation, the applicant has made most of the important decisions for all of the children. She is very capable of continuing to do so.
[56] I accept that the respondent is intelligent, well spoken, and protective of his children. I accept that he is sincere in his desire to do what is in the best interests of the children, and that he would likely make appropriate decisions for his children.
[57] However, the Ontario Court of Appeal held in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis (2005), 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA), 249 D.L.R. (4th) 620 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 11, that before a court makes an order for joint decision-making responsibility there must be some evidence that, despite their differences, the parties are able to communicate effectively with one another. The same concept is discussed in detail in Roloson v. Clyde, 2017 ONSC 3642, at paras. 58-59. I find that this is a real concern in the present case.
[58] As I stated earlier, the respondent tends to act in an aggressive and emotional manner when an issue arises about one of the children. That reaction, in my view, is fuelled by the respondent’s obvious feelings of anger and resentment toward the applicant.
[59] Events that have caused aggressive attacks by the respondent include Lauren’s disclosure of her gender identity, Lauren’s self-harm, Ethan’s fall into a fire, Adam spanking Ethan, Adam crashing the respondent’s former motor vehicle, and Aidan’s dislocated arm. When each of these events occurred, I find that the respondent blamed the applicant, in whole or in part, for the situation and accused the applicant of failing in her responsibilities as a parent.
[60] I find that the contrary is true. I find that in each of these situations, the applicant has responded in a calm, balanced, and sensible manner. For example, when Lauren became depressed or anxious about her circumstances, the applicant arranged for her to engage in counselling. When the respondent’s residence and work situations changed, the applicant was amenable to changing the parenting time schedule. When the applicant was informed that Adam had spanked Ethan, the applicant spoke to Adam and told him that he was not permitted to do so, and there have been no further problems.
[61] The respondent has admitted that he has acted poorly in several of these situations. For example, even before the parties separated in the fall of 2021, the respondent said that he inappropriately engaged in heated arguments with the applicant in the presence of the children. He has acknowledged that, shortly after the separation, he wrongly questioned Lauren about whether the applicant was putting pressure on her. In July 2022, when Lauren talked about her gender identity, the respondent said that she called him a narcissist and he had a nasty argument with her. In July 2023, when he discovered that Lauren was harming herself, he angrily confronted the applicant in the Talking Parents app. He also thought that this incident may have been a “trap” set for him by Lauren or the applicant. Further, he acknowledged speaking to Lauren about his views about Adam moving into the house, which generally exacerbated the situation.
[62] In those cases, and others, the respondent testified that he recognized that his behaviour was inappropriate, and he apologized. However, in most of those cases his apologies were not unconditional. On at least three occasions he apologized by saying that he “took the bait.” He agreed that he had overreacted, but he felt that the applicant or Lauren, or both, had baited him into acting poorly. In my view, this explanation for his actions heavily undermines his apologies.
[63] The respondent has also consistently been very critical of the applicant, even while he was on the witness stand. For example, he testified that the applicant was not spending any money on the children’s extracurricular activities. He believed that his children were “not doing anything” when they were in the applicant’s presence. He pointed out that Ethan had a tablet and Lauren had a television. He thought that the money that was spent on those items should have been spent on extracurriculars. In my view, this is not a valid criticism, particularly considering that the respondent has paid almost no child support since the separation in 2022.
[64] Further, the respondent has taken conflicting positions with the applicant depending upon what might benefit him the most at a given time. For example, he stated on the witness stand that he understood why the applicant sheltered the children from him in early 2022 after the separation as Lauren had witnessed his suicide attempt, the parties had separated, and shortly thereafter the respondent had been arrested. However, on another occasion on the witness stand, he was very critical of the applicant because she had refused to allow the children to be with him 50 percent of the time during that period.
[65] The respondent’s hostility toward the applicant is evidenced in some of the text exchanges set out in the Talking Parents app. In May 2022, he accused the applicant of alienating Lauren from him. However, it is clear that the respondent did not recognize that Lauren was suffering emotionally as she loved her father but she had just witnessed his suicide attempt, her father was talking to her about adult issues, and her father was undermining her mother’s behavior. All of this troubled Lauren.
[66] In July 2023, there was a similar reaction by the respondent when Lauren told the applicant that she did not wish to accompany her father on a trip to Huntsville. This resulted in another accusation by respondent that the applicant was alienating Lauren.
[67] I repeat my earlier comment that, in July 2022 when Lauren talked to the respondent about her gender identity, the respondent engaged Lauren in a nasty argument. This is one of the incidents in which he said that he “took the bait” from either Lauren or the applicant.
[68] On another occasion, there was a problem because Aidan was not falling asleep at nap time. The respondent blamed the applicant or Adam for this problem and wrote, “I’ll remember to be more like you next time you and Lauren melt down and you expect me to address it. I’ll look for ways to fuck you, rather than help. I don’t know what I expected. They are just money to you.”
[69] Further, I find that the respondent has not respected Lauren’s mental health issues; he tends to blame the applicant for Lauren’s issues. For example, when he learned that Lauren had been cutting herself, he accused the applicant and Adam of contemplating institutionalizing Lauren. He did so by sending a number of angry messages to the applicant. In response, the applicant informed the respondent that she was aware of the issue, that she had Lauren in counselling, and that she had it under control. The respondent responded by repeatedly saying, “You are killing our daughter.”
[70] In my view, at this point, the parties are not able to set aside their differences and work together in the best interests of the children. Therefore, I find that the applicant should have sole decision-making responsibility for all three of the children.
CHILD SUPPORT
[71] Pursuant to the June 2023 order, the respondent was required to pay child support of $774 per month, commencing June 15, 2023, based on annual income of $38,259. The applicant requests an order that this amount of child support be payable by the respondent retroactive to February 1, 2022.
[72] The respondent’s tax returns and notices of assessment for 2022 and 2023 were not introduced into evidence. In February 2023, the respondent swore a financial statement in which he deposed that his annualized income at that time was $38,259. This is the figure that was used by Walters J. in the June 2023 order.
[73] The respondent testified that he had some periods of unemployment in 2022 and 2023. He testified, and I accept, that he obtained new employment with Steelcon effective March 25, 2024, and since that time he has been earning income from employment that is the equivalent of $66,000 per year. This is slightly more than the annual income he was earning in the few years prior to the separation.
[74] In consideration of the respondent’s irregular earnings during 2022 and 2023, the applicant does not ask for an increase in child support as of March 2024, but only asks that the support continue at $774 per month to September 2024. Thereafter, she asks that child support be increased to $1,319 per month as of October 1, 2024, based on the respondent’s current income of $66,000 per year.
[75] The respondent “defends” the applicant’s request for retroactive child support by submitting that he wanted to have equal parenting time with the children from the date of separation. The applicant did not agree to his request, even during times when the respondent had a suitable residence. Therefore, the respondent submits that his child support obligation should be decreased or eliminated. In my view, this argument is not a valid defence to a child support claim. A court cannot retroactively change the living arrangements for the children. A court will make a child support order based on the actual circumstances.
[76] The respondent also submits that he has not paid child support because he feels that the applicant would not spend the child support money on the children. This is a common submission made by payor spouses, but it is not valid. A payor spouse often does not recognize that periodic child support is used to pay many hidden child raising expenses, such as the cost of housing, utilities, food, and transportation. Moreover, a payor spouse has no right to dictate the way in which periodic child support is spent.
[77] Accordingly, I will order that the respondent shall pay child support for the three children retroactive to February 1, 2022. I accept the applicant’s submission that it is appropriate to base the amount of child support on the respondent’s annualized income of $38,259 for all payments from that date until September 2024.
[78] I will also order that, commencing October 1, 2024, the respondent shall pay child support to the applicant in the amount of $1,319 per month on the first day of each and every month based on his annual income of $66,000.
[79] Regarding arrears, I find that the respondent has made one child support payment in the amount of $800 since separation. Therefore, the arrears to the end of September 2024 are $23,968. If I add the one payment due on October 1, 2024, based on the new rate, the arrears as of October 31, 2024 are $25,287.
CONCLUSION
[80] For the above-mentioned reasons I make the following orders:
Final orders will go in accordance with the two written consents filed as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 at this trial.
The primary residence of the three children, Lauren, Ethan, and Aidan, shall be with the applicant.
The respondent’s parenting time with Lauren shall be in accordance with Lauren’s views and preferences.
The respondent’s parenting time with the children Ethan and Aidan shall be on alternating weekends. On the first weekend, the respondent shall have parenting time on Friday from 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m., Saturday from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and Sunday from 12:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. On the second weekend, the respondent shall have parenting time on Sunday from 12:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.
The respondent’s parenting time schedule shall be reviewable when and if the respondent obtains a new residence. If the residence is deemed to be suitable by the applicant, then the respondent’s parenting time with Ethan and Aidan shall be expanded to include overnights on Friday and Saturday of the first weekend of the schedule.
The applicant shall have sole decision-making responsibility for the three children.
The respondent shall pay child support to the applicant for the three children on the first day of each and every month from February 1, 2022, to September 1, 2024, inclusive, in the amount of $774 per month based on his annual income of $38,259.
Commencing on October 1, 2024, the respondent shall pay child support to the applicant for the three children on the first day of each and every month in the amount of $1,319 per month based on his annual income of $66,000.
The arrears of child support owed by the respondent to the applicant as of October 31, 2024 are fixed at $25,287. The respondent shall pay this amount in full within six months of the date of this order.
All child support payments shall be made through the Family Responsibility Office.
[81] If either party requests costs of this trial, I direct that the party seeking relief shall deliver written submissions to the Judicial Assistants at: St.Catharines.SCJJA@ontario.ca within 20 days of the release of this decision with responding submissions to be delivered within 10 days thereafter. If no submissions are received within this timeframe, the parties will be deemed to have settled the costs issues as between themselves.
J. R Henderson, J.
Date Released: November 6, 2024
COURT FILE NO.: FC-23-00000013-0000
DATE: 2024-11-06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
BETWEEN:
Kristen Geuze
Applicant
- and -
Rhyan Aaron Beal
Respondent
reasons for judgment
J. R. Henderson, J.
Date Released: November 6, 2024