Susan Berry

The applicant and respondent separated after a 10-year relationship.

The applicant sought an interest in the respondent's home, claiming unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The court found a joint family venture existed and awarded the applicant half the net value of the home.

The court also addressed parenting time for their special needs child, ordering unsupervised access conditional on the respondent providing clean drug tests due to a history of opioid addiction.

Furthermore, the court found both parties had misappropriated settlement funds belonging to the child and ordered the respondent to repay the funds into court.

The applicant mother brought an uncontested motion to change a final order that had provided for shared decision-making, week-about parenting, and no child support.

Following an incident where the respondent father locked the children out of his home, the children resided exclusively with the applicant.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding both parenting and child support.

After conducting a judicial interview with the two older children, the court awarded the applicant sole decision-making and primary residence, with no contact for the respondent.

The court also imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent and ordered him to pay Guideline child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family properties following a 16-year marriage.

The respondent husband claimed he was disabled, unemployed, and had no assets, asserting that properties and funds were owned by his parents.

The court found the husband and his parents lacked credibility and had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court imputed an income of $70,000 to the husband based on his intentional under-employment and hidden wealth.

Applying the presumption of resulting trust, the court found the husband held beneficial interests in several commercial properties registered in his mother's name.

The court ordered the husband to pay lump sum child and spousal support due to his history of non-payment and hidden assets, and ordered an equalization payment of $286,884.54 to the applicant.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' 10-year-old child and permission to relocate with the child to Slovakia.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought equal parenting time.

The court found that the child had a strained relationship with the father, who remained fixated on a past domestic incident, while the mother had been the primary caregiver and presented a detailed plan for the relocation.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the mother sole custody and permitted the move to Slovakia.

The court also ordered the father to pay lump sum spousal and child support based on an imputed income of $75,000.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order regarding spousal and child support, and sought various adjustments to his accumulated support arrears with the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

He also sought a declaration that a mortgage he granted to his parents was valid and took priority over the FRO's lien.

The court terminated spousal support and adjusted child support on consent due to the applicant mother's remarriage.

However, the court dismissed the respondent's requests to reduce his support arrears, finding he could not benefit from his deliberate failure to pay support.

The court also found the mortgage granted to the respondent's parents was a fraudulent conveyance designed to avoid his court-ordered obligations, and ordered the proceeds of the sale of his condominium to be paid to the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion for sole custody and primary residence of the parties' two young children, along with full table child support.

The respondent father sought sole custody and a variable parenting schedule based on his work as a pilot, with set-off child support.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving but exhibited high conflict and poor communication.

The court ordered shared (parallel) custody, dividing decision-making responsibilities between the parents, and established a fixed, predictable parenting schedule to provide stability for the children.

The father was ordered to pay full table child support and his proportionate share of section 7 daycare expenses.