Usman Sadiq

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, child support, a restraining order, and a vesting order for the matrimonial home in an uncontested trial.

The respondent father, who had a history of family violence and had relocated to Lebanon, did not participate.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and ordered supervised parenting time for the father.

The court imputed income to the father based on foreign rental properties and ordered ongoing child support.

However, the claims for section 7 expenses, lump sum child support, and a vesting order were adjourned due to insufficient evidence.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for a Case Conference to address the applicant mother's alleged denial of access to their two children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the motion and issued procedural directions for scheduling the conference and filing briefs electronically, suspending certain Family Law Rules in light of the pandemic.

The father brought a motion to change final orders seeking expanded access to two younger children (ages 6 and 4), reduction in child support obligations, and termination of spousal support.

The mother cross-moved for supervised access, continuation of support obligations, and removal of the father's name from RESPs.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the birth of a second special needs child, the father's inconsistent exercise of access, and his failure to educate himself about the children's autism spectrum disorder.

Access was ordered to be supervised for both younger children pending the father's demonstration of consistent visitation and completion of autism education.

Child support was reduced by consent, spousal support was terminated, and section 7 expenses were ordered to be paid by the father at $2,000 monthly until June 2016, then $1,500 monthly thereafter, capped at $18,000 annually.

The father's name was removed from the RESPs.

The applicant sought interim custody or primary residence of the parties’ child, defined access for the respondent, child support, and contribution to daycare expenses.

The respondent sought expanded access and a change of the child’s school.

The court held that the child’s primary residence should remain with the applicant given the status quo and the child’s long-standing residence and daycare arrangements.

The court rejected the respondent’s claim that his parenting time reached the 40 percent threshold under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered table child support based on the respondent’s income for relevant periods.

The request to change the child’s school was dismissed on an interim basis pending further evidence.