Whitney Elizabeth Ann Donnelly

The Applicant mother brought a motion seeking interim decision-making responsibility for the children, particularly for medical/healthcare decisions, the use of a parenting application for communication, compliance with COVID-19 public health recommendations by the Respondent father, and a prohibition on the Respondent posting children on social media in relation to the pandemic or litigation.

The court granted the Applicant final decision-making authority for medical and healthcare issues (including vaccination), ordered the use of a parenting communication application, mandated the Respondent's compliance with public health recommendations, and prohibited social media posts of the children related to COVID-19 or the family law litigation, with non-compliance leading to immediate cessation of parenting time.

The existing shared parenting schedule was maintained.

This costs endorsement arose from a motion to change initiated by the respondent father seeking specified in-person access to his child.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought adjustments to child support.

Following recommendations from the Office of the Children's Lawyer for minimal contact, the parties settled all substantive issues via a consent order, which provided for electronic communication only and did not grant the father his requested in-person access.

The court found the applicant mother to be the substantially successful party, noting the respondent's unreasonable conduct, including delays in financial disclosure, quitting a high-paying job, and relocating to Morocco, which impacted the mother's ability to pursue increased child support.

Despite the settlement, the court determined that costs were appropriate where success could be clearly ascertained.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought temporary orders for child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, an equalization advance, and life insurance designation.

The respondent opposed most claims, offering a lower spousal support amount.

The court found the respondent stood in loco parentis for the non-biological child, Naomi, and had child support obligations.

The applicant's income was imputed at $5,000/year and the respondent's at $164,954/year, including military allowances.

The court awarded the applicant $3,500/month in interim spousal support, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) ranges due to compelling financial circumstances.

Child support was ordered as section 7 expenses, with the applicant paying 32% ($314/month) and the respondent paying 68% ($669/month) of the determined shortfall for Naomi's post-secondary education.

The respondent was also ordered to designate the applicant as an irrevocable beneficiary of $300,000 of his life insurance policy as security for spousal support.

This motion primarily concerned temporary parenting arrangements for the parties' almost 3-year-old daughter and associated child support.

The applicant sought temporary sole custody and child support, while the respondent sought interim joint custody and shared parenting, arguing against child support.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" and "maximum contact" principles, determining that the applicant's asserted "status quo" was not determinative as it was unilaterally created post-separation.

The court found no relevant past conduct issues impacting parenting ability.