Abbott v. Meadus, (2014) 415 N.B.R.(2d) 357 (FD)

• Judge: Baird, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: January 08, 2014
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2014), 415 N.B.R.(2d) 357 (FD);2014 NBQB 18

Abbott v. Meadus (2014), 415 N.B.R.(2d) 357 (FD);

    415 R.N.-B.(2e) 357; 1076 A.P.R. 357

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.016

Renvoi temp.: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.016

Coretta Linda Abbott (Meadus) (petitioner/respondent in this motion) v. Thomas Edmund Meadus (respondent/moving party in this motion)

(FDF-307-09; 1301-59148; 2014 NBQB 18; 2014 NBBR 18)

Indexed As: Abbott v. Meadus

Répertorié: Abbott v. Meadus

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Judicial District of Fredericton

Baird, J.

January 17, 2014.

Summary:

Résumé:

A father moved to vary the divorce order concerning custody and access of the two children of the marriage.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, determined the issues.

Family Law - Topic 1881

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Welfare or best interests of child paramount - Under a 2003 divorce order, the parties agreed to have joint custody of the two children of the marriage, with primary day to day care to be with the mother - The father was given alternating weekend access and visitation, along with special occasion access - The father moved to vary the order for shared custody of the children now aged 14 and 12 - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, allowed the motion - Both parents were able to provide the children with adequate care - The Voice of the Child report was clear and unambivalent with respect to the expressed wishes of the children - The children understood and were informed as to why they were being asked to express their views - Both children were older and had demonstrated maturity - The wishes of both of these children were strong and had been expressed for approximately two years - The parents lived approximately a 15 minute drive from each other and the children would attend the same schools - There was no evidence that the parents had influenced the children - The context of the wish was expressed both to the parents by the children and through the parents to the court and through the psychologist by the children to the court - The court had no hesitation in accepting that the children truly wished to spend more time with their father, that they had not been influenced by either parent in this belief, and that their wishes were reasonably ascertained - The court ordered a shared custody arrangement whereby the children would alternate their access as between the two households on a rotation that started on Wednesday after school and finished on the following Wednesday after school - See paragraphs 56 to 88.

Family Law - Topic 1890

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Child's preference - [See Family Law - Topic 1881 ].

Family Law - Topic 2082

Custody and access - Shared parenting - Considerations (incl. best interests of the child) - [See Family Law - Topic 1881 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Child support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Special or extraordinary expenses (incl. calculation of amount) - [See Family Law - Topic 4045.7 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.7

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Shared custody (at least 40% of time with each parent) - Under a 2003 divorce order, the parties agreed to have joint custody of the two children of the marriage, with primary day to day care to be with the mother - The father was given alternating weekend access and visitation, along with special occasion access - The father moved to vary the order for shared custody of the children now aged 14 and 12 and a set-off with respect to child support - The father's income was $95,438 - The mother's income was $60,756.80 - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, found that the Federal Child Support Guideline table would obligate the father to pay $1,341monthly child support - However, there would be a shared custody arrangement as the result of this order - The mother's income would obligate her in the amount of $861 monthly - A straight set-off amount which was the "starting point" would reduce the father's monthly child support payment to $480 - In this case, however, the mother had been paying for the piano lessons, the guitar lessons, and she had shouldered a greater financial responsibility towards the children as primary caregiver - Until the children finished school in June 2014, there would be a transitional period where the father would pay more than the set-off amount - The father's child support payment would be reduced to $650 monthly, commencing February 14, 2014, and payable in that amount on the 14th day of each month thereafter until June 14, 2014, at which time they would reduce to $450 monthly - Given the income disclosures, the prorated share of the extraordinary expenses were 61% (father) and 39% (mother) - See paragraphs 89 to 121.

Droit de la famille - Cote 1881

Garde et accès - Facteurs considérés lors de l'attribution de la garde - Primauté du bien-être ou du meilleur intérêt de l'enfant - [Voir Family Law - Topic 1881 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 1890

Garde et accès - Facteurs considérés lors de l'attribution de la garde - Préférence de l'enfant - [Voir Family Law - Topic 1890 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 2082

Garde et accès - Partage des responsabilités parentales - Facteurs considérés (y compris l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant) - [Voir Family Law - Topic 2082 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4045.4

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Lignes directrices sur les pensions alimentaires (y compris les pensions payables hors les affaires de divorce) - Dépenses spéciales ou extraordinaires - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4045.4 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4045.7

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Lignes directrices sur les pensions alimentaires (y compris les cas hors-divorce) - Garde partagée (au moins 40% du temps avec chaque parent) - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4045.7 ].

Cases Noticed:

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 58].

N.E.R. v. J.D.M. (2011), 377 N.B.R.(2d) 147; 972 A.P.R. 147; 2011 NBCA 57, refd to. [para. 59].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 80].

Hsiung v. Tsioutsioulas, 2011 ONCJ 517, refd to. [para. 85].

Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217; 341 N.R. 1; 204 O.A.C. 311; 2005 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 92].

Yakimitz v. Chorkwa, [2013] A.R. Uned. 534; 2013 ABQB 443, refd to. [para. 95].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Coretta Linda Abbott (Meadus), per se;

Thomas Edmund Meadus, per se.

This motion was heard on January 8, 2014, by Baird, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Fredericton, who delivered the following decision on January 17, 2014.