M.H. v. J.H., 2013 NSSC 198

• Judge: Forgeron, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: May 03, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2013 NSSC 198;(2013), 332 N.S.R.(2d) 352 (SC)

M.H. v. J.H. (2013), 332 N.S.R.(2d) 352 (SC);

    1052 A.P.R. 352

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.004

M.H. (applicant) v. J.H. (respondent)

(SFSNMCA-080967; 2013 NSSC 198)

Indexed As: M.H. v. J.H.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Family Division

Forgeron, J.

May 3, 2013.

Summary:

A father applied for variation of an interim order for shared parenting regarding the parties' two children after an altercation between the mother and the parties' eight year old son. The mother denied physical abuse, while the father raised protection concerns.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, allowed the application. The father had proven on a balance of probabilities that the status quo as provided in the interim court order was no longer in the children's best interests. As a result, the current parenting order was varied and each party was mandated to cooperate and participate in court ordered educational programming and counselling.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Family Law - Topic 1949

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Considerations - Status quo - A father applied for variation of an interim order for shared parenting regarding the parties' two children after an altercation between the mother and Jo, the parties' eight year old son - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, allowed the application - Ordinarily the status quo should be maintained unless it was contrary to the child's best interests - The status quo referred to the status quo which existed before the father stopped access (the current court order) - The father had proved on a balance of probabilities that the status quo was no longer in the children's best interests - The court had limited jurisdiction to vary an interim order - Only in rare cases should the court vary a parenting arrangement at an interim stage - This was such a case - The mother did not know how to manage Jo's confrontational behaviours - The court was concerned for the children's physical safety while in her care when she reacted angrily to Jo's appalling conduct at times - The court ordered supervised access for the mother - Each party was also mandated to cooperate and participate in court ordered educational programming and counselling.

Family Law - Topic 2023

Custody and access - Access - Access awards - Supervised access - [See Family Law - Topic 1949 ].

Family Law - Topic 2028

Custody and access - Access - Access awards - Interim access - [See Family Law - Topic 1949 ].

Family Law - Topic 2034

Custody and access - Supplementary orders - Compulsory counselling - [See Family Law - Topic 1949 ].

Family Law - Topic 2054

Custody and access - Interim custody - Variation of - [See Family Law - Topic 1949 ].

Cases Noticed:

F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41; 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 13].

Baker-Warren v. Denault (2009), 277 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 882 A.P.R. 271; 2009 NSSC 59, refd to. [para. 15].

Hurst v. Gill - see Gill v. Hurst et al.

Gill v. Hurst et al. (2011), 309 N.S.R.(2d) 86; 979 A.P.R. 86; 2011 NSCA 100, refd to. [para. 15].

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. 35].

Abdo v. Abdo (1993), 126 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 352 A.P.R. 1; 1993 NSCA 205, refd to. [para. 35].

M.T. v. M.G., [2010] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 44; 2010 NSSC 89, refd to. [para. 37].

Miller v. McMaster, [2005] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 96; 2005 NSSC 259, refd to. [para. 38].

Counsel:

David Raniseth, for the applicant;

Clara Gray, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 2, 4 and 11, 2013, in Sydney, N.S., by Forgeron, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, who delivered the following decision on May 3, 2013.