R.N. v. L.M.

R.N. v. L.M.

Late affidavits and the untested psychological report were excluded for prejudice and lack of proper notice; joint custody was rejected because parents cannot co‑parent or make shared decisions; sole custody awarded to mother because she has been primary decision‑maker and concerns do not meet the burden to prohibit or permanently restrict father's access; access to father is reinstated via a phased transitional schedule and both parents are granted direct access to third‑party records key to the child's welfare.

Citation
2014 NSSC 396
Parties
Applicant (father): R.R.N.; Respondent (mother): L.M.M.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Maintenance and Custody Act (custody/access) / Trial Decision (oral Decision November 7, 2014; Written Release November 12, 2014)
Outcome
Sole custody awarded to mother (L.M.M.); father (R.R.N.) granted phased transitional and then regular alternate weekend access with detailed holiday and summer provisions; late affidavits and psychological assessment report excluded from evidence; third‑party information access granted to both parents.
Legal Topics
Custody Allocation, Access/visitation, Supervised Access, Disclosure and Late Affidavits, Parental Alienation, Third‑party Information Orders
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Protection Evidence Procedure Custody Allocation Access/visitation Supervised Access Disclosure and Late Affidavits Parental Alienation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.R.N.

Applicant (father)

L.M.M.

Respondent (mother)

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Maintenance and Custody Act (custody/access) / Trial Decision (oral Decision November 7, 2014; Written Release November 12, 2014)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late affidavits and an expert psychological report should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether joint custody is appropriate
  3. 3 Whether access should be prohibited or supervised given allegations of sexualized behaviour

Ratio Decidendi

Late affidavits and the untested psychological report were excluded for prejudice and lack of proper notice; joint custody was rejected because parents cannot co‑parent or make shared decisions; sole custody awarded to mother because she has been primary decision‑maker and concerns do not meet the burden to prohibit or permanently restrict father's access; access to father is reinstated via a phased transitional schedule and both parents are granted direct access to third‑party records key to the child's welfare.

Court Disposition

Sole custody awarded to mother (L.M.M.); father (R.R.N.) granted phased transitional and then regular alternate weekend access with detailed holiday and summer provisions; late affidavits and psychological assessment report excluded from evidence; third‑party information access granted to both parents.

Orders

  • Late affidavits of respondent, her partner and grandmother refused and excluded from hearing.
  • Psychological assessment report of Anne Hines Farris excluded from evidence for lack of foundation and unavailability for cross‑examination.