Palackamthundathil v. Paul

Palackamthundathil v. Paul

Father bore the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that relocation to India was not in Adam's best interests (child spent the vast majority of time with mother); he failed to discharge that burden because the mother's plan offered stability, housing, employment and family support in India and the father's plan was contingent and uncertain; therefore relocation was permitted, primary care awarded to the mother, with specified decision-making, information and contact orders and a child support obligation ordered of $274/month.

Citation
2025 NSSC 288
Parties
Applicant (father): George Palackamthundathil; Respondent (mother): Jency Paul
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Parenting and Support Relocation Under the Parenting and Support Act / Contested Hearing (cross Examination on Affidavits) and Judgment
Outcome
Relocation to India granted; mother awarded primary care; detailed parenting, decision-making, contact and information-sharing orders made; father ordered to pay child support $274/month starting October 1, 2025.
Legal Topics
Relocation, Best Interests of the Child, Parenting Time, Burden of Proof, Decision Making Authority, Child Support, Overseas Citizenship (oci)
Source Language
English
Family Law Immigration (deportation) Child Custody/relocation Relocation Best Interests of the Child Parenting Time Burden of Proof Decision Making Authority +2 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Palackamthundathil

Applicant (father)

Jency Paul

Respondent (mother)

Procedural Posture

Parenting and Support Relocation Under the Parenting and Support Act / Contested Hearing (cross Examination on Affidavits) and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Allocation of burden of proof under s.18H(1A) of the Parenting and Support Act
  2. 2 Whether relocation of child to India is in the child's best interests
  3. 3 Appropriate post-relocation parenting arrangements including decision-making, contact and information access

Ratio Decidendi

Father bore the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that relocation to India was not in Adam's best interests (child spent the vast majority of time with mother); he failed to discharge that burden because the mother's plan offered stability, housing, employment and family support in India and the father's plan was contingent and uncertain; therefore relocation was permitted, primary care awarded to the mother, with specified decision-making, information and contact orders and a child support obligation ordered of $274/month.

Court Disposition

Relocation to India granted; mother awarded primary care; detailed parenting, decision-making, contact and information-sharing orders made; father ordered to pay child support $274/month starting October 1, 2025.

Orders

  • Mother (Jency Paul) permitted to relocate Adam to India and to apply for Overseas Citizenship of India for Adam without father’s consent
  • Mother shall have primary care of Adam