Goodrick v. Goodrick

Goodrick v. Goodrick

The threshold in s.17(5) was not met: the mother's personal changes did not demonstrate a fundamental, unforeseeable alteration in her ability to meet the children's needs, and the children's present refusal of contact was expressly contemplated by the January 2006 Order; therefore the variation application must be dismissed as there is no qualifying change in circumstances.

Citation
2009 NSSC 64
Parties
Petitioner (mother): Karen Marie Goodrick; Respondent (father): George Henry Anthony Goodrick, Jr.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Family Law — Custody/access (variation Under Divorce Act S.17(5)) / Application to Vary Consent Variation Order; Final Decision on Threshold and Merits (judgment)
Outcome
Application dismissed for failure to satisfy s.17(5) Divorce Act threshold (no change in circumstances warranting variation)
Legal Topics
Variation of Custody/access Orders, Change in Circumstances, Best Interests of the Child, Access Supervision, Children's Wishes
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Family Procedure Statutory Interpretation Variation of Custody/access Orders Change in Circumstances Best Interests of the Child Access Supervision +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Marie Goodrick

Petitioner (mother)

George Henry Anthony Goodrick, Jr.

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Family Law — Custody/access (variation Under Divorce Act S.17(5)) / Application to Vary Consent Variation Order; Final Decision on Threshold and Merits (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a change in circumstances since January 2006 sufficient under s.17(5) Divorce Act to permit variation of the consent variation order
  2. 2 Whether the mother's personal changes materially alter her ability to meet the children's needs
  3. 3 Whether the children's present refusal of contact constitutes a change in circumstances not contemplated by the original order

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold in s.17(5) was not met: the mother's personal changes did not demonstrate a fundamental, unforeseeable alteration in her ability to meet the children's needs, and the children's present refusal of contact was expressly contemplated by the January 2006 Order; therefore the variation application must be dismissed as there is no qualifying change in circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for failure to satisfy s.17(5) Divorce Act threshold (no change in circumstances warranting variation)

Orders

  • Application to vary consent variation order dismissed.
  • Parties to file submissions on costs: respondent's submissions due March 12, 2009; applicant's submissions due March 27, 2009.