A.J.K. v. S.D.K.

A.J.K. v. S.D.K.

No declaration of primary care was warranted on this interim application because it was unnecessary for the child's best interests and evidence did not justify it; on child support, even assuming the defendant met the s.9 40% threshold, the court exercised its discretion to reduce support below the full table difference and ordered $300 per month based on comparative incomes, housing costs, the child's time distribution, and likely effect on the plaintiff's standard of living.

Citation
2002 BCSC 1397
Parties
Plaintiff: A.J.K.; Defendant: S.D.K.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Support and Parenting / Interim Application for Declaration of Primary Care and Child Support
Outcome
Defendant ordered to pay child support; declaration of primary care denied; plaintiff awarded costs of the application.
Legal Topics
Section 9 Child Support Guidelines, Primary Care and Control, Shared Custody Threshold
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Parenting Arrangements Section 9 Child Support Guidelines Primary Care and Control Shared Custody Threshold

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.J.K.

Plaintiff

S.D.K.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Support and Parenting / Interim Application for Declaration of Primary Care and Child Support

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a declaration of primary care and control should be made
  2. 2 Whether the defendant meets the s.9 40% threshold for shared custody adjustments
  3. 3 Whether and to what extent child support should be reduced under s.9 discretion

Ratio Decidendi

No declaration of primary care was warranted on this interim application because it was unnecessary for the child's best interests and evidence did not justify it; on child support, even assuming the defendant met the s.9 40% threshold, the court exercised its discretion to reduce support below the full table difference and ordered $300 per month based on comparative incomes, housing costs, the child's time distribution, and likely effect on the plaintiff's standard of living.

Court Disposition

Defendant ordered to pay child support; declaration of primary care denied; plaintiff awarded costs of the application.

Orders

  • Declaration of primary care and control denied
  • Defendant to pay child support of $300.00 per month to the plaintiff on the first day of each month commencing October 1, 2002 and continuing thereafter