J.M. v. A.L.

J.M. v. A.L.

Given the father’s documented history of alcohol-fueled domestic violence, criminal convictions and breaches of probation, absence of reliable evidence of sustained sobriety, and evidence of alcohol in the household where children would visit, the court concluded supervised access is required in the children’s best interests; therefore mother is granted custody and father supervised daytime access, with a review in three months.

Citation
2013 NSFC 1
Parties
Applicant (father): J.M.; Respondent (mother): A.L.
Court
Nova Scotia Family Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Custody and Access Application / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Respondent (mother) awarded custody; Applicant (father) granted supervised daytime access subject to conditions and review.
Legal Topics
Custody, Access, Supervised Access, Best Interests of the Child, Probation Breach
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Welfare Domestic Violence Substance Abuse Custody Access Supervised Access Best Interests of the Child +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.M.

Applicant (father)

A.L.

Respondent (mother)

Procedural Posture

Custody and Access Application / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father should have unsupervised parenting time or supervised access
  2. 2 Whether the father’s substance abuse and history of domestic violence pose a risk to the children
  3. 3 What burden of proof applies to restrictions on access

Ratio Decidendi

Given the father’s documented history of alcohol-fueled domestic violence, criminal convictions and breaches of probation, absence of reliable evidence of sustained sobriety, and evidence of alcohol in the household where children would visit, the court concluded supervised access is required in the children’s best interests; therefore mother is granted custody and father supervised daytime access, with a review in three months.

Court Disposition

Respondent (mother) awarded custody; Applicant (father) granted supervised daytime access subject to conditions and review.

Orders

  • Respondent mother granted custody of the children.
  • Applicant father granted reasonable supervised daytime parenting time.