Pottinger v. Hann

Pottinger v. Hann

Because Pottinger had acknowledged the child as his son and consented to a court order obliging him to pay support and no appeal was taken, the consent order created an enforceable dependency-based obligation; therefore the existing child support order remains intact and arrears are payable. The court awarded sole custody to Hann, denied the need for supervised access, limited retroactive childcare contributions to 2003 with sharing proportionate to incomes, granted Hann pension entitlement for entire cohabitation, and ordered return of identified personal property.

Citation
2003 NSSC 310
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Lorne Gregory Pottinger; Respondent/applicant: Judy Roxanne Hann
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Family Division Custody, Access, Child Support, Pension and Property / Decision (supreme Court, Family Division)
Outcome
Partial relief for Respondent: existing child support order upheld and arrears ordered paid; sole custody awarded to Respondent; retroactive childcare claim largely denied except for 2003; pension entitlement awarded to Respondent for entire cohabitation; specific personal property ordered returned.
Legal Topics
Custody, Access (supervised/unsupervised), Child Maintenance, Arrears, Childcare Expenses, Step Parent Liability, Pension Entitlement, Return of Personal Property
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Child Support Pension Division Property Custody Access (supervised/unsupervised) Child Maintenance +5 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lorne Gregory Pottinger

Applicant/respondent

Judy Roxanne Hann

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Family Division Custody, Access, Child Support, Pension and Property / Decision (supreme Court, Family Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent (step-parent) remains legally obligated to pay support for step-child given prior consent order
  2. 2 Whether sole custody should be awarded and whether access should be supervised
  3. 3 Quantum and arrears of child support and entitlement to retroactive childcare contributions

Ratio Decidendi

Because Pottinger had acknowledged the child as his son and consented to a court order obliging him to pay support and no appeal was taken, the consent order created an enforceable dependency-based obligation; therefore the existing child support order remains intact and arrears are payable. The court awarded sole custody to Hann, denied the need for supervised access, limited retroactive childcare contributions to 2003 with sharing proportionate to incomes, granted Hann pension entitlement for entire cohabitation, and ordered return of identified personal property.

Court Disposition

Partial relief for Respondent: existing child support order upheld and arrears ordered paid; sole custody awarded to Respondent; retroactive childcare claim largely denied except for 2003; pension entitlement awarded to Respondent for entire cohabitation; specific personal property ordered returned.

Orders

  • Respondent (Judy Hann) granted sole custody of the children.
  • No supervised access required for the child Brandon; access to be formalized but not supervised.