C.H.T. v. C.L.M.

C.H.T. v. C.L.M.

Although the move of the child constituted a material change in circumstances, the Applicant failed to prove that the November 7, 2006 order no longer reflected the child's best interests. The child is settled, thriving academically and emotionally in the grandmother's care, siblings should remain together, the grandmother will facilitate access to parents, and the father's lack of continuous caregiving and failure to pay ordered child support undermined his claim. Therefore the custody variation is denied and custody remains with the maternal grandmother; mother's access need no longer be supervised; father's access remains as previously ordered.

Citation
2008 NSFC 13
Parties
Applicant (father): C.H.T.; Respondent (maternal Grandmother / Custodial Parent): C.L.M.; Respondent (mother): J.M.M.
Court
Nova Scotia Family Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Law Custody Variation / Decision on Application to Vary Custody Order
Outcome
Application to vary custody dismissed; custody remains with the maternal grandmother C.L.M.; mother's access converted to reasonable unsupervised access agreed with grandmother; father's access remains as set in November 7, 2006 order (reasonable access at reasonable times upon reasonable notice).
Legal Topics
Custody Variation, Access/supervision, Best Interests of the Child, Sibling Separation, Professional Custody Evaluation, Maintenance Enforcement
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Child Support Custody Variation Access/supervision Best Interests of the Child Sibling Separation Professional Custody Evaluation +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.H.T.

Applicant (father)

C.L.M.

Respondent (maternal Grandmother / Custodial Parent)

J.M.M.

Respondent (mother)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Custody Variation / Decision on Application to Vary Custody Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the November 7, 2006 order
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant father proved the prior custody order should be varied to grant him sole custody in the child's best interests
  3. 3 Whether supervision of the mother's access remains necessary

Ratio Decidendi

Although the move of the child constituted a material change in circumstances, the Applicant failed to prove that the November 7, 2006 order no longer reflected the child's best interests. The child is settled, thriving academically and emotionally in the grandmother's care, siblings should remain together, the grandmother will facilitate access to parents, and the father's lack of continuous caregiving and failure to pay ordered child support undermined his claim. Therefore the custody variation is denied and custody remains with the maternal grandmother; mother's access need no longer be supervised; father's access remains as previously ordered.

Court Disposition

Application to vary custody dismissed; custody remains with the maternal grandmother C.L.M.; mother's access converted to reasonable unsupervised access agreed with grandmother; father's access remains as set in November 7, 2006 order (reasonable access at reasonable times upon reasonable notice).

Orders

  • Custody of T. remains with respondent C.L.M. (maternal grandmother).
  • Access to mother J.M.M. to be reasonable at reasonable times, agreed upon with C.L.M.; supervision no longer required.