Parsons v. Parsons

Parsons v. Parsons

The court found on the balance of probabilities that both parents are competent and that the best interests of the children require a shared parenting regime based in CBRM; it refused to grant either parent final decision making authority because that would likely increase conflict and potentially limit meaningful contact, it denied the proposed permanent relocation to the Annapolis Valley because it would reduce contact with the father and disrupt the children, and it ordered joint legal custody with a detailed shared schedule and no child support payable under s.9 of the Guidelines given the shared parenting arrangement.

Citation
2011 NSSC 347
Parties
Petitioner: Vanessa Parsons; Respondent: Gregory Parsons
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Divorce (family Law) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Divorce granted; joint legal custody without final decision making; shared parenting regime ordered with residence in CBRM and detailed schedule; relocation to Annapolis Valley refused; no child support ordered under s.9 of the Guidelines; division of matrimonial property as each party retains personal property and...
Legal Topics
Joint Custody, Shared Parenting, Relocation, Best Interests of the Child, Credibility and Burden of Proof, Child Support Guidelines S.9, Parenting Schedule
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Child Support Mobility/relocation Procedural Law Joint Custody Shared Parenting Relocation +4 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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vanessa Parsons

Petitioner

Gregory Parsons

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce (family Law) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How burden of proof and credibility principles impact the decision
  2. 2 Whether joint custody should include a final decision making provision
  3. 3 Whether Ms. Parsons may relocate the children to the Annapolis Valley

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that both parents are competent and that the best interests of the children require a shared parenting regime based in CBRM; it refused to grant either parent final decision making authority because that would likely increase conflict and potentially limit meaningful contact, it denied the proposed permanent relocation to the Annapolis Valley because it would reduce contact with the father and disrupt the children, and it ordered joint legal custody with a detailed shared schedule and no child support payable under s.9 of the Guidelines given the shared parenting arrangement.

Court Disposition

Divorce granted; joint legal custody without final decision making; shared parenting regime ordered with residence in CBRM and detailed schedule; relocation to Annapolis Valley refused; no child support ordered under s.9 of the Guidelines; division of matrimonial property as each party retains personal property and...

Orders

  • Ms. Parsons name change application granted