Penney v. Mifflen

Penney v. Mifflen

Divorce was granted; no retroactive child support was ordered because the respondent received communications and assurances that made the notice ambiguous, the imposition of retroactive liability would cause undue hardship and risk bankruptcy contrary to the child's interests and it would be unfair given the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 NSSC 96
Parties
Petitioner: Vanessa Fawn Penney; Respondent: John Kenneth Mifflen
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Divorce / Decision Following Divorce Hearing
Outcome
Divorce granted; no retroactive child support ordered for period prior to September 29, 2008; respondent to continue child support under existing order; spousal support denied; parenting schedule modified; respondent must refinance or sell matrimonial home by court deadlines; no costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Retroactive Child Support, Parenting Time/overnights, Refinancing Matrimonial Home, Division of Matrimonial Property, Costs
Source Language
english
Family Law Divorce Child Support Custody and Access Matrimonial Property Spousal Support Retroactive Child Support Parenting Time/overnights +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vanessa Fawn Penney

Petitioner

John Kenneth Mifflen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce / Decision Following Divorce Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether divorce should be granted
  2. 2 Whether retroactive child support should be ordered for April 2008 to October 2008
  3. 3 Whether respondent's parenting time should be increased to one half the overnights

Ratio Decidendi

Divorce was granted; no retroactive child support was ordered because the respondent received communications and assurances that made the notice ambiguous, the imposition of retroactive liability would cause undue hardship and risk bankruptcy contrary to the child's interests and it would be unfair given the parties' conduct and the absence of the issue before the court in the earlier interim order; custodial arrangements were modified to preserve frequent contact and stability; spousal support was declined; respondent was given a deadline to refinance the matrimonial home or list it for sale; no costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Divorce granted; no retroactive child support ordered for period prior to September 29, 2008; respondent to continue child support under existing order; spousal support denied; parenting schedule modified; respondent must refinance or sell matrimonial home by court deadlines; no costs awarded.

Orders

  • Divorce is granted.
  • No spousal support is ordered.