S.M.M. v. A.E.E.

S.M.M. v. A.E.E.

Master found that but for the plaintiff's interference the defendant would have had the children 40% of the time in 2007 and therefore s.9 applied; the plaintiff's income was imputed to $71,600 and the defendant's Guideline income set at $282,600; after set‑off, consideration of increased shared‑custody costs and the parties' means, the defendant was ordered to pay interim child support of $1,850 per month from February 1, 2007 with arrears payable by Dec 31, 2008; joint custody and a specific interim rotation/schedule were ordered and dental plan reimbursements were directed to the defendant or offset against arrears.

Citation
2008 BCSC 642
Parties
Plaintiff: S.M.M.; Defendant: A.E.E.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Divorce/family Law Custody and Child Support / Interim Application / Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Interim orders: parties are joint custodians and guardians; defendant entitled to 40% custody going forward per his rotation; child support assessed under s.9 at $1,850/month payable to plaintiff from Feb 1, 2007; arrears to be paid by Dec 31, 2008; orthodontic reimbursements from plaintiff's dental plan to be paid...
Legal Topics
Shared Custody (s.9), Imputing Income, Guideline Income Determination, Extraordinary Expenses (s.7), Access Denial Effect on Custody Percentage
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Custody and Guardianship Divorce Act Federal Child Support Guidelines Shared Custody (s.9) Imputing Income Guideline Income Determination +2 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.M.M.

Plaintiff

A.E.E.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Divorce/family Law Custody and Child Support / Interim Application / Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant exercised physical custody/access ≥40% in the relevant year
  2. 2 Proper characterization of child support under ss.3/7 vs s.9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines
  3. 3 Determination of Guideline income for each party and whether incomes should be imputed

Ratio Decidendi

Master found that but for the plaintiff's interference the defendant would have had the children 40% of the time in 2007 and therefore s.9 applied; the plaintiff's income was imputed to $71,600 and the defendant's Guideline income set at $282,600; after set‑off, consideration of increased shared‑custody costs and the parties' means, the defendant was ordered to pay interim child support of $1,850 per month from February 1, 2007 with arrears payable by Dec 31, 2008; joint custody and a specific interim rotation/schedule were ordered and dental plan reimbursements were directed to the defendant or offset against arrears.

Court Disposition

Interim orders: parties are joint custodians and guardians; defendant entitled to 40% custody going forward per his rotation; child support assessed under s.9 at $1,850/month payable to plaintiff from Feb 1, 2007; arrears to be paid by Dec 31, 2008; orthodontic reimbursements from plaintiff's dental plan to be paid...

Orders

  • Plaintiff and defendant are joint custodians and guardians of E. and H.
  • Care of E. and H. to follow schedule in ¶90 of reasons (defendant to have children on his off‑rotation periods; other times with plaintiff; specific notification rules for travel and whereabouts)