(FAMILY DIVISION)
Citation: Mo v. Ma, 2012 NSSC 159
Date: 20120419
Docket:007736
Registry: Sydney
Between:
S Mo
Applicant
v.
G Ma
Respondent
Judge: The Honourable Justice Theresa Forgeron
Heard: March 7 and 8, 2012, in Sydney, Nova Scotia
Oral Decision: April 18, 2012
Written Decision: April 26, 2012
Counsel: Danielle Morrison, for G Ma
S Mo, on her own behalf
By the Court:
[1] Introduction
[2] 17 year old N, 15 year old G, and 13 year old D have been the subject of many court proceedings involving Mr. Ma and Ms. Mo. G and D are the biological children of the parties. Mr. Ma stands in loco parentis to N, and has been the only father that N has known. Despite the numerous court appearances, custody and maintenance issues remain outstanding.
[3] Issues
[4] The following three issues will be determined in this decision:
a) What parenting arrangement is in the best interests of the children?
b) What custodial designation is in the best interests of the children?
c) What is the appropriate child support order?
[5] Background Information
[6] Various court applications were commenced between 1999 and 2005, although most of these applications did not proceed to trial.
[7] The parties permanently separated in the fall of 2009.
[8] The current proceedings began when Ms. Mo filed an emergency application in December 2009. Although the emergency application was denied, the court, nonetheless, processed the file on an urgent basis, with abbreviated notice, because of the serious allegations. Given the court docket, a brief hearing was held which resulted in a temporary, holding order. The court also ordered a parental capacity assessment because of the clinical issues that had been identified.
[9] The contested interim hearing was held on February 9, 2010. At the conclusion of the hearing, Ms. Mo was designated as the sole custodial parent, and Mr. Ma was granted specified access.
[10] The trial was scheduled for September 13, 2010. The parental capacity assessment was completed. As a result of the recommendations flowing from the assessment, counsel advised the court that settlement had been achieved. A split and shared parenting plan was to be implemented. By September 2010, N was living primarily with Ms. Mo, and having liberal contact with Mr. Ma. G was living primarily with Mr. Ma, and having liberal contact with Ms. Mo. D shared his time equally between both parents. Maintenance issues were postponed pending receipt of Ms. Mo’s income information.
[11] Ms. Mo did not disclose her financial information as required. Counsel for Ms. Mo eventually withdrew, and Ms. Mo secured another lawyer. A pretrial was scheduled and the court was advised that the previous settlement was void, and that the parenting and child support issues were to be litigated. Financial disclosure remained a problem because Ms. Mo would not cooperate.
[12] The matter proceeded to trial on September 26, 2011. Ms. Mo did not appear. The court granted an interim, variation order that awarded sole custody of all children to Mr. Ma. The three children were all living with Mr. Ma by the time of the hearing. Mr. Ma was granted sole custody so that he could engage the children in specialty programs and counselling.
[13] Ms. Mo’s new counsel filed a motion to be removed as solicitor of record. This order was granted. Ms. Mo was unrepresented thereafter.
[14] The trial was scheduled for March 7 and 8, 2012. At that time, both parties testified. Ms. Mo also disclosed her income information. At the conclusion of the trial, the court granted an interim order for child support. The matter was adjourned for decision.
[15] Analysis
[16] What parenting arrangement is in the best interests of the children?
[17] Position of the Parties
[18] Ms. Mo seeks shared parenting of N and G, and primary care of D. Ms. Mo stated that such an arrangement would reflect the status quo. She sees N and G between five to seven days a week, for various periods of time, that range from 30 minutes to three to six hours each day. Ms. Mo stated that D moved in with her on February 23, 2012. She was confident that D would remain in her care. She was also confident that N and G would reside with her once she had internet and cable installed.
[19] Mr. Ma seeks primary care of all three children. He stated that his sons have been in his primary care for a long time. He expected D to return home soon. He noted that D has supper at his house daily. Mr. Ma said that it is in the best interests of all three children to remain in his primary care, with liberal access to their mother.
[20] Law
[21] In making parenting decisions, I must ensure that the children’s best interests are met. The best interests principle has been described as one with an inherent indeterminancy and elasticity: MacGyver v. Richards, 22 O.R. (3d) 481, paras. 27-29. The test is a fluid concept that encompasses all aspects of a child, including the child’s physical, emotional, intellectual, and social well being.
[22] The Supreme Court of Canada, in King v. Low [1985] S.C.J. No. 7, directed courts to review the plans of rival claimants and chose the course which will best provide for the healthy development of the child. In Foley v. Foley 124 N.S.R. (2d) 198, Goodfellow, J. provided a series of factors for courts to balance in determining the child’s best interests.
[23] In making my decision, I must review the burden of proof and credibility principles. In C.(R.) v. McDougall 2008 SCC 53, Rothstein J. confirmed that there is only one standard of proof in civil cases - that is, proof on a balance of probabilities. In every civil case, the court must scrutinize the evidence when deciding whether it is more likely than not that an alleged event occurred. The evidence must not be considered in isolation, but must be based upon its totality. The evidence must always be clear, convincing, and cogent to satisfy the balance of probabilities’ test.
[24] Credibility impacts upon burden of proof. In Baker-Warren v. Denault 2009 NSSC 59, this court reviewed the factors to be considered when making credibility determinations at paras. 18 to 20, and as approved in Hurst and Gill, 2011 NSCA 100 at para 16. I have applied this law.
[25] Decision
[26] I have reviewed the provisions of the Maintenance and Custody Act, case authorities, the submissions of the parties, and the evidence. I have also considered the serious issues confronting the children. The most pressing of these include drug use and school truancy. It is within this context that I have balanced the Foley factors to determine the parenting plan that is in the best interests of N, G, and D.
[27] Physical Environment
[28] Ms. Mo noted that she has a three bedroom home in the CBRM, that is situate on a beautiful corner lot, in a quiet neighborhood, that is within walking distance of the school. She stated that the property has a front and back yard. She rents through Regional Housing. In her home, she is assigned one bedroom, D has another bedroom, and the other two boys share a bedroom, although she clarified that N and G rarely stayed overnight.
[29] Mr. Ma resides in a three bedroom home, which is half of a company house. The home is large, and each boy has his own bedroom complete with a tv, computer, playstation 3, and other personal items. Mr. Ma felt it was important for the boys to have their own room. He sleeps on the couch. Mr. Ma rents this home from his brother. This home was the family home before separation.
[30] Both homes adequately meet the needs of each of the children. Neither home is superior to the other. The plans of the parties appear equal on this issue.
[31] Discipline
[32] Ms. Mo stated that discipline must reflect the ages of the children. She indicated that she discusses negative behaviours with the boys and removes privileges.
[33] Mr. Ma indicated that he uses several methods of discipline. He takes away privileges such as the internet; he talks to his sons about their behaviours; and he grounds them.
[34] The two serious issues facing the children are drug use and truancy. Mr. Ma has been more consistent than Ms. Mo with discipline, although both parents would benefit from parenting courses and counselling. To date, the children continue to act contrary to their parents’ directions.
[35] To combat truancy, Mr. Ma drives the children to school and sees them enter the building. He has engaged outside professional help. In contrast, Ms. Mo allows D to walk to school. She also allows her sons to remain at her home when she is not there, and during the school day. She indirectly facilitates their truancy.
[36] To combat drug use, and other discipline problems, Mr. Ma sought professional help for D and G. N refused to participate. Mr. Ma has also consistently removed the internet and has grounded the children from participating in activities, or from having friends over. He no longer provides the children with money. Instead he provides food cards so the boys do not have cash to buy drugs and cigarettes.
[37] Ms. Mo has not been as consistent with discipline. She only gave one example of removing privileges. She said that she refused to buy the boys wings, which they love. Ms. Mo still gives them cash despite their drug usage. She intends to have G attend counselling, but had not made arrangements to do so. Her ability to ground the children is compromised because Ms. Mo frequently is not at home.
[38] Mr. Ma and Ms. Mo, your children are engaged in serious, self-destructive behaviours. Strong parenting skills are required to help your children change their lifestyles, and to make better and healthier choices. You are both directed to attend individual counselling, and to participate in parenting courses, to gain skills that will increase your parenting effectiveness. Such services may be available through Family Services of Eastern Nova Scotia and Addiction Services. Voluntary services may also be available through the Children’s Aid Office.
[39] In summary, Mr. Ma has provided more consistent discipline to the children than has Ms. Mo, although there is much room for improvement given the difficulties that the children are experiencing and their noncompliant behaviours.
[40] Role Model
[41] Ms. Mo stated that she is a good role model because she is employed and is a fully functioning member of society. She stated that she assisted the children with basketball in the past, and also attempted to have G enrolled in a special school at the south end of Sydney. Ms. Mo raised concerns about Mr. Ma’s addiction to prescription medication, and the impact that such addiction has on the children.
[42] Mr. Ma stated he does his best with the children. He indicated that he is a better role model because his life revolves around the children. He is providing the children with the best care that he can given their challenging circumstances. He denied that he is addicted to prescription medication, and stated that he takes his medication in accordance with the doctor’s instructions. He felt that he was a good role model.
[43] I find that neither party is a superior role model to the other. Ms. Mo is working multiple jobs and this provides the children with good example. Mr. Ma is unable to work for health reasons, which are outside of his control. I further find that Mr. Ma is not abusing prescription medication. He leaves his medication at his mother’s home because in the past, his medication was stolen. His mother brings him his daily dose. One pill has to be split because the medication does not come in the prescribed dosage.
[44] Neither party presented a superior plan in respect of this factor.
[45] Wishes of the Children
[46] N, G, and D are at an age where their wishes would ordinarily be the pivotal factor in determining their best interests. In this case, N and G, by their actions, have clearly established their home with their father. Rarely do they spend overnights with their mother, although they have regular visits with her.
[47] D lived primarily with his father for a long time. On February 23, 2012, D moved in with Ms. Mo. D is 13 years old. Despite having changed his residence, D spends much of his time at his father’s home and eats supper with the family every night. D continues to spend more physical time with his father than with his mother. D loves both of his parents, and may have been enticed to move in with his mother on the eve of trial. It is not known if D’s residential switch will be permanent or not. In any event, D is comfortable at both homes.
[48] Religious and Spiritual Guidance
[49] This is not a factor for either party.
[50] Assistance of Experts
[51] Ms. Mo stated that she has been primarily responsible for the dental, medical, and professional counselling needs of the children. She pointed to the fact that a recent dental appointment was cancelled by Mr. Ma, and that the children require dental work. She also noted that she was the parent who arranged for G to attend the south end school in Sydney, which school has specialized services for children at risk. She stated that she made all of the arrangements, and that Mr. Ma was not involved.
[52] Ms. Mo also stated that although G had made a commitment to attend counselling with her, she had not yet made arrangements for this to happen because of her new job. Ms. Mo confirmed that she was planning to make arrangements for the children to attend Family Services and Addiction Services.
[53] Mr. Ma disagreed with the evidence of Ms. Mo. He indicated that he does take the children to their medical and dental appointments. In particular, he noted that because G was experiencing stomach and bowel difficulties, he arranged G’s medical appointment. He also made changes to G’s diet to help alleviate some of the symptoms.
[54] In relation to the dental appointment, Mr. Ma said that he had no ability to get the children to that one appointment because of the late notice. Mr. Ma did rebook the appointment for another evening. Mr. Ma then arranged to borrow his mother’s vehicle, but the children refused to get in the car. He also picked the children up from their dental cleanings on December 23rd.
[55] Further, Mr. Ma confirmed that he made arrangements with professionals for each of the children. For D, Mr. Ma had several meetings with the school principal, and arranged for D to see the guidance counsellor. Although D walked out on the counsellor, the counsellor, the principal, and Mr. Ma are all attempting to reconnect D with professionals. N refuses to participate in therapy. In respect of G, the school recommended Addiction Services, as well as counselling. Mr. Ma met with the Addiction Services’ counsellor, and with the principal. He has followed their advice to the best of his ability. Addiction Services is now seeing G outside the school, and they also send a taxi to ensure that G makes his appointments. The social worker involved is Kathy MacIsaac, and Mr. Ma has met with her.
[56] In respect of this factor, I find that Mr. Ma’s plan is superior to Ms. Mo’s plan. For the most part, Ms. Mo’s plan is one that is future oriented. In contrast, Mr. Ma has made a concerted effort to deal with the longstanding truancy and drug issues by engaging with professionals.
[57] Time Availability
[58] Ms. Mo provided her work schedule to the court. On Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, she leaves home at about noon, and does not return home until after 9 p.m. On Wednesday, she leaves home about 10 a.m. and returns after 6:30 p.m. On Saturday and Sunday, she works from 10 until 6 p.m.. Her employment on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday is a second job. She is filling in for a maternity leave. In addition, Ms. Mo also spends regular overnights with her boyfriend at his home. D does not go with Ms. Mo, but remains home by himself.
[59] In contrast, Mr. Ma devotes much of his time to the children. He is not employed outside the home because of his health. He is in receipt of CPP disability payments. As Mr. Ma puts it, he is available 24/7 for the children.
[60] Mr. Ma’s plan is superior to Ms. Mo’s plan. Ms. Mo’s plan is particularly troubling because of the significant difficulties that all three boys are experiencing. In effect, Ms. Mo’s plan involves three troubled teenagers being left in a home, without any adult supervision, and basically raising themselves. This scenario is replete with danger.
[61] At present, Ms. Mo has the defacto primary care of a 13 year old. Ms. Mo said that she checked the Criminal Code provisions and she is doing nothing illegal by leaving a 13 year old child in a home overnight unattended. This court is not concerned with the criminal aspect of Ms. Mo’s plan. The court’s focus is best interests. D should not be left overnight in the house by himself. He is 13 years old. D’s actions confirm that he is neither mature, nor responsible. Ms. Mo’s plan exposes the children to significant risks in the circumstances of this case.
[62] Cultural Development
[63] Although the children were involved in basketball in the past, none of the children are involved in any organized activities at present. This is unfortunate. However, given their ages, and their circumstances, it is not likely that either parent would be able to change this situation. The school will not allow children to play organized sports if they are suspended or miss too much school.
[64] Emotional Support
[65] N, G, and D are children with high emotional needs. They have displayed an inability to make positive and responsible life choices. Each of the children requires significant help from their parents, as well as from outside professionals.
[66] Both parties have negatively involved the children in their conflict in the past. Ms. Mo continues to negatively involve the children. She even drafted, and had the children sign, a letter for court purposes, confirming her past financial contribution to each of the boys.
[67] Mr. Ma no longer engages in this type of behaviour for the most part. An example of this conclusion is found in Mr. Ma’s handling of the child tax benefit claim. N approached Mr. Ma about the CTB. Entitlement to this benefit had been an ongoing issue between the parties. N asked Mr. Ma to limit his application for the CTB. In an effort to reduce the loyalty conflict, and despite his own financial need, Mr. Ma agreed. Mr. Ma limited his retroactive entitlement to June 2011 and not March 2011.
[68] Further, Mr. Ma is not seeking retroactive child support. He is aware of the fallout such a decision would have on Ms. Mo, which in turn would negatively impact the children.
[69] Both parties must assume individual responsibility for the emotional needs of their children. Both parties are directed to attend counselling so that they will be better educated on the negative impact that parental conflict has on children. Both are directed to learn strategies on how to avoid placing the children in the middle of their conflict, including their financial difficulties.
[70] I am concerned that Ms. Mo’s desire to exercise shared parenting of N and G, and primary care of D, is directly connected to finances. No doubt Ms. Mo loves her children. However, Ms. Mo spends very little time with them. In addition, one of the ongoing concerns addressed by Ms. Mo related to the children’s CPP and the CTB. If Ms. Mo is not awarded shared or split parenting, she will have to pay child support and will lose the children’s CPP and CTB.
[71] Financial Contribution
[72] Ms. Mo discussed her direct financial contributions to the children since separation. She complained that the children were hungry when they visited her, and that they also did not have enough jeans, or other apparel. She reviewed the type of expenses that she had paid on behalf of the children since separation.
[73] Mr. Ma denied the allegations made by Ms. Mo. He said that he prepared healthy, nutritious food for the children. He did not have the financial ability to keep fast food and junk food in the home. In addition, he also stated that the boys had plenty of clothes, and in particular jeans, however, he could not afford the brand names that the boys wanted.
[74] Mr. Ma stated some of his financial problems stemmed from the fact that Ms. Mo was not paying child support, and further, even though the children had been living with him, Ms. Mo was receiving the children’s CPP and CTB. Mr. Ma’s income was thus restricted, and he could not afford any extras as a result.
[75] At the conclusion of the trial, the court ordered child support to be payable for two of the children, effective March of 2012. Mr. Ma was also receiving the CTB and CPP for the children. Now that the financial issues have resolved, Mr. Ma is in a better position to meet the financial needs of the children.
[76] Support of Extended Families
[77] Ms. Mo indicated that although her family does not have significant contact with the children, her mother and stepfather always recognize them at Christmas, Easter, and on birthdays. They will also help transport the children from time to time.
[78] Mr. Ma’s family has been more actively involved in the lives of the children for a long period of time. The boys regularly visit Mr. Ma’s mother and sister. Mr. Ma’s mother and sister frequently help out with the children and provide support for them. The children have a strong relationship with Mr. Ma’s mother and sister.
[79] Willingness to Facilitate Access
[80] All children visit Ms. Mo, and Mr. Ma has no difficulty with this. Mr. Ma’s sole concern is that Ms. Mo allows the children to remain in her home when she’s not there during school hours. Mr. Ma sees this as facilitating truancy. I agree.
[81] I find that neither party discourages access.
[82] Long Range Plans for the Welfare of the Children
[83] Ms. Mo said she wants all three children living with her. She is confident that this will occur when she can afford internet and cable. Mr. Ma wants the children to live with him, and have regular contact with Ms. Mo.
[84] Mr. Ma’s plan is superior to Ms. Mo’s for the reasons stipulated.
[85] Conclusion
[86] This decision must reflect the best interests of the children. It is in the best interests of N, G, and D to be in the primary care of Mr. Ma, with reasonable access to Ms. Mo, based upon the wishes of the children, given their ages.
[87] D is not to be left alone overnight in Ms. Mo’s home. I also caution Ms. Mo against allowing the boys to be in her home unattended, especially during the school days. Further, the parties must attend the counselling and parenting courses that the court stipulated.
[88] In addition, both parties have the right to obtain information about the children from third party professionals involved in the care of the children, without the authorization of the other, but subject to any confidentiality protocols requiring the authorization of the children themselves, given their ages. Both parties are encouraged to participate in such services, as the professional deems appropriate.
[89] What custodial designation is in the best interests of the children?
[90] Position of the Parties
[91] The position of the parties on the custodial designation was not as clear as the court would have liked. Ms. Mo appears to seek joint and shared custody of the children, with the exception of D, whom she wanted placed in her primary care. Ms. Mo stated that she wanted no direct communication with Mr. Ma, but was willing to communicate by email.
[92] For his part, Mr. Ma wanted final decision making authority for all three children, but was willing to consult with Ms. Mo over the phone. Mr. Ma was not willing to communicate by email because of physical limitations arising from his arthritis, and because of his total lack of trust of Ms. Mo.
[93] Decision of the Court
[94] The court must decide on the custodial designation that will meet the best interests of N, G, and D. These young men are experiencing significant difficulties - truancy, drug use, social dysfunction, and a failure to prepare for their future. Within this context, I must explore the custodial designation options. There are three - sole custody, joint custody, and parallel parenting.
[95] In Gill v. Hurst, 2010 NSCA 98, Hamilton J.A. dismissed an appeal where the trial judge made an award of sole custody. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge made no reversible error when she recognized that the starting point was to determine if joint custody was appropriate.
[96] Joint custody is usually not appropriate where parental relationships are rift with mistrust, disrespect, and poor communication, and where there is little hope that the situation will change: Roy v. Roy, 2006 CarswellOnt 2898, (C.A.). This lack of effective communication, however, must be balanced against the realistic expectation, based upon the evidence, that communication between the parties will improve once the litigation has concluded. If there is a reasonable expectation that communication will improve despite the differences, then joint custody may be ordered: Godfrey‑Smith v. Godfrey‑Smith (1997), 165 N.S.R. (2d) 245 (S.C.).
[97] In the past, many courts found that if joint custody was not viable, then the only solution was an order of sole custody. However, in recent years a third option has evolved, that is an order for parallel parenting. In Baker‑Warren v. Denault 2009 NSSC 59, this court held that a parallel parenting regime is usually reserved for those few cases where neither sole custody, nor cooperative joint custody, will meet the best interests of the child. In K(V.) v. S(T.) 2011 ONSC 4305 (S.C.J.), Chappel J. reviewed the factors to be balanced when considering a parallel parenting arrangement at para. 96, which states as follows:
96 A review of the case‑law respecting parallel parenting suggests that the following factors are particularly relevant in determining whether a parallel parenting regime, rather than sole custody, is appropriate:
a) The strength of the parties' ties to the child, and the general level of involvement of each parent in the child's parenting and life. In almost all cases where parallel parenting has been ordered, both parents have consistently played a significant role in the child's life on all levels.
b) The relative parenting abilities of each parent, and their capacity to make decisions that are in the child's best interests. Where one parent is clearly more competent, responsible and attentive than the other, this may support a sole custody arrangement. On the other hand, where there is extensive conflict between the parties, but both are equally competent and loving parents and are able at times to focus jointly on the best interests of the child, a parallel parenting regime may be ordered.
c) Evidence of alienation by one parent. If the alienating parent is otherwise loving, attentive, involved, competent and very important to the child, a parallel parenting arrangement may be considered appropriate as a means of safeguarding the other party's role in the child's life. On the other hand, if the level of alienation is so significant that a parallel parenting order will not be effective in achieving a balance of parental involvement and will be contrary to the child's best interests, a sole custody order may be more appropriate.
d) Where both parties have engaged in alienating behaviour, but the evidence indicates that one of them is more likely to foster an ongoing relationship between the child and the other parent, this finding may tip the scale in favour of a sole custody order.
e) The extent to which each parent is able to place the needs of the child above their own needs and interests. If one of the parties is unable to focus on the child's needs above their own, this may result in a sole custody order, even if that parent is very involved with the child and otherwise able to meet the child's day to day needs.
f) The existence of any form of abuse, including emotional abuse or undermining behaviour, which could impede the objective of achieving a balance of roles and influence through parallel parenting.
[98] An order for joint custody is not in the best interests of N, G, or D. Ms. Mo and Mr. Ma have been involved in an unending, conflictual parenting battle. There is no trust. They have absolutely no ability to communicate with each other. The parties do not have the skills that are required to make joint custody work. The court cannot award joint custody because such an order would only exacerbate the situation, and increase conflict beyond its current unacceptable limit. The children would be negatively affected.
[99] I also find that a parallel parenting regime would not be in the best interests of the children, for the following reasons:
a) In this case, parental weaknesses exceed parental strengths. The parties’ strengths and weaknesses do not complement each other. The children will not benefit from the collective wisdom of two active, caring parents. There is little collective wisdom to be shared.
b) Ms. Mo has not been an active parent. Ms. Mo appears to be more concerned about securing her financial interests than meeting the needs of the children. If the monetary issues were not intricately involved with the parenting issues, Ms. Mo would likely not seek the parenting provisions that she has.
c) N, G, and D have overwhelming needs. Ms. Mo’s plan does not remotely meet these needs. Ms. Mo does not have the time available to focus on the significant problems of the children. Ms. Mo has been an absent parent.
d) Although both parents have negatively involved the children in the parental conflict in the past, Ms. Mo continues to do so at present. An example is found in the letter Ms. Mo had the children sign for court. Ms. Mo did not view this letter in a negative light. The children have enough burdens. They do not need the added responsibility of sorting out the finances of their parents.
e) The parties have been separated for a lengthy period of time. Cooperation has been nonexistence.
f) Mr. Ma is more focussed on the needs of the children than is Ms. Mo. Ms. Mo has not placed the needs of the children in priority to her own needs and interests.
[100] Given the total inability of the parents to communicate, the dysfunction of the family unit, the serious health and social welfare issues confronting the children, an order for sole custody is required to ensure that the children are removed from the parental conflict, have a stable residence, have an adult providing supervision, and have an adult who will facilitate the professional involvement that the children require. Mr. Ma has made better efforts than has Ms. Mo in this regard, and, thus, sole custody is vested in him.
[101] What is the appropriate child support order?
[102] Position of the Parties
[103] Ms. Mo does not want to pay maintenance because she states N and G are in her shared custody, and D lives with her. She also states that she made substantial payments directly on behalf of the children during the separation.
[104] Mr. Ma does not seek retroactive support. He is seeking child support, the table amount only, from the date of the trial onward.
[105] I find that Ms. Mo’s income is approximately $30,000 per annum. Ms. Mo works at CBU 32 hours per week at a rate of $11.45 per hour. She is also employed at the Rack and Roll as a bartender where she works 16 hours one week and 24 hours the next. She is paid $10.00 an hour, and receives minimal tips. She will thus earn slightly more that $30,000 per year.
[106] Child support for three children equals a monthly payment of $586, which will be paid in two equal monthly installments of $293, on the 15th and last day of each month, commencing on the last day of April 2012.
[107] Ms. Mo is required to name the children on all health and dental plans available to her for as long as such plans exist.
[108] The standard provisions respecting disclosure, MEP, and enforcement will apply.
[109] Conclusion
[110] I have determined that it is in the best interests of N, G, and D to be in the sole custody of Mr. Ma, with reasonable access to Ms. Mo based upon the wishes of the children. D is not to be left alone overnight. He must have adult supervision. The parties are directed to attend counselling. Maintenance is payable at a rate of $586 per month. No retroactive maintenance was requested, and none is granted.
[111] Ms. Morrison is to draft the court order, and forward it to Ms. Mo for her review, as well as for the review of the court. If the court has not heard a response from Ms. Mo, as to the form of the order, within ten business days, the court will issue the order, subject to any editing changes which the court makes on its own motion.
Forgeron, J.