Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Ontario Divorce Help’ Category

Adultery and Affairs: Understanding the Basis for Divorce in Ontario

Adultery and Affairs: Understanding the Basis for Divorce in Ontario

Adultery and Affairs

The only ground for divorce in Canada is the breakdown of a marriage.

[You can learn more about our firm here]

This can be proven in three ways:

(1) The spouses have lived separate and apart for one year (no fault);

(2) The spouse against whom the divorce proceeding is brought has committed adultery (at fault);

(3) The spouse against whom the divorce proceeding is brought has treated the other spouse with physical or mental cruelty (at fault).

Learn more:

Can I divorce my spouse if they have committed adultery?

Top 5 Questions about Adultery and Divorce in Ontario

Top 5 Points about Adultery That You Probably Did not Know

Important Considerations when Filing for Divorce on the Ground of Adultery:

  • The courts will require proof of exactly what occurred in order to prove the claim.
  • Mere suspicion of adultery is not enough to prove the claim.
  • A single act of adultery is a sufficient basis on which to bring a divorce action on this ground.
  • It does not matter how long the affair was going on.
  • The adultery must have occurred before the divorce application is brought.
  • In order to qualify as “adultery”, there must be an actual physical sexual relationship between one of the spouses and another individual.
  • The person who committed the adultery with the spouse does not have to be named.   However, if this person is named then he/she has to be provided with the application and he/she may choose to answer the application.

Learn more:

Can You Sue a Cheater for Damages?

Wife’s Accusations about Husband’s Infidelities “A Waste of Time”

Is a Marriage Contract Invalid if Signed During an Affair with Someone Else?

 Impact of Adultery on Custody and Access

  • Past conduct of a parent is irrelevant in determinations of the issues of custody or access unless that conduct is relevant to the person’s ability to act as a parent to the child.
  • Adultery will not have any impact on child custody.

Learn more:

If my spouse has committed adultery, am I more likely to get custody of my children?

Did Husband Try to Kill Wife on Tropical Holiday? If So, Should He Be Denied Access to the Kids?

Fake Outbursts, and Adultery “Fines”, and “Bloody Minded” Calls for Jail Time – All in a Day’s Work for the Family Court

Impact of Adultery on Spousal Support

  • Adultery will have no impact on your entitlement to spousal support. For example, if you have been cheated on, you will not be entitled to obtain more money. Likewise, if you have cheated on your spouse, you will not have to pay more spousal support to your spouse as a result of your infidelity.

It is rare for family law practitioners to file for a divorce using the circumstance of adultery for the following reasons:

1) At fault divorces such as adultery and cruelty can be costly;

2) No further evidence is necessary when filing under the ground of living separate and apart, making this no fault basis more appealing;

3) It can take more than a year for the courts to decide the issue of adultery and by that time you may have already established the ground of living separate and apart for one year.

Learn more:

Can a “Misbehaving” Spouse Lose Out on Support?

Does Wife Get Unequal Share Due to Husband’s Extra-Marital Affairs?

Spurned Husband Gets $8.8 million Damages Award against Wife’s Affair Partner

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family-related issues including custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Top 5 Questions about Adultery and Divorce in Ontario

Top 5 Questions about Adultery and Divorce in Ontario

It seems that celebrity gossip tabloids will never have a shortage of topics to cover, as long as there are stories about extramarital affairs by successful, high-profile celebrities. Recently, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos admitted to cheating on his wife, MacKenzie, and in the past it has been alleged that Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a child with the housekeeper employed in the home he shared with his wife of 25 years.

Leaving aside the intriguing question of how adultery affects couples psychologically and emotionally, the legal effect of adultery is quite clear.

In Ontario (as elsewhere in Canada), the laws relating to divorce based on adultery are governed by the federal Divorce Act, which provides that a “breakdown of a marriage is established only if the spouses have lived separate and apart for at least one year or the spouse against whom the divorce proceeding is brought has committed adultery or treated the other spouse with physical or mental cruelty.” (Note that it must be the other party who commits the act: a spouse cannot apply for a divorce based on his or her own adultery).

Adultery and Affairs: Understanding the Basis for Divorce in Ontario

Adultery is one of the established grounds for divorce in Canada. Questions often arise as to whether the duration, extent or nature of the adultery matters when it comes to the right to obtain a divorce. Here are some common questions answered in this regard:

1) Does it matter how long the affair was going on?

No. Provided that it can be proven that adultery has been committed by one of the spouses, the other spouse can ask for a divorce. However, the adultery must have occurred before the petition for divorce is brought.

Top Five Points about Adultery That You Probably Didn’t Know

Does Wife Get Unequal Share Due to Husband’s Extra-Marital Affairs?

Fake Outbursts, Adultery “Fines”, and “Bloody Minded” Calls for Jail Time – All in a Day’s Work for the Family Court

2) What if the extramarital sex occurred only a single time? What if the spouse is remorseful?

A single act of adultery is a sufficient basis on which to bring a divorce action. And as long as the adultery was committed by one of the spouses, the other spouse has legal grounds under the Divorce Act to proceed with a petition. Whether or not the spouse actually wants to do so will be a personal decision.

[You can learn more about our firm here]

Gambling, Drinking and Affairs – Should Spouses Have to Account for their Misdeeds?

In a Failed Romance, Can You Sue for Negligence?

Can You Sue Your Ex’s Affair Partner for Damages?

Were Negotiations Contingent on the Husband Ending His Affair?

3) Do you need clear proof of an affair? Is it enough to suspect that something is going on?

In order to prove adultery, there is no prerequisite that the other spouse gets “caught in the act,” or that there be photos or other physical evidence of the affair. Instead a court must be satisfied on a “preponderance” of credible evidence that adultery has taken place. (For example see Nelles v. Nelles).

This can take place by inference, i.e. where the facts and circumstances lead to the reasonable conclusion that adultery has indeed taken place. However, a mere suspicion of adultery is not enough, nor is evidence that the other spouse had the opportunity to cheat (see Doucette v. Doucette). Also, there is no requirement that the party with whom the adultery is taking place must be named or identified.

 

Finally, it is the spouse who wants to bring the divorce action who must bring forward the convincing evidence that adultery actually took place. There is nothing unusual about the type of evidence required; however, the evidence will be considered sufficient if the adulterous spouse admits to the affair (see for example d’Entremont v. d’Entremont), or if the third party with whom the spouse is having the affair gives evidence attesting to the fact (see Vickers v. Vickers).

My spouse committed adultery. Does this make it easier to get a divorce?

Is a Marriage Contract Invalid if Signed During an Affair with Someone Else?

l of Commitment? Or Was He Buying an Interest in Her Home?

Can I use evidence of my spouse “sexting” in court?

4) What if the husband had an affair with another man? Or the wife cheats with another woman? Does that count?

Yes. Historically, Canada’s Divorce Act defined adultery along the same lines as the former definition of “spouses”, which involved only people of the opposite sex. Adultery was similarly defined by the courts as consisting of voluntary sex outside of marriage, between a spouse and someone of the opposite gender.

However, both the definition of “spouse” and the concept of adultery has been expanded by the courts to encompass same-sex relationships. In a 2005 case called P. (S.E.) v. P. (D.D.) a B.C. woman was granted a divorce after it was shown that the husband had committed adultery by having an affair with another man.

Top Five Points about Adultery That You Probably Didn’t Know

Wife’s Accusations about Husband’s Infidelities “A Waste of Time”

5) What about cheating over the Internet?

In order to qualify as “adultery”, there must be an actual, physical sexual relationship between one of the spouses and a third party to the marriage. Phone sex and other forms of sexually-charged activity – if conducted “from a distance”, so to speak – do not generally qualify as “adultery” as that term is used in the Divorce Act.

Thinking of Doing Some Cyper-Sleuthing? Think Again

Although these cases are often interesting and quite sad, for most family law practioners in Ontario these circumstances do not form the basis for their clients’ divorce claims.  The Court does not want spouses to focus on fault and blame but rather resolution.  For the most part, blame does not improve or diminish one’s property rights or entitlement to share family property in Ontario.  And the practical reality is that an Application for divorce based on cruelty or adultery may take a few years before the matter is finally determined if a full hearing is required.  If this is the case then the party seeking the divorce could also likely rely on the fact that s/he has lived separate and apart for one year and use this as the basis for the divorce claim.

For the full-text of the decisions, see:

(S.E.)v. P. (D.D.),2005 CarswellBC 2137, 2005 BCSC 1290 (B.C. S.C.)

Nelles v. Nelles (1971), 2 R.F.L. 153 (Ont. H.C.)

Doucette v. Doucette (1986), 73 N.B.R. (2d) 407 (Q.B.)

d’Entremont v. d’Entremont (1992), 44 R.F.L. (3d) 224 (C.A.)

Vickers v. Vickers (1976), 24 R.F.L. 303 (B.C. S.C.)

 

At Russell Alexander, family lawyers our lawyers can provide customized advice in connection with the dissolution of a marriage based on adultery, and with a large array of other family law questions. For more information, feel free to visit us at Russellalexander.com.

 

Tune in on Monday June 10th, 2019 for Episode 1 of Family Law Now

Family Law Now Podcast Logo

Tune in on Monday June 10th, 2019 for Episode 1 of Family Law Now

The new podcast series is the culmination of a long-standing passion project of democratizing access to information concerning family law matters.

Family Law Now is hosted by Russell Alexander and a featured guest with whom he presents a meaningful review and analysis of family law issues. With over 20 years’ experience helping families resolve their legal issues, Russell has developed a remarkable understanding of family law issues and is eager to share his jewels of wisdom with the listening public.

Family Law Now is a new audio series that delivers useful commentary and insights into timeless and trending family law issues. The podcast is free of charge to registered users and provides a convenient, low-commitment resource by which busy individuals who don’t have time to read long-winded articles can get answers to their legal questions, on-the-go.​ Tune in to Family Law Now!

With special guest Michelle Mulchan,

Michelle Mulchan
Collaborative Family Lawyer

Collaborative Family Lawyer, our first episode will focus on the 10 Things You Should Know About Child Support.

To learn more about our podcast please visit us here.

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Irish Referendum Results: Separation Period Shortened to Fast-Track Divorce

Irish Referendum Results: Separation Period Shortened to Fast-Track Divorce

According to a recent article in the Irish Times, the people of Ireland have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a proposal to shorten the period of separation between married spouses before being eligible to apply for divorce.

Previously, a married couple could apply to get a divorce only if they had been living apart for four out of the past five years.   The proposal calls for reforms to legislation, allowing the separation period to be reduced to two years.  It also enables foreign divorces to be recognized under Irish constitutional law.

In addition to fast-tracking the divorce process, the abbreviated separation period also has the side-benefit of reducing the harm that may affect children because of protracted divorce proceedings between the parents.  It may also reduce the individual living costs that separated spouses have to bear while waiting out the former long separation period, before being able to fully move on with their lives apart.

The overwhelming support for these reforms was evident in the outcome of a constitutional referendum on divorce, which passed with 82.07 per cent support.   The “yes” vote garnered 1,384,192 ballots in favour (and 302,319 against), a result of a turnout of more than 50% of the voting population across 31 constituencies.

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Married Thrice; Divorced Only Once – Court Untangles Man’s Complex Love-Life

Married Thrice; Divorce Only Once – Court Untangles Man’s Complex Love-Life

In a recent case called Lowe v. A.A. the court was asked to legally untangle the love-life of a man named Errol Lowe who had been married three times … but divorced only once.  This left the much-married Errol was in an interesting legal predicament, because it invited the question of whether his second and third marriages were valid, whether they were now eligible to be the subject of a divorce order, or whether they were void from the outset.

The court set the stage against which these issues were to be determined:

  1. OVERVIEW

Errol D. Lowe has entered into three marriages in the province of Ontario. Two of these marriages were entered into while he had prior existing marriages. He has only been divorced once. He has appealed to the court for help in “undoing” his second and third marriages.

Mr. Lowe’s circumstances are unusual. His complex marital history requires the court to examine the evidence and first determine the appropriate legal nature of each of his three relationships in order to identify the appropriate mechanisms for ending them.

In order to legally end Mr. Lowe’s second and third marriages, the court must decide whether these marriages were valid in the first place. This determination will affect whether the marriages are to be ended by way of annulment or divorce. If either of Mr. Lowe’s marriages were invalid from the start because he lacked the capacity to marry, that marriage is void from the beginning and a decree of annulment may be issued. If either marriage was valid, then the proper mechanism is divorce.

With that said, the court noted that in a practical sense some of these issues were actually moot and no longer affected Errol and his many wives directly; it seems that Errol was unable to make a go of his subsequent marriages anyway.  The court said:

I should note that whether Mr. Lowe’s second and third marriages are to end in divorce or annulment has little practical implication, either for him or for his second and third wives. I say this because he has been separated from his second wife for many years and has had no contact with her since before his third marriage. He married his third wife in 2008 and has been separated from her since the spring of 2016.

Moreover, in an interesting aside it seems that none of Errol’s wives were particularly proud of having married him at all.  In the court’s words:

I should note that Mr. Lowe testified at the initial return of this matter on February 21, 2018. Mr. Lowe’s third wife, the Respondent A.A., also testified with respect to application FS-17-291. She asked to be referred to by her initials in my written reasons. I have referred to Ms. A.A. and to Mr. Lowe’s first and second wives by their initials out of respect for their privacy.

The court did add that while none of Errol’s former wives were currently seek support from him, a support claim could still be a possibility in the future, regardless of whether the marriages ended in divorce or annulment.

There’s the old saying: “always a bridesmaid, never a bride”.  In Errol’s case, perhaps it was “never a groomsman, always a groom.”  His intriguing case gives rise to multiple legal issues, and we will cover more of them in some upcoming Blog posts.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Lowe v. A.A., 2018 

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Is Husband Only in Contempt of RRSP Non-Depletion Order if He Buys a Ferrari?

Is Husband Only in Contempt of RRSP Non-Depletion Order if He Buys a Ferrari?

The wife and husband separated after having four children during eight years of marriage together.  They were divorced in 2012, but there had been extensive litigation in the years since, mainly revolving around the husband’s annual income (initially estimated by the court at $500,000) and his efforts to have his support obligations reduced.

The couple reached agreement on a much lower income amount, and settled the husband’s spousal and child support obligations by way of two orders made on consent.  Both orders included an express non-depletion component:  it prohibited the husband from depleting his property and assets, as a means of thwarting his ability to pay the wife.

Meanwhile, after the husband was laid off from work, he started his own company, at which he claimed to earn only $13,000 a year.  He then let that company go dormant, and became an employee of his parents’ company where he earned $72,000 per year.

The wife then learned that the husband had recently withdrawn about $105,000 from his RRSP money.  He claimed to use the money to pay his legal fees, credit card bills, and living expenses, including “rent” to his parents totaling $12,000.  (Although the court was provided with evidence of a cheque in that amount being cashed, it declined to conclude that it was for the payment of rent).

The wife accused the husband of being in contempt of the two prior orders.  She noted that his timing was suspect:  He knew she was about to ask the court to award her $373,000 as a lump, to cover child and spousal support arrears as well as going-forward support.

The husband admitted that he knew he was not supposed to deplete his RRSP funds.   However, claimed to have a rather unique understanding of what a non-depletion order was, as the court explained:

The husband stated that he understood non-depletion to mean that he was not to pay anything that was not part of his normal day-to-day living expenses. He was not to “abscond with the money,” “be irresponsible,” “go to Cuba type of thing” or “you know, buy a Ferrari.” He stated that he believed he could pay legal bills, pay rent, and pay for living expenses. He said that [his lawyer] Mr. Kelly told him that “you gotta do what you gotta do.”

To this, the court started by saying that the legal advice the husband had received about the RRSP withdrawals was “less clear than it could have been about what constitutes depletion.”  It also found that – despite his protests to the contrary – the husband could meet his reasonable living expenses soley from the salary his parents were paying him.

As for the contempt elements, the law was clear there were three elements that had to be proven:

1) That the orders clearly and unequivocally stated what should/should not be done;

2) That the husband had actual knowledge of the orders; and

3) That the husband intentionally did the act(s) that breached the orders.

For these purposes, to “deplete” or “dissipate” means to reduce one’s assets in a manner that impairs or defeats a claim for support.  It did not require the actions be wasteful to foolish.

Here, all the elements were present.  The husband knew about both orders, which were clearly-worded and unequivocal.  He knew exactly what he was ordered not to deplete.  And yet he admitted to withdrawing RRSP funds on three occasions.

The court added:

  If [the husband] wished to withdraw funds to pay legal fees or other expenses, the appropriate course was for him to seek permission from the Court to do so, mot to repeatedly breach the orders.

The court did not hesitate to find the husband in contempt, but gave him the chance to purge that contempt finding by repaying almost $105,000 to the RRSP within a short deadline.  If he did not do so, then his pleadings in the matrimonial litigation with the wife would be struck out entirely.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Weber v. Merritt, 2018

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Was Dad Merely a “Sperm Donor and Blank Cheque?” Or Was He Eligible for Shared Parenting?

 

Was Dad Merely a “Sperm Donor and Blank Cheque?” Or Was He Eligible for Shared Parenting?

In V.P. v. D.M. the court had to settle whether the father’s purported role in his young daughter’s care and upbringing was as extensive as he imagined, and whether he was entitled – and capable – of having a fuller role in her life on a shared parenting basis.

The mother, a nurse, was 47 years old.  The father was 53.  They met on-line in 2010, and maintained what was essentially a friendship.  They never lived together, and were never in a monogamous relationship.  At some point, the mother purchased a condominium in the same building as the father. After they had a few intimate encounters, the mother became pregnant.

The mother took a year-long maternity leave, and the father visited the child regularly in the evenings after work.  The mother claimed these were just visits, and did not involve the father actually caring for the child.  She said she did support his involvement, until it affected the stability of the child’s life and her own, and became an intrusion.  They ended up having a dispute over the father’s past and future role.  As the court explained:

The father’s evidence is that the mother used him to have a baby and that once that happened he was dispensable. He believes that the mother has treated him as a sperm donor and blank cheque. All he is trying to do is assert his right to be an involved father for his daughter who he loves very much. He believes that it is in [the daughter’s] best interest to spend equal time with her parents.

The father sees himself as the victim. He is a victim of the mother’s attempt to eliminate him from his daughter’s life; … he is a victim of the mother’s premeditated plan to use him as a sperm donor and a monthly cheque.

The court examined the evidence, as well as how the parties interrelated. It found the child loved both parents very much and was closely bonded to both of them.  It noted, however, that a shared parenting arrangement for the now 5-year-old child would require a significant amount of contact between the parents:

Homework is forgotten, money is required for a school trip, extracurricular activities will require coordination and flexibility, arrangements will have to be made for [the daughter’s] care on non-school days when the parents are working; who buys birthday gifts for parties attended by [her], who picks out [her] Halloween costume, and who takes [her] to the doctors and fills prescriptions?

Before it could decide that a shared parenting regime was in the best interests of this child, the court had to be able to find at least the following:

  • The parents could speak to one another directly and not just in writing;
  • The parents behaved respectfully towards one another;
  • The parents would cooperate to ensure the child’s needs are being met;
  • The parents were capable of putting the needs of the child before their own;
  • The parents demonstrated a reasonable amount of emotional maturity and would demonstrate that emotional maturity when there is a disagreement; and,
  • The parents would behave appropriately towards one another at all times in front of the child.

In this case, the court simply could not conclude that the parents in this case could meet these requirements.  It laid most of the blame squarely at the father’s feet.

For example, the mother was always the primary source of the child’s care; and it was now “disingenuous” for the father to claim he was an equal caregiver simply because he attended at the mother’s most evenings after work when the daughter was a baby.  The court added with what seemed like veiled incredulity:

Even though the mother was solely responsible for [the daughter’s] care all day, including feeding, bathing, doctors’ appointments, napping, changing her, and shopping for her as well as caring for her throughout the night after she went to bed, the father considered himself to be equally involved in [the daughter’s]  care.

As the court summarized: “The father’s visits after work do not make him a co-parent as he believes.”

Also, the mother testified that the father was extremely emotionally and verbally abusive towards her, particularly in his written communications, which were full of expletives.  The court agreed they were “vile and abusive”, and noted the mother never responded in kind, but was always calm and composed when dealing with him.  The father’s poor judgment was also of concern, especially since he had not participated in the counselling that had been recommended for him.

Noting the need to limit the daughter’s exposure to adult conflict, the court concluded overall that shared parenting was not feasible.  It ordered that the mother should have custody, with specified access to the father, as part of the many issues it was asked to decide between these parents.

For the full text of the decision, see:

V.P. v. D.M., 2019

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Is a Stay-At-Home Parent Entitled to Legal Costs If They Successfully Self-Represent?

Is a Stay-At-Home Parent Entitled to Legal Costs If They Successfully Self-Represent?

If you are a successful self-represented litigant entitled to be awarded your legal costs, does it matter what you do for living? Do stay-at-home-parents have a higher threshold to meet?

This was the question in a recent case called Cassidy v. Cassidy, which we wrote about in another recent Blog. There, the wife had asked the court for an order requiring her husband, as the unsuccessful party in their recent divorce trial, to pay all of her legal costs – to the tune of about $125,000.  Although most of these covered her legal bill with her lawyer, about $8,000 of it was for the period when she was actually self-represented.

This allowed the court to consider the increasingly-common question of the extent to which a self-represented litigant should be entitled to his or her legal costs at all, for the period when they have no lawyer acting for them.

The court confirmed the current state of Ontario law:  If successful at representing herself, the wife could be awarded her legal costs if she met a two-part test.  Namely, she needed to prove that:

  • She devoted time and effort to the work ordinarily done by a lawyer; and
  • As a result of her self-representation, she incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing “remunerative activity”.

Although the test was clear, the meaning of this phrase “remunerative activity” was open to at least some flexible interpretation by courts, and could affect different litigants in different ways.  As the court explained:

A rigid approach to the interpretation of “remunerative activity” will unfairly penalise self-represented litigants who for one reason or another are not engaged in an activity for which they receive remuneration. For example, a parent who stays at home to raise children. Such a circumstance would mean that a party who is represented can litigate to the extent to which their financial resources will permit, with the assurance that irrespective of the outcome, there is no threat of a cost award against them because the self-represented litigant will never be able to demonstrate that they have incurred an opportunity cost by forgoing remunerative activity. In such an instance, it should be possible for the self-represented litigant to argue that she satisfies this requirement, by analogous reference to a remunerative activity in accordance with her skill and expertise.

With this principle in mind, the court concluded that – at least in theory – the wife could be entitled to her costs as a self-represented litigant in this case.  Courts have applied a few different approaches to determining the costs amount, namely:

  • By deducting the amount of money she would have earned elsewhere (and which she lost by doing the work), from the hourly rate reasonably charged by a lawyer for the same work; or
  • By granting a reasonable and moderate allowance, rather than the costs that could be attributed to having a lawyer.

It added that method used to determine what is fair and reasonable is discretionary,  and will depend on the circumstances of each case.

However, the court considered the facts of the case, including the fact that the wife had acted unreasonably during trial by declining to even participate in settlement discussions – thus increasing the costs of the litigation.  It concluded the wife was disqualified from being awarded her own costs while acting for herself in this instance.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Cassidy v. Cassidy, 2019 

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

%d bloggers like this: