Ruling affirms judge’s parenting time and child support findings
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a judge made no errors in issuing an order specifying that a mother who took two children abroad without their father’s consent should have professionally supervised parenting time.
In Van Aman v. Mugo, 2025 ONCA 886, the appellant mother and respondent father had a daughter born in 2012 and a son born in 2015. After the parties separated in September 2018, the father brought a family law application. He claimed that his ex-wife had taken the children to Kenya without his permission.
In April 2019, the court issued a temporary order requiring the children to return to Kingston, Ontario, where they would primarily reside with their mother, and preventing either party from removing the children from Ontario without the other parent’s consent or a court order.
In November 2020, the mother again took the children to Kenya without her ex-husband’s consent. While they were away, the uncontested trial of the father’s family law application proceeded in March 2021.
The trial judge’s orders dated Mar. 16 and 24, 2021 compelled the mother to immediately return the children to their father in Ontario and pay child support based on an imputed income of $109,817.
In August 2021, the mother and the children returned to Ontario. Authorities arrested the mother, charged her with child abduction contrary to a court order, and placed the children in their father’s care.
The mother moved to set aside the March 2021 orders. The court dismissed her motion. Later, temporary orders allowed her to have virtual, and eventually, professionally supervised, in-person parenting time with the children.
In June 2023, the mother brought a motion to change child support.
In October 2024, the court convicted the mother of two counts of child abduction in contravention of a court order and sentenced her to a one-year conditional sentence and a two-year probation.
On Jan. 21, 2025, Justice John Krawchenko of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order specifying that the mother could have virtual and professionally supervised in-person parenting time and dismissing her change motion for child support.
Regarding parenting time, the motion judge cited s. 16 of the Divorce Act, 1985, and referred to what he deemed the most relevant factors regarding the children’s best interests. He specifically mentioned:
The judge refused to alter the child support order issued in March 2021 for multiple reasons. He noted that the mother:
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal and awarded the father appeal costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $5000, including disbursements and harmonized sales tax.
However, the appeal court made a minor variation to the terms in the motion judge’s Jan. 21, 2025 order to add the following proviso: If the mother filed a change motion regarding child support before completing her probation, the appeal court would leave its determination to the presiding judge’s discretion.
Regarding parenting time, the appeal court held that the motion judge made no errors in issuing the order specifying professionally supervised parenting time, in singling out the factors most relevant to the facts, and in maintaining the status quo of supervised in-person parenting time.
In reaching this conclusion, the appeal court considered:
Regarding child support, the appeal court saw no errors in the judge’s findings. The appeal court noted that the judge correctly pointed out that the mother bore the evidentiary onus.
The appeal court added that the mother’s income was necessarily imputed rather than declared because she had resigned from her nursing job before leaving for Kenya.
