## Facts

- The plaintiff mother and defendant father were married and had one child, Dakota.
- During the marriage, the father abused the mother.
- The mother separated from the father and took Dakota with her.
- The mother filed a petition for divorce in the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench.
- In the divorce proceeding, the mother asked the court to deny the father parenting time with Dakota.
- In the same proceeding, the mother also asked the court not to order the father to pay child support to her.
- The court entered an order denying parenting time to the father.
- At a hearing dealing with support, the mother testified she did not want child support because the father would use payment-related dealings as a reason to remain involved in her life.
- The mother testified that this ongoing financial tie would give the father opportunities to harass her and could put both her and Dakota at risk.
- The mother also testified that she was able to provide for Dakota without child-support payments from the father.
- The court accepted the mother’s testimony as credible and considered whether it could refrain from ordering child support in these circumstances.

## Issues

1. Can the court, in a divorce proceeding, refrain from ordering child support where the custodial parent credibly testifies that a support order would create a risk of harassment and danger by keeping the abusive parent connected, and the child’s needs can be met without support?

## Decision

- The court declined to order the father to pay child support.
- The court accepted that, on these facts, a support obligation would likely operate as a continuing point of contact that the father could use to remain entangled in the mother’s life and to harass her.
- Given the safety risk found on the evidence and the mother’s ability to provide for Dakota without support, the court concluded that making no support order was appropriate in the circumstances before it.

## Legal Principles

- Child support is generally expected to be paid by the non-residential parent and is ordinarily treated as a benefit belonging to the child.
- In making corollary relief orders in a divorce matter, the court may consider the real-world impact of an order, including whether it will force continuing interactions that place a child or caregiving parent at risk.
- Where the evidence supports a finding that a support order would likely be used as a tool for continued harassment or control, the court may treat safety as a significant factor in deciding what order to make.
- If the custodial parent can meet the child’s needs without support, that fact may be relevant to whether the court should make (or refrain from making) a support order in an exceptional case.
- Credibility findings about family violence and the likelihood of ongoing harassment can be central to determining whether declining a support order is consistent with the child’s welfare.

## Conclusion

In *Close v. Close*, after accepting credible evidence of spousal abuse and the mother’s concern that a support order would give the father an ongoing means to remain involved and to harass or endanger her and the child, the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench declined to order child support where the mother could meet the child’s needs without the father’s payments.


Close v. Close, [1999] 50 R.F.L.4th 342 (N.B.Q.B.) (1999)