2011 NBCA 107, 2011 NBCA 107

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 149-10-CA L.L. APPELLANT L.L. APPELANTE - and - - et - S.B. RESPONDENT S.B. INTIMÉ L. v. B., 2011 NBCA 107 L. c.

B., 2011 NBCA 107 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Bell The Honourable Justice Green CORAM : L’honorable juge Larlee L’honorable juge Bell L’honorable juge Green Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: October 14, 2010 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 14 octobre 2010 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: 2010 NBQB 339 Décision frappée d’appel : 2010 NBQB 339 , 2010 NBBR 339 Preliminary or incidental proceedings: Court of Queen’s Bench 2010 NBQB 330 2007 NBQB 179 Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : Cour du Banc de la Reine 2010 NBBR 330 2007 NBQB 179 Appeal heard: October 25, 2011 Appel entendu : Le 25 octobre 2011 Judgment rendered: December 15, 2011 Jugement rendu : Le 15 décembre 2011

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: L.L. appeared in person For the respondent: S.B. appeared in person Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelante : L.L. a comparu en personne Pour l’intimé : S.B. a comparu en personne THE COURT The appeal is dismissed. LA COUR L’appel est rejeté.

The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [1] The appellant raises nine grounds of appeal in her challenge to the decision of a judge of the Court of Queen’sBench, Family Division, in which he dismissed consolidated motions by the appellant for, among other relief, a change in custody of twoinfant children and termination of support for an adult child of the marriage. At the time of the hearing before the motion judge, thechildren were 15, 16 and 19 years of age. The respondent has had court-ordered custody (either sole or joint) and primary care of thechildren since May of 2007.

At the hearing before this Court, the appellant acknowledged she was pursuing the appeal only in relation tocustody and support of the two infant children. [2] In the opening lines of his analysis, the motion judge cited Gordon v. Goertz, (SCC), [1996]2 S.C.R. 27, [1996] S.C.J. No. 52 (QL) and K.C.W.V. v. K.L.P., 2010 NBCA 70, 363 N.B.R. (2d) 351.

He framed the issue as follows: The threshold legal question is whether there has been a material change in the circumstances affecting the children […] since theConsent Order of May 4, 2009. [para. 25] [3] We find no error in the motion judge’s statement of the law as it relates to issues of custody and support andhave not been convinced he made any palpable and overriding error with respect to his findings of fact in relation thereto. [4] The appeal is dismissed. ________________________________ M.E.L. LARLEE, J.A.

________________________________ B. RICHARD BELL, J.A. ________________________________ BRADLEY V. GREEN, J.A.