Dentist marries a single mother assistant.

They met at work, where the woman was a dental assistant and the man was an oral surgeon — and were married for less than 10 years.

The woman had a child before the couple met — she shares custody with that child's father — and the couple had one child during their marriage. And that's where it gets a bit complicated.

They have a mutual child, in full custody of the dentist.

The woman had a child before the couple met — she shares custody with that child's father — and the couple had one child during their marriage. And that's where it gets a bit complicated.

Woman wants a $8,000 mountain bike for her son. Gets rejected.

Justice Linda Loo noted the couple did not spend "lavishly" on the children during their marriage, and rejected the mother's concerns about the son's wish for a mountain bike costing $8,000 to $12,000, noting not all children's wants are reasonable.

Judge says her don't milk her ex, since she isn't willing to work and has a fortune after divorce.

The judge noted the mother — despite having no child to look after for half of her time — has not looked for meaningful work, choosing instead to rely on a $1.7 million settlement she received in the divorce, and income from investments.

Deciding she should have returned to work by now, the judge decided the mother is capable of earning a $55,000 salary — and another $60,000 from investments.

Dentist scales back on his work. I suppose to raise his child.

Meanwhile the oral surgeon in the case had scaled back work to just six days a month, but anticipated a salary of as much as half a million dollars a year in future.

Even though the judge found the woman capable of sustaining herself and her son, the dentist is still ordered to pay for a child he isn't related to.

And so the judge decided that even though he has no parenting time, and little contact with his teenage step-child, he still must pay $1,500 a month in child support, until the step-child turns 19.

It is explained that even though he pays for two people he has no connection with, isn't related by blood, his child support is mostly offset by the one the woman is paying for their mutual child (in the custody of the dentist).

But that will be mostly offset by the judge's order that the mother pay support to the father for the child they had while married.

Translation to English:

  • Dentist marries a single mother with one children from a previous relationship. They have a lavish lifestyle.

  • They have a mutual children.

  • They divorce. The woman gets $1.7 M from the divorce. She also has income from her investments. The mutual child is in the custody of the father. The woman has shares custody of her first child. But she isn't working.

  • Father rearranges his priorities to take care of the mutual child. Makes about the quarter of the money he made in the marriage.

  • Woman still wants money after the child, who isn't from the dentist.

  • Dentist pays money for a boy of another man till the age of 19.

  • It is justified by the article since from the money the woman makes and receives from the dentist, she also pays back a portion to support the mutual child. So basically I give you $10 if you give me $4. Why don't I give you $6? And why do I pay you at all?