Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 10:23 AM
billm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,430
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by babybluetigger View Post
There are alot of things under CS laws that have outraged me and I totally disagree with, however, it is quite apparent that so long as children are attending full time schooling and they reside with you, you must pay for their living expenses. Which means that fathers are also to contribute to their housing costs. In reading about CS laws, it clearly states that based on affordability, yes, payor fathers can well be required to contribute to post-secondary costs, as well as CS, until the child has completed their 1st degree, and sometimes are required to pay beyond, depending on income and their financial status. Whether I agree with anything or not, it is simply forced upon us to do our part for our children. If it were easy to get out of, obviously we would not choose to be forced to pay CS and special expense while the child is in college/univ, however, contrary to what we want, the courts enforce it. So why should receiving CS for my child while in univ be any different. After all, isn't it all about the best interests of the child??? And I don't feel that I should be the extraordinary case, that supports my child alone while he earns 100,000 + a year and contributes 0. To me, at least to receive a level of CS relevant to his current income would be quite adequate and it would enable us for her to complete her schooling. I don't think that's asking too much.
You are not asking, you are forcing, there is a difference. You don't agree with it (for your husband), yet you want to force it on your daughters father.

'The best interest of the child' should be left up to parents, within reason, especially when their children are adults. That is my opinion.

As for your other post questioning why I state that CS continues into post secondary school for verytiredmother, I was simply stating the way things are done in cases that go to court these days, though I am not entirely sure how much as some have said that is not the case. I don't agree with being forced to pay for post secondard education as married/single parents are not so why should divorced parents? To be clear, I will support my children in their post secondary eduction the same as I would have when I was married. I think parents should, I just don't think it should be forced.
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 03:45 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 51
babybluetigger is on a distinguished road
Default

As for married parents not having to pay for post secondary schooling for their children, they do (most likely) pay for their housing costs as the children live with them and attend school, however, what most people aren't aware of is the fact that any child, even a child of married parents, can file their own application for support and costs against their parents, if they feel that their parents are in a financial position to do so. At least, they do have the right to file for support from their parents. Obviously they don't because they live at home and perhaps pay nothing to stay there. The child is just required, perhaps to pay for their education costs.
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 04:07 PM
billm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,430
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by babybluetigger View Post
...what most people aren't aware of is the fact that any child, even a child of married parents, can file their own application for support and costs against their parents, if they feel that their parents are in a financial position to do so. ....
Poppycock! Has this ever been done? I certainly have never heard of it so it is not reality.

The reality is that married parents are not forced to pay for their childrens education, and they can kick the kids out of their house if they want too when they are adults.

Lets stick with the real world please.
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 06:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ontario
Posts: 992
representingself is on a distinguished road
Default

Geez Bill... "I certainly have never heard of it so it is not reality".

Just because you've never heard of it, doesn't mean it isn't "reality"...

Who are you the almighty, all knowing and all powerful Oz??? hahahaha just kidding

BabyBlue is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT...

According to the Family Law Act...


Applicants
(2) An application for an order for the support of a dependant may be made by the dependant or the dependant’s parent. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 33 (2).

You may be suprised to know that, in fact, a Parent can seek support from an adult child as well....

Obligation of child to support parent
32. Every child who is not a minor has an obligation to provide support, in accordance with need, for his or her parent who has cared for or provided support for the child, to the extent that the child is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 32.


Maybe these laws aren't common practice, but they are still laws nonetheless....
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 06:31 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 51
babybluetigger is on a distinguished road
Default

Sorry, but this is the real world, several lawyers have told us this. I'm sure that someone has done it...especially if Mom & Dad kick them out of the house. Reality check! Welcome to the underworld that no-one really knows about, but the truth be known!
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 06:35 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 51
babybluetigger is on a distinguished road
Default

thank you 'representingself', glad to know that someone else is aware of what the laws really are...smart! Obviously parents who remain married care enough to take care of their children, while separated/divorced parents tend to shun their obligations and responsibilities, hence, CS law, although sometimes outrageous, it remains the law.
Guess some speak without knowing the reality of it! Poppycock....NOT!
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 09:02 PM
billm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,430
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by babybluetigger View Post
thank you 'representingself', glad to know that someone else is aware of what the laws really are...smart! Obviously parents who remain married care enough to take care of their children, while separated/divorced parents tend to shun their obligations and responsibilities, hence, CS law, although sometimes outrageous, it remains the law.
Guess some speak without knowing the reality of it! Poppycock....NOT!
Reality - what reality - find one case of a married couple in Canada being forced to pay for their adult childs education or putting a roof over their head for free. It sounds like you have never heard of it either, yet for some reason you want to argue the point! Maybe it has happened, but I have never heard of it mentioned, and it sounds like neither have you.

If it has not happened or at the least is not even an occasional event then my point, which was that it is unfortunate that some divorced parents force the other parent via the courts to support for their adult children, is valid. IMHO representingself - if that is okay with you.

My personal viewpoint is that I would never attempt to impose my view of support for my children when they are adults and going to post secondary education onto their mother - that is strictly between them. If she does not want to pay for part of their education or wants to charge them for living expenses once they are adult, that is up to her, it is NONE of my business. I will support my adult children the way I see fit, and I expect her to do the same according to her beliefs. I consider it to be my business and no one elses - just like married/single parents!

Last edited by billm; 09-16-2009 at 09:15 PM.
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 09:05 PM
billm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,430
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by babybluetigger View Post
...Obviously parents who remain married care enough to take care of their children, while separated/divorced parents tend to shun their obligations and responsibilities...
ahhh, wrong forum to post that comment! It is not obvious to me!
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 10:26 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26
ResponsibleMom is on a distinguished road
Default

Don't let your ex's lawyer use scare tactics on you.
The standard clause is both parents contribute according to income to the first degree/diploma. Some people contribute through a monthly resp contribution so it's not a huge drain when your child goes off to university.
Everyone expects their child to equally contribute to their post secondary education but support for post secondary full time education for a single child of the marriage is a matter of course in Canadian family law.
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2013, 08:42 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 16
cphunter is on a distinguished road
Default

The law is quite clear that as long as the children are still in need of support, both parents must continue to support them according to their respective incomes. Children in post secondary, (almost always, but much more certainly for their first degree or certificate which is recognized by the labour force) are still considered "chldren of the marriage" under the divorce act and therefore the table support is still payable.
If they "live" with you, the father must still pay guideline amounts. HOWEVER, if post-secondary residence fees (also should be paid proportionate to income by both parents) reduce the expenses you have at home (i.e. residence feeds them so you no longer have to) then a court can decide (or you can by agreement) how much $$ that represents. Your "guideline amount" will be reduced so that it no longer covers the "food" that you no longer buy.
If the child still requires their residence at your home to be maintained (i.e they come home for long weekends, holidays and summers) then there should be no other reduction in your guideline amount.
If the child does not need to have their residence with you maintained, after a time it would be reasonable to ask you to reduce your living expenses as well.
But be clear, even ifyou have an existing agreement that support will end at 21, the court will most likely extend that at least until the end of the first degree/diploma except under special circumstances (i.e. the child is employed and financially capable of supporting themselves; the child is only 'faking' being in school; the child is taking a 2nd or 3rd frivolous degree etc).
Also know this: child support is payable until he can prove that it is not. Do no be bullied by his lawyer saying it is no longer payable. The onus is on him to show that the child no longer needs support.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Post Secondary Education Ginger_Mallow Divorce & Family Law 39 12-11-2012 09:18 PM
Co-parenting ----post divorce bearall Parenting Issues 14 05-25-2010 12:14 PM
Joint Effort to Change Table Amounts of CS 350_dad Political Issues 43 12-18-2009 02:01 AM
Child Support Question Gwen Financial Issues 10 10-16-2008 12:54 PM
new here & need advice Please??? momofnl Divorce & Family Law 4 03-25-2007 03:36 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:31 AM.