Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adult 'disabled' daughter?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Adult 'disabled' daughter?

    Hello everyone. I am looking for some advice on my husband's situation with his ex common-law spouse. They have been separated since 1998 and have two children together, 13yo and 20yo daughters. They have an agreement from 2002 that has not been updated since.

    We have been trying for the past 2 years to get the mother to update the agreement and have nad no luck. My husband verbally requested, then sent emails and then two registered letters requesting the agreement be brought up to date and that she provide her financial information as well as medical and school information about the daughters. He was either ignored or refuse information stating that the 20yo is an adult and doesn't want her private information shared with her father so her mother is legally obligated to keep it secret from him. In the same breath the mother insists that my husband keep paying support because the 20yo daughter is unable to go to school full time because of medical issues...but they refuse to provide proof of these claims. After over a year with no luck we served her with a Motion to change in February and just received her response on Monday. She is now asking for $35,000 in retro support for both children going back to 2004 claiming that she has been asking my husband for his NOAs and has been ignored. She has no written proof that we know of but claims her parents witnessed her asking him. She also listed both of the children as being special needs in many areas and is insisting that my husband is still repsonsible for supporting his 20yo daughter because her doctors recommend every semester that she drop out of school because it is too stressful. She has already graduated high school in June 2011 and keeps trying to go back for a 'victory lap' to improve her grades. She got a concussion over two years ago, has diabetes and is now 6 months pregnant with her own child. The mother claims she can't go to school or support herself because she is dealing with mental issues as a result fo the concussion and a high risk pregnancy so my husband should have to continue to pay for her. Before getting pregnant the daughter held two part time jobs as a cashier. The daughter has refused a relationship with her father for the past two years because she doesn't like me, the new wife, and they feel he chose me over them. He has tried on numerous occassions to reconcile with her but she is unwilling to even acknowledge him. Don't get me wrong, we would happily pay to support her if it is truly warranted but I honestly feel they are playing the system and trying to take my husband for as much as possible.

    So, my questions are... how likely is it that the ex will be successful in her claim for 10 years of retro support when it is my husband who has written proof he has been trying to get her to update the agreement for the past two years? Second, do a concussion, diabetes and a pregnancy qualify his 20yo daughter as disabled to the point where she can't support herself? If so, how long could my husband potentially be obligated to pay for a daughter who wants nothing to do with him? and are there any options for him like forcing her to apply for Ontario Disability or other programs? I appreciate any insight you can give. Thank you.

  • #2
    First principle is that child support is the right of the child, wether or not your husband has a relationship with the child or access to the child.

    Having said that, diabetes, stress and pregnancy are not diasabling. Serious issues but not by most definitions disabled.

    My ex claimed to be disabled when we first started negotiations(long story). I was also in the midst of doing some previous years tax returns, so I forwarded her the form her doctor would have to sign to attest that she was by the government's definition disabled for the purposes of income tax credits. I offered to split the refund attributable to that 50/50. She couldn't get her doctor to sign.

    If the daughter has mental issues, then a doctor should be able to attest to that, provide a diagnosis and prognosis. I would not trust a general practitioner with a mental health diagnosis. It would have to be a specialist, psychiatrist preferably.

    Comment


    • #3
      If an adult is disabled to the point of needing support, they should qualify for ODSP. Your CS would be in addition to that. If they don't qualify for ODSP, then I don't see why you should pay CS for someone the government feels can support themselves.

      Diabetes is not a disability. People with diabetes can work just fine. Famous Diabetics

      Pregnancy is not a disability, not to mention being temporary. Lots of people work while pregnant. I would think it shows more than anything else that she is now an adult.

      The concussion is the only iffy part. But it sounds like she held down jobs just fine after this injury. Again, if it isn't enough to qualify her for ODSP, it shouldn't qualify her for receiving CS.

      Something he could maybe do would be to give some money directly to the daughter, a present for her pregnancy. She's an adult he can now have a relationship with independently of her mother. If she refuses that relationship, she's refusing his gifts.

      Comment


      • #4
        The act defines a ‘Child of Marriage’ as, “[someone] the age of majority or over and under their charge but unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessities of life.”

        I would argue the child is not disabled or otherwise ill. While she may have existing conditions, none of which would otherwise cause her from being able to withdraw from the ex's care. Would life be harder of the child did withdraw? Yes. But the child is not incapacitated or otherwise completely incapable of caring for themselves should the need arise.

        Comment


        • #5
          Interesting if D20 is pregnant, she should be going after the baby father for support here. At that age there is also the wellfare option if needed.

          As for disability:
          • Diabetes on its own is not considered a disability unless she has all the complication limiting her which I doudt at her age.
          • Concussion from 2 years ago must be healed by now.
          • She has work previously so that demonstrate that she is employable.
          While I disagree on the the statement that if you do not qualify for ODSP then you shouldnot be for CS. It is not that straight forward and case by case.
          The criteria for ODSP are pretty strict and while you can have a child with medical limitation that also prevent being employable whitout necessry qualifying for ODSP.


          But base on the info provided, I do not see the disability case but it seems that the D although not full time is attending school.

          While the daughter might be refusing to provide info, that is fine but on the other hand the mother has no choice to provide the info required to support her claim for CS.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Moolight View Post
            While I disagree on the the statement that if you do not qualify for ODSP then you shouldnot be for CS. It is not that straight forward and case by case.

            The criteria for ODSP are pretty strict and while you can have a child with medical limitation that also prevent being employable whitout necessry qualifying for ODSP.
            ODSP is a "baseline" for being considered unemployable. If you qualify, then most arguments are moot. If you don't qualify, but you still want to claim that you are unemployable for the purposes of receiving SS, or for an adult child to receive CS, then you should very rightly have to jump through hoops and prove your case.

            Yes the criteria for ODSP are fairly strict *(I know someone within the bureaucracy whose job it is to approve claims; it is not THAT strict) but this does not in any way prove that a family court support claim should be based on criteria that are less strict. Inability to work must be proven, not assumed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mess View Post
              ODSP is a "baseline" for being considered unemployable. If you qualify, then most arguments are moot. If you don't qualify, but you still want to claim that you are unemployable for the purposes of receiving SS, or for an adult child to receive CS, then you should very rightly have to jump through hoops and prove your case.

              Yes the criteria for ODSP are fairly strict *(I know someone within the bureaucracy whose job it is to approve claims; it is not THAT strict) but this does not in any way prove that a family court support claim should be based on criteria that are less strict. Inability to work must be proven, not assumed.
              I am in that situation where i have child that currently enrolled full time in school and able to manage so far to a degree due to disability grant and lot of support and services.
              When I look at the criteria for ODSP, the child does not meet them but at the same time it is difficult to see when the child get even let go from volunteer work due to his limitation.

              I have less than a year to figure out what the option are for post graduation. Accommodation are difficult when the limitation is not physical.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thank you everyone for the input. I don't believe she is truly disabled but we will see what they can prove.
                What about the claim for retro going back 10 years? We are the ones who have been trying to get her to update the agreement, not the other way around. Would a judge allow a claim going back that far?

                Comment

                Our Divorce Forums
                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                Working...
                X