CS Question

[JEC]

I have searched for what I thought would be an easy answer to a CS question. Unable to find it I will ask it here, which is where I should have started quite frankly.

18 year old graduated from grade 12 high school, returning with full schedule to high school next year with no aspirations of attending college or university in the future (hoping she will change her mind).

Question is since she is not attending post secondary school next year and has graduated from grade 12 and is no longer a minor, is CS still required to be paid. She does work part time, and has no illnesses or ailments that prevent her from working full time. On the surface it would appear the custody parent is using the child to extend CS payments. But is the paying parent required by law to continue CS while returning for another year of high school after graduation.

JEC

[Mess]

<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .droit de la famille (Loi sur le), L.R.O. 1990, chap. F.3. -->31.<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .droit de la famille (Loi sur le), L.R.O. 1990, chap. F.3. --> (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.
Idem

The answer is there, it just isn't worded the way you want so I think you don't see it. In your case, the child is still enrolled in a full-time program of education, so child support must still be paid.

[JEC]

but if I split hairs, is redoing grade 12 once a diploma has been successfully achieved considered education in the eyes of the law. I work in the education field and we all continually learn everyday of our lives in everything we do. again splitting hairs ... but is redoing what you graduated from considered education ... certainly it is not post secondary education ...

not sure if "provide support" falls under the same guide lines as CS

JEC

[Mess]

You don't get to split hairs, that privilege is reserved to judges.

Is she enrolled full time in an educational program? How the hell do think you argue she isn't? The Family Law Act says nothing about post-secondary.

Secondly, what is the spirit of the law? She is persuing an education so that she can graduate, hopefully get a better job than if she just dropped out, and thereby ensure her future independance. During this time she cannot work full time and go school full time. No judge is going to support you in this (not to mention just research case law at Canlii).

All you will do is come across as mean spirited and indifferent to your child's needs. Children don't magically become independant at 18, that is just a random number picked by the government, an average at best. The Family Law Act is written such that age alone is not the criteria. You don't want to accept that and want to change the criteria but that's not up to you.

[JEC]

the child has graduated this year, diploma in hand. returning to high school to take some classes, which could be full time. I manage a pcc and know the requirements for full or part time courses. some classes she is returning for are of grade 10 level and with no aspirations of going to college or university, on a good day the judge may indeed split a hair or two. (could simply be a ploy to collect CS for another year). Do not get the wrong idea, she needs to get as much education as she can get, no issues about paying what needs to be paid. the issue is under what pretense?

[dadtotheend]

The rule is clear. She is enrolled in school. The rule doesn't make allowances for your situation.

The letter and the spirit of the law are such that CS is applicable. You can "split hairs" or dance around it all you want.

[dinkyface]

... Do not get the wrong idea, she needs to get as much education as she can get, no issues about paying what needs to be paid. the issue is under what pretense?

OK, so you agree that she needs the education. What's the issue then? (i.e. if you really meant that then you would not care about 'pretense')

[Mess]

Speak to the principal and ask why they are letting stay an extra year if she has already graduated. There are actually rules about this, but they will vary from board to board but where I am you can't just stay in HS once you have graduated. The exception would be if she didn't have the credits to get into University, they would certainly accomodate that.

What you're describing doesn't make the least bit of sense and I'm more inclined to feel that you have misunderstood something rather than she is part of some conspiracy to rip you off for an extra year of child support.

[HammerDad]

The issue at hand is this:

enrolled in a full time program of education

If she is taking a full course load, she is still enrolling in a full time program for education. If she is taking a couple courses to upgrade and is not considered by the school as being a full time student, then C/S should stop as she is not enrolled in a full time program.

The full time program is the only question that needs to be answered. If enrolled full time C/S continues notwithstanding that it is just upgrading. Part time, C/S stops.

[JEC]

seeking points of view, perspectives, and opinions. my issue is currently misappropriated CS payments as they must be made to the custody parent. I would prefer to pay CS monies directly to my daughter, but cannot as long as the CS guidelines apply which her mother will hold me to as long as possible.

ty for all the replies, it confirms what I already knew.

this is why this site works so well.

JEC

[blinkandimgone]

IMO, it would be the same as if she had decided not to graduate this year and continue you to take extra courses to expand her field of education, perhaps she couldn't take all the courses she wanted to in a year so is choosing to stay on longer to get that education as well - good for her!

The other way to look at it would be if she hadn't passed all her courses either this past year or earlier on and was staying the extra year to get those credits. One wouldn't decide they should stop paying child support because their kid failed a year.

[logicalvelocity]

"Full time" is a loophole in itself. It's open for determination and in some instances - what most would deem "part time"

[Rioe]

Have you spoken with your daughter about this at all? Don't let her know about your cynical view of it, just chat and find out what she hopes to accomplish by going back for more high school courses. Maybe she's still unsure what she wants to do with her life, and hopes this will help her explore more options. Maybe her friends are younger and still in school and she just doesn't feel ready to grow up yet.

In my life, I've been trying to look at a lot of things from the perspective of an intact family. If we hadn't separated, how would we have handled X situation? And then I work from there as best I can.

If you and your ex were still together, you would still be supporting your daughter taking more high school courses, right? You wouldn't start charging her room and board just because she turned 18 and has that OSSD in hand. It would be really nice if, after a child turns 18, the support payments could go directly to them instead of the ex, but in reality, no matter how greedy they seem, the ex is using it to support the child living with them. It helps pay the bills for the home your child lives in, buys her food, books and clothes, bus pass, etc.

I haven't gotten to this point yet as my children are still young, but it seems to me that a lot of the CS bitterness stems from two sources. Bitterness at greedy exes treating it like a monthly windfall and not spending it the way we would prefer, but also at the system, for dictating how we should support our children and for how long. But the more I read about CS, the more I wonder why, when they turn 18, we shouldn't be able to pay the CS directly to them? Or even to their educational institution for their tuition, as they have to be enrolled somewhere to keep getting the CS.

[JEC]

... remember as stated I have no intention of stopping monies directed, but the way it is directed. CS must be paid to the custody parent and used at their discretion, my preference is to give the same amount of support directly to my daughter and used at her discretion. and this is really the only point of contention. If there is a way to stop my ex from handling the money meant for my daughter then I would like to pursue that.

JEC

[blinkandimgone]

I understand what you're saying however, a point to consider is that if your child is still residing with her mother than the mother has expenses related to keeping a home for the child. Redirecting the money to your daughter, although in theory sounds reasonable, is leaving her mom in the lurch for the child's living expenses when she may well decide to blow the money you give her on typical teenage wants.

Perhaps you could have a discussion with mum and come to an agreement about how the money gets handled. It could be a great opportunity to introduce your daughter to real world expenses. For example, if you and mum agreed, the money could be given to your daughter with the understanding that she contribute $X for housing, $X for hydro/bills etc and $X for food etc.

If the two of you could come up with a well thought out plan and do up a written agreement with your daughter it could turn out to be a really great experience for her.