University as section 7 (long...sorry)

[LookingforHelp2014]

I too have a question related to post secondary education.... I completely understand my cs payments continue when our daughter starts university, which i have no issue with, but what i'm wondering is if she ends up in residence or renting an apartment could I not pay her the support directly instead of having to give it to my ex?

My ex has started a motion hearing to come after me for s7 related to the kids being in hockey, even though she had them registered for years before even telling me and it's been 14 years since we separated. So considering we have a hearing, it was a thought I had that I didn't even know if it would be considered. I don't believe that this support money will go towards supporting our daughter if she isn't living with her mother, so I would prefer to be able to give it to her directly so it "supports her", as its intended purpose. Do I stand a chance at even suggesting this?

[arabian]

I've been reading CANLii BC as there seem to be many cases regarding university/section 7 cases. As I read through them I will post some that I think you might find somewhat relevant to your situation. Something to occupy myself while in the throws of laundry...


K.P.W. v. K.W.W., 2013 BCPC 40 (CanLII), <CanLII - 2013 BCPC 40 (CanLII)

[LookingforHelp2014]

I have another question related to this situation where our daughter is off to university, she turns 18 at the end of this summer. The motion my ex scheduled is related to a few things, one being the hockey I mentioned before, but the other being expenses related to university.

I became unemployed in 2012 and when I saw the difficulty in trying to find employment I decided to try working for myself. Last year I had a full year of steady work on my own but in this process the judge inputted an income to me based on an average over the last 3 years. I have no problem with this at all, but my income actually came in $8,000.00 lower that the amount my support is based on (again, I'm fine with that) and I'm basing that on gross profit not factoring in write offs.

I've been able to pay my support on time each month, but my current wife is picking up some of the financial slack on my part, she is trying to be supportive of me working for myself and trying to get a successful business going. But considering I am having a hard time covering all of my necessities of life, like food and stuff, I am concerned that when determining post secondary contributions that they are going to look at financials from a "household" income.

I know how important post secondary education is for our daughter, but what happens in a situation where a parent just doesn't have it to contribute? My ex is on welfare, she has barely worked since we split up in 2000 and now she is trying to come after me for anything she can. She tells the court I'm hiding money, that my wife is helping me hide money and that couldn't be further from the truth, I'm trying to make an honest living and I just don't know what to do in this situation. My ex lied to me about our son being in post secondary when he actually wasn't. She did this so she could continue to collect support for him after he turned 18. I'm concerned she will lie to me too about where our daughter is living while she is in school, and she has the kids lie for her too.

Do I want to help my daughter with university costs, of course I do, but at the same time I have to be able to survive as well. It's not fair that my wife is picking up the pieces that I can't afford to pay for and if she were to have to put out anything more where my past family is concerned she would probably leave me!

Not feeling like much of a man right now! Does anyone have any insight?

[arabian]

Lookingforhelp - are you currently paying CS through a maintenance enforcement program (FRO/MEP)?

Sometimes you have to accept the reality that 'working for one's self' is not in the cards. If you are currently making less than the income imputed to you that should tell you that you need to critically examine the benefit of being self-employed. When someone is imputed with income, it means that with your current level of education and employment experiences, the imputed income is a minimum amount of money you should be making. If you have given your self-employment endeavors a good try and it is not working out then perhaps it is time to consider being an employee once again.

Being self-employed is not always glamorous. Do you have a comprehensive medical plan? Do you have a good retirement savings plan? When you 'hang your own shingle' you have to take those things into consideration. Of course if you have children, planning for their post-secondary education is very, very important. You should be looking at your own situation in a mature, realistic manner and be prepared to face up to the reality of the bottom line.

Some people have to get second jobs to pay for their kid's university.

I would recommend getting together with a financial planner and assessing your current financial situation. Sometimes we don't want to face reality but the sooner one does the sooner you can make some important decisions.

[LookingforHelp2014]

Hi Arabian, Yes I pay my support through FRO because it's traceable this way. I have been looking for a full time job and there isn't much selection. I have high school as my highest education, and I have no licenses/tickets behind me.

At this time I have no choice but to try and keep getting jobs for myself, until I can find full time employment, because I have no EI benefit either. I know, not the greatest situation, but this is reality for me right now. There has been no glamour at all in being self employed, but I couldn't find full time work as an employee so I did what I had to to keep making money to survive. Being self employed is not working out, and I have my eye on the job boards constantly. In the mean time, I'm trying my hardest to keep my head afloat while trying to minimize as much burden as possible that my wife has been facing in all of this.

[arabian]

As your ex is on social assistance you have to be very, very careful. FRO or other maintenance enforcement agencies are obligated by law to collect aggressively from payors when the other person is on welfare.

The best thing is to be honest and candid about your income and expenses. Keep accurate records of money in/money out.

Because there are so many deadbeats out there (like my ex) who try to manipulate the system, it makes it very hard for people who are honestly trying to survive and support their children.

I would recommend that you have your income/expenses documented by a neutral 3rd party. You might consider seeking financial advice from a provincial financial counselling agency. Whatever you do, DO NOT, wash money through your current partner. My ex has done that and it has recently resulted in his loss of drivers' license and passport.

A provincially-sponsored financial counselling agency can work with you and you will have the benefit of having the agency document all of your income and expenses. Then if your ex, or FRO, try to nail you in the future you can simply turn over your documentation and not worry. This documentation will help you should you have to file a claim for undue hardship. If you can prove you are indeed in dire straights then you might also qualify for legal aid. I don't know what the regulations are for that in your Province but I'm sure the information is readily available online.

[LookingforHelp2014]

I wouldn't even think to wash money through my wife, nor would i ever do something like that. And if there is anything I'm trying to avoid is having to do undue hardship, because then they will drag my wifes info into it and i need to avoid having that happen. i'll get it all figured out, just don't know how to approach this motion response.

[arabian]

I understand you don't want to drag your wife into this. However, if things are as tight as you say they are then you should consider providing full financial disclosure for both you and your partner.

Whatever you do make sure your documentation is impeccable. Judges do appreciate having facts, not fiction, in front of them.

Good luck - perhaps someone else on the forum has some other ideas for you.

[Serene]

Intact families have no obligation to pay for children's post secondary costs. But separated parent's do... think about it for a minute...

[arabian]

Protection for the children's best interests. Once the family breaks up the child of the marriage, through no fault of his/her own, might have to face insurmountable difficulty in obtaining support that the child would normally receive for post education had the marriage stayed intact. With this in mind, laws exist to protect the child of the marriage.

The way I see it it's kind of an insurance policy that keeps everyone's fingers out of the child's education fund.

Just another cost of divorce. Probably pales in comparison to legal fees the parents spend fighting about it though.

[Beachnana]

Intact families have no obligation to pay for children's post secondary costs. But separated parent's do... think about it for a minute...

I agree its not a natural situation. When we funded our childrens education they both had friends who could not attend University or college, as parents had not given them any assistance. On the other side of the spectrum one of my daughters friends had divorced parents and lacked for nothing. Never had to pay towards school. Her Mom just called up Dad and requested his portion of the expense, which apparently was high. It is sad, that there is a sense of entitlement being encouraged. My daughter ex has already informed her that he has no intention of paying for skiing, hockey or university which is kinda of funny, he is planning ahead, the child is only 2. So she knows it will be a battle and she hopes by then to be financially sound enough to assist him herself, and to encourage him to save and work to support some of his needs himself. In the end children are quite aware of their parents shortcomings, without the parents pointing them out. I guess the law seeks to level the playing field for children of separated parents, but in the end they may be causing greater damage by the resulting conflict, the development of entitlement by some and by damaging relationships of child and parent when one does not or will not or cannot pay and ends up in a court.

[LookingforHelp2014]

I'm wondering something, my daughter is about to turn 18 and she lives with her mother. She is going to be attending university starting September, living away from home, and her mother has brought me back to court for S7 (which is fine). The judge wants me to make an offer on what I can afford to contribute to her school and part of the offer I want to give is to provide the child support directly to my daughter as she won't be living at home. Would a judge agree to something like that?

I want to make sure I'm fair and reasonable, but to me it makes more sense to be able to give that money directly to my daughter to help her out then to give it to her mother when she won't be living with her any longer. I just have no idea if something like that is even an option.

[Serene]

It a distinction without a difference. Either way the child will be supported by you to go to school. You are attempting to have the upper hand and gain control of a situation vs looking at what is being asked.

I caution you - this will piss off your ex too. SHE is seeking the money and has taken you to court. Not your daughter.

What will you do if your daughter mismanaged the money and your ex is on the hook and takes you back to court for more money? Over and above what you already gave your kid which I'm willing to bet has no long term history of being able to manage finances.

[arabian]

From what I have read this is not the norm. Often it is not allowed in order for the custodial parent to maintain a home for which the child of the marriage stays in during summer, fall break, Christmas break, spring break even though the child is living away from home the majority of the time.

There are cases on CanLii relevant to your situation. You very well might find some cases that support your position and others on this forum might have experience with this.

[HammerDad]

I'm wondering something, my daughter is about to turn 18 and she lives with her mother. She is going to be attending university starting September, living away from home, and her mother has brought me back to court for S7 (which is fine). The judge wants me to make an offer on what I can afford to contribute to her school and part of the offer I want to give is to provide the child support directly to my daughter as she won't be living at home. Would a judge agree to something like that?

I want to make sure I'm fair and reasonable, but to me it makes more sense to be able to give that money directly to my daughter to help her out then to give it to her mother when she won't be living with her any longer. I just have no idea if something like that is even an option.

You will not get out of paying c/s to the ex. You will continue to have to pay, but how much you pay will depend on whether the child stays at home or lives in residence.

If the child stays at home and goes to school, nothing changes.

If the child lives in residence, and you pay your proportionate share of the expense as a s7 expense, you may argue that your c/s should be decreased for the duration of the school year where the child lives on residence. Your reasoning is, you are paying for the child accommodations and food (likely though a meal card), thus paying the ex full c/s would essentially paying for these expenses twice. Your ex will likely have to maintain the house they live in now, as the child won't live at school all year, and thus c/s won't be dropped completely. But it should be reduced to take into consideration that the utilities c/s pays for will decrease. Same goes for food consumption in the ex's house.

There is caselaw on this matter which can be found on Canlii.