Ending CS

[jndi]

I've been paying religiously to the tune of $1200/month (+ section 7s) and have never missed a payment. There was a very messy disagreement many years ago when when support started, over section 7 expenses, and again when post secondary education started. Child saved almost nothing from a fairly well paying job (earned nearly $30,000, that could have covered entire education and then some) to contribute to university. But the hand went out for more. So all that behind, the end is coming. As of April 15 2019 child's first degree will be completed with grades in hand. Do I need to pay a full month in April? There is no "goodness of my heart" here whatsoever given the history. If it was $5 I wouldn't want to pay it unless required to by law. That half month would be into $600. Thoughts on this?

[rockscan]

You pay the full month.

You could have argued against the excess at the time but you did not? Child would have been responsible for 1/3 regardless of how much money they made.

[jndi]

I did argue it at the time yes. There was no headway to be made, and by the time this got air time in a settlement conference it was all but a forgone thought. The money was gone. So there was no retro to be had and not much to contribute going forward, though there as some adjustment to requirements of child's contribution.



I can accept that I would have to pay the month. In the long run, after this many years it's really not making much difference. Do you know of any case law that supports the full month? Curious why I would have to pay for support for an educated adult.

[rockscan]

The full month because they are in school for a period of time and realistically they would not be able to find full time employment.

There is no case law on the full month or date of graduation/completion. The arguments show that cs would be paid to the end of the school term which post secondary schools consider as April 30.

[StillPaying]

What is your child's plans for April 15, 2019? If it's more schooling, you may be paying even longer. You seem to make good income and could afford it if necessary.

[jndi]

My agreement is explicit about child support for first degree only. In April, she can get on with a career or decide as an adult to pursue further education and as adult determine how to pay for it. Had the initial 30k not been blown on frivolous things I’d pay for education gladly till the end of time.

[cashcow4ex]

What is your child's plans for April 15, 2019? If it's more schooling, you may be paying even longer. You seem to make good income and could afford it if necessary.

If I am not mistaken this really only applies to parents who have high levels of education. I dont believe a parent with only a high school diploma would be ordered to pay for their children to attain doctorates regardless of their income.

[rockscan]

Its a case by case basis and a number of factors are considered. Its not a one size fits all and it doesn’t matter what your agreement says.

I say this as my partner is in litigation around post secondary. His agreement says first degree OR 22. His kid was in a four year program that finished after 22. Now the ex is planning to see a portion of a masters degree.

Overall the lawyer said it probably won’t happen but it all depends on her argument and what the judge thinks. The judge that heard their motion disagreed with all of her other arguments regarding his share of post secondary and seemed to be in line with my partners arguments BUT he won’t be the judge at their conference.

Its a crapshoot and for the most part judges do not want kids to be punished for their parents divorce. Your argument will be the money kid earned and what was contributed to the first degree. It will also need to include how this additional degree relates to the first degree. And whether or not kid took bs courses in first degree and now realizes they need to get a job.

[StillPaying]

If I am not mistaken this really only applies to parents who have high levels of education. I dont believe a parent with only a high school diploma would be ordered to pay for their children to attain doctorates regardless of their income.

It's not just about the parents' education. Courts will consider their careers, income, education, and expectations for their children had they stayed together... Dad appears to make $150k?, and child made $30k out of high school... Seems like this is a hard working family with goals.

At para 42 of Renouf v. Bertol-Renouf 2004 CarswellAlta 1630 (Al.Q.B.) Johnstone J. made reference to a second or third degree as follows:

It appears from all of the foregoing that if the child’s plan is rational and attainable, the child appears to continue to be economically dependent in fact, and the parents would have encouraged the educational goals if they had stayed together, the child is likely to be found to continue to be a child of the marriage in pursuing a second or even third degree. However, as a child becomes older and better educated, the onus of proving dependency grows heavier.

[arabian]

A 4-year undergraduate is first step for someone who wants to be a doctor, veterinarian, architect (to name but a few).

If a child of the marriage has done well in their undergraduate 4-year programe, and parents can afford it and the designation was expected (MD, DVM, etc.) then parents are often on the hook for education costs.

If challenged, of course, differences in cases determine outcome.