Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ending Family Support Payments

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Also if the child works can play a role in how much support you pay, as well as the cost if the schooling.

    It is possible that you may end up contributing to tuition as well as support. But it is also possible that you end up lowering your support if the child earns money too. Lots of this is under a judge's discretion, and is based on need.

    Comment


    • #17
      What happens if the child lives at home, after age 18, had crappy marks in school (because the guardian parent didn't give a crap about education) and decides not to get a job and decides to live off my support payments? This is the road my daughter is going down ... her school grades are barely passing marks, she will be lucky to get a diploma. I'm starting to see an image of me paying for a "free-loader" off of her father? Any ideas?

      Comment


      • #18
        The proceedure you would follow would be a motion to vary, not a material change. A Motion to vary includes to end support where a material change is just that... one or the other has had a change in your income and you are requesting that the support just be adjusted.

        In your motion to vary you should list the childrens birthdates, a copy of your divorce agreement, any school records that you can get of post secondary and if none state what the children have been doing after thier 18th birthday because you only owe child support until 3 consecutive years of post secondary education. This is stated in the family law rules. Time the motion for two points , 1 after she turns 18 and do so when she is in school ie all pst secondary has started by mid sept and then there would be no problen to produce enrollment records if in fact this child is in school.

        This next part is a judgement call that you have to make for yourself. You have to decide to stop payments once you know she has turned 18. I say this from my experience in that I stopped the payments 18 months later. FRO placed me in arrears BUT you MUST notify FRO immediately that you are going for a motion to vary. They should put a stay while you proceed and wait for the order to cease. For those 18 months I have overpaid and to this day FRO has refused to refund that money to me they claim that I have to sue the recipient. So that is half of what I am currently doing. These arrears accumulated after the last turned 18. A year ago the courts gave me an order that FRO had no jurisdiction to presue the arrears as the court said there were none.
        Now there has also been comment in this thread about Global orders. My advice to anyone is to make sure that in fact you have this as a condition. In my case FRO tried to used this as means to continue to persue me for the last 8 years. Seems there is a great debate on that point. several lawyers that I have spoke with have said it is not a global order and that this has not been a standard practice for over 14 years. seek a lawyers opinion if you feel this may be so. It may be worded such that the meaning is unclear and ambiguous. (mine was clear) An order should state clearly what condition are to be met to end support ie 18, self supportive post secondary. I had 6 in mine and the only one that was not met was the child dies. Why they tried to claim was that 4 years after my divorce the ex had the amount changed from 100/child/month to 500 a month. FRO claims that this made it a global order and the lawyers say no. So now I am arguing in my civil case that this is the case and that my overpayment is in fact 10 times higher than what FRO figures they may owe me. Bottom line on this one is that FRO will attempt to use that as an arguement to continue and you may not have such. ask to be sure.

        As many points have been raised that parallel my case Tomorrow I will post what the Judge had to say. For some I think it will be valuable.

        Constitution1 & AtALoss
        Last edited by AtALoss; 09-22-2010, 10:48 PM. Reason: correction

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rwm1273 View Post
          Some orders are a "global order" which means that the support is to be paid until all children are considered "not to be children of the marriage"

          You may have had 2 children 10 yrs apart. First child moved out at 16 and got married, and second child went to university to become a doctor.

          You will be paying support for both children until the second is 24 yrs old, and the first child is 34 and a grand parent of their own.

          And yes you can request confirmation that the child is registered in full time education.
          one last thought.... when there is a condition of post secondary it means only one shot at post secondary it is not intened to continue until the child gets multiple degrees or hope around various programs. the family law rules clearly state to a maximum of 4 consecutive years... no more. In the case of a global order it means until the youngest turns 18or add on those four years thats it. By no means should it be continuing until they are well past thier mid twenties.

          Support for a disabled child can also terminate if they have proven income. Work or a disability pension would constitute income.

          Comment


          • #20
            Problem is the courts often let the floundering child drag the school issue on and on. It is often more expensive to try to argue the point than it is to just pay the support, and I think that is often the game played by the lawyers and judges.

            My advise is to not argue with the other parent or child, and try to get the child a job.

            If the child does not continue back to school, and gets a job, then go to court. But the other side will try to claim that the child is going to upgrade, and then get the support to continue.

            If the child is working, then your support should be dropped.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by AtALoss View Post
              one last thought.... when there is a condition of post secondary it means only one shot at post secondary it is not intened to continue until the child gets multiple degrees or hope around various programs. the family law rules clearly state to a maximum of 4 consecutive years... no more. In the case of a global order it means until the youngest turns 18or add on those four years thats it. By no means should it be continuing until they are well past thier mid twenties.

              Support for a disabled child can also terminate if they have proven income. Work or a disability pension would constitute income.
              I have seen one case where the father was ordered to pay until the child was 24, and this was because the child did not start university until a bit later. Can't remember the specific case, but found it on canlii.

              Comment


              • #22
                Can and does happen but my point was that it should not be going on until a child gets thier PHD.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Unfortunately it really comes down to what a judge says. If he feels there is "need" then you are stuck paying, or you waste a lot in legal fees to fight it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by AtALoss View Post
                    Can and does happen but my point was that it should not be going on until a child gets thier PHD.
                    That can, and has been ordered within recent years. The "child" was 26 or so and completing their post doctorate, the judge ordered c/s to continue.

                    Now, that may also be a "means" test, meaning the payor had the means to continue with the support.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by rwm1273 View Post
                      Some orders are a "global order" which means that the support is to be paid until all children are considered "not to be children of the marriage"

                      You may have had 2 children 10 yrs apart. First child moved out at 16 and got married, and second child went to university to become a doctor.

                      You will be paying support for both children until the second is 24 yrs old, and the first child is 34 and a grand parent of their own.

                      And yes you can request confirmation that the child is registered in full time education.
                      Any party paying support is downright foolish and beyond to allow this kind of clause in an agreement. It makes no sense whatsoever to allow this kind of "piggy backing" of support such that amounts are being paid for a child who ceased to be a child of the marriage just because there is a younger child behind.

                      Someone please explain to me what I'm missing here. That's completely whacked.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by dadtotheend View Post
                        Any party paying support is downright foolish and beyond to allow this kind of clause in an agreement. It makes no sense whatsoever to allow this kind of "piggy backing" of support such that amounts are being paid for a child who ceased to be a child of the marriage just because there is a younger child behind.

                        Someone please explain to me what I'm missing here. That's completely whacked.
                        An order like this would not be by consent. Yes it is whacked. Anyone who had such an order would clearly have grounds to question it, but often one does not realize it until after they get into trouble with the FRO.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          In that case, any judge who makes an order like this is whacked. Support should continue for the second child, but not for the child who ceased to be a child of the marriage.

                          Please explain to me how this makes any sense. Under what circumstances can this be justified?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I think they use it as a way to provide spousal support when there are no grounds for spousal support.

                            Not fair, but legal.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Brutally unfair.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Here is a link to a book that is an excellent read on the subject of child support.

                                child support - press

                                Lucien Khodeir has written this book with the intention of showing how the current laws are bad for children, and what a better solution would be.

                                I am not sure if you can still get a free copy of it in pdf, but he is a great guy to talk to as well, and a wealth of information.

                                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