View Single Post
Old 10-11-2012, 10:11 PM
Old Lawyer Old Lawyer is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 32
Old Lawyer is on a distinguished road

It is not good law that refusing to have relationship is a grounds for denying support. There was some thought that it might. Phil Epstein wrote a few articles on this maybe five years ago. However it is pretty clear now that this is a dead end

Judges do crazy things but as of this past summer when I was at a national family law conference in Halifax the speakers were clear that that line of case law was dead in the water.

For awhile lawyers and judges flirted the idea that if the parent had no relationship or if the child was particularly unfair to the parent it didn't feel right that the parent pay support once the child hit 18.

However on further reflection it was clear that was not a road we wanted to go down. Children are supported because they are children not because they are pleasing children. Saying well it is different when they hit 18 does not make sense. They are supported past 18 because we recognize that today 18 year olds are not adults in our society. (the fact that they were 40 years ago is not an answer -- 150 years ago they were adults at 8 so should 8 year olds just get support when they are nice.

Gee Suzie wouldnt go to bed when I told her so she doesn't get fed this month belongs in the 16th century.

An ex spouse can not be dis-entitled to spousal support or equalization for bad behaviour and a payor spouse is not liable for more support or equalization because she or he is a bad person. Financial responsibilities in modern family law due not flow from being a good guy or a bad guy or a chaste wife or a slut.

Parents are not denied access or custody because they were a bad husband or a bad wife (although certainly the spouse tries)

Introducing fault at the child level is with all due respect not the place to start if we wish to reintroduce fault.

Sure we have seen where the favoured parent responds with glee when the child side with them, but three wrongs do not make a right.

Child support is paid because the child is financially dependent. Not because he or she is a good boy or girl.

The payor is entitled to proof the child is still in school, still living at home and to know if she has income and the support recipient has an obligation to provide that failing which the court should terminate support Whether the child is nice is not relevant.