Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

this is scary

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

  • this is scary

    Two non-custodial parents are before the Supreme Court in an effort to have an Alberta Family Court decision overturned. Here's part of whats at issue, as I understand it. The non-custodial parents are making child support payments as required based on their income and in accordance with the Federal Guidelines. Same have since re-married. The custodial parents have in turn successfully argued in Alberta that the child support, based on income should increase based on the fact that the non-custodial parent's new spouse(s) are employed which in theory increases the non-custodial parent's income. Also, because same re-married years ago, they have been ordered to make retoractive payments. Now, if the custodial parent inherits a large sum, wins the lottery, or re-marries it in no way lowers what the non-custodial parent is obligated to pay. This Alberta ruling seems a little unfair and I hope the Supreme Court agrees. What do you know about this ?

  • #2
    Hi John,

    I haven't heard of this - do you know the name of the case? The result certainly seems odd to me.
    Ottawa Divorce

    Comment


    • #3
      My understanding was that unless a case of undohardship, only the income of the spouse is included. Had a bit of this argument (short-lived) during my divorce. Interesting!

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks Jeff

        I don't know the names. The story was called 'Adequate Support'. It was actually about four Alberta fathers and reported in the Toronto Star and on evening news this August 18 past. I have a copy from Pulse 24.com which describes the scenerio including the part I mentioned "some lawyers argue that as a person's situation changes -they make more money annually, or they remarry - the amount they provide for their children should change". The report went on to state "that mean's anyone who's been paying child support under a court order or separation agreement made within the last fifteen years may have to make back payments"

        (?)

        John

        Comment


        • #5
          John, I think that this is what you're referring to:
          http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/...ns_19AUG05.htm
          Ottawa Divorce

          Comment


          • #6
            That would be it, except unlike the printed version I saved from another news source, there was no mention of the re-marry issue.

            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