Is a child going to university still a child of the marriage if they...

OntarioDaddy said:
I thought, at least in Ontario, common law was living together for 3 years or living together with a child. I didn't think saying yes, meant they were common-law now.

Who determines it in Alberta? If child moves into dorm, is kid common-law with roommate for sharing their kraft dinner long term expenses.

Child is still going to school like they always did. They just said yes to someone. Maybe next year they'll get married and kid will be no longer a kid. Or they don't and will go home as they normally do.

Why should you benefit now on a hope. Because I do hope my ex gets a promotion next year and would love to change support now.
Click to expand...

"Legally", Ontario family law recognizes a common law marriage after three years. CRA, after twelve months. If the couple has a child together and lives together they are automatically legally common law without a waiting period.

"Is a kid common law with roommate for sharing their kraft dinner long term expenses?"

This is dumb. They live in school housing for the purpose of going to school, the roommate is just that: a roommate - not a romantic relationship partner. Obviously, this would NOT be common law and is a dumb question.

The school part is irrelevant for the most part as those expenses would be S.7 and NOT CS - if there are expenses that qualify. The child is self sufficient and living in an arrangement where she is there specifically for the relationship, not for school. The mother is no longer maintaining a home for the child. As such, no CS should be paid to the mother. They are living as a couple.

Again, should the father wish to contribute to the child's schooling or help the young couple out with their living expenses that is entirely up to his discretion. But this is most certainly NOT a CS situation.
 
So they're not common law. They are simply living and sleeping together off campus which makes it a relationship moreso than school? Students live off campus all the time.

I assume the child is a teenager. It's hard to imagine that by saying "i do" automatically make them self sufficient. Child took time off to raise funds to afford school as parents weren't paying.

I'm not trying to be dumb, just understand the facts without the feelings.

In this situations, would OP go to court or just stop paying support?
 
This child is over eighteen and is able to remove him/herself from parental charge (and has done so, as evidenced by becoming financially self-supporting and entering an adult interdependent relationship). S/he is no longer a child of the marriage. The OP can simply stop paying support if s/he chooses, no court needed. If the OP wishes to continue to help the child with school costs, as most parents do, s/her can do so, but it's not CS.
 
Stripes is correct. I just read some caselaw on this recently and will post it if I can find it again. Key is the "removing themselves from parental charge" part I believe.
 
I'm not from Alberta, and I'd assume the OP isn't either, but from what I quickly read an Adult Interdependent Relationship is simply what we would refer to as common-law with almost the same requirements.

It doesn't appear like the child would qualify as that.

The only way I could see cs ending is if you could show the child is fully self sufficient, moreso than last year, and doesn't require to graduate or the possible 10 remaining payments.
 
CS ends at age 18 unless specific circumstances apply. The burden of proof is on the parent receiving CS to show why it should not end, not on the payor to show why it should. In other words, the payor doesn't need to prove that the adult child is autonomous, self-supporting, etc.
 
stripes said:
CS ends at age 18 unless specific circumstances apply.
Click to expand...

Right, like going to school full time.
Child is simply in their last year. No one is disagreeing with that.

Otherwise why couldn't everyone stop cs in child's last year of school, as it's assumed child will graduate and no longer be a child of the marriage.
 
The offspring is over 18 and has moved out of her parents' homes with the intention of remaining financially independent indefinitely. There are no more child-related expenses incurred by either parent, so CS is no longer needed. If either parent wants to give the daughter some financial assistance directly, that's their prerogative.

It's irrelevant that the daughter is in a live-in relationship.
 
I have no experience on this topic, just interested...

Every year, child moves out to go to school and comes home for summers. If the address doesn't matter and who the roommate is doesn't matter, then what has charged other than the hope they get married and continue living together. Maybe they don't, child is back home for summer and back to school next year, still a child of the marriage, still collecting support.
 
A big portion of whether or not c/s should continue being paid is based off of the intent of the child.

If the child plans on going to university for the school year, then returning a parents home for the summer, than c/s continues. That parents home is considered their residential address.

If the child does not plan on living at either parents residence at any point in the foreseeable future, than the child has removed themselves from the care of their parents and thus c/s ends.

As many have mentioned, if the child lives away from home for school c/s could/should be reduced. The s7 expenses incurred by both parents essentially steps in to override normal c/s. C/S is the proportional share the NCP pays the CP to raise the child. The concept is that the CP also will contribute out of their own funds to raise the child, I'll call it CP-C/S.

CP-C/S + NCP-C/S = what the government figures it will cost to raise the kid. While there is no hard and fast figure for CP-C/S, lets just consider that it exists as NCP-C/S generally doesn't cover all the costs associated with maintaining a similar lifestyle the child would have if their parents remained together.

When the child goes to school NCP-C/S and CP-C/S essentially become s7 expenses, as the amounts either parent would have paid in c/s is now paid by covering the kids food and shelter (the basics of c/s) via s7.

Anyway, all that said, whether the child has removed themselves from the care of the CP and whether c/s should stop boils down to the intent of the child. If the child has changed their residential address and only intends on going to their parents to visit, than the child no longer "resides" with their parents. They have removed themselves from their parents care. I don't think any judge would require c/s to continue if the kid provides and affidavit or goes on the stand and says they no longer reside with either parent and they don't intend to in the future.

IMO, if the child doesn't intend on going back to the ex's to reside, I would simply stop paying c/s. Advise the ex that the child has informed you that they have moved out the ex's house and do not plan on returning for the purposes of residing. That the child has therefore removed themselves from the ex's care, and as such, c/s ceases. That you will continue to support the child directly, and should the child for some reason have to return to their house to reside while still in school, you will resume paying c/s at that point.

It was mentioned by another that the ex has to prove the kid still lives there for c/s to continue. If they want c/s to continue, they will have to argue that the child still lives there, notwithstanding what the child says.
 
Just to play devil's advocate here...

While a portion of cs could be stopped to pay towards university s7 expenses, what if there are no s7 expenses. Would regular cs continue as usual?

If the argument is that CP needs cs to maintain child's accommodations, cutting it off would cause CP to downsize. Saying, don't worry I'll start paying in 10 months if child returns home, could be too late. Then what.

To me, it seems like the children missed eachother over the summer and got engaged. Even if child writes an affidavit saying they are in love and aren't coming home, you would have to take it with a grain of salt. History shows child needs CP's residence.
 
Nobody should ever be maintaining a lifestyle based on CS. If someone needs to downsize because CS stops they shouldn't be living there. CS could end at any time for any number of reasons leaving you in a situation you can't afford.
 
OntarioDaddy said:
Just to play devil's advocate here...

While a portion of cs could be stopped to pay towards university s7 expenses, what if there are no s7 expenses. Would regular cs continue as usual?

If the argument is that CP needs cs to maintain child's accommodations, cutting it off would cause CP to downsize. Saying, don't worry I'll start paying in 10 months if child returns home, could be too late. Then what.

To me, it seems like the children missed eachother over the summer and got engaged. Even if child writes an affidavit saying they are in love and aren't coming home, you would have to take it with a grain of salt. History shows child needs CP's residence.
Click to expand...

If the child (over the age of 18, notwithstanding school enrollment) moves out and has made their intentions known that their move is permanent, than c/s stops, period. If the child is still in school, and they do end up having to return to one of their parents houses, c/s would resume at the point when the child returns. S7 would cover the expenses necessary to be covered by the parents.

C/S doesn't continue just because the child, who has advised that the move is intended to be permanent, may end up having to move back. The law doesn't work on "maybe's". The child either is a resident of their parents house, or is not. If they are not, they have removed themselves from the care of there parents and as such no c/s is payable.

The fact that the kid could move back in is not sufficient reason to pay c/s.
 
OntarioDaddy said:
Just to play devil's advocate here...

While a portion of cs could be stopped to pay towards university s7 expenses, what if there are no s7 expenses. Would regular cs continue as usual?

If the argument is that CP needs cs to maintain child's accommodations, cutting it off would cause CP to downsize. Saying, don't worry I'll start paying in 10 months if child returns home, could be too late. Then what.

To me, it seems like the children missed eachother over the summer and got engaged. Even if child writes an affidavit saying they are in love and aren't coming home, you would have to take it with a grain of salt. History shows child needs CP's residence.
Click to expand...

Or they may of had a steady dating relationship and decided they wanted to take it to the next level. With the bolded part it seems you are assuming that they didn't see each other over the summer.
 
I'd assume they are both students, going to the same school, looking to be roommates for their final year. But just a guess, and really doesn't matter.

My point was that children make plans all the time, and how could you take them seriously.

I agree with what's said here. I just saw the child's dream of not returning home as the "maybes" or what "could" happen, instead of vice versa
 
Last edited:
Children wanna play house then perhaps an adult discussion should ensue... you move out on your own with Prince Charming the money-train from pops is over.

I agree with HammerDad.
 
If a child in high school wants to run off and play house, that is fine and cs would stop.

The difference I see here is that this is not running off and playing house, yet. This is still doing the norm with a hope that affects only the CP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top