- D22 in fourth year university and S19 second year college
- Both kids live with Ex, but D22 lives away from home during school year
- I pay CS ~$1700+ per month, based on $128k+ annual
- Kids pay 30% of post-secondary and parents are responsible for 70% of which I pay 66% (that is, I pay 46.2% of schooling)
- I have three other children with new wife
- Separation agreement says if kids are in post-secondary, support ends at 22 or graduate with one post-secondary degree/diploma/certificate
- Due to a last minute change in career choice, D22 did a fifth year of high school and completed additional courses to get accepted in chosen program
- After her first year university, she re-did a course in the summer to raise mark
- She transferred to another school in her second year, change programs and completed additional courses during the summers to attempt to graduate in Spring 2014
- I didn’t like my chances to end support when she turned 22 earlier this year and I forged ahead for her “final” year
- Now she informs me that she was rejected to take a specific course since she was trying to take the prerequisite at the same time. So she said she will attend another year to graduate and take “additional” courses as well
- Overall, her grades are acceptable but her planning is immature and shows very little regard for my finances
- She’ll be a minimum 24 when she graduates. Should I return to court to get a cap on this? Make the kids more accountable? I fear that S19 will continue to fail and drag out support while he keeps failing. Besides the above, my argument is that I planned my finances and three other children based on the separation agreement and normal post-secondary completion. This is harming my wife, younger children and retirement when both myself and their mother paid our own way through school
- Opinions?
Post-secondary beyond the separation agreement
- Thread starter Coop
- Start date
Rioe
Well-known member
Your agreement does say 22 or graduation with a degree. 22 is a pretty non-standard CS ending age, so I'm guessing the intention was for this to be the later of the two possible endings? 18+4 year degree anticipated? In that case you have technically reached it already, however the wording may keep you on the hook until she graduates, no matter how long it takes.
I would suggest that since she has a plan in place, that you reward this plan by supporting her for this year, but only pay tuition for the one additional course the following year. Any other courses she wants to take are not for her program and she can pay for them herself. But if she changes her plan again, then end the support.
Or you could end CS to the ex, but continue to provide some money directly to your daughter to help her with her school expenses.
I'm not sure what's up with your son, but you imply that you foresee him following his sister's path of taking longer than normal?
You will also find that any financial burden from the second wife and additional three children you had later are irrelevant, and not the useful argument you think you are presenting.
OrleansLawyer
Active member
One might wonder why you are not following the agreement.
If FRO is enforcing it, contact them; the agreement sets out when support should end (her birth month + 22 years).
I wondered this too, when I read this. From his description of their agreement, it sounds pretty cut and dry. I'm guessing, he is trying to avoid drama from ex/children, or doesn't want to damage relationship with children?
To the original poster, you can always help out, on your own terms, and not continue the "payment" regime, that should have stopped with your agreement?
Your children are not children anymore. They can certainly support their own education needs, at this point. Man, I wish I had parents that paid for my education. lol.
DowntroddenDad
New member
When I attended, the OSAP process determined what I needed to contribute and what my parents needed to contribue. My parents ignored that, and gave me money when I really needed it, and far less of it than was estimated. When I was hit with large repayment because my parents misstated their income on one year's application, it didn't occur to me to ask for their help.
I have a daughter who could be in univeristy this fall. She decided to take a victory lap and is upgrading a couple of courses. She was originally only going to take two courses, but is now enrolled in three which is the minimum for a "full time" status. While this may be a ploy on my ex's part to extend CS(she works part time, and is very dependant on CS), it may also help her qualify for more scholarships, so I am not making a fuss. I'm not sure what I will do in January, when she is no longer a student but won't start university till September. Anyone have that scenario?
- Thanks all. I knew I missed some details.
- Children paying 30% was not in the original SA from 2000 along with a few other things that were clarified during trial in 2010. So there is a court order to FRO for clarification and termination is not defined. They will not terminate until they see a court order to terminate I believe. So alternate payment schema sounds reasonable which is what we all want.
- Rioe, because this is technically her fourth year and knowing the socialist regime we live in, terminating CS with alternate payment plan to daughter I believe would get shot down…though I never though court would look at agreement with daughter…hmmm. Has you seen this before?
My son is needs help and my ex won’t hear of it. I’ll just say he won’t do the work for a full 4 months.
The burden on second family played somewhat in favor during trial…somewhat. - OrleansLawyer, would FRO be enforcing a court order from trial in 2010, the SA from 2000, or a combination of both?
- Dad2bandm, besides the additional court order, there seems to be this trend of the courts going beyond the SA. But maybe I need to put that to rest.
Thanks again
OrleansLawyer
Active member
Depends what was in the agreement, and what is in the Order.
If either happen to say nothing but "the parties shall throw waterballoons at each other under every full moon", then FRO won't enforce either. However, if the Order is the most recent and speaks to support, that would have superseded the agreement (which, I expect, was plead at trial).
It basically reads that
No mention of end of support on many other items that were in the SA.
If you are really curious, I can PM you the CanLII case.
Thanks
- I owe an amount in arrears (adjustment) payable
- on a given date, that i would start paying guideline amount
- post-secondary expenses are to be shared in such a way
- disclosure is to be shared annually on a given date
No mention of end of support on many other items that were in the SA.
If you are really curious, I can PM you the CanLII case.
Thanks
DowntroddenDad!!!
Sorry, I wanted to reply back to you. I went to trial because my D did the same thing (not attend school in January till September). Was shot down hard...rationale: she is still child of the marriage because she did what was required to get into post-sec and had the intention to (and did) attend post-sec at the first available time (Sept). It seems I would have been more successful to go after the full-time money she made and spent on outings, tattoos and a Coach purse to have pay a great share for that year.
Good luck
Sorry, I wanted to reply back to you. I went to trial because my D did the same thing (not attend school in January till September). Was shot down hard...rationale: she is still child of the marriage because she did what was required to get into post-sec and had the intention to (and did) attend post-sec at the first available time (Sept). It seems I would have been more successful to go after the full-time money she made and spent on outings, tattoos and a Coach purse to have pay a great share for that year.
Good luck