Step parent child support

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

oink

New member
Reading this doesn't even help clear anything up.....This needs a serious revamp. Especially at the end of the document where it mentions that a step father was made to pay 85% of support while the biological parent paid 15%...I mean WTF? :rolleyes:

Support Obligations for Step-Children


http://www.shulman.ca/tags/step-children/
In modern Canadian society re-marriages are not uncommon, and these often result in “blended” families consisting of parents, step-parents, and children from previous unions. In circumstances where those subsequent relationships also break down, the question will arise as to what support obligation a step-parent has toward a child, over and above those of the biological parent.
The initial answer is found in the federal Divorce Act, which imposes support obligations on any divorcing person who “stands in the place of a parent”, even if the person has no actual biological relationship with the child. There is no strict time-limit or bright-line test for when this status is achieved; rather, the Supreme Court of Canada in a decision called Chartier v. Chartier, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 242 (S.C.C.) has set out a number of criteria for assessing whether this test is met, including whether the step-parent:

  • intends to treat the child as his or her own;
  • provides financially for the child;
  • disciplines the child as a parent would; and
  • represents to the child, the family, and to the world that he or she is responsible for that child.
Once the test has been met, the step-parent’s obligations toward the child are the same as those arising for children of the new marriage, including obligations relating to support. (And by the same token, in addition to incurring obligations, the step-parent who meets the test also acquires new rights in relation to the child, such as the right to eventually apply for access or for custody of him or her under the Divorce Act.)
There are some important points to know in connection with the step-parent’s obligation to pay support:

  • Once a step-parent has met the test of “stand[ing] in the place of a parent”, terminating the relationship with the child does not relieve him or her of the support obligations. In fact, it is not open to either the parents, or the parents and the child, to decide that the step-parent’s support obligations have legally come to an end.
  • Nor is there any requirement that the child actually lives with the step-parent; in an Ontario case called Brown v. Laurin [2004] O.J. No. 5233 (S.C.J.), a step-father was ordered to pay support for two children even after they had gone to live with their natural father.
  • The obligation to provide support is not contingent upon there being a good relationship between the step-parent and the child.
  • A step-parent can become liable for supporting a child even if he or she has not lived with the child’s biological parent long enough to trigger obligations for spousal support.
Once the legal obligation to pay support has been established, there still remains the question of amount: the law is clear that the court has discretion to determine the proportionate share of support to be paid as between the biological parent and the step-parent. There is no presumption that the biological parent will pay more: for example in an Ontario Court of Appeal decision called M. (C.) v. P. (R.) [1997] O.J. No. 156 (C.A.) that Court, having regard to the involvement of each parent in the child's life, ordered the step-father to pay 85 percent of child support, while the biological father was ordered to pay 15 percent.
Finally, the actual dollar-amount of support is usually determined by the federal Child Support Guidelines, which stipulate that the court is to make a child support order against a person standing in the place of a parent in an amount it considers “appropriate”. The law presumes that the Guideline amount should be awarded, unless the step-parent can show otherwise.

The issues relating to step children and support tend to be fact and case specific, and many complicated legal issues may arise. It is strongly recomended that a person faced with the potential of these issues immediately obtain legal advice from a lawyer. You may contact our office and we will be happy to discuss your situation and explain the Law as it relates to your specific case.
 
oink said:
Reading this doesn't even help clear anything up.....This needs a serious revamp. Especially at the end of the document where it mentions that a step father was made to pay 85% of support while the biological parent paid 15%...I mean WTF? :rolleyes:

Support Obligations for Step-Children



In modern Canadian society re-marriages are not uncommon, and these often result in “blended” families consisting of parents, step-parents, and children from previous unions. In circumstances where those subsequent relationships also break down, the question will arise as to what support obligation a step-parent has toward a child, over and above those of the biological parent.
The initial answer is found in the federal Divorce Act, which imposes support obligations on any divorcing person who “stands in the place of a parent”, even if the person has no actual biological relationship with the child. There is no strict time-limit or bright-line test for when this status is achieved; rather, the Supreme Court of Canada in a decision called Chartier v. Chartier, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 242 (S.C.C.) has set out a number of criteria for assessing whether this test is met, including whether the step-parent:

  • intends to treat the child as his or her own;
  • provides financially for the child;
  • disciplines the child as a parent would; and
  • represents to the child, the family, and to the world that he or she is responsible for that child.
Once the test has been met, the step-parent’s obligations toward the child are the same as those arising for children of the new marriage, including obligations relating to support. (And by the same token, in addition to incurring obligations, the step-parent who meets the test also acquires new rights in relation to the child, such as the right to eventually apply for access or for custody of him or her under the Divorce Act.)
There are some important points to know in connection with the step-parent’s obligation to pay support:

  • Once a step-parent has met the test of “stand[ing] in the place of a parent”, terminating the relationship with the child does not relieve him or her of the support obligations. In fact, it is not open to either the parents, or the parents and the child, to decide that the step-parent’s support obligations have legally come to an end.
  • Nor is there any requirement that the child actually lives with the step-parent; in an Ontario case called Brown v. Laurin [2004] O.J. No. 5233 (S.C.J.), a step-father was ordered to pay support for two children even after they had gone to live with their natural father.
  • The obligation to provide support is not contingent upon there being a good relationship between the step-parent and the child.
  • A step-parent can become liable for supporting a child even if he or she has not lived with the child’s biological parent long enough to trigger obligations for spousal support.
Once the legal obligation to pay support has been established, there still remains the question of amount: the law is clear that the court has discretion to determine the proportionate share of support to be paid as between the biological parent and the step-parent. There is no presumption that the biological parent will pay more: for example in an Ontario Court of Appeal decision called M. (C.) v. P. (R.) [1997] O.J. No. 156 (C.A.) that Court, having regard to the involvement of each parent in the child's life, ordered the step-father to pay 85 percent of child support, while the biological father was ordered to pay 15 percent.
Finally, the actual dollar-amount of support is usually determined by the federal Child Support Guidelines, which stipulate that the court is to make a child support order against a person standing in the place of a parent in an amount it considers “appropriate”. The law presumes that the Guideline amount should be awarded, unless the step-parent can show otherwise.

The issues relating to step children and support tend to be fact and case specific, and many complicated legal issues may arise. It is strongly recomended that a person faced with the potential of these issues immediately obtain legal advice from a lawyer. You may contact our office and we will be happy to discuss your situation and explain the Law as it relates to your specific case.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure the source of your info/quotes?

But yes - as i understand it, in Canadian Family Law - once you have assumed a 'primary' caretaker role to a child (even if the child is not biologically yours) you may very well be on the hook financially as if the child was yours biologically. Given enough time with said relationship slanted towards you versus the true bio parent - you may absorb more finacnial reposnsability than the actual bio parent.

Sad but true.
 
Last edited:
I'm in a situation whereby my GF, and her child from a previous relationship, lives with me, so I've done a lot of research on the topic. In a nutshell, every province is different.

BC is likely the worst; their Family Law Act states that a step-parent has a duty to provide support for the child if the step-parent contributed to the support of the child for at least one year. The threshold for financially supporting the child is not high, as all it takes is helping out with the bills.

NS is on the other side of the spectrum, having no mention of step-parents in the Maintenance & Custody Act. In NS, the only way you can be obligated to pay child support for a non-biological child is if you act in place of a parent, or you're a guardian. The NS Family Courts do not view "in the place of" to mean "in addition to"; therefore, it has to be clear that the step-parent stepped up and acted in place of a parent while the NCP did very little.
 
Teenwolf said:
I'm in a situation whereby my GF, and her child from a previous relationship, lives with me, so I've done a lot of research on the topic. In a nutshell, every province is different.

BC is likely the worst; their Family Law Act states that a step-parent has a duty to provide support for the child if the step-parent contributed to the support of the child for at least one year. The threshold for financially supporting the child is not high, as all it takes is helping out with the bills.

NS is on the other side of the spectrum, having no mention of step-parents in the Maintenance & Custody Act. In NS, the only way you can be obligated to pay child support for a non-biological child is if you act in place of a parent, or you're a guardian. The NS Family Courts do not view "in the place of" to mean "in addition to"; therefore, it has to be clear that the step-parent stepped up and acted in place of a parent while the NCP did very little.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but cannot one cite case law from any given province (and in fact any and all 'common-law' source) to prove their case?
 
wretchedotis said:
Fair enough, but cannot one cite case law from any given province (and in fact any and all 'common-law' source) to prove their case?
Click to expand...

They can, but each province has their own family law acts, which can be similar, but can also differ in critical areas. The BC vs. NS is a case in point. If you're a resident in NS, and you're seeking CS from a step-parent, then the Family Law Act of BC doesn't apply; the Maintenance & Custody Act would apply.
 
Last edited:
wretchedotis said:
I'm not sure the source of your info/quotes?

But yes - as i understand it, in Canadian Family Law - once you have assumed a 'primary' caretaker role to a child (even if the child is not biologically yours) you may very well be on the hook financially as if the child was yours biologically. Given enough time with said relationship slanted towards you versus the true bio parent - you may absorb more finacnial reposnsability than the actual bio parent.

Sad but true.
Click to expand...

Which has prompted this buyer beware article in BC

NEW BC STEP PARENT SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION LAWYERS | MacLean Family Law
 
Perhaps doing a search on loco parentis might help answer your question. There seems to be case law supporting Step Parents obligation to pay CS. There have been rulings and parameters set in the Supreme Court of Canada that outlines when a step parent is required to pay depending on their role in the family prior to separation.

Fam Law

<O:p</O:p
 
I say shame on the law that allows parents to go after step-parents for cs. In one breath the step-parent has no rights period, the next breath they want the step-parents money. It may be the law, but morally it isn't right. I would be pretty embarrassed to admit to going after the step-parent for the cs the natural parent should be paying.
 
Unevenplayingground said:
I say shame on the law that allows parents to go after step-parents for cs. In one breath the step-parent has no rights period, the next breath they want the step-parents money. It may be the law, but morally it isn't right. I would be pretty embarrassed to admit to going after the step-parent for the cs the natural parent should be paying.
Click to expand...

I hear ya...the law doesn't seem to realize the flip side of that, which is people avoiding any relationship with single parents for the fear of getting dinged in the future.

If the child's biological parent is already paying CS, why would you want the same from a step parent? Those make those rulings need their heads checked.

Has anyone on here actually managed to avoid paying CS for a step child?
 
Unevenplayingground said:
I say shame on the law that allows parents to go after step-parents for cs. In one breath the step-parent has no rights period, the next breath they want the step-parents money. It may be the law, but morally it isn't right. I would be pretty embarrassed to admit to going after the step-parent for the cs the natural parent should be paying.
Click to expand...

I am a step parent to my wifes two boys and if it were ever the case that we separate I would expect to pay CS. I consider myself a father to my sons and I believe they look up to me as a father figure. Their biological father is deceased and in this situation I believe that Family Law protects the children.

Just a perspective.
Fam Law
 
Fam Law said:
I am a step parent to my wifes two boys and if it were ever the case that we separate I would expect to pay CS. I consider myself a father to my sons and I believe they look up to me as a father figure. Their biological father is deceased and in this situation I believe that Family Law protects the children.

Just a perspective.
Fam Law
Click to expand...

And if you agree to that, I think you have every right to. I just think that it is your choice. I think it is wonderful that you feel that way about your step-children btw!
 
oink said:
I hear ya...the law doesn't seem to realize the flip side of that, which is people avoiding any relationship with single parents for the fear of getting dinged in the future.

If the child's biological parent is already paying CS, why would you want the same from a step parent? Those make those rulings need their heads checked.

Has anyone on here actually managed to avoid paying CS for a step child?
Click to expand...

Actually, when my dad and his ex (my step-mother) split, my step-mother went after cs for her daughter. My dad had already paid for my step-mothers lawyer so she could take the biological father to court to have him ordered to pay child support. When she was reminded of this fact she dropped the case.
This happened in NS. I don't know if she would have pursued it in court if she would have got anything.
 
in BC

in BC

I pay cs for a step child in BC. The bio father also pays and the mother
collects almost $800/month. She makes more money than either one of
us. I also cover medical and dental through my job. She is now after both
of us for more money and section 7 and is taking us to court. I can't afford a lawyer and am probably screw**. The only positive is that I make way less money than I did in the original agreement and can't see how she could get more. Who knows though, it's all over the place for step parents.
 
Fam Law said:
Perhaps doing a search on loco parentis might help answer your question. There seems to be case law supporting Step Parents obligation to pay CS. There have been rulings and parameters set in the Supreme Court of Canada that outlines when a step parent is required to pay depending on their role in the family prior to separation.
Click to expand...

There’s a difference between being a step-parent and loco parentis. Loco parentis means to act in place of a parent. Some step-parents do not do that. In order for a CS obligation to materialize under loco parentis, it has to be shown that the individual acted in place of a parent; the mere fact that s/he was a step-parent isn’t sufficient.

Loco parentis applies to any person who acted in place of a parent (i.e. grandparents, guardians, etc.)

Fam Law said:
I am a step parent to my wifes two boys and if it were ever the case that we separate I would expect to pay CS. I consider myself a father to my sons and I believe they look up to me as a father figure. Their biological father is deceased and in this situation I believe that Family Law protects the children.

Just a perspective.

Fam Law
Click to expand...

This is a good example of when an individual should have CS obligations. If a person treats the child as his/her own, views the child as his/her, and the child considers the person a parent, then there is clearly a parent-child relationship. In your case, the biological father is deceased, and obviously has no involvement, which is another important aspect to determine loco parentis: the involvement of the NCP.

As already pointed out, BC is a different story though. BC doesn’t require loco parentis; you simply live with the child for one year and help pay the bills, and you’re on the hook for CS.

Unevenplayingground said:
And if you agree to that, I think you have every right to. I just think that it is your choice. I think it is wonderful that you feel that way about your step-children btw!
Click to expand...

The concept of choice is really what Chartier v. Chartier is about. If you enter a relationship with someone that has a child from a previous relationship, then you have a choice as to whether or not you will act in place of a parent. That is your choice; however, once you’ve made the choice to act in place of a parent, you can’t unilaterally withdraw from the parental role after your relationship with the parent has ended. The Chartier v. Chartier case also outlines in detail the considerations for what constitutes acting in place of a parent.
 
Im not siding with this rules that a step parent pays CS but if my ex"s future H makes 150K and my ex and I make around 40K then her hubby pays the offset?
 
iceberg said:
Im not siding with this rules that a step parent pays CS but if my ex"s future H makes 150K and my ex and I make around 40K then her hubby pays the offset?
Click to expand...

Negative. An individual has no legal obligation to support children from the partner's previous relationship, so your ex's future husband's income will not be factored into the offset amount. The offset amount will be based on the income of you and her only.

The only time that the new husband's income may come into play is if you claim undue hardship, which requires a comparison of the standard of living in each household. Even if such a claim was made, an income disparity between the households is not a reason for undue hardship, and the new husband would not have to pay the offset amount.

Funny thing though: the individual who has no legal obligation to support children from the partner's previous relationship, may have to pay CS, if the relationship ends, and s/he acted in place of a parent.
 
Last edited:
Quoting Teenwolf

The concept of choice is really what Chartier v. Chartier is about. If you enter a relationship with someone that has a child from a previous relationship, then you have a choice as to whether or not you will act in place of a parent. That is your choice; however, once you’ve made the choice to act in place of a parent, you can’t unilaterally withdraw from the parental role after your relationship with the parent has ended. The Chartier v. Chartier case also outlines in detail the considerations for what constitutes acting in place of a parent.[/QUOTE]

My reply:
I get both sides of the fence, I just don't agree with it. In a situation where the biological paying parent is doing just that, then a step-parent shouldn't have to pay up as well. I just think it comes down to a person's ethics. My husband, if we ever broke up, would know that his step-children are mine and my ex-husband's responsibility. I just think it is cheap. I just find it funny, that my husband has no legal rights whatsoever when it comes to his step-children, but he most certainly has the right to pay up if we split. I just think it is completely unacceptable, but that is my opinion only. If he made the choice to financially assist them, then fine, I personally wouldn't take it. I think people need to start putting their foot down and starting by fighting this kind of stuff. I think the whole system needs a good shake and I would love to be a part of it.
 
Last edited:
Unevenplayingground said:
I get both sides of the fence, I just don't agree with it. In a situation where the biological paying parent is doing just that, then a step-parent shouldn't have to pay up as well. I just think it comes down to a person's ethics. My husband, if we ever broke up, would know that his step-children are mine and my ex-husband's responsibility. I just think it is cheap. I just find it funny, that my husband has no legal rights whatsoever when it comes to his step-children, but he most certainly has the right to pay up if we split. I just think it is completely unacceptable, but that is my opinion only. If he made the choice to financially assist them, then fine, I personally wouldn't take it. I think people need to start putting their foot down and starting by fighting this kind of stuff. I think the whole system needs a good shake and I would love to be a part of it.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you; I've been stating how it works in Family Law. I agree that a child shouldn't receive CS from multiple people, but that's how it works. I read somewhere that the basis for multiple people paying CS is that the child benefited from the financial support of both the NCP and the step-parent, and this shouldn't change when the relationship ends between the step-parent and the child's biological parent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top