I agree its not a natural situation. When we funded our childrens education they both had friends who could not attend University or college, as parents had not given them any assistance. On the other side of the spectrum one of my daughters friends had divorced parents and lacked for nothing. Never had to pay towards school. Her Mom just called up Dad and requested his portion of the expense, which apparently was high. It is sad, that there is a sense of entitlement being encouraged. My daughter ex has already informed her that he has no intention of paying for skiing, hockey or university which is kinda of funny, he is planning ahead, the child is only 2. So she knows it will be a battle and she hopes by then to be financially sound enough to assist him herself, and to encourage him to save and work to support some of his needs himself. In the end children are quite aware of their parents shortcomings, without the parents pointing them out. I guess the law seeks to level the playing field for children of separated parents, but in the end they may be causing greater damage by the resulting conflict, the development of entitlement by some and by damaging relationships of child and parent when one does not or will not or cannot pay and ends up in a court.
University as section 7 (long...sorry)
- Thread starter KMF
- Start date
I agree its not a natural situation. When we funded our childrens education they both had friends who could not attend University or college, as parents had not given them any assistance. On the other side of the spectrum one of my daughters friends had divorced parents and lacked for nothing. Never had to pay towards school. Her Mom just called up Dad and requested his portion of the expense, which apparently was high. It is sad, that there is a sense of entitlement being encouraged. My daughter ex has already informed her that he has no intention of paying for skiing, hockey or university which is kinda of funny, he is planning ahead, the child is only 2. So she knows it will be a battle and she hopes by then to be financially sound enough to assist him herself, and to encourage him to save and work to support some of his needs himself. In the end children are quite aware of their parents shortcomings, without the parents pointing them out. I guess the law seeks to level the playing field for children of separated parents, but in the end they may be causing greater damage by the resulting conflict, the development of entitlement by some and by damaging relationships of child and parent when one does not or will not or cannot pay and ends up in a court.
LookingforHelp2014
New member
I'm wondering something, my daughter is about to turn 18 and she lives with her mother. She is going to be attending university starting September, living away from home, and her mother has brought me back to court for S7 (which is fine). The judge wants me to make an offer on what I can afford to contribute to her school and part of the offer I want to give is to provide the child support directly to my daughter as she won't be living at home. Would a judge agree to something like that?
I want to make sure I'm fair and reasonable, but to me it makes more sense to be able to give that money directly to my daughter to help her out then to give it to her mother when she won't be living with her any longer. I just have no idea if something like that is even an option.
I want to make sure I'm fair and reasonable, but to me it makes more sense to be able to give that money directly to my daughter to help her out then to give it to her mother when she won't be living with her any longer. I just have no idea if something like that is even an option.
It a distinction without a difference. Either way the child will be supported by you to go to school. You are attempting to have the upper hand and gain control of a situation vs looking at what is being asked.
I caution you - this will piss off your ex too. SHE is seeking the money and has taken you to court. Not your daughter.
What will you do if your daughter mismanaged the money and your ex is on the hook and takes you back to court for more money? Over and above what you already gave your kid which I'm willing to bet has no long term history of being able to manage finances.
I caution you - this will piss off your ex too. SHE is seeking the money and has taken you to court. Not your daughter.
What will you do if your daughter mismanaged the money and your ex is on the hook and takes you back to court for more money? Over and above what you already gave your kid which I'm willing to bet has no long term history of being able to manage finances.
arabian
New member
From what I have read this is not the norm. Often it is not allowed in order for the custodial parent to maintain a home for which the child of the marriage stays in during summer, fall break, Christmas break, spring break even though the child is living away from home the majority of the time.
There are cases on CanLii relevant to your situation. You very well might find some cases that support your position and others on this forum might have experience with this.
There are cases on CanLii relevant to your situation. You very well might find some cases that support your position and others on this forum might have experience with this.
You will not get out of paying c/s to the ex. You will continue to have to pay, but how much you pay will depend on whether the child stays at home or lives in residence.
If the child stays at home and goes to school, nothing changes.
If the child lives in residence, and you pay your proportionate share of the expense as a s7 expense, you may argue that your c/s should be decreased for the duration of the school year where the child lives on residence. Your reasoning is, you are paying for the child accommodations and food (likely though a meal card), thus paying the ex full c/s would essentially paying for these expenses twice. Your ex will likely have to maintain the house they live in now, as the child won't live at school all year, and thus c/s won't be dropped completely. But it should be reduced to take into consideration that the utilities c/s pays for will decrease. Same goes for food consumption in the ex's house.
There is caselaw on this matter which can be found on Canlii.
With all due respect to the lawyer and their opinion, caselaw doesn't agree. There are still costs to carry the house where the child resides during times they are not at school which some amount of c/s will cover. So while c/s is generally reduced dramatically (I've seen reductions of 60+ percent), it is almost never cut off completely.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If the ex can't carry the costs of the home without CS, what is s/he supposed to do during the school months when CS is cut? Move to a smaller place? What happens during the spring and summer months then, when the child is not at school, if the home is not available? What about December?
I can see the logic of reducing CS for all twelve months of the year, to reflect the reduced operating costs of the house and family budget, but it doesn't make sense to turn it on and off like a faucet. Some costs are constant throughout the year to enable the child to have a place to live when school is not in session.
I dont know why it states that or what part of the law it is but if you google it there are legal sites that also say cs changes if a child goes away. My partners ex makes significantly more than he does so she doesnt have trouble carrying the costs of the house. Both lawyers he spoke to also said off site university means a reduction in child support. But like I said, its in his agreement that cs changes when they go away to school.
billm
New member
I don't think this is true.
Separated parents only have to contribute to post secondary if ONE or BOTH of the parents want (or forces) it.
The same is true for intact families. If just one of the parents decides to use family money to support post secondary, it happens.
There is no difference.