Visit our Website
- When do child support payments in Ontario end?
- MP plans on private member’s motion to review Canada’s Divorce Act
- Facebook Privacy Issues and Ontario Family Courts
- Judges Interviewing Children during Ontario Family Court Divorce Cases
- Ontario Court Recognizes importance of Parental Alienation in Divorce Case
Latest Blogs
- Child Adoption
- Child Custody in Ontario
- Child Support
- Child Visitation
- Cohabitation Agreements
- Collaborative Law
- Common Law Marriage
- Divorce
- Divorce Lawyer
- Family Law Changes Ontario
- Family Property Division
- Marriage Contracts
- Mediation
- Prenuptial Agreements
- Questions and Answers
- Same Sex Marriage
- Separation Agreements
- Spousal Support
- Support Orders
- Toronto Divorce Lawyers
- Toronto Family Lawyers
Categories
Archives
Related Blogs
Tag Cloud
Follow Us on Twitter
Find Us on Facebook
When do child support payments in Ontario end?
In many divorce cases involving a minor child, the judge renders a decision on the issues of both custody and support and typically orders that the non-custodial parent pay child support to the custodial parent for the child until a termination date. In Canada, child support payments end once the child is no longer deemed a “dependent” under the law.
For most situations, a child will be entitled to child support until 18 years of age. However, in many cases the “until-18 rule” will not apply and the child may be entitled to support beyond the “age of majority”. For instance, a child over 18 years of age is still entitled to child support if the child is a full-time student in school, even if the child has a part-time job while attending school. The child support obligations do not end because the law assumes that full-time students are still dependents and are unable to support themselves. Along with child support, the non-custodial parent may also have an obligation to contribute to the child’s special expenses, which would include the costs associated with attending school, such as tuition.
Child support is governed by federal law and does not change from province to province, although the amounts may differ based on the cost of living for the area. In cases when the child support termination date is not specified in the support order, the support payments may continue until the child has obtained a post-secondary degree or as long as the child is in school full-time. It is also not unheard of, albeit rare, for child support to be paid even while the child completes further schooling, including a graduate degree, particularly if the educational program is required in order for the child to pursue his or her desired occupation.
To terminate the payor’s child support obligations, the payor must file a motion to change a final order with the court and have the court issue a new order ending the support payments. For payments enforced by the Family Responsibility Office, the payor can contact the government agency to inform the office of the change in circumstances and obtain consent from the support recipient to terminate the payments.
MP plans on private member’s motion to review Canada’s Divorce Act
A Saskatchewan Conservative MP, Maurice Vellacott, has put forward a private member’s bill, Bill C-422, that would amend the federal Divorce Act to mandate shared custody of the children when parents divorce, unless a parent can show that it is not in the child’s best interest to do so. This piece of legislation was first brought before Parliament over a year ago but is still in its first reading.
Recently, a Western Arctic MP, Dennis Bevington, has announced that he has agreed to put forward a private member’s motion to have the federal Divorce Act reviewed in the House of Commons. The motion was put forward, in part, after Bevington was approached by a Yellowknife resident, Mark Bogan, who, on behalf of the Canadian Equal Parenting Council, is seeking to have shared custody of children become the presumed arrangement when parents divorce.
According to Bogan, Canada’s Divorce Act is outdated and there should be legislation focused on keeping divorce cases out of court while encouraging shared parenting, where both parents have equal custody. “It’s better for the parents to mediate and come up with an amicable solution,” Bogan recently quoted in Northern News Services. “If they’re unable to do that, court would mandate they would have an amicable, loving relationship with children. ‘Keep kids out of court’ is really our message, keep these families healthy.” Because of the Divorce Act, Bogan said he was not allowed access to two of his children for the better part of their lives, one of whom is now 19 years old.
Bevington said it was not only the Canadian Equal Parenting Council’s ideals but the “litigious nature” of the Divorce Act that pushed him to action. A private member’s motion is not the same as a private member’s bill, because it does not have the same policy recommendations as a private member’s bill. However, it can let the government know that important changes do need to be made.
Filed in Child Custody in Ontario, Divorce • Tags: Bill C-422, Canadian Equal Parenting Council's, Dennis Bevington, Mark Bogan, Maurice Vellacott, Northern News Services
Facebook Privacy Issues and Ontario Family Courts
The social networking website called Facebook is a tool to exchange information that has now made its way into the courtroom and is being used as evidence in litigation, particularly in family law disputes. In the United States, Facebook messages are commonly used in family law cases, as well as in civil and criminal cases and jury selection; while in Canada, the use of Facebook as documentary evidence is steadily on the rise.
Facebook has recently simplified its privacy settings and a user can now set his or her Facebook settings to enable only persons the user has manually added to their “friends list” with the ability to access and view the user’s on-line profile.
Another important feature within Facebook’s account privacy settings is the user’s ability to limit the information “friends” can view on the user’s profile. For instance, a user can prevent an ex-spouse or soon to be ex-spouse from viewing photos, relationship status, or wall postings.
Facebook users should be aware of a specific privacy setting that is available for ‘Applications’. Even though some users do not have the game FarmVille, or similar Facebook games uploaded to their profile, when a user’s “friend” has installed the game on their profile that game now has the capability of pulling personal Facebook information and photos from any listed “friends” of that individual. An adjustment to the privacy settings to prevent any sharing of information with an Application is recommended.
Due to the increase in the use of Facebook as documentary evidence in several recent Ontario family law court cases, Facebook users with pending court matters should not post information pertaining to the case and should also consider adjusting their privacy settings to avoid the possibility of having personal information used against them in court.
Filed in Child Custody in Ontario, Child Support, Child Visitation, Divorce, Spousal Support, Support Orders •
Judges Interviewing Children during Ontario Family Court Divorce Cases
Television, movies and other various forms of media often inaccurately depict court room procedures of cases dealing with divorce and child custody. In many instances, the media will have a child on the stand as a witness being questioned by a lawyer. In reality, children are rarely in court and instead their parents provide to the court the child’s wishes.
A recently published article in the Lawyers Weekly Magazine highlighted the infrequency in which Ontario judges meet with or interview children involved in custody disputes. In the article, a 2009 survey that interviewed judges in both Ohio and Ontario found that less than half of the judges in Ontario had ever interviewed a child.
Ohio was chosen in the comparative study because it is common practice for judges in that state to meet with and interview children as it is considered a useful tool in handling family law cases. In contrast, in Ontario interviews of children in family law cases is rarely elected to be performed by the judiciary due to the fact that judges do not have the training needed to effectively interview children in such important matters. Instead, children are often interviewed and/or assessed by either a psychiatrist, or other licenced professional, or a children’s lawyer. Alternatively, in Quebec, the process of judges meeting with children privately – without their parents present – is becoming more and more common.
When a child in a divorce case does end up in a courtroom setting, the judicial interview can make an already stressful situation even more so. However, the article suggests that Ontario judges should meet with the child to speak with him or her directly – while not recommended as the only way of getting a better understanding of the child and their situation – to allow the judge to gain better insight into the child’s views and preferences, as well as providing the child with a forum for their point of view to be been heard on decisions that impact their lives. This process also allows the child to learn more about the judicial process and how decisions are made.
Judicial interviews may prove to be beneficial for children of divorces, particularly where parental alienation has been alleged. Judicial interviews can assist in the determination as to whether alienation has occurred and/or whether the child has legitimate reasons for not wanting to see a parent.
LINK:
http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&volume=30&number=9&article=2
Toronto woman sues Rogers after husband leaves, will need divorce lawyer
Normally, it’s a hassle to get information on an account from a cable company, or even to request a self-addressed, stamped envelope to pay the bills if you’re not the designated account holder.
However, Rogers Communications thought nothing of bundling a woman’s cell phone services with her husband’s phone, internet and cable bill. Unfortunately for the woman, the slew of secret phone calls on her cell phone bill revealed she was having an affair, and her husband walked out
The woman, Gabriella Nagy, is suing Rogers for an invasion of privacy and breach of contract to the tune of $600,000
Her cell phone account was under her maiden name, and the rest of the home’s services were under her husband’s name. In June 2007, her husband set up an internet account and soon after, Rogers sent the husband a bill with all of the home’s services listed – including her cell phone. Her husband called the suspicious number on the bill – which she’d called repeatedly and spoke with for hours – and the person on the other end confirmed the affair.
Rogers maintains it’s not their fault that the woman had an affair or that the marriage broke down
“The marriage breakup and its effects happened, or alternatively would have happened, regardless of the form in which the plaintiff and her husband received their invoices for Rogers services in July 2007,” says Rogers’ statement of defense
Nagy also claims that her marriage falling apart upset her so much that she lost her well-paying job.
This should be an interesting case for the divorce lawyer who handles this one!
Filed in Divorce, Divorce Lawyer • Tags: Gabriella Nagy, invasion of privacy and breach of contract, marital affair, Rogers, Rogers Communications
April 25th, 2010: Parental Alienation Awareness Day
April 25th will be International Parental Alienation Awareness Day. Countries such as Canada and Australia will be holding events to commemorate the day, and 15 U.S. States have signed proclamations recognizing the day.
Few people know what parental alienation is until they have to deal with it during a divorce and custody battle or someone close to them experiences it for themselves. In Canada, the day will be organized by the Parental Alienation Awareness Organization, who aim to educate anyone possible (including the public, police, religious leaders, schools and parents themselves) on the effects of Parental Alienation and how it is becoming perceived and accepted more and more as a form of child abuse.
Parental Alienation is the slow “brainwashing” of a child into not wanting to speak to, see or spend time with the other parent. It is typically done by the primary custodial parent, but the parent doing the alienating might be unaware of the complete scope of their actions and how it affects their child, which is why April 25th has been made as such. Parental alienation It can be subconscious or deliberate, and may not always be a parent doing the alienating. It could be a relative or another adult that the child trusts.
A study reported by the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University in Kingston found that mothers are twice as likely as fathers to alienate children from the other parent, although this is likely because more women end up with custody of their children. However, a small amount (just under two per cent) of cases studied found that a parent who only had access to a child was still able to alienate the other.
The study also found that the Ontario family court system only began to recognize parental alienation in 2005, but is not yet prepared to call it a “syndrome”, preferring that mental health experts determine the full extent of the damage done.
In only 10 per cent of cases from 1989 to 2008 was custody swapped from the alienating parent to the alienated parent, and 26 per cent of cases were ordered to go to counselling for the alienation.
Filed in Divorce, Divorce Lawyer • Tags: parental alienation, parental alienation day, Parental Alienation Syndrome
Facebook’s privacy settings during a Divorce
It’s safe to say that Facebook can be a willing party in the breakdown of many marriages, and it’s only going to become more prevalent as more and more people begin to use it. These issues can include people contacting old flames or the discovery of photographs of various indiscretions, and more.
But during divorce and custody battles, Facebook is also growing as a way for one side to get more information on the other. Even as the technology grows, many users are still unaware of the privacy settings Facebook has.
A simple contradiction in your information, an inappropriate photo or comment from a friend can provide ex-spouses with ample ammunition against you during a divorce.
Recent cases across North America have found custody arrangements seriously altered after photos of younger teens drinking while under the care of an inattentive parent hit Facebook, the confirmation of adultery by finding a persons relationship status had changed (from ‘in a relationship’ to ’single’) and those with habit of tweeting their locations all day might find that it’s easier to be served that way.
Various studies across the continent are also finding a rise in the citation of websites like Facebook in divorce proceedings.
In Ontario, it’s not much different. Facebook can already pose a multitude of problems for employees if their employers are monitoring them, and a few Ontario divorce cases have seen Facebook pages preserved for evidence, or motions sought to prevent the deletion of content.
Most facebook users are unaware that their comments may be seen by more than just their own circle of friends. It can be ranked by search engines, or shared with everyone via screenshots. Learn your privacy settings, and be careful who you let view your Facebook page.
Filed in Divorce, Divorce Lawyer • Tags: facebook divorce, facebook privacy, privacy settings
When co-parents divorce: Jesse James and Sandra Bullock
Days after actress Sandra Bullock won a Best Actress Oscar for her role in The Blind Side, news outlets came forward with the story that a woman was claiming to have been her husband’s mistress for over 11 months. Her husband, Jesse James, is a television personality that started on the Discovery Channel show Monster Garage and is currently the head of West Coast Choppers. Bullock and James married in 2005, after meeting on a tour of the set of his show.
It’s alleged that Bullock found out only eight days after winning her award, and she has canceled numerous promotional appearances since. Several other mistresses have also come forward, and James has since apologized but not elaborated on which allegations are true or false.
Bullock has no children, and James has three children from previous relationships. He has a daughter and a son from his first marriage, and a second daughter with his second wife, an adult film actress named Janine Lindemulder. Because of Lindemulder’s severe legal troubles (which have led to jail time), James sought and was granted full custody of their daughter, six-year-old Sunny. Lindemulder is still allowed weekly visits during daytime hours.
Various news outlets have reported on Bullock and Sunny’s bond, as Bullock has been co-parenting Sunny with Jesse James. While there has been lots of speculation on whether Bullock may try to gain custody of Sunny in the event that they do divorce, news outlets are now reporting that she will in fact go ahead and fight for custody. Lindemulder herself has also said that she is supportive of Bullock and Sunny’s relationship and that she would not get in the way if Bullock were to try to obtain custody.
Unfortunately, infidelity doesn’t have much bearing on custody results. However, Sunny is only six years old and Bullock has arguably been parenting her for nearly her entire life as her biological mother has been deemed unfit.
If Bullock and James were Ontario residents and Bullock requested custody of Sunny, the courts would look at whether Bullock provided financially for the child, the nature of their relationship and whether Bullock had maintained in both private and public life that she was Sunny’s parent and acted in such a manner. After determining whether Bullock was indeed a parent to Sunny, the courts would have to look at other factors to determine how custody between Bullock and James would play out. His behavior may not make him an unfit parent by default, but it may be considered if it hurt Sunny in any way or affected his ability to act as a parent.
Both Bullock and James would then have to make their case as to their relationship with the child, their willingness to raise and take care of the child and how they plan to do so, the stability of their homes and other factors. Blood relations are also considered, as is the choice of the child herself. While it is unlikely in this case, if the proceedings were in Ontario, that Bullock would be able to take full custody of a child whose biological father who has already won custody, she should be able to get partial custody or visitation.
It’s heartbreaking when a step-parent enters into a home, essentially becomes a part of a family and then the marriage doesn’t work out. But this case goes to show that a divorced step-parent can very much still be a part of their step-children’s lives, no matter how young the child is, by requesting custody.
Like any custody issue, the applicant’s case must be very strong, well thought out and well represented. A family lawyer can set you up for success in any custody or divorce-related situation.
Filed in Child Custody in Ontario, Divorce, Divorce Lawyer • Tags: jesse james divorce, sandra bullock
Bill proposes shared parenting for Canada
Bill C-422 is a private member’s bill that intends to potentially change Canada’s Divorce Act. It wants judges to grant equal shared parenting in the majority of custody disputes – unless abuse is involved and it’s proven so. The Bill is so far just another victim of the proroguing of Parliament this winter and was delayed significantly, but now that Parliament is back in session it may be back on the table.
Supporters of Bill C-422 say that the current system lacks objectivity and that fathers are being “shortchanged”, while opponents of Bill C-422 say that the bill is unnecessary and will only be bad news for mothers and children.
When it first came to the surface in 2009, the bill brought with it concerns about women’s and children’s rights during a divorce. Equal parenting would make it mandatory for the couples to determine how the custody will be divided and would necessitate half of the time spent with one parent and the other half of the time spent with the other parent. Equal parenting would also do away with child support as we know it for most families. Many other countries such as Australia and Great Britain as well some US states support equal parenting.
Many men’s groups are saying that judges are biased towards them, or that their ex-spouses can make allegations of abuse – that turn out to be false – that sway the judges’ decisions anyway. The London Free Press reported on the Bill recently quoting a domestic violence expert who said, “there are cases that involve false allegations, but they’re a small minority.” He also said that the current court system is designed to find these cases of abuse and ignore false allegations, while there are too few victims of domestic violence even in 2010 that seek out help.
The bill was delayed and re-introduced in early March, but a vote has not yet been scheduled.
Filed in Child Custody in Ontario, Divorce, Divorce Lawyer • Tags: Bill C-422, shared parenting
How to Prevent your Spouse from Disposing Family Property during Divorce
A separating spouse may have a genuine concern that his or her partner plans to hide or dispose of family property in order to prevent the other from sharing in its value upon dissolution of the marriage. If this is the case, the non-property holding spouse can go to court and ask the court to prevent the property-holding spouse from removing or disposing of the property. It must be shown that there is a risk that the property-holding spouse will hide or dispose of the property prior to trial and that the non-property holding spouse has a claim of entitlement to the property and is likely to receive an equalization payment equal to the value of the specific property at issue. (Lasch v. Lasch (1988)).
Pursuant to section 12 of the Family Law Act, the court can make either a temporary or final order restraining the depletion of a spouse’s property and for the possession, delivery, safekeeping and preservation of the property if it is necessary for the protection of the other spouse’s interest. The purpose of such an order is to ensure that there are sufficient assets available to satisfy the equalization payment once the court determines that a spouse is entitled to such a payment.
For further information regarding property ownership and divorce, speak with a Divorce Lawyer who can assist you in understanding all of your rights and obligations before filing for divorce. Call Niren and Associates at 416 222 4555 or email us at info@divorcesupport.ca.
Filed in Divorce • Tags: Family Law Act, Lasch v. Lasch