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. 

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According to Bogan, Canada’s Divorce Act is outdated and there should be legislation focused on keeping divorce cases out of court while encouraging shared parenting, where both parents have equal custody.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.

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. 

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

In the case titled C.S. v. M.S., a 2007 decision made by the Superior Court was upheld giving the mother custody of the couple’s youngest child. The original decision also awarded the mother costs of over $320,000, a restraining order against the father for both the mother and child, as well as barring the other three children from their marriage from having access to the youngest child. These decisions were also upheld.

According to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision, there was substantial evidence that the three other children (who are now adults) were alienated from their mother and the youngest child had not yet been alienated but would eventually become a victim of Parental Alienation Syndrome (“PAS”).

PAS is essentially the “brainwashing” of a child against one parent by the other parent, and can have long-term detrimental effects on the well-being of the child and his or her relationships with the parents.

The court found that, “the father has taken aggressive and persistent steps to alienate his other children from their mother. The likelihood of this continuing with [the youngest child] if the father had access to her was virtually certain”.

Court cases are treated on a case-by-case basis and the threshold to meet the test of finding “parental alienation” is high, but this case is very different as the father has been prohibited from having access to the child from the ages of 10 to 18. According to the father’s lawyer, there is no other case in the country in which access to a child from age 10 to 18 has been terminated ever before. The lawyer also mentioned that the move of a Canadian court preventing siblings from contacting each other is very unprecedented when they are not directly involved in the application.

In this case, measures to protect the children and parents against parental alienation almost came too late, however, in the end, the court decided to enforce very strict measures due to the specific set of circumstances. In the future, with this precedent-setting case, the Ontario courts will be forced take a tougher stance against parental alienation.

The goal of the proposed reform was to reduce time spent in courts and ensure that children are better protected, typically by providing more available information to families regarding court-alternatives like mediation or collaborative family law as well as ensuring anyone applying for the custody of a child was given an appropriate background check.

“Test sites” were to be set up on two courts in the province, Milton and Brampton. Those services are now underway as of last week in an attempt to reduce the combativeness an emotional tones of some family law disagreements. The courts were to be providing families with information on their rights, responsibilities, steps to take and the overall effects the divorce may be having on children.

A press release from the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General said that these courts are providing families with more access to information and the alternatives to court, like collaborative family law and mediation. Once these test projects are well underway, the information will be used to create similar initiatives across the province of Ontario.

“These improvements will help families resolve difficult issues faster and with less emotional stress when their relationships break down,” said Attorney General Chris Bentley.

The survey also looked at the effects of these court issues on people’s health, saying that legal difficulties are disruptive to everyday life, cause immense stress and can affect work. Family and divorce law as well as child custody issues can be the most stressful, according to the report.

Even slightly more alarming, 27 per cent of those facing legal issues like family law disputes had turned to the internet for the majority of their information, while four per cent went to the police. Three per cent of the people utilized a legal aid clinic, but even the study notes that these clinics are more apt to provide assistance for those wrongfully dismissed from work or those who are applying for disability cheques, not those headed for or going through a divorce.

The internet can be a helpful resource, but no website is as knowledgeable or most importantly, as accurate as a family lawyer.

Few divorces are amicable, but not all divorces need to go through the court system in Ontario. A family lawyer can also introduce parties to the collaborative law process, which solves divorce and family law matters. This has both parties settling their problems through their divorce lawyers in an effort to agree upon and negotiate the disputed issues, without going to court. While most people want a relatively painless divorce process, avoiding long, costly divorce proceedings in court is also something very attractive to those facing divorce and custody disagreements.

This is where collaborative law and an Ontario family lawyer come in.

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!

In Quebec, unmarried couples (even if they are common law) are not entitled to any such support.

The case of Eric and Lola, a billionaire and his ex-spouse, was heard last year in a Quebec court and a judge decided that only legally married spouses should be entitled to support in the event of a marriage breakdown. Their full names are not currently publishable due to a publication ban, but the media has dubbed them “Eric and Lola”.

The case is to be heard in the Quebec Court of Appeal this week, and should prove why not allowing spousal support for unmarried but conjugal couples is unconstitutional. Eric and Lola are also parents, and only a few years ago almost 60 per cent of children in Quebec were born to parents who weren’t married.

Without the appropriate spousal support in place for these two, as with any common-law parenting couple that breaks up, one parent may not be financially stable enough to provide for a child adequately.

Ontario couples are lucky, because the work, financial contributions and time that goes into a common law relationship is recognized by Ontario family law when the union breaks up. Hopefully, those in Quebec will soon be just as fairly treated.

Many family law disputes are the result of some kind of financial issue – from income statements for child and spousal support to the proper division of assets.

These financial statements, as well as many other statements, are expected to be sworn statements. The statements can include things like tax assessments, tax returns, statements of earnings and other income forms depending on whether the person in question is employed or is the owner of a business.

These statements are extremely important because they’re used to determine things such as spousal and child support amounts, as well as the lengths of time they’ll be paid for.

If the financial statements are not accurate or provided, there are a slew of consequences. These consequences can include hefty fines if the financial statements are inaccurate or not forthcoming by a certain date, being forced to cover the fees of the other ex-spouse during the proceedings, or one can even be held in contempt.

A family lawyer can help you make sure all of your financial statements are accurate and in order so that any family law proceedings go as smoothly as possible.