dbd33

"and I'll still be less than 30" my daughter gushed at Christmas, speaking of this year's graduation. She thinks it usual to be in school in one's late twenties because it's common here. I wonder if the need for two degrees to do any job in Canada will eventually result in a decline in population, women leaving school educated for a career will then have to choose between starting on it or having a child before being too old.

Almost Canadian

That sounds a little skewed!

Most Orders will have a provision written into them that the parties are to disclose certain financial information each year (tax returns, accounts, etc.), in Alberta it is by June 30 of each year, so that a recalculation can be done which takes effect, supposedly, on July 1 of each year. If the parties are friendly, this never happens, if they aren't, this causes new litigation each year.

I wonder if they teach that on the Bar Course in Ontario

castra

That's my understanding of the UK law too. The obligation to pay support only extends to 6th form college education up to the age of 19 not University education.

As I mentioned in an earlier reply, this was a point of contention after I stopped paying for my son when he went to University. My Ex tried to claim I should continue paying until he was 19 - Despite the fact he wasn't even living at home anymore. After a curt response of 'go away' & educating her with the legal facts, the subject wasn't raised again

I'm not too up on Canadian Family law but "Souvvy" sounds as though he/she is being taken for a ride. My ex tried to have a clause written into our agreement regarding the sale of the house & the kids finishing all education. I was strongly advised not to agree to this for the reasons mentioned - You could have an offspring whose an eternal student.

Almost Canadian

No. Child support is child support. If it is possible from a financial perspective, the Court may Order payment into a RESP but this very much depends upon the circumstances. What usually happens is that the non payor will argue that this was always the intention of the parties, whereas the payor will argue that "I made my way in life, the child can do likewise, this was always our intention."

This is, IMVHO, why access is always such an issue. The parties will always state that it is about the children, in my experience, in the vast majority of such cases, it is about money. Under the Guidelines, if one party spends less than 40% of the time with the child, base child support is payable by them to the other irrespective of the income of the other. So, for example, a mother, with whom the child resides, earns $200,000 a year. The father, with whom the child spends every other weekend, earns $30,000. The father will pay base child support to the mother based purely on his income. The mother may have paid for her property outright with the result that there will be no mortgage.

If the parties spend at least 40% of the time with the child, one would work out how much child support the mother would pay to the father if the child was with the father 100% of the time. One would then perform the reverse for the father, deduct the lower figure from the larger and this is how much the mother would have to pay to the father.

Quite clearly, in the above scenario, it pays for the father to argue for more time with the child and the mother to argue for less time with the father.

The Divorce Act specifically states that, when making access Orders, the Court should grant both parents the maximum amount of time with the child as is consistent with the best interests of the child. Seems quite simple on the basis of the legislation: unless there is a good reason why one shouldn't, give equal time to both parties. In reality, as soon as a father attempts to argue for time even approaching 40%, the Judge will look down upon the lawyer and will ask if the only reason this is being sought is to reduce child support. This happens so often you wouldn't believe it, even when both parents work full time, the child is in day care full time, and the parties live close to one another (negating any argument that a week on week off parenting schedule wouldn't work due to logistics). Sad, but true.

Almost Canadian

In most cases, the upper limit in Canada is 22. However, once the child reaches 18, the Court will take into account the child's ability to contribute towards its own expenses when deciding how much child support must be paid. If the child lives on campus, the child support can be paid directly to the child. Quite clearly, it pays for the recipient parent to persuade the child to continue to live with them

dbd33

I cannot tell you how glad I am not to have to go through that every year. I am 50% owner of a corporation. The owner of the other 50% would fight the disclosure every year on the grounds that, a) my ex has no legitimate interest in knowing and b) the contracts with the clients forbide the disclosure of such information. Given that such litigation takes years to come to court we'd still be squabbling over whether or not to hand over the data from five and four and three years ago.


Probably not on the bar course but it does seem to be the accepted wisdom. It was very difficult to find a lawyer who would pursue the divorce. All advised that men should not divorce in Ontario. Somewhat ironically, in the mid 80s I was represented over the initial separation by a prominent feminist, now a judge, who's been a driving force in shifting the legal climate to one in which women are seen less as partners and more as dependents.

Almost Canadian

It happens. As I am sure you are aware, the types of accounts we are talking about are, for the most part, the accounts that corporation would have to file with CRA each year, I appreciate that actual accounts may not have to be provided to CRA each year, but the accounts that would support the corporate tax returns filed if requested by CRA.

There are a number of females judges in Calgary that don't like awarding spousal support to women and, if a client draws them, one gets a sinking feeling. They seem to hold a view that, they were able to secure a well paid position, therefore, all women should be able to. It is very funny when men appear before them seeking spousal support. I am sure you can imagine how long those hearings last.

dbd33

Indeed. But the court is not the CRA and an obligation to file with one does not create a willingness to disclose to the other.

Well, I have some sympathy for the view that a woman chooses career vs. children and a choice for the latter damages the prospects for the former. Whether or not having children necessarily reduces a woman to unemployability is another matter.

Piff Poff

I would have been quite happy for my ex to pay into any kind of fund for my kid, general savings, higher education, anything, as it was he just skipped all that and entered A**hole category.

BC-Roo

Jees, my husband has an agreement with his ex that he would pay for his children up until they finish full time education. It's not through the CSA, although it would've been cheaper going through them. One of his children at the age of 21 has now finished uni so he stopped the payment for this child (amazingly his ex threw a wobbler as she didn't expect him to cut it by so much, it's two children so he cut it in half, what else did she expect?!). The other child is 19, will be at uni until 2015! And will be 23 when they leave uni! Even though they had this agreement between them, surely we could contest this if there is a law in the uk that says you have to pay support up to 19?

PMM

Hi


In Canada they are, as they are his/her children and as long as they remain "a child of the marriage"

DandNHill

Probably but then the reverse is that it's not 50% per child.

It is 25% of take home income, after pension contributions, 20% for 2 and 15% for one.. Don't know how that works for you? But yes, up to the age of 19.