Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Ontario Custody’ Category

Long-Awaited Update to Federal Child Support Guidelines

Image result for guidelines

Long-Awaited Update to Federal Child Support Guidelines

Important news for those who pay – or are eligible to receive – child support anywhere in Canada.

What are the “Guidelines”?

As most of my readers will know, the Federal Child Support Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) are the government-sponsored tool that help separated and divorcing parents set the appropriate amounts of child support that must be paid in respect of the children they have together.

The Federal Child Support Tables, which reflect the principles and calculations mandated by the Guidelines, set out the basic monthly amounts of child support that are result from various permutations.

The Guidelines and the corresponding Tables have been in force since late 2011, and until recently have reflected the calculations that accord with 2011 tax rules.

What’s New?

The Guidelines and corresponding Tables have been amended to reflect more recent tax rules, and have been incorporated into an updated version that takes effect on November 22, 2017. The official (and updated) Federal Child Support Tables, plus additional information and some “legalese” about these new amendments, are located here.

Where, and When?

As with the last version of the simplified Tables in PDF, there is a streamlined, simplified version of the 2017 Tables (also in PDF).  There is also a Child Support Table Look-up for both the 2011 and 2017 versions.  There is also an updated, Step-by-Step Guide.   (Note however that these streamlined and simplified versions are not “official”; only the original Federal Child Support Guidelines and Tables are considered legally-authoritative as to child support amounts.  This also means that the amounts of calculated support may be different when using the official Guildelines or Tables versus the more simplified tools).

One final point:  the new 2017 Guidelines and Tables come into force on November 21, 2017.   For people who need to determine how much child support is owed for a period before that date, the prior version of the Guidelines should still be used.  (And for those who need to calculate child support for a period earlier than December 31, 2011, an even earlier version of the Tables should be consulted.)

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

 

Should (Another) 20-Year-Old Cohabitation Agreement Be Upheld?

Image result for old law

Should (Another) 20-Year-Old Cohabitation Agreement Be Upheld?

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a case in which the court was asked whether a separation agreement signed by a couple 20 years earlier should be upheld.

Coincidentally, another recent Ontario Court of Appeal case involved a similar circumstance.

When the couple started living together 20 years ago – and at the husband’s insistence, since he’d had a prior relationship end acrimoniously – they signed a cohabitation agreement.  The husband took care of having it drafted, and he presented it to the wife for her signature.  He wanted the security of having the agreement in place before moving forward in the relationship and buying a home with her.

The wife did not have independent legal advice at the time, although she was given the opportunity to obtain it.  Under the terms of the agreement she signed, the wife agreed to give up all her claims to spousal support.

Still, when they separated 20 years later, she claimed for spousal support nonetheless.  The trial judge upheld the separation agreement, and dismissed her claim for support.  The wife brought an appeal.

In evaluating whether to allow that appeal, the court had to embark on a two-stage analysis, the first stage of which required it to:

1) look at the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and execution of the agreement, to determine whether there was any reason to discount it; and then

2) consider the substance of the agreement, to determine whether it was in substantial compliance with the general objectives of the Divorce Act at the time it was formed.

Then, in the second stage, the court had to consider – now 20 years later – whether the wife had established that the agreement no longer reflects the original intention of the parties, and whether the cohabitation agreement is still in substantial compliance with the legislated objectives of the modern-day Divorce Act.

Applying those standards here, the wife argued that the agreement was invalid, and that the trial judge failed to consider certain important facts when applying this two-stage test, namely:

  • That there was a power imbalance between her and the husband;
  • That she had not discussed spousal support with the husband;
  • That the husband’s financial disclosure was incomplete; and
  • That she did not have independent legal advice.

While conceding that she was not coerced, the wife argued that the agreement simply did not align with the overall objectives of the Divorce Act, whether now or back when it was signed.  This was particularly true since the couple went on to have an 18-year relationship, they had two children together for whom the wife bore the primary responsibility, and his income exceeded hers.

The Appeal Court considered the wife’s arguments.  After examining the objectives of the legislation, it rejected her spousal support request. There had been no error of law or misapprehension of fact by the trial judge, who carefully reviewed the relevant test and found:

  • The wife was aware of the husband’s desire to have a cohabitation agreement.
  • They had discussed the cohabitation agreement before the wife received it.
  • She was aware of all of the husband’s sources of income and assets, but did not pursue further disclosure.
  • She skimmed over the cohabitation agreement, reading some parts but not others.
  • There was no fraud, coercion, or duress.
  • Although given the opportunity, the wife did not seek independent legal advice even though – on her evidence – she had six weeks to do so.
  • At the time of signing the agreement, the wife thought it was fair and that it fairly outlined the parties’ discussions regarding the purchase of a house.
  • The agreement is in substantial compliance with the Divorce Act.

The court noted that the trial judge was entitled to make the findings that he did on the evidence, and are entitled to deference from appeal court.  It added that even if the cohabitation agreement did not exist, on all the facts the wife would not be entitled to spousal support anyway.  The court dismissed her appeal.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Smith v. Smith

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

 

 

Could Long-Haul Trucker Dad Quit His Job (and Avoid Child Support) Due to Dizziness?

Image result for tired driving

Could Long-Haul Trucker Dad Quit His Job (and Avoid Child Support) Due to Dizziness?

After separating from the father, the mother had full-time custody of their two 17-year-old children.  The father agreed to pay a set amount of child support, based on his long-distance trucker’s income of $66,000.   However, he was prohibited from communicating with any of them, under the terms of his bail following a guilty plea for assaulting the mother.

About a month after the consent order for child support was made, he claimed that he had experienced a bout of encephalitis, which afflicted him with facial paralysis, dizziness, vertigo, and some mental impairment.   He claimed he was no longer able to work at his job from that day forward; thus with no income, he claimed he was unable to pay child support.

However, he filed no current medical reports with the court to support that contention, other than certain 2-year-old notes and reports that the court found unhelpful.  While it was true that he was on short-term disability right after he quit, he did not provide any evidence as to whether he even applied for long-term disability at all.

The court didn’t buy it.

The father had quit his job for no reason.  His purported illness – which was medically confirmed not to have been a stroke – lasted only a short period of time.  He did not lose his truck driver’s license because of it.

In short:  the father had no valid excuse for not continuing to work and continuing to live up to his financial responsibilities to the children, as he had done before.  He had essentially chosen not to continue working, likely as a bid to avoid his child support obligations entirely.

In light of the fact that he was capable of earning more, the court relied on one of the provisions of the Child Support Guidelines that allowed it to impute income.  As the court explained:

Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally under-employed.

Notwithstanding the father’s current state of self-imposed unemployment, the court set the father’s income back at the $66,000 level.  It ordered him to continue paying support at the same level as he had done before he quit, and sorted out the amount of the unpaid arrears as well.

For the full-text of the decision, see:

Armstrong v. Wallace

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

 

 

Dad Loses Joint Custody, But Gets Access to Give Son Needed “Down-time”

Image result for chill out

Dad Loses Joint Custody, But Gets Access to Give Son Needed “Down-time”

In a case called Newman v. Nicholson, the parents of a 14-year old boy had been subject to a court order, granting them each joint custody.  The boy lived in the primary care of his mother since he was 2 years old.

Over that period, the mother had done most of the work around attending to the boy’s needs:  For example, she facilitated his involvement in highly-competitive Triple-A level hockey, as well as high performance athletic programs, hockey camps and high school sports.

In contrast, the father had been comparatively unreliable in meeting the boy’s needs, and sometimes had trouble getting him to school or sports functions on time.  This was compounded by the fact that his driver’s license had been suspended by the Family Responsibility Office for non-payment of child support.   His income had also dropped for unrelated reasons, and the mother claimed he had increased his consumption of alcohol.  She also had concerns that the boy spent too much time playing video games while in the father’s care.

The mother applied for sole custody (but with generous access to the father), on the basis that there had been a significant change since the order had been made.  She pointed out that while she had taken charge of attending to all the boy’s needs, the father had not even honoured his financial obligations as a parent.  More troubling was the fact that the father deliberately ignored her emails and was unresponsive in his communication with her about the boy’s various existing health issues, some of which required monitoring.

The father wanted the joint custody to remain as-is.

After considering the boy’s best interests, the court concluded that the existing situation was indeed ripe for change, primarily due to the nature of communication between the parents, which the court called “abrasive and contemptuous.”  That, coupled with the father’s historic inability to get the boy school and sports on-time, was justification for removing the father’s entitlement to joint custody and reducing his access time.  Although both parents had a strong bond with the boy, and both wanted a role in parenting him, the mother had played the lead role with respect to his schooling, medical needs, activities registration and scheduling.  The court added that at this point in his life, the boy needed consistency and routine.

However, the father was to continue to play a meaningful role in the boy’s life.  In particular, the court found that the boy’s time with his father was “an opportunity for [him] to play video games and allow him some ‘down time’”.

The court accordingly imposed a schedule for reduced access, which would be increased once the father got his license back.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Newman v. Nicholson

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Moving with a Child: Mother’s Views Take a Back Seat to “Super ordinate Considerations” Affecting Child

Image result for relocate

Moving with a Child: Mother’s Views Take a Back Seat to “Super ordinate Considerations” Affecting Child

In cases where spouses are separated or divorced, the decision of where a parent can live and work is no longer his or her alone.   Rather, the Family Court may become involved, and may be asked to give the parent permission to relocate, particularly if that involves moving with the child to a faraway community or jurisdiction, such that convenient access by the other parent is foreclosed.

Recently I talked about a noteworthy decision in a case called Porter v. Bryan where the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the various interests that must be considered when granting (or denying) permission in such cases.

In identifying those factors, the Court drew from a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a landmark case called Gordon v. Goertz, where the country’s top Court said:

…the views of the custodial parent, who lives with the child and is charged with making decisions in its interest on a day-to-day basis, are entitled to great respect and the most serious consideration. The decision of the custodial parent to live and work where he or she chooses is likewise entitled to respect, barring an improper motive reflecting adversely on the custodial parent’s parenting ability.

However, while the custodial parent’s views are entitled to “serious consideration,” and were part of a balancing of the two parents’ competing interests as well, it was actually the child’s best interests that were to be given what the court called “superordinate consideration”, with the entire analysis to be determined using a child-centred perspective.   This was in line with the Court’s own prior ruling in a case called Berry v. Berry as well.

Applying these principles to the fact situation in Porter v. Bryan:   While the mother’s reasons for moving – while entitled to “great respect” – were relevant only to the extent that they related to her ability to meet the needs of her son.   The overall focus was to remain – at all times – on what was in the best interests of the child.

For the full text of the decisions, see:

Berry v. Berry

Porter v. Bryan

Gordon v. Goertz

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

With Joint and Shared Custody, Can There Still be a “Primary Caregiver”?

Image result for primary care giver

With Joint and Shared Custody, Can There Still be a “Primary Caregiver”?

In 2015, the parents of a 5-year-old boy separated, and agreed to an arrangement involving joint custody, as well as shared parenting.  This agreement was brought before the court for its endorsement in a court order.

In the context of the mother’s bid to relocate the boy to another city (which was the subject of a prior blog a narrow legal question arose:  If there is “joint custody”, together with “shared parenting”, can there still be a “primary caregiver”?

The question is important because under the family law principles relating to mobility – meaning the ability of a parent to move elsewhere with the child – the decisions of the “primary caregiver” are given added weight by a court in evaluating the plan to relocate.  (This principle will be the subject of an upcoming Blog).  But the question is arguably muddy when, as in this case, the parents have agreed to a joint custody and shared parenting model.

The Ontario Court of Appeal cleared up any doubt:  In rejecting the motion judge’s conclusion that in such cases there can no “primary caregiver” in law, the three-member panel of the Court wrote:

We do not agree that the legal status of joint and shared custody forecloses the possibility that one parent can be, for the purposes of a mobility motion, the primary caregiver. On the record before us, it is evident that although the parties have joint and shared custody, the mother is nevertheless the primary caregiver. This conclusion is not only supported by the mother’s evidence, but from the father’s admission on his …affidavit, his answers in cross-examination, and affidavits from two of the father’s aunts.

Accordingly, with the mother designated as having the primary caregiver role, the court gave her reasons for moving the child special consideration, relative to other factors including the father’s objection to the plan.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Porter v. Bryan

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Mother’s Bid to Relocate Child – Was it Just a Pretext to Join New Romantic Partner?

Image result for mother and child

Mother’s Bid to Relocate Child – Was it Just a Pretext to Join New Romantic Partner?

The parents of a 5-year old boy had separated in 2015, and had a court-approved agreement as to joint custody and shared parenting.  The mother now wanted to relocate with her son from Cochrane, Ontario to Thunder Bay where she had multiple job offers waiting.  She had recently quit her job as a prison transport officer in Cochrane, which did not allow her to properly fulfill her childcare responsibilities. As the court explained:

…. [H]er schedule was unpredictable; sometimes working out of town, sometimes working overtime, sometimes both, and never knowing until the last minute. This would have impaired her ability to care for her son – not knowing in advance whether she would be called in to work in the morning before he went to school, or whether she would be home in time to pick him up again – but her employer temporarily accommodated her with a schedule that avoided unpredictable deployment. Eventually, however, her employer withdrew this accommodation. After exhausting her vacation time and sick leave, the mother resigned her position. Prior to her resignation, her employer invited her to apply for another position in Cochrane with a more parenting-friendly schedule. She was successful, but the employer subsequently had to revoke the offer.

The mother said the move to Thunder Bay was necessary to remain financially viable and provide for her son, and that as the son’s primary caregiver, her decisions about where to live and work out to be given considerable weight.

The father objected to the mother’s plan.  For one thing, it would strip him of the chance to influence his son.   For another, he claimed the mother’s alleged need to move was merely a pretext to be with her new romantic partner, who also lived in Thunder Bay.   He also questioned her lack of ability to find new work in Cochrane, and felt that – since she had quit her job – her current state of financial hardship was self-imposed.

The mother’s bid to move had been rejected earlier by a motion judge, who discounted the allegation that the ostensible need for the move was a pretext.  However, the judge did conclude that both parents’ views had equal weight, and that the resolution called for a simple balancing of pros and cons between Cochrane and Thunder Bay, from the perspective of how the boy might benefit. In the end, the motion judge concluded that the mother should be able to find suitable work in Cochrane if she tried.

The Appeal Court saw things differently, and granted the mother’s appeal.

First of all, the motion judge had erred in not characterizing the mother as the primary caregiver, and in not giving her particular reasons for moving “serious consideration.”  Also, the judge was wrong in deciding that the mother’s financial circumstances were not self-imposed; they were brought on by the employer’s withdrawal of prior accommodation of her childcare responsibilities.  Nor was there any basis for the judge to conclude that the mother could likely find work in Cochrane – in fact the evidence showed otherwise.

The Appeal Court explained:

There is, in our view, a valid and compelling parenting-based reason for the move: it is necessary to enable the primary caregiver to remain financially viable while providing care for the child. The mother has done all she can be expected to do to secure employment in Cochrane. It has not worked out, and there is no good reason for her and her son to live in poverty when she has secured employment in Thunder Bay that will allow her both to parent her son and to provide economically for him.

The court also said it was “encouraged” in this regard by the fact that the mother had offered to provide air travel to Cochrane for the child, which was one of her employment benefits at one of the Thunder Bay jobs.  She also offered to accommodate the father’s work schedule as a forest firefighter when he was deployed across Canada.

The court granted the mother’s appeal, allowing her to move with the child to Thunder Bay, and ordered a new access regime, with the parents working out an acceptable access schedule between them.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Porter v. Bryan

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Wednesday’s Video Clip: When Can A Parent Apply For Child Support

Wednesday’s Video Clip: When Can A Parent Apply For Child Support

In this video we discuss how parents who have their children living with them after separation can apply for child support at any time. Usually they apply right after they separate or as part of their divorce application. They often apply for custody and child support at the same time. It is usually best to deal with these matters as early as possible. Sometimes parents with custody do not want or need child support at first, but later their situation changes.

They can apply for child support when the need occurs, even after a divorce and all other matters arising from the separation have been settled. But if a step-parent is asked to pay support, the more time that has passed since the step-parent had an ongoing relationship with the child, the less likely it is that the court will order support payments. This is especially true if the step-parent’s social and emotional relationship with the child has ended. A parent can apply for custody and support even while living separately under the same roof after their relationship with the other parent is over. But usually the court will not make any order for custody and support until one parent has actually moved out.

At Russell Alexander Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Wednesday’s Video Clip: How are Decisions Made About Custody in Ontario?


Wednesday’s Video Clip: How are Decisions Made About Custody in Ontario?

In this law video we talk about how decisions are made about custody of children.

Often, deciding on a parenting arrangement after a marriage is over is not easy. Under the Divorce Act one or both parents may have custody of the children.

If you cannot agree on a parenting arrangement, the divorce law sets out some basic principles that a judge must use when making decisions about children.

• The best interests of the children come first.
• Children should have as much contact as possible with both parents so long as this is in the children’s best interests.
• The past behaviour of a parent cannot be taken into consideration by the court unless that behaviour reflects on the person’s ability to act as a parent.
When deciding on the best interests of the child, the judge will take into account a number of factors including:
• Care arrangements before the separation. (Who looked after the child most of the time? Who took the child to the doctor and dentist? Who arranged extracurricular activities? Who dealt with the child’s school and teachers?)
• The parent-child relationship and bonding.
• Parenting abilities.
• The parents’ mental, physical and emotional health.
• The parents’ and the child’s schedules.
• Support systems (for example, help and involvement from grandparents and other close relatives).
• Sibling issues. Generally, brothers and sisters remain together, but under some circumstances it may be necessary to consider separating them.
• The child’s wishes. (There is no magic age at which a child has the right to decide where he or she is going to live. The court gives more weight to the child’s wishes as the child matures. An older teenager’s wishes will often be decisive.)

At Russell Alexander Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Can a Kid’s Foster Parent Participate in Child Protection Proceedings?

Can a Kid’s Foster Parent Participate in Child Protection Proceedings?

The Ontario Court of Appeal has considered an interesting question relating to child protection proceedings: Whether a child’s foster parent is entitled to be granted status by the court, so that he or she can participate in the case.

In A.M. v. Valoris Pour Enfants et Adultes de Prescott-Russell the child was made a ward of children’s aid organization named Valoris pour enfants et adultes de Prescott-Russell (the “Society”) when he was two months old. At seven months of age, he was placed with a “foster-to-adopt” mother (the “F-A Mother”), who was assessed as a potential adoptee and with whom the child was placed with the ultimate goal of adoption.

Meanwhile, the Society filed an application asking that the child be made a Crown ward with the biological parents being stripped of their access rights.   The Crown supported the F-A Mother becoming the child’s adoptive parent. (Although the biological parents were given the chance to participate in a trial concerning wardship, they did not do so).

However, in 2016 an aunt and her partner expressed an intention to adopt the child, and the Society decided to support that plan instead. The aunt asked the court to be allowed to be added as parties, and to be granted a temporary order to care for the child.

The question arose as to whether the F-A Mother could be added as a party to those proceedings. A motion judge held that she could; the Divisional Court later overturned that decision. The matter was sent to be heard by a third court – the Ontario Court of Appeal – where the outcome was reversed again.

First of all, the Court confirmed that procedurally, the provincial Child and Family Services Act allows for non-parties, including foster parents, to be added to a child protection proceeding in the right circumstances. The legislatively-prescribed considerations which would favour not granting her such status, such as any procedural delay that might be added, were not of concern here.

Next, in allowing the F-A Mother’s participation, the Court explained that she was in the best position to inform the court on a Crown wardship hearing as to what the child’s needs and best interests involved. It was those best interests of the child, not the rights of the family or the foster parents, that is determinative. The F-A Mother also had a legal interest in the proceeding, especially since the Society had changed its mind about supporting her adoption bid in favour of backing up the child’s aunt. If the F-A Mother was not involved in the proceedings, her chance to adopt the child might be foreclosed.

Ultimately, the Appeal Court found that the Divisional Court in our view erred in interfering in the motion judge’s reasonable exercise of discretion, and it allowed the appeal, and granted the F-A mother status as a party to the child protection proceedings about the child.

For the full text of the decision, see:

A.M. v. Valoris Pour Enfants et Adultes de Prescott-Russell, 2017 ONCA 601 (CanLII)

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

SaveSave