Step Parent Child Support Laws and Ethics

jbg · June 4, 2014

If that was the real objective then access would be connected to child support. As it stands a woman can repeatedly deny access without facing any repercussions. Men, OTOH, who miss a few support payments are labelled 'deadbeats'.
Do you have anything to back up this ridiculous statement.

I am not a divorce lawyer but I am a lawyer. I hear things. And one of the things I hear often is that the custodial spouse, usually the wife, won't let the father have visitation when he arrives, saying either that the kid is sick, or doesn't want to see the father. I have even heard, from someone on the CBC forum, that his ex-wife repeatedly rebuffed visits and even refused to turn over Christmas gifts to the son. Eventually the son did break off what was left of his relationship with his father. Less severely, I personally know of someone who enrolled her twin daughters in religious school on Sundays (though they were not a religious family) to break up visits when the father had to drive 3 hours to make the visits. The father got the better of that one; he got a job teaching at the religious school every other Sunday so he could teach his daughters.

I am not against a system that tries to ensure kids are taken care of but the current system is just insane in the way that starting a relationship with a woman with kids can mean you are on the hook for support for the next 18 years - support that is in addition to the support that woman still gets to collect from the bio-dad. Support that is calculated based on the payers income and not the needs of the kids.

What is the matter with pushing the pendulum back to the middle and recognizing that any settlement must be fair to all parties.

I agree. The current system gives wives the benefit of "gender equality" in the work place and still makes some of them tyrants if the marriage fails. Edited June 4, 2014 by jbg

cybercoma · June 4, 2014

What does "it just assess intent" mean.......let me guess its too subjective to discuss? I've read stacks of case law on this, the bar is quite low; contribute to common household expenses, provide any string of decision making without the proponent, and/or show a positive relationship with the child.

My query would be to those who say "well you should expect these things when moving in with someone", how many people get married before living together to assess the relationship first nowadays? So there are different expectations for relationships when children are involved? Is that the consensus?

just should have been "must" and the precedent is the Chartier vs Chartier SCC decision which discusses what is meant by intent. I posted it earlier.

Charles Anthony · June 5, 2014

This thread is split off from the "Pro/Con?Life" thread.

TimG · June 5, 2014

Did you even read the judicial reasoning in Chartier v Chartier

Yes. It is a lovely example of judicial doublespeak. It claims that intent must be inferred, that it changes over time (which implies a short period of time where the step dad showed 'intent' is enough to attach obligations), it adds absolutely silly criteria like visiting relatives (what exactly are you supposed to do with the kids when you visit relatives with your wife? Leave them with a babysitter? How does bringing them along show 'intent'). In short, the criteria are so vague that anyone but a complete ass will be deemed to have shown 'intent'.

As an added bonus this addled decision demonstrates that the 'whats best for the kids' really means 'extract as much money as possible from as many suckers as possible'. I say this because this decision says that the needs of the kids are NOT a consideration when dealing with multiple fathers. Each payer is assessed only on their ability to pay which means the kids end up with a lifestyle that is much richer than they would have gotten if mommy had stayed with the original dad. It is mystery how anyone can support such an abusive system. But I guess I should not be surprised that someone who thinks that only whites can be racist would be equally blind to reality when it comes to child support.

cybercoma · June 5, 2014

So you hold judges in the same contempt as you hold scientists basically?

jbg · June 5, 2014

This thread is split off from the "Pro/Con?Life" thread.

Good split.

TimG · June 5, 2014

So you hold judges in the same contempt as you hold scientists basically?

I only hold opinions of judgments - not judges. Some judgments are a good balance of competing requirements. Some, like this one, are junk because they are blind to the inevitable abuse that will occur as a consequence of their one sided interpretation of the law. Edited June 5, 2014 by TimG

WestCoastRunner · June 5, 2014

I only hold opinions of judgments - not judges. Some judgments are a good balance of competing requirements. Some, like this one, are junk because they are blind to the inevitable abuse that will occur as a consequence of their one sided interpretation of the law.

You should probably start a men's group that advises men to stay away from getting involved with women who have children. Quite frankly, what woman would want to get involved with a man with those negative attitudes.

bush_cheney2004 · June 5, 2014

Another man (or woman) is not just an ATM machine to help women pay for the serious consequences of their failed relationships. Go after the proper child support from the man who is responsible instead.

jbg · June 5, 2014

You should probably start a men's group that advises men to stay away from getting involved with women who have children. Quite frankly, what woman would want to get involved with a man with those negative attitudes.

Again, based on my observations as a lawyer, observing other matters (I do not do family or matrimonial law) I see that the deck is hopelessly stacked against men. I have a happy marriage so can be objective on that issue.

Rue · June 5, 2014

Canadian family law as to child support has a built in legal presumption that the step parent is not responsible for financially supporting step children. If anything and I have mediated over 400 support issues, we mediators, and Judges tell the step parent to stay out of it and we only deal with the actual parents and we do not allow either parent to dump their responsibilities on a step parent. That I can tell you.

There is a legal presumption that the parents of children are presumed to be 50-50 responsible for the financial support. Each parent's income is used as the base point and the Judge then calculates the actual support amount each parent pays based on a percentage of the respective parent's income.

It is true Judges always consider the best interests of the child but I am not sure its accurate to say they will demand step parents pay support for children that are not blood related to them unless their is a specific and special circumstance,

I just haven't seen it in orders If anything when two parents are in conflict over support or custody, family Judges and we mediators tell the step parents to stay out of it and we don't even like them coming to court or getting involved in the mediation. They tend to make things worse.

Now there are some situations where a step parent might be ordered to pay child support but its only where the step parent initiates the support and then wants to end it-i.e., its situations where that step parent not the court initiated the support; i.e.,

1-the step parent chose to adopt the child-in this case when you adopt a child, the child is treated no differently than a blood child;

2-A moves in with B. B has a child, C from a previous marriage with D. A becomes very close with C. A and B are not off the hook, but A in specific fact situations (you must look at each situation individually) may have chosen to create a situation where they financially support C. In those specific situations only, if A chooses to leave and B had become dependent on A to look after C, then the court might order support from A to continue for C and/or B;

3-A moves in with B and C then splits but C wants to come live with A and does-then in that situation A can be ordered to pay for the child if they want custody of the child.

I think the case referred to is referring to those kinds of situations and not an automatic presumption a step parent is on the hook.

Please don't confuse that reasoning in the decision to infer parents can dump their responsibility on a step parent.

The only other scenario I know of where a court orders a step parent to support a child is as follows; B and D (the parents) abandon.

C. A feels bad because they had been close to C before they moved on from B. If A does not want C to become a ward of the state and asks for the child, then they can be asked to pay support but again just because B and D abandon their child doesn't get them off the hook.

A lot of step parents choose to support children that are not their blood children then change their mind after they split up and that is where we might see in some cases "step" parents being ordered to support such children but its usually for a fixed time not an indefinite time because the actual parents are not going to be allowed to evade their responsibility to support.

Also keep in mind that step parent will not be ordered to look after a non blood child unless he makes a sufficient amount of income which would take into consideration deductions from it for support payments step person makes for paying for his own children or former spouse support. A step parent's obligation to pay his former spouse or own blood children support prevails and must be honoured before the Judge will consider if there is any money left over after that to take from that person to pay support to any other child.

Hope that explains it.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Rue

GostHacked · June 5, 2014

As well they should, I might add. You take on the role of raising a child, then the courts are going to try and ensure that the family disruption does not adversely affect the children in any way that they can. Divorce and separation often lead to a significant change in the family's economic status and therefore the ability to provide for the child. That's the entire purpose of child support it 1) discourages family disruption, and 2) ensures that children do not suffer from a significant change in economic status as a result of the disruption.

And before it happens, let's not confuse child support with alimony.

If you want to discourage family disruption, ban divorce lawyers.

My parents wasted close to 10Gs with a divorce process that never happened. I told them both the lawyers were playing them. They resolved their differences. My cousin got divorced last year. Both him and his ex are paying stupid amounts for lawyers because of custody. My cousin did not learn from his first marriage so he did it again and got divorced a second time.

Let's encourage families to stick together. That way we have to worry less about step families.

cybercoma · June 5, 2014

Canadian family law as to child support has a built in legal presumption that the step parent is not responsible for financially supporting step children. If anything and I have mediated over 400 support issues, we mediators, and Judges tell the step parent to stay out of it and we only deal with the actual parents and we do not allow either parent to dump their responsibilities on a step parent. That I can tell you.

There is a legal presumption that the parents of children are presumed to be 50-50 responsible for the financial support. Each parent's income is used as the base point and the Judge then calculates the actual support amount each parent pays based on a percentage of the respective parent's income.

It is true Judges always consider the best interests of the child but I am not sure its accurate to say they will demand step parents pay support for children that are not blood related to them unless their is a specific and special circumstance,

I just haven't seen it in orders If anything when two parents are in conflict over support or custody, family Judges and we mediators tell the step parents to stay out of it and we don't even like them coming to court or getting involved in the mediation. They tend to make things worse.

Now there are some situations where a step parent might be ordered to pay child support but its only where the step parent initiates the support and then wants to end it-i.e., its situations where that step parent not the court initiated the support; i.e.,

1-the step parent chose to adopt the child-in this case when you adopt a child, the child is treated no differently than a blood child;

2-A moves in with B. B has a child, C from a previous marriage with D. A becomes very close with C. A and B are not off the hook, but A in specific fact situations (you must look at each situation individually) may have chosen to create a situation where they financially support C. In those specific situations only, if A chooses to leave and B had become dependent on A to look after C, then the court might order support from A to continue for C and/or B;

3-A moves in with B and C then splits but C wants to come live with A and does-then in that situation A can be ordered to pay for the child if they want custody of the child.

I think the case referred to is referring to those kinds of situations and not an automatic presumption a step parent is on the hook.

Please don't confuse that reasoning in the decision to infer parents can dump their responsibility on a step parent.

The only other scenario I know of where a court orders a step parent to support a child is as follows; B and D (the parents) abandon.

C. A feels bad because they had been close to C before they moved on from B. If A does not want C to become a ward of the state and asks for the child, then they can be asked to pay support but again just because B and D abandon their child doesn't get them off the hook.

A lot of step parents choose to support children that are not their blood children then change their mind after they split up and that is where we might see in some cases "step" parents being ordered to support such children but its usually for a fixed time not an indefinite time because the actual parents are not going to be allowed to evade their responsibility to support.

Also keep in mind that step parent will not be ordered to look after a non blood child unless he makes a sufficient amount of income which would take into consideration deductions from it for support payments step person makes for paying for his own children or former spouse support. A step parent's obligation to pay his former spouse or own blood children support prevails and must be honoured before the Judge will consider if there is any money left over after that to take from that person to pay support to any other child.

Hope that explains it.

Great post. I think situation 2 and less so 3 are what's being debated here. In the initial Chartier v Chartier decision the court said it came down to intent, which I think you've indicated in some way by discussing how a step parent may provide support for the child or move to adopt the child, even if the adoption hasn't fully been realized. That was the essence of requiring step parents to continue to support the child. But Tim has crafted a bunch of strawmen to attack in order to say that step parents should "never" have to pay for someone else's kids. When in fact, a step parent who acts as a stand in parent may be required to continue supporting the child and in some situations may be able to ask for shared custody of the child when the marriage ends. It is almost always about creating the most stable situation for the child. The family courts rightfully try to mitigate disruption in the child's life. Edited June 5, 2014 by cybercoma

cybercoma · June 5, 2014

If you want to discourage family disruption, ban divorce lawyers.

My parents wasted close to 10Gs with a divorce process that never happened. I told them both the lawyers were playing them. They resolved their differences. My cousin got divorced last year. Both him and his ex are paying stupid amounts for lawyers because of custody. My cousin did not learn from his first marriage so he did it again and got divorced a second time.

Let's encourage families to stick together. That way we have to worry less about step families.

Family disruption isn't necessarily just about the divorce as an event. It's about divorce as a process. Couples break up or separate then get back together all the time and this kind of instability in a child's life can be just as bad as a divorce. Still others experience violence and marital discord without any break up or divorce and that too can have similar affects to divorce and separation. In fact, a quick divorce with little discord may have better outcomes for children than a long drawn out situation of discord where no divorce ever actually happens. Edited June 5, 2014 by cybercoma

Bob Macadoo · June 5, 2014

Great post. I think situation 2 and less so 3 are what's being debated here. In the initial Chartier v Chartier decision the court said it came down to intent, which I think you've indicated in some way by discussing how a step parent may provide support for the child or move to adopt the child, even if the adoption hasn't fully been realized. That was the essence of requiring step parents to continue to support the child. But Tim has crafted a bunch of strawmen to attack in order to say that step parents should "never" have to pay for someone else's kids. When in fact, a step parent who acts as a stand in parent may be required to continue supporting the child and in some situations may be able to ask for shared custody of the child when the marriage ends. It is almost always about creating the most stable situation for the child. The family courts rightfully try to mitigate disruption in the child's life.

Oh so Rue is the legal authority now that he aligns with your view.......brilliant. Any logical person would question it.....but you sit happy.

Peter F · June 5, 2014

Rue's post seems in line with the court cases I've read on this issue. There is a lot of determining the specifics of the case at hand then determining how much if any child support must be paid.

Blanket statements from TimG that 'this is what the courts do! " are very misleading.

Courts come to all sorts of conclusions regarding child-support. Much like Rue said.

cybercoma · June 5, 2014

Oh so Rue is the legal authority now that he aligns with your view.......brilliant. Any logical person would question it.....but you sit happy.

So because Rue has said really ridiculous things in other threads, I'm supposed to treat all of his posts that way? He made good points in this thread. And that has nothing to do with agreeing with me, but elaborating on the law. In the other thread, his discussion of the law was baffling at best and most of his post was moralizing and completely contradictory to the law.

Bob Macadoo · June 5, 2014

So because Rue has said really ridiculous things in other threads, I'm supposed to treat all of his posts that way? He made good points in this thread. And that has nothing to do with agreeing with me, but elaborating on the law. In the other thread, his discussion of the law was baffling at best and most of his post was moralizing and completely contradictory to the law.

Right.....he's lucid now....but over there he's a whack job. It was still all over the place. I will tell you now....all that crap about keeping the step parent out is completely false.....judges want to assess the entire family situation. Beyond that he was addressing when 2 bio parents are in court with mates.....not second mates splitting. So irrelevant to the discussion, and just as accurate as he is in any other thread. You pray at his altar though.

Rue · June 5, 2014

First off Bob you are trying to turn this discussion into a personal attack against me. Knock it off. This post is not about me or being lucid.

I have tried my best to explain the law as I have worked with it and I am not even in disagreement with Tim's comments. I was actually trying to explain its quite possible in specific fact situations because a step-parent does the right thing and decides to pay for a child that is not their own yes they might get burned for it by a blood parent who takes off. Sure that is possible.

My point which you did not grasp is Judges have a lot of discretion when defining a child's best interest. If they feel a child is dependent on a step parent, they then go on to define what that dependency is. Emotional dependency is not always addressed with money. They could address it by assuring the step parent who leaves and child they leave and no longer have a step relationship can continue to visit one another.

Now instead of trying to insult me, be my guest show me a case where a step parent was ordered to financially look after a child that was not their own. Please do so. I think you will find there was something fact specific in that case that led to that decision not a general rule or principle used as a one size fits all approach in all situations of step parenting.

What I explained doesn't make what Tim said wrong either. I got his point. I never said he was wrong or right. He was sharing his opinion. In some cases he may be dead on, on others maybe dead wrong. Yes the law is as you say all over the place. That is because its not a one size fits all approach with family law. That is why the decisions can seem inconsistent and trying to suggest its my fault the law is very fact specific and therefore not uniform in how it approaches the situation is silly.

Judges in family court have seen and heard it all. Yes they can make decisions that will appear unfair. No one who comes out of family court is ever happy. Its the nature of that area of law because no one gets what they want and they usually end up with a ruling they never expected.

Most times children fear both parents leaving equally and feel caught in the middle. They might also replace an absent parent with a step parent. For a child, any adult willing to commit to them and spend quality time with them can turn into a parent figure. That is where the dependency relationships can arise and where Judges try to be sensitive to that and I think when they do that and put the child's best interests first it may come across as placing an unfair expectation on the step parent.

All I can tell you is this, family law is very emotional and so the parties often get angry and distort what they see and feel or think is happening. Emotion clouds judgement and perception in family law conflicts.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Rue

jbg · June 6, 2014

Let's encourage families to stick together. That way we have to worry less about step families.

I lost my father through death and had a wonderful stepfather for almost 40 years.

TimG · June 6, 2014

Judges in family court have seen and heard it all. Yes they can make decisions that will appear unfair. No one who comes out of family court is ever happy. Its the nature of that area of law because no one gets what they want and they usually end up with a ruling they never expected.

I guess it comes down to a question of how much and what type of injustice can be tolerated. Personally, the current system would be tolerable if contracts written before the marriage were enforceable on break up. It is odious the way the court takes away the right of adults to define the terms of their relationship.

Peter F · June 6, 2014

It is the actions of the adult toward the child that determine the nature of the relationship. Not adult towards the other adult. A written agreement between adults is all fine and good for determining spousal support but means nothing for determining child support.

Peter F · June 6, 2014

Here's a case that was discussed here some years ago: Jane and John Doe vs. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta

( Doe v. Alberta, 2007 ABCA 50 )

[1] The issue in this appeal is whether an express written agreement entered into by the natural mother of a child and her co-habiting male partner (who did not father the child), which stipulates that the partner has neither parental rights nor any obligation to support the child, is effective in law. The Appellants question the constitutional validity of ss. 53, 85 and 86 of the Family Law Act, RSA 2003, c. F-4.5 (the “FLA”), which permits a court to override agreements entered into with regard to parenting, including child support obligations.

...

[22] In my opinion, the answer is to be found in the context of the relationship between Jane and John Doe. The “settled intention” to remain in a close, albeit unmarried, relationship thrust John Doe, from a practical and realistic point of view, into the role of parent to this child. Can it seriously be contended that he will ignore the child when it cries? When it needs to be fed? When it stumbles? When the soother needs to be replaced? When the diaper needs to be changed?

[23] In my opinion, a relationship of interdependence with the mother of the child in the same household, of itself, will likely create a relationship of interdependence of some permanence, vis-à- vis the child. John Doe’s subjective intent not to assume a parental role will inevitably yield to the needs (and not merely the physical needs) of the child in the same household. Were it otherwise, one can only imagine the emotional damage visited upon the child. One must keep in mind that, among the factors cited in s. 48(2) is the child’s perception of the person as a parental figure.

...

[30] I would add only that the child’s interests were not represented in the Court below nor on appeal. I question whether public policy would countenance a declaration of the sort sought by the Appellants without a careful assessment on an adequate factual foundation of the child’s interests and benefits that might be adversely affected.

[31] The appeal is dismissed.

I think I called this an 'eminently sensible decision' back then....I do now still.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Peter F

GostHacked · June 6, 2014

I lost my father through death and had a wonderful stepfather for almost 40 years.

We are talking about divorces, not deaths.

TimG · June 6, 2014

I think I called this an 'eminently sensible decision' back then....I do now still.

It is a nonsensical decisions that shows everything that is wrong with the law.

If the partner was a paid live in-nanny he would be a "stand-in parent" and not incur obligations.

If the partner was a brother/roommate he would not incur obligations simply because he occasionally helped with childcare.

Despite the nonsense written about a hypothetical relationship with a child the real reason he would be on the hook for support is because he has sex with the mother. The relationship with the child is irrelevant in the eyes of the court. What really matters is who he sleeps with. Why is this even a criteria?

It is simply wrong to the court to tell two consenting adults that they cannot enter into an informed agreement and have it upheld by the court.

PS. To add insult to injury: the decision repudiates Chartier vs Chartier because that decision says the view of the relationship from the child's perspective is irrelevant that it is intent of the father figure. Yet hear the clearly stated intent is ignored because of the child's perspective.

Edited June 6, 2014 by TimG