New 2012 Child Support Guideline Tables: Update Your Payments!
As of December 31, 2011, there are new Child Support Guideline Tables for child support payments. If you are paying child support, you need to update your payment as at January 1, 2012 to bring it in line with the new table amount to avoid the possibility of falling into arrears. This is the case even with an existing court order or separation agreement that specifies the amount of child support that is payable.
Please contact our offices to find out if your support obligation needs to be adjusted to reflect the new table amounts.
Posted: January 9th, 2012 under Child Support.
Tags: 2012, Child Support, Child Support Gu, Obligation, Update
New Child Support Guideline Tables
The Child Support Guidelines have been due for an update, and the DOJ has obliged. They have posted new table figures which will be used to make Guideline Child Support calculations from December 31, 2011 onwards. The adjustments are not even across the board. In some higher income cases, obligations have been nudged slightly higher. For some medium income calculations, the payor is actually required to forward less money. If you have a child maintenance obligation, or if you are receiving child maintenance, it would be a good idea to look at the new tables.
Posted: November 29th, 2011 under Child Support, Legislation Analysis.
Tags: Child Support, Child Support Guidelines
Post-Secondary Education Costs
There can be a positive obligation on separated or divorced parents to support a child through post-secondary education if that cost is labelled an extraordinary expense pursuant to s.7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. That section states that,
Special or extraordinary expenses
7. (1) In a child support order the court may, on either spouse’s request, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family’s spending pattern prior to the separation:
(a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the custodial parent’s employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment;
(b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child;
(c) health related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;
(d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs;
(e) expenses for post-secondary education; and
(f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.
The question this raises in my mind is why separated or divorced parents are subject to this potential obligation when children of parents still together are subject to the vagaries of their parents’ decision. Would a child of parents who are still together be able to secure similar funding if the courts were asked to intervene?
Posted: February 3rd, 2011 under Child Support, Legislation Analysis.
Tags: Child Support, education, Maintenance, married, separated, University
Maintenance on the Death of a Party
When a party to litigation between spouses passes away, a question can arise as to the status of litigation regarding ongoing child and spousal maintenance. In Crain v. Crain 1996 CarswellBC 1174, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue by finding that maintenance is a personal right that abates upon the death of either the party paying or the party receiving that maintenance. In other words, under normal circumstances, if one party dies, maintenance stops.
But what happens if one of the parties was pursuing an application to cancel or reduce arrears of maintenance? The court found (at para. 16) that an application to vary or cancel arrears, “… must be made by a spouse or former spouse and those terms do not extend to a corpse, an estate, or a personal representative.” Because of this, any application to change maintenance owing also abates upon the death of either party. Which means that if you intend on applying to varying or cancel arrears, it’s best to do it while you’re alive.
Posted: November 19th, 2010 under Case Analysis, Child Support, Spousal Support, Uncategorized.
Tags: arrears, cancel, death, Maintenance, variation, vary
Review Hearing vs. Variation of an Order for support
The BC Court of Appeal just released a decision called Domirti v. Domirti, 2010 BCCA 472, which considered an appeal by the husband from an Order that he pay indefinite spousal support to his wife. The basis on which the husband made his appeal was the manner in which the judge treated the application at the Supreme Court level; that is, that the judge made a mistake in treating his application as a variance instead of a review. The Court of Appeal agreed with him and reversed the judge’s order.
Previously, the parties have been separated since 1994. The initial child and spousal support order was made in 1996, and varied in 2004. The 2004 Order specified that, anytime after a year had passed, either party could seek a review hearing on the issue of spousal maintenance. The husband sought that review in 2005, and then again in 2009 when it was alleged the youngest child of the parties was no longer a child of the marriage. The husband sought to terminate spousal support at that point.
At the 2009 application the judge indicated she was relying on Section 17 of the Divorce Act, which relates to the variation of support orders. She concluded the husband ought to keep paying indefinite support to the wife in the amount of $1250.00 per month.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal noted that Section 17 of the Divorce Act is irrelevant in the context of review hearings and should not have been relied on by the judge. Instead, at a review hearing, the judge should have conducted a “reconsideration” of entitlement and quantum of support having an eye to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, which the Court of Appeal concluded would have assisted the husband in terms of the duration of support.
This decision clarifies the test that a party must satisfy when bringing an application for a review of support as opposed to the test that must be met on an application to vary support. Procedurally, this distinction is important to note as the legal test is markedly different.
Posted: October 27th, 2010 under Case Analysis, Child Support, Divorce, Procedure.
Tags: appeal, Domirti, Maintenance, review, Support, variation
