Calgary Over 18 Child Support Arrears Lawyers focus on dealing with Calgary arrears of child support cases. Given many Calgary child support paying parents lost their jobs or careers in the recent oil industry collapse, hundreds of Calgary child support arrears cases exist. Delay in getting legal advice to fix the payment so it is fair can be fatal.
If you’ve lost your job or suffered a pay cut pick up the phone now to correct your support order to the proper amount. If you don’t you will likely be stuck with a huge bill for unfair support.
Call us today at 403-444-5503. Click here to see our downtown Calgary office location.
MacLean Law’s top rated Calgary Over 18 Child Support Arrears Lawyers explain that it most cases you shouldn’t sit on your child support rights and fail to go back to court to get the proper amount of child support recalculated.
Our Calgary Over 18 Child Support Arrears Lawyers also warn that you need to take prompt action in a Calgary child support case when a child is over 18 years of age to ensure proper support is paid on the proper over the age of majority formula and in cases where a child is self sufficient that child support stops entirely.
Check out our blog on guideline income calculations and Calgary child support here.
Calgary Over 18 Child Support Arrears Lawyers
CLW v SVW, 2017 ABCA 121 points out the “snooze you lose” approach to cancellation of child support arrears. Although the father was successful in obtaining cancellation of arrears when his children were no longer entitled to it as they were over 18 and self sufficient, cancellation of earlier arrears was not successful given the very high threshold to cancel same. Calgary Over 18 Child Support Arrears Lawyers warn that paying spouses MUST TAKE URGENT ACTION WHEN THEIR INCOME DROPS.
Calgary Over 18 Child Support Arrears Lawyers Warn- Don’t Delay Or You Will Overpay
Here is what Alberta’s highest court said in CLW v. SVW:
 In contradistinction to DBS and Calver, in this case the appellant simply asks the Court to confirm that a lesser amount was payable all along. Put another way, in part the appellant simply sought, and obtained, declarations as to when each child ceased to enjoy the legal status that entitled that child to the appellant’s child support. In respect of forgiveness of all arrears, the logical implication arising from the appellant’s application is that he is asking for a reduction in the amount owing with respect to a debt that was never paid, as opposed to a DBS situation wherein a putative recipient seeks an immediate payment, stemming from an obligation that was never declared owing during the currency of the child’s legal status as a child of the marriage.  The findings of the Court below as to when AW and DW, respectively, ceased to be children of the marriage for child support purposes, are entitled to a high degree of deference; we discern no palpable and overriding error in respect of these findings of mixed fact and law. We are further of the view that there was no error by the chambers judge in failing to consider s 3(2) of the Guidelines, having regard to the terms of the Divorce Judgment and Corollary Relief Order. The appellant knew when his children turned 18 in 2010 and 2013, respectively, yet chose not to apply to vary his child support obligations at that time.
 Having properly taken jurisdiction and made the necessary findings about the children’s status, in our view the chambers judge then ought to have ordered the necessary adjustment to the appellant’s child support obligations by utilizing the appellant’s actual Line 150 income information from employment, evidence that was available and uncontroverted. The failure to use actual Line 150 income to adjust the appellant’s child support obligations constituted a legal error that is not entitled to deference. The recalculation of the appellant’s child support adjustments shall be based on the following:
- a) DW ceased to be a child of the marriage entitled to the appellant’s child support at the end of 2011, after which the appellant’s child support obligations for DW terminated.
- b) Prior to January 1, 2012, no recalculation shall be made in respect of either quantum of monthly child support payable by the appellant, or in respect of accumulated arrears.
- c) From January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the appellant was legally obligated to pay child support only for AW, this child’s support is to be calculated under subsection 3(2)(a) of theGuidelinesin accordance with the appellant’s actual Line 150 income for 2012.
- d) Between January 1, 2013 and November 30, 2013, AW continued to be a child of the marriage entitled to child support, this child’s support is to be calculated under subsection 3(2)(a) of theGuidelinesin accordance with the appellant’s actual Line 150 income for 2013.
 As to the balance of accumulated arrears, forgiveness of arrears is a matter of judicial discretion; here, that discretion was reasonably exercised: Haisman v Haisman (1995), 157 AR 47 at para 27, 1994 ABCA 249 (CanLII). In the absence of some special circumstance, a judge should not vary or rescind an order for the payment of child support so as to reduce or eliminate arrears unless he or she is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the former spouse or judgment debtor cannot then pay, and will not at any time in the future be able to pay, the arrears: Haisman at paras 23-27. The chambers judge found that the appellant had not established undue hardship; in our view, this finding is not amenable to appellate intervention.
- e) On November 30, 2013, AW ceased to be a child of the marriage.
- f) From December 1, 2013, the appellant’s child support obligations to AW terminated.