BC Spousal Support Disabled Child
MacLean Law’s BC spousal support disabled child team is Vancouver’s highest rated family law firm according to prestigious independent rating agency Top Choice Awards who has awarded MacLean Family Law this award more than once and BC’s biggest spousal support firm with offices located in downtown Vancouver, Surrey, Fort St John and Surrey BC. Call us toll free at 1-877-602-9900 to get help from our award winning BC spousal support lawyers.
A recent BC Court of Appeal decision overturned a lower court decision that failed to recognize the mother’s chances of self sufficiency were impaired by her need to care for the parties’ recently diagnosed autistic child. So, what’s the test for BC spousal support disabled child cases? As you will see below the court must measure child care responsibilities against the objective of encouraging each spouse to try to obtain self sufficiency. Our skilled BC spousal support lawyers deal with medium to high net worth spousal support without child and spousal support with child formula cases on a daily basis.
What is the Test For BC Spousal Support When There Is A Disabled Child?
In Clarke the court held that spousal support disabled child cases must apportion the financial impact of raising a child equitably between both spouses. The BC Court of Appeal felt the trial judge was overly critical of the mother’s failure to work fulltime in failing to consider the burdens she had of caring for their autistic child. They ordered spousal support disabled child support to continue and tied it to a review when the child’s diagnosis and treatment plan was more definitive. Our BC spousal support disabled child team can guide you through these complex and stressful cases. We know you would rather focus on getting top therapy and care for your child rather than being distracted by a BC spousal support disabled child dispute.
What Exactly Did The Court Say?
For those of you who want to know exactly what the court decided in this BC spousal support disabled child case Lorne N. MacLean, QC extracted the key parts for you and bolded the best parts:
[56] The chambers judge was critical of the appellant for failing to seek “meaningful or durable employment” and become economically self-sufficient. He accordingly concluded that T.’s diagnoses and difficulties did not import a material change in her circumstances as they had not interrupted her efforts to attain self-sufficiency or affected her career prospects.
[57] I am persuaded the chambers judge erred in reaching these conclusions. While the appellant’s employment options were limited, due in part to her own unwise decisions, her unchallenged evidence was that, on at least two occasions, she had obtained full-time work but T.’s problems had interfered with her ability to fully perform her duties. The limitation that T.’s difficulties placed on her employment options was affirmed by the fact that she qualified to receive employment insurance as a parent of a critically ill child in 2014.
[58] The reports from The Maples and Ms. Crawford crystallized the genesis and severity of T.’s problems, and defined a comprehensive care plan in which his ability to progress depended on a significant time commitment from the appellant. The question before the chambers judge was whether the terms of the 2006 order with respect to spousal support would have been different if the parties had known about these events at that time. I am satisfied the chambers judge erred in failing to answer this question positively.
[59] Whether dealing with an initial order for support under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, or a variation in support under s. 17, ss. 15.2(6)(b) and 17(7)(b) respectively stipulate that one objective of support is to apportion between the parties the financial consequences arising from the care of the children of the marriage, beyond any obligation for child support. In that context, to paraphrase Justice McDermot’s query in Patton-Casse v. Casse, 2011 ONSC 4424 at para. 122, a case with some similarities to this, at the date the parties negotiated the 2006 order, was it their intention that the entire risk of T.’s future health problems would be placed on the appellant’s shoulders? In my view, the appellant’s limited employment history and failure to become self-sufficient since 2006 have little relevance in answering this question. Even if she had been fully employed since 2006, the demands placed on her by T.’s unexpected diagnoses would in all likelihood require her to reduce or leave her employment to accommodate them. By contrast, the respondent has suffered no economic consequences related to T.’s difficulties, and is not engaged in resolving them. I discern no justification on the record before us for a finding that the parties intended this uneven apportionment.
[60] In my view, the chambers judge erred by underestimating the appellant’s critical role in responding to T.’s needs at this critical juncture, and so failed to find that his diagnoses constituted a material change in her condition, means and needs. Her employment options are limited, at least in the short term, by her commitment to implement the experts’ recommendations with respect to T.’s treatment.
[61] The order of the chambers judge closely followed T.’s diagnoses. His likely progress and prognosis were unknown, and his treatment plan had not yet been implemented. While the appellant had an integral role in this plan at the time of the order, this was an evolutionary situation and, as the chambers judge observed, it would ultimately be counterproductive for the appellant to remain “perpetually available” to T.
[62] Given these circumstances, I am satisfied the appropriate order would have been to grant the appellant spousal support for a limited term, followed by a review directed to assessing her entitlement to ongoing support once T.’s progress and the appellant’s continuing role in his treatment plan could be better assessed. I would accordingly direct that she receive monthly support payable from September 11, 2014, the date of her application, with a review to take place in the Supreme Court at the instance of either party as soon as is practicable. In my view, sufficient time has passed to permit a more informed assessment of T.’s progress, and of what, if any, impact his treatment plan continues to have on the appellant’s economic circumstances.
[63] I would remit the question of the quantum of support since September 14, 2014 to the Supreme Court to be determined at the same time as the review. We received limited information on the appropriate quantum and, in any event, this is a question of fact best left to the trial court in the first instance.
Hiring Vancouver’s Top Rated Family Law Firm Makes Sense
If you have a BC spousal support disabled child or any other type of BC spousal support dispute and you want a lawyer from Vancouver best family law firm (multiple winner of Top Choice Awards Best Vancouver Family Law Firm) then contact us now to meet with us on an urgent basis. Remember, we have 4 offices across BC in Fort St John, Surrey, Kelowna and downtown Vancouver.
