Best BC Adult child support lawyers 1-877-602-9900 balance the need of a child to get a higher education with the need for self reliance and independence. BC Adult Child Support Lawyers deal with cases where the child is pursuing a first or maybe even a second degree to become a productive member of Society.
Common issues our BC Adult Child Support Lawyers see:
- relate to costs,
- whether the child lives in residence as opposed to being at home,
- can the support be paid to the child directly,
- what about the marks and number of classes,
- is part time attendance good enough,
- what about loans , grants and scholarships,
- how realistic is the plan,
- what if the child won’t talk to the paying parent.
BC Adult Child Support Lawyers
A recent BC Supreme Court case provides a tidy summary of the law for BC over the age of majority child support. Our top rated BC Adult Child Support Lawyers deal with cases where the post secondary issue arises and children and their parents have a difference of opinion over the location, program and cost of post secondary education. Many parents remember paying their full way through post secondary education but the costs in those days was less and the competition in the workplace may have been less robust.
Our top rated BC Adult Child Support Lawyers are often asked:
So what is the law for BC adult child support and how is it applied?
MacLean Law’s BC Adult Child Support Lawyers are top rated award winners of the Top Choice “Best Family Law Firm in Vancouver”.
We have 5 offices located across BC and we also bring our award winning expertise to Calgary and Winnipeg Manitoba due to demands from family law clients there. Our team of BC Adult Child Support Lawyers also have dedicated Mandarin and Cantonese speaking associates and two Chinese language websites.
Lorne N MacLean, QC head of BC”s largest family law firm of BC Adult Child Support Lawyers provides today’s blog and he has highlighted the good parts for you:
[14] In sum, a child who cannot live independently without and independence the help of his or her parents will be viewed as unable to withdraw from their charge, and therefore, as a child of the marriage.
[ [16] The jurisprudence reflects that the purpose of the definition of child of the marriage is to provide child support where there is dependency. The pursuit of education may constitute such “other cause”.
[21] In W.P.N. v. B.J.N., 2005 BCCA 7, Justice Levine, writing for our Court of Appeal, stated:
[18] The pursuit of education necessary to equip a child with a career qualifies as “other cause” for continuing dependence of a child of or over the age of majority: Martin v. Martin (1988), 26 B.C.L.R. (2d) 390 at 393 (C.A.). In determining whether a child pursuing an education is unable to withdraw from her parents’ charge or obtain the necessaries of life a court must consider the surrounding circumstances; mere attendance at an educational institution is not sufficient: Ciardullo v. Ciardullo (1995), 15 R.F.L. (4th) 121 at para. 17 (B.C.S.C.).
[19] A list of relevant circumstances was formulated by Master Joyce (as he then was) in Farden v. Farden (1993), 48 R.F.L. (3d) 60at para. 15 (B.C.S.C.) and referred to by this Court in Darlington v. Darlington (1997), 32 R.F.L. (4th) 406 at para. 14 (B.C.C.A.). These factors were considered by the chambers judge, who noted that in Darlington, this Court made it clear that there does not have to be evidence on all of the factors in order to establish that a child is a “child of the marriage” because she is pursuing an education. Nor should this list be considered to be exhaustive of the relevant factors.
[20] The factors outlined in Farden are:
(1) whether the child is in fact enrolled in a course of studies and whether it is a full-time or part-time course of studies;
(2) whether or not the child has applied for or is eligible for student loans or other financial assistance;
(3) the career plans of the child, i.e. whether the child has some reasonable and appropriate plan or is simply going to college because there is nothing better to do;
(4) the ability of the child to contribute to his own support through part-time employment;
(5) the age of the child;
(6) the child’s past academic performance, whether the child is demonstrating success in the chosen course of studies;
(7) what plans the parents made for the education of their children, particularly where those plans were made during cohabitation;
(8) at least in the case of a mature child who has reached the age of majority, whether or not the child has unilaterally terminated a relationship from the parent from whom support is sought.
And further,
[25] J. [the daughter of the parties] will likely need further training after obtaining her M.D. which will limit her ability to repay loans on graduation. She should not be put in the position of having to incur large amounts of debt to achieve what is agreed to be a realistic, achievable educational goal.
And further,
[30] The jurisprudence supports the view that there is a wide range of factors to be considered in the determination of whether a child is a “child of the marriage” and that individual factors will be of varying importance in different cases. All of the relevant factors must be considered. There is no arbitrary cut-off point based on the number of degrees or the eligibility of the student for financial assistance.
[22] Justice Levine cites with approval Martin v. Martin (1988), 26 B.C.L.R. (2d) 390 (C.A.). In Martin, Justice Esson (as he then was) writing for our Court of Appeal (with McLachlin J.A., as she then was, and Wallace J.A.) stated at 393:
I am not persuaded that the judge was wrong in concluding that the time has not yet been reached at which to cut off maintenance. The fact which stands out, I think, is that the daughter of the first marriage is still living with her mother and is essentially dependent upon her. We all know that is a time of life when the money demands or requirements are great and often at their greatest. It is entirely legitimate and usual for a parent to provide support and assistance to a child even though that child may have reached an age where he or she might be capable of being self-supporting, but wishes to pursue further education.
Child’s Expenses
[68] From January 2015 until the daughter graduates in the spring of 2018, the total expenses are approximately $61,750 ($19,000 per year x 3.25 years).
[70] In weighing matters, I have followed the approach described by our Court of Appeal in W.P.N., in particular at paras. 18 to 20 and 30. The daughter is doing well in her studies. She has a career focus as a graphic designer and photographer. In the past, she has not been able to qualify for a loan or other financial assistance as a result of her mother’s then income. With full-time studies, part-time employment is not necessarily practical or beneficial. Her parents are each supportive of their daughter’s post-secondary education.
[71] In considering the various factors, including the factors outlined in Farden v. Farden, 48 R.F.L. (3d) 60, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1315 (S.C.), I have given no weight to the fact that the daughter does not wish to speak to her father or otherwise wishes to have a relationship with him. There is not sufficient evidence before the Court to make a reasoned determination as to the cause.
[75] The mother enjoys considerable wealth. Her home is worth approximately $1,200,000 (without debt) and she has approximately $155,000 in cash and investments.
[76] The daughter is also a beneficiary of an RESP with a market value of approximately $5,000 (as of January 31, 2016).
[79] In assessing the appropriate amount that the father should pay under s. 3(2)(b) of the Guidelines, I have considered that there is the RESP established for the daughter. I have also considered that the father has only one significant asset, a pension with $115,000 value. He will need these funds for his retirement (which, if he were to retire at age 65, is only 9 years away). He is also remarried with a step-son with particular needs. He is struggling to earn income and has his own mental and physical challenges. Finally, I have also considered the mother’s favourable financial position.
[80] Weighing the foregoing factors, with greater emphasis on the mother’s significant assets, I will order that the father was required to pay child support since his daughter turned 19 (January 2015) of $100 per month (consisting of $80 per month base child support, $15 per month for post-secondary education, and $5 per month for medical/dental insurance premiums). The rule is that “both parents are responsible for the ongoing support of any child of the marriage”: Dallas v. Dallas, 2015 BCCA 147 at para. 23.
[81] In making this order, I have considered that the mother recently lost her employment. With her past record of employment, there is a good likelihood that she will find other employment or will successfully become self-employed. If she is unable to do so, the daughter should be in the position to qualify for a student loan.
[82] I find that the father’s share of the s. 7 post-secondary expenses before the daughter turned 19 was $985.54 [($70 + 2,572.20) x 37.3%]. He is also responsible for a share of other relatively small s. 7 special expenses, such as a share of the medical/dental premiums of $58.50 per month (for simplicity, I have used the current premiums). I estimate this further share to be approximately $500, for a total of $1,485.54 ($985.54 + $500).
[83] The final result is that child support is varied. The father is ordered to pay $100 per month (inclusive of s. 7 special expenses) as child support each month starting February 2015, so long as the daughter remains a child of the marriage as she continues to attend year-round and full-time education at Emily Carr University or a similar institution. He is also ordered to pay $1,485.54 on account of s. 7 special expenses arising before the daughter turned 19.
