Prev: sexeyheroins
Next: new tactic for dads
From: jchristow on 27 Aug 2008 14:08
I need a little help. I've been fighting with my ex for 10 years. And
we're headed to court again. I've probably been 20 times including a 3
day trial.

Here's my query: The Ontario Family Law Act says a child over the age
of majority is eligible for support if they are 'enrolled in school
full time.' My question is what is the legal definition of full time?
Where can I find this information?

Any help would be appreciated.

Jude
From: NewMan on 28 Aug 2008 02:17
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:08:13 -0700 (PDT), jchristow(a)hotmail.com wrote:

>I need a little help. I've been fighting with my ex for 10 years. And
>we're headed to court again. I've probably been 20 times including a 3
>day trial.
>
>Here's my query: The Ontario Family Law Act says a child over the age
>of majority is eligible for support if they are 'enrolled in school
>full time.' My question is what is the legal definition of full time?
>Where can I find this information?
>
>Any help would be appreciated.
>
>Jude

Here is some stuff I found. Unfortunately, the courts seem rather
vague on this issue.

One of the things about the support of the children after the age of
majority, and while attending school hinges on the expectations set up
during the marriage.

To wit: If you were relatively poor while married, and were of limited
means, and had ALWAYS made it clear to the children that you would NOT
be paying for them to attend post-secondary education, then the
arguement can be made to the court that the phrase from the law "to
the extent that the parent is capable of doing so" can literally be
applied in the case that you you never were in a position to support
the children during higher education, and - as such - cannot be
expected to support the children now. This arguement requires that you
were not in a good financial position douring the marriage, and that
in divorce you are STILL in a bad financial position and are unable to
reasonably be expected to support the child based on your limited
means.

Note! DO NOT quit a good job to try and dodge the support issue. The
court has been known in such cases to "impute" (read "pretend") an
income on a person, and then proceed as if they were actually earning
the "imputed" amount.

Here are the links.

hth


http://www.canlaw.com/rights/fla.htm

Obligation of parent to support child

31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or
her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time
program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of
doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.

Idem

(2) The obligation under subsection (1) does not extend to a child
who is sixteen years of age or older and has withdrawn from parental
control. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (2).

Obligation of child to support parent

32. Every child who is not a minor has an obligation to provide
support, in accordance with need, for his or her parent who has cared
for or provided support for the child, to the extent that the child is
capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 32.

Also,

http://www.thefrosolution.com/termination-of-child-support.html

It is generally accepted that a child who is pursuing post secondary
education is unable to withdraw from parental charge and as such
qualifies for support. There is some suggestion that the Family Law
Act obligation is somewhat more restrictive than the Divorce Act
obligation because the child must be in a full time program of
education.

There are numerous decisions of the courts struggling with the child
support termination date issue with respect to children who are in
post secondary school education. Although a specific case analysis is
required and no definitive rule is applicable on this issue, the
courts have been flexible in these cases in giving latitude to
children who are pursuing their education in a good faith manner and
have had some difficulty attending "full time" in that pursuit.

These cases are all difficult to settle or predict and often create
difficulty when the FRO is enforcing the existing Order and the payor
is of the view that the child no longer qualifies for the child
support. The FRO has a duty to continue to enforce the existing order
until such time as that order is changed or the parties agree that the
support obligation has terminated.
From: jchristow on 31 Aug 2008 17:48

Thanks very much for the help.

The following paragraph is precisely my situation.

My son enrolled in school in september 07 and prompted dropped 3 of 4
courses. He attended the one course for a month. Then dropped that. He
then took a night school class which he completed. My ex's contention
is I owe up to the time he finished the night school course. My
contention is I don't owe any of it. But it comes down to the
interpretation of full time enrollment.

I will be representing myself. Do you know a way to cheaply obtain
cases that might support my perspective?

> There are numerous decisions of the courts struggling with the child
> support termination date issue with respect to children who are in
> post secondary school education. Although a specific case analysis is
> required and no definitive rule is applicable on this issue, the
> courts have been flexible in these cases in giving latitude to
> children who are pursuing their education in a good faith manner and
> have had some difficulty attending "full time" in that pursuit.
>
> These cases are all difficult to settle or predict and often create
> difficulty when the FRO is enforcing the existing Order and the payor
> is of the view that the child no longer qualifies for the child
> support. The FRO has a duty to continue to enforce the existing order
> until such time as that order is changed or the parties agree that the
> support obligation has terminated.

From: NewMan on 1 Sep 2008 02:45
There is an old saying...

"A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."

IMHO, this is NOT the kind of situation you should be representing
yourself on.

Here in BC, there is a designation for some lawyers "Q.C.". It stands
for "Queens Counsellor". Lawyers with this designation are experts in
their field, and the government often uses them either for direct and
independant representation, or to consult on with respect to things
like changes in the law itself.

My 3rd lawyer was a QC. He is by far the best lawyer I have ever had.
Strangly enough, her was NOT the most expensive available. Go figure.

I do not know if Ontario has such lawyers, but if they do exist, I
strongly recommend that you consult one - even if you only have them
do the legwork to prime you for your appearance in court. Such lawyers
usually know who all the judges are, how their are biased, and what
you can and cannot get away with, Judges mind their "P's and Q's"
around QC's because they know damn well that the QCs not only know the
law, they know ALL of the law in their respective area of specialty.
If YOU show up in front of a judge, then the judge knows that not only
do you likely know nothing, you likely only know what you may have
read or been told. If the judge makes a mistake in front of you, you
are in no position to recuse him - like a QC can and WILL do if the
judge steps one inch out of line.

Based on my experience in the kangaroo courts of the people's republic
of Kanada, and in particular the "family" courts, the courts are - to
say the least - fickle.

Say that you don't owe all you want. But if a court order exists, and
a new judge does not see fit to vary the order retroactively, then you
DO owe the money - period. Failure to pay will land you in a ton of
hot water.

IMHO, the SECOND that your son dropped 3 of 4 courses, you should have
been in court within a week to have the "child support" order
"varried" under the "change of circumstances". Failing to do so in a
timely manner has likely cost you big time. I agree with you. As far
as I am concerned, night school is NOT a "full time" course of study -
period. And 4 courses is just barely meeting the requirement. When I
went to college ful time, I had a course load of six courses, and two
lab sections that ran 3 out of 4 semesters (Sept to June) for two full
years. THAT was "full time".

If I had to guess, I would say that your ex was pressureing the son to
go just so that child support could be collected.

If you want to get the monkey off your back, then it is time to retain
a real lawyer - one who can get the monkey off your back. Sure you
maight save a few bucks trying this little maneover yourself, and it
is a sure bet you will NOT be successful on your own (at least in my
book).

You need an order where support is PERMANENTLY discontinued. If they
want support again, then let the little darling go to college on
student loans and produce his transcript at the END of the semester
showing successful completion of s FULL course load. They you can
reimburse retroactively. That ought to put a kink in your ex's plans.

Good luck - you're going to need it.


On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:48:19 -0700 (PDT), jchristow(a)hotmail.com wrote:

>
>Thanks very much for the help.
>
>The following paragraph is precisely my situation.
>
>My son enrolled in school in september 07 and prompted dropped 3 of 4
>courses. He attended the one course for a month. Then dropped that. He
>then took a night school class which he completed. My ex's contention
>is I owe up to the time he finished the night school course. My
>contention is I don't owe any of it. But it comes down to the
>interpretation of full time enrollment.
>
>I will be representing myself. Do you know a way to cheaply obtain
>cases that might support my perspective?
>
>> There are numerous decisions of the courts struggling with the child
>> support termination date issue with respect to children who are in
>> post secondary school education. Although a specific case analysis is
>> required and no definitive rule is applicable on this issue, the
>> courts have been flexible in these cases in giving latitude to
>> children who are pursuing their education in a good faith manner and
>> have had some difficulty attending "full time" in that pursuit.
>>
>> These cases are all difficult to settle or predict and often create
>> difficulty when the FRO is enforcing the existing Order and the payor
>> is of the view that the child no longer qualifies for the child
>> support. The FRO has a duty to continue to enforce the existing order
>> until such time as that order is changed or the parties agree that the
>> support obligation has terminated.

From: Joy on 2 Sep 2008 19:16
Probably the schools have a definition of "full-time student". You might
check with the school to see their definition.

<jchristow(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ab0587b-8dd5-4baa-8dfb-ae0881a71c87(a)z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Thanks very much for the help.
>
> The following paragraph is precisely my situation.
>
> My son enrolled in school in september 07 and prompted dropped 3 of 4
> courses. He attended the one course for a month. Then dropped that. He
> then took a night school class which he completed. My ex's contention
> is I owe up to the time he finished the night school course. My
> contention is I don't owe any of it. But it comes down to the
> interpretation of full time enrollment.
>
> I will be representing myself. Do you know a way to cheaply obtain
> cases that might support my perspective?
>
>> There are numerous decisions of the courts struggling with the child
>> support termination date issue with respect to children who are in
>> post secondary school education. Although a specific case analysis is
>> required and no definitive rule is applicable on this issue, the
>> courts have been flexible in these cases in giving latitude to
>> children who are pursuing their education in a good faith manner and
>> have had some difficulty attending "full time" in that pursuit.
>>
>> These cases are all difficult to settle or predict and often create
>> difficulty when the FRO is enforcing the existing Order and the payor
>> is of the view that the child no longer qualifies for the child
>> support. The FRO has a duty to continue to enforce the existing order
>> until such time as that order is changed or the parties agree that the
>> support obligation has terminated.
>


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: sexeyheroins
Next: new tactic for dads