Child support is a subject that often brings to mind images of young children receiving financial assistance from their parents. However, the reality is that adult children, especially those who are still in the process of completing their post-secondary education, may also be in need of financial aid. Despite living independently, these adult children frequently require assistance in covering essential expenses. These expenses encompass tuition fees, costs of textbooks and other study materials, housing costs, meal expenses, and transportation fees, which are collectively referred to as "section 7 expenses".

The concept of child support extending beyond the age of majority is becoming increasingly common. This can be attributed to several factors such as a child's illness, disability, or continued education. The aim of this article is to provide an in-depth understanding of this issue, focusing on three key aspects: The Divorce Act and its implications, factors considered by courts when deciding on child support for adult children, and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Child support is a pivotal issue in family law, drawing even more attention when it relates to adult children. The laws governing this area can often seem complex and confusing, with a multitude of factors coming into play. This blog post aims to elucidate the key aspects of child support law concerning adult children. We will explore the burden of proof, parental control, and quantum of support, providing a comprehensive understanding of this multifaceted subject.

Under the Divorce Act, an adult child who has withdrawn from parental control does not have any entitlement to support. This provision also applies to a child who is 16 or older under the Family Law Act. However, a child who lives with neither parent is not necessarily disentitled to support. The legal position, therefore, is that a child remains financially and emotionally dependent on one or both parents, even if they are not living with either parent. This provision is crucial to understand as it underscores the importance of maintaining a bond with the child, irrespective of the living arrangements.

The Federal Child Support Guidelines (SOR/97-175) were established in 1997 to provide certainty in determining child support based on a payor's income and the number of children. However, income determination becomes more complex for self-employed individuals or those earning income through a corporation. This blog post aims to provide an overview of this complex process.

The Federal Child Support Guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for determining a spouse's annual income for child support purposes. The income is generally determined using sources of income set out under the heading “Total income” in the T1 General form issued by the Canada Revenue Agency. However, the guidelines do not require courts to blindly use the previous year’s total income as reported by the party. The determination can be based on the spouse’s annual income in the past taxation year, the estimated annual income of the current year, or an estimate of probable future income

In shared parenting arrangements, the Federal Child Support Guidelines stipulate that for Section 9 to be applied, the support payor must be responsible for children at least 40% of the time. This is often a contentious point as the Guidelines do not specify whether the time should be calculated by counting days or hours, which can lead to significant disagreement between parents. If the 40% threshold isn't met, the inquiry ends and the presumptive table amount governs. However, if the threshold is met, the inquiry continues to determine the appropriate amount of support. Understanding the way this threshold is calculated and applied is crucial for parents in shared custody arrangements.

In calculating child support for split custody scenarios, the Federal Child Support Guidelines, as per Section 8, stipulates that the payable amount is derived as the set-off between the parties' respective table amounts. This essentially means that the courts calculate the difference between what each parent would have to pay in support based on their individual incomes and the number of children they have custody of. While this section does not provide any direct discretion over the quantum of support, other factors such as section 7 expenses or undue hardship claims may be considered to indirectly adjust the total payable support amount.

Section 6 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines empowers the court to order that medical or dental insurance coverage be maintained or acquired for the child. This provision is crucial to ensure that the child's health needs are met, regardless of their parents' marital status. However, the condition is that the coverage should either be available through a spouse's employment or be obtainable at a reasonable rate.

Child support issues are intricate and multifaceted, particularly when third-party custody comes into play. The standing of third parties to claim child support, the obligation of biological parents to pay, and the allocation of section 7 expenses are key factors that can greatly impact the outcome of these cases.

Child support guidelines are a key factor in ensuring the welfare and sustenance of children when their biological parents' marriage or relationship ends. These guidelines also extend to non-biological parents, specifically step-parents, who have been significantly involved in a child's life.

Undue hardship claims in child support cases can be quite complex. The court's approach to these cases often involves a detailed examination of the circumstances. This post will discuss the concept of undue hardship, the factors considered by the court, and the process of establishing an undue hardship claim.

Child support is an essential duty owed by parents to their children, ensuring that their financial needs are met after a divorce or separation. Typically, child support is paid periodically, often in monthly installments. However, there are instances where a lump-sum payment, or a combination of lump-sum and periodic payments, may be allowed. These situations, though, carry the risk of being perceived as a redistribution of wealth rather than a support mechanism.