When determining whether an adult child is still entitled to child support, courts consider several factors based on the child’s status and circumstances. This post outlines the factors considered in a recent legal decision where a judge had to decide whether two adult children, K.W. and N.W., remained "children of the marriage" and were therefore still entitled to child support. Find the complete case of J.C.W. v J.K.R.W, 2024 BCSC 139 from the Supreme Court of B.C. HERE.
Definition of a Child of the Marriage
Under the Divorce Act in Canada, a child of the marriage is either:
Under the age of majority and has not withdrawn from the parents' charge, or
Over the age of majority but unable, due to illness, disability, or other reasons, to withdraw from their parents' charge or obtain the necessaries of life.
The burden of proof lies on the parent seeking to end child support to demonstrate that the child no longer fits these criteria.
Key Issues in the Case
The judge examined the following main issues:
Whether K.W.’s reduced university course load due to ongoing health issues removed them from being considered a child of the marriage.
Whether N.W. ceased being a child of the marriage when they worked full-time at age 18, then stopped working before attending university full-time.
The appropriate level of child support and any arrears since support payments stopped.
Issues related to section 7 expenses, such as university tuition and other educational costs.
Factors Affecting the Decision
Justice Matthews carefully assessed several factors:
a) Health and Employability: For K.W., ongoing mental and physical health issues significantly impacted their ability to study full-time or work. Medical reports supported that these health issues were disabling, leading the judge to conclude that K.W. could not become financially independent. For N.W., mental health struggles, including severe anxiety and self-harm while working at a demanding job, justified their decision to leave work and focus on their education.
b) Educational Pursuits: Both children were actively pursuing post-secondary education. Courts generally support continued parental support when children are attending reasonable educational programs, provided these pursuits are seen as appropriate and financially reasonable.
c) Financial Independence and Contributions: Although N.W. had significant savings from prior employment, the judge noted that these savings were intended for future educational expenses beyond the current degree. The court emphasized that expecting N.W. to exhaust their savings would undermine their future educational and career goals.
d) Relationship with Parents: The court also considered whether each child maintained a relationship with the parent paying support. N.W. had ongoing but complex relations with both parents, while K.W.’s circumstances did not suggest any deliberate severance of familial bonds.
Legal Principles Applied
The judge referred to the established legal principles that guide support for adult children. Key cases such as Hartshorne v. Hartshorne and Neufeld v. Neufeld highlighted that illness, disability, or educational pursuits could qualify an adult child for continued support. In cases where disability is a factor, the child's ability to work and the severity of their condition are crucial considerations.
Outcome of the Case
Ultimately, the court found both K.W. and N.W. to still be children of the marriage:
K.W. remains entitled to support due to ongoing health challenges and educational commitments.
N.W. also remains entitled due to their mental health struggles, current educational focus, and reasonable use of their savings toward future educational expenses.
The judge ordered the continuation of basic child support, with adjustments to account for each child’s circumstances. The parents were directed to review the status of child support periodically, reflecting the evolving nature of the children’s health, education, and financial needs.
Conclusion
This case underscores the complexities involved in determining child support for adult children. The court’s primary focus is on the child’s ability to support themselves due to education, illness, or disability, alongside considerations of the parents' ongoing financial responsibilities. This balanced approach seeks to ensure that adult children receive the support they need while pursuing education and managing health challenges, provided it remains reasonable and justified.
Contact SiLaw Group Lawyers if you wish to discuss your issue relating to your companion animal. We offer free consultations from our Surrey based office and remain available for Zoom and Telephone calls throughout British Columbia by calling us at (778) 381-9977.
Коментарі