Alienating former spouse couldcomewithacost

parents. As a result, deviations from the Guidelines are rare.

Child support for children under the age of majority is payable to the parent with whom the child resides. For children over the age of majority, the Guidelines allow more discretion. If a child remains entitled to child support (for example, the child is attending a post-secondary institution), the judge is directed to either apply the Guidelines or, if that approach is ‘inappropriate’, the judge must decide the appropriate amount, taking into account the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the child’s support.

Even when a child refuses was completely estranged from her mother. That case had been in litigation over ongoing parenting and financial issues for fourteen years, and Justice Graesser himself had dealt with the parties for the prior five years.

Despite court-ordered access and a court-appointed therapist for the child, the daughter cut herself off from the mother and the mother’s family, although she had previously enjoyed a good relationship with each. Each parent blamed the other for the situation.

The father sought retroactive child support for the daughter from the date that the daughter began to live with him. When deciding this, Justice Graesser considered the father’s actions and found that the father facilitated access with the father, but found that in fact, the father was “completely unwelcome” in the lives of the woman and her son.

The judge also considered the conduct of the parties and their son when deciding whether ordering the payment of child support for a child over the age of majority under the Guidelines was “inappropriate.”

Ultimately, the judge refused to order that monthly child support be paid to the mother, and ordered that only 25 per cent of the cost of the son’s university be paid by the father, to be paid either to the son directly, or to the university.

As the mother had refused to provide any information to the father about the son’s university attendance, the judge required that the mother provide the parties’ son with the details of the arrangement so that the son could inform the father.

“It is time that (the son) appreciate(s) that there is a need for him to deal with his father directly and in a more mature manner when it now comes to requests for financial assistance with his future education,” the judge said.

Justice Graesser summarized the law in these difficult situations the best, saying that, when the alienation is for no good reason, “it may be unreasonable for a child to expect support from a parent the child wants nothing to do with, other than his or her money.”