Today's National Post front page story.


"OTTAWA - Children of divorced parents should no longer bear the burden of judges' leniency towards people who pay child support, Alberta's highest court has said in a landmark judgment that paves the way for thousands of retroactive support awards"

Here is the link; http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story....-8eabe616ed6c&page=1

(EDIT: Above link no longer available)

The reason for this action is in the last paragraph;

"Because the mother was unaware she was legally entitled to child support, she failed to apply to court until several years after her husband's legal obligation arose. He argued he shouldn't have to pay support retroactively and a lower court agreed."

All should know this won't have any effect outside of Alberta...yet.

I have only one question. Why did it take "several years" for this woman to learn about "support laws"?

All opinions welcome. A healthy debate is welcome. A heated argument is not. Please respect others opinions.

Are they referring to arrears?

No...they are referring to how long a CP waits to file. This scares me. If say a couple split and have a verbal agreement and things go well. Three years pass and say he gets a new girlfriend and he marries her,and the CP, who may be feeling emotional, can then get "retro" for the three years which I believe could discount any verbal or non-ratified agreements. This could be turned into a weapon. What used to be do I as I ask or we go to court could now be do as I ask or I'm going for the five years since you left even if the NCP has been active and paying but not under a ratified agreement.

What if the federal guidelines call for $250.00/month but the couple agreed on $200.00/month? Five years go by and the guidelines would raise and the couple are not such happy friends. For whatever reason, the CP would be able to go after $50.00 x 12 x 5 or $3000.00.

It could also even the score for those CPs who are the victims of not so even handed legal tactics like delaying the inevitable. It won't matter how many delays a rich lawyer can find, the NCP will be paying from the time of break-up.

One thing for sure NCPs, get in there and get it done or you could be facing a hefty retro if the CP decides to get you later for whatever reason. Even if you get along great now.

So what if they sign a contract for an agreed amount instead of the set guidelines? Wouldn't that hold up in court?

Can they retro-act a law in Canada? They can't in the US..

If you're convicted of murder in a state where there is no death penalty, sit in prison, then the state passes a death penalty law, they can't try you again and sentance you to death. It's called Double Jepordy, and it's the reason why Charles Manson is still alive...

Will this come back on NCPs of grown children?

Unfortunately, that is exactly what could happen but not the aim of the law.

Like all laws, there will be loop holes and this one will be no different. In my case, I returned to court to ask for relief because my ex planned a secret move twice the distance as I now drive. We had at the time an agreement for less than the federal guidelines. While seeking relief, she told the judge she no longer agrees to the agreed amount and I was assesed another $86/month. If this law was in effect then that amount would be multiplied by approximately 36 months. Not much relief in that.

I am not sure how it works here in NZ but I think that it should be paid from the time the support is requested -it seems unfair that the CP has to wait while there are delaying tactics by lawyers. But I don't think to the time the child was born is fair on the NCP's. You could not know you even had a child and then be hit with support for the last 10 years.

As promised, JD, I'm going to make a few comments on this. How unfair. If she didn't know that she could file for 3 years, that isn't his problem. When Ty's father and I went to court, the support was retro-active, but only to the date that paperwork was filed. He paid retro payments for only the 2 months, not the 7 Ty had been alive. I can't believe that "I didn't know" is a viable excuse. Who appointed these judges? I think it is time to be writing the representatives and letting them know that the idiot excuse isn't a good one. Where has this woman been living? I can't believe she didn't know. I have a hard time w/this one.

I just don't understand socialism sometimes. A contract is a contract; be it verbal or written.

My buddy was paying CS via money orders for the few months before his court date. They retroacted his CS from his son's birth, and gave him credit for the money he paid.

They had no contract however. I don't get it.

I don't get it.

Well leftover this isn't a question of socialism. It is a question who has the stronger lobby. The law is greatly affected by the popular vote. If one segment of society shows more strength, their opinion will appear stronger whether it is rightous or not.

It is up to those who are the popular vote to change policy.

Again, I re-iterate that I'm not saying this law is unjust. I just fear that it is not well thought out and can be twisted to serve the needs of some whose intentions are not so rightous.

As my argument has always been since I've introduced myself many months ago, the solution to the problem is to take the focus off of the money and place it on the parenting. Money is so easily turned into a weapon. Either by withholding or by squeezing it.

Update; the appeal

Today's headlines from Yahoo news via Canadian Press;


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&nc...child_support_battle

Four Alberta fathers are appealing the decision on the grounds that paying and active parents should not be subject to such a harsh law. In the article are desriptions of two of the fathers. One is being assesed over $100,000, or half his income and the other is being ordered to pay $10,000 in retro even though his annual income didn't exceed $23,000. Both fathers have been active and have been paying their court ordered support payments regularily.

Opinions please.

Okay maybe I am not to sure on all of this, but let me give it a go. So your saying if i decided later on to say to my ex due to the little chart you were supposed to pay 50 more a month for the past year or whatever, say 10 years down the road I can. Personally i dont agree with that. I think if an agreement is in place and both parties have gone threw the motions of setting one in place than that should be it unless undue hardship arises. Now as far as the women saying she did not know she could claim support I am sorry to say I think that is a cop out. In this province I know that when seperating and you make the persons aware that is one of the first questions posed to you about support. I agree with the fact that if the paying parent is one that is not paying fully and slacking off per say then yes the courts should step in, but if the former spouse is paying on time and an amount which suited both parties, I think the courts have to take in the aspect of emotional abuse of that system. Now if the partner gets married and then refuses to keep up with the agreed amount then the courts could step in and then say you have the option of continuing support of the agreed amount or the courts will appoint the retro. This is something that could be debated for along time. But again as far as the I didn't know attitude, I am sorry I don't buy that one minute. Mind you on her behalf the other partner should have stepped up and said something along the lines like is this enough or should I be paying something, there are resourses everywhere in this province.

"What I'd like to see the federal government do is to get in here and fix the problems that they failed to fix to begin with," Robb said.


"How is it in the child's best interest to bankrupt either parent?"

The above quotes were taken from the yahoo article and they ring true in my mind.

Yes TheDreamer, theoretically, ten years from now, for whatever reason, you can go after the retro regardless of your agreements, if this law stands.

Your quotes are dead on.

quote:

Originally posted by jaydsdad:
[qb] Update; the appeal

Today's headlines from Yahoo news via Canadian Press;


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&nc...child_support_battle

Four Alberta fathers are appealing the decision on the grounds that paying and active parents should not be subject to such a harsh law. In the article are desriptions of two of the fathers. One is being assesed over $100,000, or half his income and the other is being ordered to pay $10,000 in retro even though his annual income didn't exceed $23,000. Both fathers have been active and have been paying their court ordered support payments regularily.

Opinions please. [/qb]

What?
If they have been paying their support regularly, then where the heck are these figures coming from?

If there was a sufficiant increase in the income in the 100,000 assesment then did the mother's not have an right annually to go before the courts and ask for an adjustment to the support order? I was under the impression that it was an annaul obligation, if either party wanted to have the court order addjusted they were to each submit financial reports and income revealed would be considered for a change in the payment obligation, for the coming year.
Cost of living etc increases for all of us. This idea I can understand it being used in some cases.
But retro actively? Uh no I can't see how ignorance to law can or should be allowed to be twisted into a lotto win. Of course that is solely My opinion.

This is an editorial that appeared in the paper in my town, excuse the word for word and shortening here,


There is a problem in Alberta family law. I believe the system is not working well for anybody. Except maybe the lawyers. Alberta family law is confrontational system. Mother against father and lawyer against lawyer, and it is winner take all. We are not showing good leadership for our children. Personally I believe the federal child support guidelines are reaonable. All fathers (mothers) should make as much effort as possible to share the lives of their children.

Anyways it goes on also to say that he has been paying into MEP, and has been told by them that they don't care if he sees his daughter or not all that matters is the money. He also goes on to say that the government should be assisting fathers nad mothers to restore balance in the various forms of child support.

Thats my thing for the day, anyways the original editorial is in the Red Deer Advocate, Wednesday March 30.