Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Changing Family Law Orders, Awards and Agreements Involving Child Support"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Line 136: Line 136:
===The basic law: ''L.S. v. E.P.''===
===The basic law: ''L.S. v. E.P.''===


The case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/52lj L.S. v. E.P.]'', 1999 BCCA 393, a 1999 decision of our Court of Appeal, used to be the most important case on this issue in British Columbia, and still is the most important case for orders made under the ''[[Family Law Act]]''. In this case, the court set out the factors that should be considered in deciding whether there should or should not be a retroactive order for support:
The case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/52lj L.S. v. E.P.]'', 1999 BCCA 393, a 1999 decision of our Court of Appeal, used to be the most important case on this issue in British Columbia, and still is the most important case for orders made under the ''[[Family Law Act]]''. In this case, at paragraph 66, the court set out factors to consider in deciding if a retroactive order for support is appropriate:


<blockquote>"A review of the case law reveals that there are a number of factors which have been regarded as significant in determining whether to order or not to order retroactive child maintenance. Factors militating in favour of ordering retroactive maintenance include:</blockquote>
<blockquote>A review of the case law reveals that there are a number of factors which have been regarded as significant in determining whether to order or not to order retroactive child maintenance. Factors militating in favour of ordering retroactive maintenance include: (1) the need on the part of the child and a corresponding ability to pay on the part of the non-custodial parent; (2) some blameworthy conduct on the part of the non-custodial parent such as incomplete or misleading financial disclosure at the time of the original order; (3) necessity on the part of the custodial parent to encroach on his or her capital or incur debt to meet child rearing expenses; (4) an excuse for a delay in bringing the application where the delay is significant; and (5) notice to the non-custodial parent of an intention to pursue maintenance followed by negotiations to that end.</blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote>(1) the need on the part of the child and a corresponding ability to pay on the part of the non-custodial parent;</blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote>(2) some blameworthy conduct on the part of the non-custodial parent such as incomplete or misleading financial disclosure at the time of the original order;</blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote>(3) necessity on the part of the custodial parent to encroach on his or her capital or incur debt to meet child rearing expenses;</blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote>(4) an excuse for a delay in bringing the application where the delay is significant; and,</blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote>(5) notice to the non-custodial parent of an intention to pursue maintenance followed by negotiations to that end.</blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>"Factors which have militated against ordering retroactive maintenance include:</blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote>(1) the order would cause an unreasonable or unfair burden to the non-custodial parent, especially to the extent that such a burden would interfere with ongoing support obligations;</blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote>(2) the only purpose of the award would be to redistribute capital or award spousal support in the guise of child support; and,</blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote>(3) a significant, unexplained delay in bringing the application."</blockquote></blockquote>


When hearing an application for retroactive child support, the court would apply these factors in deciding whether a retroactive award was warranted and, if so, how much the award should be for and when the retroactive effect of the order should begin.
When hearing an application for retroactive child support, the court would apply these factors in deciding whether a retroactive award was warranted and, if so, how much the award should be for and when the retroactive effect of the order should begin.