7,392
edits
Difference between revisions of "Changing Family Law Orders, Awards and Agreements Involving Child Support"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Changing Family Law Orders, Awards and Agreements Involving Child Support (view source)
Revision as of 01:30, 4 July 2019
, 01:30, 4 July 2019no edit summary
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
===The basic law: ''L.S. v. E.P.''=== | ===The basic law: ''L.S. v. E.P.''=== | ||
''[http://canlii.ca/t/52lj L.S. v. E.P.]'', 1999 BCCA 393, is a very important case when it comes to retroactive child support in British Columbia. At paragraph 66, the court set out factors to consider when deciding if making 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: (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>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> | ||