This website uses cookies to various ends, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. You may accept all these cookies or choose only those categories of cookies that are acceptable to you.

Loading paragraph markers

British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service) v. G.L. and M.H., 2019 BCPC 20 (CanLII)

Date:
2019-02-13
File number:
F-41005
Citation:
British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service) v. G.L. and M.H., 2019 BCPC 20 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hxnbk>, retrieved on 2024-03-18

Citation:

British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service) v. G.L. and M.H.

 

2019 BCPC 20

Date:

20190213

File No:

F-41005

Registry:

Surrey

 

 

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

THE CHILD FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 46

AND THE CHILD:

 

A.E.L., born [omitted for publication]

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

DIRECTOR OF CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

APPLICANT

 

AND:

G.L. and M.H.

 

PARENTS

 



 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE

HONOURABLE JUDGE K. FERRISS

 

 

 

 

Counsel for the Director:

R. Krikke

Counsel for the Parents:

M. Verdun-Jones

Place of Hearing:

Surrey, B.C.

Dates of Hearing:

January 9 and February 11, 2019

Date of Judgment:

February 13, 2019


A Corrigendum was released by the Court on March 27, 2019.  The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document.

[1]           The Director of Child, Family and Community Services has applied for an order against the parents of A.E.L. to require them to pay support for A.E.L. while he is in the Ministry’s care under a special needs agreement (“SNA”).

[2]           The Director has compiled support tables (the “Director’s Support Tables”) that are different from the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the Director says that the parents should pay child support for A.E.L. in the amount specified in the Director’s Support Tables, based on the family income of $131,000.

[3]           The decision as to the quantum of support, if any, to be paid by the parents to the Director is in the court’s discretion.  The central question in this case is how much child support A.E.L.’s parents should be responsible for.

Facts

[4]           Jennifer Kongus, the social worker assigned to A.E.L., and the parents agree with the extent of A.E.L.’s challenges.  A.E.L. is now sixteen years of age.  His parents first noticed that there was something wrong when he was approximately two years old.  He was diagnosed with moderate to severe autism when he was four or five years old.  As Mr. G.L. says, once they got into it, they realised it was severe autism.  He is non-verbal and uses an App on an iPad to express himself.  He has developmental disabilities and some other mental health diagnoses as well. 

[5]           After his diagnosis, the parents determined that Ms. M.H. would stay home with A.E.L.  Since then, Mr. G.L. has been the sole income earner in the family. 

[6]           When A.E.L. turned 13 years of age in 2015, certain behaviours began to surface.  He has become a large young man, standing at 6’2” and weighing over 220 pounds.  He can have unpredictable behaviour and, while not being intentionally aggressive, A.E.L.’s attempts to get attention or initiate play have resulted in him striking or kicking people.  He has broken things in the home and injured himself and his mother.  As a result, he needs to have two caregivers at all times.

[7]           Mr. G.L. testified that A.E.L. has injured staff at the school he attends to the point that some were put on Workers Compensation Benefits.  Although there was funding for respite care, finding appropriate caregivers was difficult.  The parents are given money to find and hire staff to help on respite days, but there are few who are trained for A.E.L.’s behavioural issues and families in the same situation are competing for the better ones.  At times, the hired respite care workers have failed to show up and Ms. M.H. would be left at home on her own with A.E.L.  Mr. G.L. says that he was fortunate in having an understanding employer who would let him race home in these circumstances. 

[8]           Since coming into care under the SNA, A.E.L. is in a staffed residence with two staff members available at all times he is at the residence.  The Director is responsible for ensuring appropriate staffing levels are maintained in the residence. 

[9]           If A.E.L. were in full time care under the SNA and he had no siblings, this decision would be relatively easy, given the financial capacities of the parents.  What makes this decision difficult are the following factors:

a)            A.E.L. only resides at the staffed facility four nights per week.  The other three nights he stays with his parents.  His parents buy him all of his clothes and feed him for the three days he is with them.  They keep a room for him and provide money for his other expenses.

b)            A.E.L. can only be at the family home when both Mr. G.L. and Ms. M.H. are present because he needs two adults at all times to supervise him.  Given his size, Ms. M.H. cannot physically handle him on her own.

c)            Mr. G.L.’s work schedule is not a set schedule.  He is an Operations Manager and his job requires him to travel.  He is to go to Portland once per month and to Indianapolis and Chicago a few times per year.  There are no guarantees that he can have the same three days off each week.  

d)            A.E.L. has an older sister, B., who is attending the University of British Columbia and living in university housing close to the campus, for which she pays $1,000 per month.  She cannot come to her parents’ home when A.E.L. is at the house.  Both parents say she is supportive of A.E.L., but when she comes home, A.E.L. throws things at her or hits her.  B. is unable to access the full amount of student loans that would be available to her because Mr. G.L. is a higher income earner and is expected to contribute to her accommodation and school fees.  As a result, B. attends UBC on a full time basis and works five days per week to support herself there.  The parents are paying $100 per week for her food, $6,000 per annum for her tuition and approximately $500 per annum for her books.  The Director says that, as B. is not residing at home and is over the age of 19, she should not be considered a factor in assessing the amount of support payable for A.E.L. 

[10]        The Director’s Team Leader, Kasturi Collakoppen, wrote a letter to the parents outlining the three available options.  They are:

a)            Option 1:        A.E.L. remains in the staffed resource and is the sole occupant of that staffed resource.  He may continue to stay at his parents’ home two or three nights per week as Mr. G.L. is available, but the parents must pay the full amount of child support for one child under the Director’s Support Tables.  There are challenges with this option in that there is not fixed schedule for A.E.L.’s visits and he needs a fixed and predictable routine to be successful with all behaviour interventions.  As a result, Ms. Collakoppen is of the opinion that “this plan does not appear to yield the desired outcome.”  She also notes, that for this option, the staff needs to be available every day of the week to suit Mr. G.L.’s schedule and no other youth can use this staffed resource for respite because of the uncertainty of Mr. G.L.’s schedule. 

b)            Option 2:        A.E.L. stays at the staffed resource and only visits his family on set days each week.  In that case, assuming he continues to stay in the family home three days per week, the parents would only have to pay 50% of the child support for one child under the Director’s Support Tables.  The advantages to A.E.L. are that he would have a fixed and predictable schedule resulting in better outcomes for A.E.L. and the Director could use the staffed resource for other special needs children who require respite care.  Mr. G.L. says his job will not accommodate a set schedule.

c)            Option 3:        In this option, A.E.L. would return home.  He would have three nights of respite on a fixed schedule.  Unlike the other two options, the parents would receive the full $500 per month Autism Funding, the Child Tax Benefit and the Child Disability Benefit, which are substantial.  The parents would not have to pay child support to the Director.  As noted, this option is not a safe option for the parents or for A.E.L. and Mr. G.L. says this option would require him to quit his job. 

[11]        There are at least two other options not mentioned in the letter and they do not appear to be options either party considers desirable.  They are:

d)            Option 4:        If A.E.L. were in care under a Continuing Custody Order, A.E.L. would continue to reside full-time at the staffed resource and no child support would be payable.  However, the parents would no longer be A.E.L.’s guardians and would lose control over his care; and

e)            Option 5:        A.E.L. could remain at the staffed resource seven days per week under the SNA with his parents visiting as they are able.  There would always be two staff members at the staffed resource, so scheduling would not be the issue.  The parents’ schedules could be flexible and Ms. M.H. could obtain employment.  B. could visit both her parents and perhaps A.E.L.  A.E.L. would have a fixed and predictable routine, which may lead to better outcomes.  I am assuming, if they were able, the parents could take him out of the staffed resource for periods of time.  Based on the Director’s policy, child support would be payable, but the parents’ other expenses for A.E.L. would decrease. 

The Law

[12]        The Director’s application is brought under s. 97 of the Child, Family and Community Services Act.  It reads as follows:

(1)         A parent remains responsible to contribute to the maintenance of

. . . .

(d)       a child about whom an agreement is made under section 8 (1).

[13]        There is no dispute that s. 97(1)(d) applies to A.E.L. as the parents entered into the SNA on March 18, 2018. 

[14]        Section 97(5) and (7) give the Court discretion to determine the appropriate amount of child support to be paid.  The Court is to consider an amount that is reasonable taking into account:

(a)      the needs, means, capacity and economic circumstances of the parent;

(b)      the needs, means and circumstances of the child or youth;

(c)        any legal right of the child or youth to receive support from another source;

(d)      any other circumstance the court considers relevant.

The Director’s Policies

[15]        The following Director’s policies were produced in evidence:

                    Parental Contribution to a Child’s Care Reference Guide (the “Reference Guide”); and

                    Chapter 2: Family Support Services and Agreements –

Policy 2.4: Special Needs Agreements; and

Policy 2.5: Parental Contribution to a Child’s Care.

[16]        The Reference Guide provides guidelines to the Director’s staff when determining appropriate levels of support for children in care.  The Director’s staff are to consider the appropriate level of financial contribution, whether it is appropriate to waive or reduce the parent’s financial contributions, and in-kind contributions.  As the child is not in their physical care any longer, the parents are not eligible to receive the Child Tax Benefit or the BC Family Bonus for the child.  In this case, the parents are not eligible to receive the $500 per month Autism Funding and the child Disability Tax Credit either.

[17]        The Director’s staff are asked to consider waiving a parent’s financial contribution (if their Team Leader agrees) in certain situations, some of which are:

                    In the case of a youth agreement, negotiating a parental contribution jeopardizes the youth’s best interests,

                    In the case of a removal and subsequent custody order, requiring the parents to contribute financially may detract from the ability to work with the parents to return the child or youth to their care,

                    The parents are experiencing unforeseen expenses related to the care of the child with special needs or their other children, e.g. medical expenses, therapy or dental expenses not covered for a child in care.

[18]        Parents may also make “in-kind” contributions to the care of a child which include “clothing; transportation; recreation or activity fees; medical, dental and optical coverage; or other types of non-financial contributions”.  These in-kind contributions are stated to be in addition to a financial contribution, but may also be made if the financial contribution has been waived or reduced.  Policy 2.5 indicates that “in-kind contributions do not impact the parents’ obligation to contribute financially to the care of their child or youth.”

[19]        The Director’s Support Tables are based on the line 235 amount on the payor’s Notice of Assessment, rather than the line 150 amount relied on by the Guidelines.  The Director is asking for the parents to pay $1,175 per month based on one child.  Under the Guidelines, the child support would be $1,204.  There is approximately a difference of $30 per month for one child at Mr. G.L.’s income level, which is $131,000.  For two children, he would be responsible to pay $1,873 according to the Director’s Support Tables.

[20]        Policy 2.4 sets out the Director’s policy statement and outcomes, as follows:

Policy Statement

Special Needs Agreements (SNAs) are used to provide care for a child or youth living away from their parents’ home when in-home supports are not available or appropriate and the parents:

        Are not able to meet their child’s or youths’ special needs, and

        Are committed to being involved in their care and planning and decision making.

Outcomes

        Families receive the support they need for the care of their children and/or youth with special needs;

        A child’s and youth’s identified special needs are met;

        Children and youth with special needs have plans that achieve physical relations, cultural and legal permanency.

[21]        Throughout Policy 2.4, it is clear that the parents are to remain engaged with their child and the expectation is that the child will return to live with the parents, if it can be done safely.  The SNA will, in this case, expire when A.E.L. reaches 19 years of age or if the Agreement expires.  Planning a transition to Community Living BC when the child becomes 19 years old is to begin soon after the child’s 14th birthday.  As A.E.L. is now 16 years old, it appears it may have already started.

[22]        Policy 2.5 states as follows:

Policy Statement

Pursuant to section 97 of the [CFCSA] . . . parents remain responsible for contributing financially to the care of their child or youth when the child or youth is in care under the CFCSA . . .  when a youth agreement or section 8 agreement has been entered into respecting a child or youth

Outcomes

        Parents who have the financial means continue to contribute to and support their child’s or youth’s care

Case Law

[23]        There was no equivalent section in the former Child and Family Services Act, S.B.C. 1980, c. 11, and there have been few decisions considering section 97. 

[24]        In British Columbia (Director of Family and Child Services) v. A.(C.), 2003 BCPC 148, 2003 CarswellBC 1108, the Honourable Judge Gordon considered the Director’s application under s. 97 of the CFCSA.  The issue in that case was what amount the parents should pay the Director for the support of a fifteen year old who was involved with drug use and was living an “erratic and irresponsible lifestyle”.  While she had two homes where she could reside, her parents’ and the foster parents’, she chose not to live at either.   

[25]        In A.(C.), it was argued that it was up to the legislature to determine who pays for the services in our community, but Judge Gordon noted that:

 . . . we accept, when we enter into the social contract with those who sit in governance over us . . . certain things will be provided for by the state:  matters of defence, policing, the courts . . . [m]edicare . . . [s]ocial assistance, and there is an obligation on the community to some extent to provide for the needs of difficult youth.

[26]        In A.(C.), the parental income was in the range of $100,000.  The parents were actively interested in their fifteen year old daughter’s situation, to the point where they continued to maintain a home for the youth if she decided to return to them.  They were supporting an older nineteen year old daughter as well, who resided at the family home and attended college.  Judge Gordon took into account the amount payable under the Federal Child Support Guidelines for two children and attributed half of that amount to the older daughter and half to the fifteen year old.  Taking into account the parent’s efforts to maintain a home and continue their involvement with their fifteen year old daughter, she ordered them to pay half of the amount attributed to the fifteen year old, being one quarter of the full Guideline amount for two children.

Discussion

[27]        The CFCSA is a type of enactment that is social legislation and designed to address a type of defect that exists in society.  The court traditionally gives a purposive construction to this type of legislation: British Columbia (Director of Maintenance Enforcement) v. I.W.A. Forest Industry Pension Plan (Trustee of), 1991 CanLII 788 (BCCA).

[28]        The Director’s Policy 2.4, in my view, attempts to set out the defects that s. 97 is designed to cure:

a)            Children with special needs often require more care or resources than their parents can afford or are able to provide;

b)            Children with special needs often do not achieve physical, relational, cultural and legal permanency without public assistance; and

c)            Parents should remain responsible for their children where they are able or, as stated in A.(C.) at paragraph 27, to relieve “the parents of financial responsibility . . . . [when the child came into the Director’s care] would promote more irresponsibility and mischief than anything else. . . .”.

[29]        It is true that there is an acceptance that the state will provide certain things such as care for children who are in need of protection or other resources.  It is equally true that the Director has limited resources, most (if not all) of which comes from taxes paid by the public.  Therefore, it is important for the Ministry to apply consistent and transparent policies when dispersing tax payor’s monies. 

[30]        While I have only this case to consider, there are similar families in similar desperate situations that could make good use of the staffed facility that A.E.L. is occupying or could use further financial resources from the Director.  I have no doubt as to the difficulty experienced by social workers such as Ms. Kongus in weighing the various needs and denying assistance to children and youth who genuinely require resources.  The Director’s Support Tables are one way that consistency and transparency are achieved.  The Director says that even the amount of support they are requesting from the parents would only cover one day of A.E.L.’s stay in the staffed resource. 

[31]        Dr. Glen Kielland Ward, a paediatrician who spoke with the parents, wrote a letter to the Director that was put into evidence.  He said he was taking the “extraordinary step” of sending information to the Director to avoid any more people being hurt by A.E.L.  Mr. G.L. agreed with the contents of Dr. Ward’s letter.

[32]        The letter is addressed to the Director and is advocating for assistance for A.E.L. and his parents.  It is not an expert report and the majority of the letter is hearsay, as it simply reiterates what the parents have told him.  It appears to me it is not just addressed to the Director, but also to the parents.

[33]        Dr. Ward points out, and the evidence before me confirms, that “[h]istorically, the family has not been prepared to move too quickly down the pathway of an arrangement that would have A.E.L. living outside of the family home. . . .”  He then relates a number of events that have put Ms. M.H. in physical danger, including one where A.E.L. hit her very hard in the middle of her spine when she turned her back on him for a moment. 

[34]        Ms. M.H. related this incident in her evidence as well.  She said she has not had physical control over A.E.L. since he was 12 years old and she was injured almost every day.  As a result, she does not make demands of A.E.L. and Mr. G.L. is currently the parent responsible for making those demands.  She said it is heart-breaking that she does not want to be alone with her own child. 

[35]        Although A.E.L. still has a little respect for him, Mr. G.L. says that it is only a matter of time as the day is coming where there will be a test.  He testified that A.E.L. has punched, kicked and bit him.  He has seen A.E.L. test other people, resulting in injuries to them. 

[36]        Dr. Ward continues on:

As we discussed, the family can also present themselves as being capable of managing A.E.L., and I think that when one looks at the psychology of families with a child with the level of disability that A.E.L. has, it is quite common for there to be an understatement/
overcompensation/accommodation of the behaviours for many reasons of guilt, history etc., but when I hear of a number of people in the school system being injured to the point of going off on worker’s compensation, and the mother is frequently living in a circumstance of relative fear, the father is at the beck and call of the family to have to leave work urgently because of A.E.L. being in a state of mind that is unsafe for the mother, to me it just sounds like this has progressed beyond the point of reasonableness.

I would strongly urge the Ministry to establish a safety plan and/or respite home/care outside of the home plan that would be available to this family, discussed with this family in advance of its implementation, and the necessary approvals within the Ministry to be sought before there is a crisis that causes the mother to be injured, hospitalized, or worse . . . I really genuinely think that waiting for a crisis and then shuffling A.E.L. around from urgent situation to urgent situation until something can be established would definitely be the wrong way to go for this young man, short-term and long-term.

[37]        After noting that B. cannot visit her mother if A.E.L. is home, due to A.E.L.’s aggressive behaviours, Dr. Ward says:

It sounds like there are such significant concerns of impulsive aggression that the family is not able to have any sense of even remote normalcy.

That situation continues today.  Ms. M.H. says that B. spent much of her time at friends’ homes because of A.E.L.’s behaviours and when she graduated from high school she was ready to leave home.  She cannot come home when A.E.L. is there.

[38]        Dr. Ward’s letter was written to the Director almost two years before the SNA was signed.  When the SNA was signed in 2018, the situation had suddenly come to a crisis.  The parents had respite care in place, but, one day, they were unexpectedly unable to pick A.E.L. up from respite care because Mr. G.L. was working out of town and Ms. M.H. could not deal with it by herself.  At that point, the parents requested the SNA. 

[39]        The Director offered them the staffed resource, but advised the parents they would be responsible for support in the amount set out in the Director’s Support Tables.  The parents requested that support be waived.  They tried mediation, to no avail.  Finally, the Director said they had one space available and if the parents did not accept the agreement as offered, the space would be gone and they would have to take A.E.L. home.  The Director agreed to reduce the child support to $481 per month temporarily to allow the parents to adjust.

[40]        Both parents are adamant that they did not want to see A.E.L. in the care of the Director.  They would prefer him to be home, sleeping in his own bed and eating the food made by Ms. M.H.  As Mr. G.L. says, they are “grateful for the care he is in, but we don’t want him in that care.  We’ve taken him as often as we can and we don’t want to have to stop taking him.”  Mr. G.L. says that he knows others with autistic children who do not have to pay child support to the Director. 

[41]        Mr. G.L. testified that he is 51 years old.  He has no RRSPs and that he liquidated his whole life to support AE.L.’s care.  Ms. M.H. estimates that their family has spent close to $100,000 out of pocket on A.E.L.’s needs.  They tried everything – private autism school, neuropsychology – and “no stone went unturned.” 

[42]        He has been married for over 20 years to Ms. M.H.  Mr. G.L. says when they had A.E.L., both of them were working and they had purchased their own home.  They sold the house they had when he was diagnosed.  They did not want to move from the area, so they rented.  Their home environment was very “sparse” and they had taken everything A.E.L. could break or throw and put it away or tied it down.  By 2008 everything was liquidated and put into A.E.L.’s therapy.

[43]        Recently, a relative gave them $40,000 as a down payment on a home.  They are now paying a mortgage of $2,000 per month.  They are struggling to make ends meet, but still purchase A.E.L.’s clothes and pay for his meals and accommodation on the three days per week that they have him. 

[44]        Ms. M.H. has not worked out of the home for 12½ years.  She does not know if she could find work and, if she did, would she be able to accommodate her husband’s work schedule so they could have A.E.L. over three nights per week. 

Decision

[45]        Section 97(7) requires me to take into account the needs, means and circumstances of the child or youth.  What arrangements are made to address A.E.L.’s care is not my decision to make, but I do need to look at the arrangements through objective eyes and make a decision on what is reasonable.  My decision cannot be based on sympathy.

[46]        A.E.L. will be 19 years old on [omitted for publication], about 2½ years from now.  Permanent planning is needed.  He will need support and assistance through Community Living BC, likely for life. 

[47]        A.E.L.’s situation is different from the troubled 15 year old in the A.(C.) case, in that there was some hope that she would stop using drugs and return to the family home.  It was in her best interests that the parents maintained a home to which she could return, if she was able to straighten her life around.

[48]        In my view, requiring A.E.L. to reside at the staffed facility four specified days per week so that the other three days could be used for another child is not in A.E.L.’s best interests, although it may be in the public’s financial interests and another child’s best interests.  Having heard all of the evidence and read Dr. Ward’s letter, it appears it is only a matter of time before another crisis is reached, after which A.E.L. will only be able to reside at a staffed resource on a full-time basis.  It is important that a staffed resource remain available to him.  In many respects, A.E.L.’s situation is more akin to an aging parent than a troubled 15 year old.  It is more likely that his challenges will worsen than that they will improve and it is to his benefit that the Director and the parents keep up with those changes.

[49]        I must also consider the needs, means, capacity and economic circumstances of the parents. 

[50]        Mr. G.L. and Ms. M.H. have made many sacrifices to accommodate A.E.L.’s special needs, often without relying on any government funding.  Mr. G.L. and Ms. M.H. have done everything humanly possible for two parents to do to support A.E.L.  They have liquidated their assets and, in Ms. M.H.’s case, sacrificed employment ambitions to support him.  They have paid the monthly child support they agreed to pay the Director, although they were reluctant to make that agreement.  A.E.L. was lucky to be born to such parents and I believe it as a result of their efforts that A.E.L. does not react out of anger but for the other reasons stated. 

[51]        Mr. G.L., not surprisingly, would like to be able to have something to retire on when he reaches that stage.  He is making some efforts in that regard.  Neither parent wants to lose their son. 

[52]        Ms. M.H. has the capacity to work if her time is freed up and she has a schedule.  She attended UBC part time and worked.  She wanted to be a special needs teacher, but was never able to attend teacher training because of A.E.L.  She says she thinks about going back to work all the time, but she does not want to sacrifice A.E.L. and she feels he has the right to live in a loving home.  It does not appear that she has attempted to find employment because of her limitations, but she has qualities and life experience that should help her find work.

[53]        Mr. G.L. appears to be employed to his full capacity and is earning a substantial income.  His annual income will vary, based on whether he received an annual bonus.

[54]        Accordingly, I find that the parents do have the capacity to pay the child support set out in the Director’s Support Tables. 

[55]        B. has also made many sacrifices, sometimes without her consent.  She has, by all accounts, often stayed at friend’s homes when her mother had to clean the faeces off of the walls after A.E.L. smeared them.  She left home as soon as she graduated from high school.  She is working full time and attending UBC full time.  In the summer she worked at two jobs, but she is also accumulating debt to be able attend UBC.  Her parents say she is doing well, but she has taken on more than most young women her age. 

[56]        Under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and according to the student loan administrators, she continues to be dependent on her parents and is entitled to support from them.  The Director says that many children attend university without assistance from their parents, which is true.  However, where children lack assistance from their parents, they are entitled to the full student loan amount.  Additionally, those children who attend without family assistance are left with student loans that they are sometimes unable to repay in full.

[57]        In my view, even though B. is over 19 years of age and not residing at the family home, she should be considered a “child” as defined by the Family Law Act:

"child” includes a person who is 19 years of age or older and unable, because of illness, disability or another reason, to obtain the necessaries of life or withdraw from the charge of his or her parents or guardians;  

[58]        This definition of “child” includes a child who is attending post-secondary education and is unable to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents as a result.  I agree with the approach taken by Judge Gordon in the A.(C.) case.  

[59]        The amount payable for two children at Mr. G.L.’s income level of $131,000 is $1,873.  Half of that is $936.00.  In my view, that is the amount that Mr. G.L. and Ms. M.H. can reasonably pay for the support of A.E.L.

[60]        The Director agreed to the sum of $481 per month on a temporary basis so that the parents could arrange their finances or Ms. M.H. could find work and the parents have paid that for almost a year.  They will require a further few months to make those arrangements.  Accordingly, the order will be that the parents pay $481 per month on the first of each month commencing March 1, 2019 and continuing on the 1st day of each month thereafter until July 1, 2019 when the child support will be $936 per month on the first day of month thereafter.  This order will continue so long as child support is payable for A.E.L. under s. 97 of the CFCSA.  Once B. graduates from university or ceases to attend on a full time basis, the child support shall be calculated at the rate for one child using the Director’s Support Tables.  Until that point, the parties will calculate the support as half of the Director’s Support Table amount for 2 children.  The parents are to provide their Notices of Assessment by June 30 of each year commencing 2019.

 

 

                                                                       

The Honourable Judge K. Ferriss

Provincial Court of British Columbia

CORRIGENDUM – Released March 27, 2019

[1]           This corrigendum is to my Reasons for Judgment issued on February 13, 2019.  The name of M. Verdon-Jones, Counsel for the Parents, on the cover page, is spelt incorrectly.  The correct spelling is M. Verdun-Jones.

 

 

                                                                       

The Honourable Judge K. Ferriss

Provincial Court of British Columbia