|
Author
|
Topic: child custody after 18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 04 March 2005 08:18 PM
lost again, could you clear up some confusion here. Your profile says specifies your gender as "female". In you opening post, though, you say quote:
Doesn't talk to me. Lives with her mother. [/QB]
Now, allowing that it is possible for the child of two gay women to have two mothers, O.K. But then you second post you say " if I wasn't divorced ...", which would make you very, very recently divorced, as the law permitting gay divorce was passed only about a month ago. And that being so, then child custody, access and support issues would have been very recently examined in the court, no ?
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 04 March 2005 10:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by lost again:
I have a daughter who is 18. She is registered to take 1 course a semester now.
I don't know the laws of Alberta, but in Ontario, you would not be required to pay support for an 18-year-old unless she was enrolled in a full time program of education. Our schools define a full-time student as three courses per semester, assumed a semestered school where most students take four courses. The only way you should, in my view, be required to pay support is if:
1. She has been, and will be, a full-time student but needs only one more credit to graduate; or
2. She has some unusual disability which prevents her from taking more than one or two courses per semester, and the school recommended she take just one; or
3. Maybe, if your separation agreement provides for a greater obligation than the law would have otherwise provided; or
4. Maybe, if her mother has undertaken to support her and the court feels you would have helped too if you were still together. (In Ontario, this is actually a seldom-used ground for spousal support, an indirect form of child support.) (Why is this thread still in the feminism forum?)
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 04 March 2005 11:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
I don't know the laws of Alberta, but in Ontario ...
Since there has been a divorce action, I'd have thought the federal Divorce Act definitions and provisions would apply. It was use of the "d" word that told me conclusively that things could not be what they initially seemed, regardless of the vagaries of Alberta law.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 04 March 2005 11:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by James:
Since there has been a divorce action, I'd have thought the federal Divorce Act definitions and provisions would apply.
Possibly, although almost every divorce I see is a claim for divorce alone, leaving issues like child support under the Family Law Act where they were dealt with soon after the separation. If the Alberta man responds, perhaps he will tell us which act his order is under. (Why is this thread still in the feminism forum?)
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Topic Closed
