On behalf of Gary Kirk of Kirk Montoute Dawson LLP posted in Family Law on Friday, October 7, 2016.
At the core of every divorce involving a couple with children, there should be a plan for the future of the kids. Such a plan may include funding their education, should the children choose to pursue post-secondary opportunities. However, what happens when the person writing the child support cheques feels the money is being spent in vain?
An Alberta man divorced from his wife in 2009. The two were raising a daughter together, though the man was not the biological father. The daughter, now 20, receives $1500 per month from her stepfather to pay for her college program. According to the man, the money is being wasted.
The stepfather took his case to the British Columbia Supreme Court, arguing that his stepdaughter’s social media postings of semi-nude self portraits, along with photos allegedly depicting her with drug paraphernalia, would prevent her from ever landing a job in the field for which she is studying, which is reportedly law enforcement. The judge agreed with the man’s sentiment but stopped short of cutting off the young woman’s funding. Instead, she reduced the child support payments to $750 per month since the girl is working and able to support herself, at least in part.
When a marriage ends, it is never a simple matter of just walking away from a situation. Decisions must be made that impact the welfare of everyone involved, including any children. Child support payments are an important part of any divorce settlement. To ensure the right decisions are made, an Alberta family law firm is a good choice for ongoing advice and support.
Source: CBC News British Columbia, “Stepdad claims sex and social media could kill kid’s career“, Jason Proctor Listen Live, August 18, 2016
Related Posts: Understanding home ownership and property rights in a divorce, Travelling without children during a family law dispute, Set boundaries and rules to protect kids from child custody drama, Protecting credit amidst a family law dispute