Carrie, who was desperate to discover the identity of her biological father, hired a Private Investigator to track him down and the investigation led to a concert in Boca Raton, Florida, where Jack Wagner was performing with Rick Springfield.

The two instantly connected and have been inseparable ever since. After working in so many soap operas, Wagner now seems to be living in one.

However, the reality of the situation is that despite this amazing connection and the reunion of a father and his daughter, Jack managed to dodge a child support obligation throughout Carrie’s dependent life.

In addition, since Jack is an incredibly high-income earner, he would have been on the hook for a significant amount of money for at least the first 18  years of her life.  But now, Carrie is 23 years old.  Has she missed the boat with regard to a claim for retroactive child support?

The current law in Ontario is that in order to qualify for retroactive child support, the definition of child or child of the marriage must be satisfied under whichever Act, i.e. the Divorce Act or the Family Law Act, you choose to bring your claim.  Therefore, the child must still be eligible for child support.  At 23, Carrie may be independent and therefore no longer eligible for child support.

However, if she is currently enrolled in a full-time educational program at university or college and thus still requires parental support, she, or her parents may be able to bring a claim for retroactive support.

Assuming that she is enrolled in a full-time educational program and therefore satisfies the definition of child of marriage, then the following test would be used by the Ontario courts when making a determination regarding retroactive child support:

• Determine whether a retroactive award is appropriate by considering the following factors:
• The reason for the recipient parent’s unreasonable delay in seeking child support;
• The blameworthy conduct of the paying parent;
• The past and present circumstances of the child; and
• Any hardship imposed by a retroactive award
• Determine what period the amount should cover:
• When did the recipient parent give effective notice, i.e. inform the payor parent of a desire for an award or an increase in an award.  Generally, support will not be made retroactive to a date more than three years before formal notice was given.
• Determine the proper quantum (i.e. amount)

The quantum is determined in accordance with the applicable legislative scheme, i.e. the Child Support Guidelines; or
The courts may choose to alter the time period that the retroactive award captures if doing so would ensure overall fairness.
If, however, Carrie is not enrolled in a full-time educational program and is therefore an independent, neither she, nor her parents may bring a valid and viable claim for retroactive child support.

This is especially so pursuant to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision in 2002 when the claims of two adult children and their mother were dismissed.  They claimed that their father had a fiduciary obligation to make adequate provision for their support and sought compensation for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  The Court of Appeal rejected their claims on the basis that they were claims for retroactive child support and that as the children were grown and no longer “dependents”, there was no basis for same under Ontario legislation. The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that it was “plain and obvious” on the facts of the case that the father did not breach any fiduciary obligation to support his children. The Supreme Court of Canada also agreed with this reasoning in another case.

As such, it may be too little, too late for Carrie to get the child support to which she was entitled throughout her childhood and adolescence.  However, judging by the happiness she is experiencing while getting to know her father, according to TMZ.com, it is probably safe to assume that she doesn’t mind.

The assumptions set out above would apply if she was not adopted.  However, since she was adopted she would have no claim for child support.

According to TMZ.com, Aikman and his now ex-wife Rhonda were granted an Order for divorce on April 12, 2011.  Their separation was public knowledge, and they even released statements regarding their commitment to their two children back in January 2011.

But just how committed, financially speaking, does someone of Mr. Aikman’s ilk have to be?

Imagine for a minute that Mr. Aikman and Rhonda were residents of Ontario and Canadian citizens and that their proceedings were started in Ontario.

Calculating child support in Ontario is regulated by the Federal Child Support Guidelines, which enclose a Table that prescribes monthly child support payments, based on the income of the paying spouse and the number of children he or she is responsible for supporting.  The range of annual income accounted for on the Table is $8,000.00 to $150,000.00.

For Mr. Aikman, this presents an issue for paying child support, as his annual income, while not as high as it used to be, is likely much more than $150,000.00 annually.  He is the lead color commentator for FOX NFL Sunday and is involved in several football-related promotions throughout the year.  He is also the principal owner of Direct Development, a commercial retail real estate development company, and a minority owner of the San Diego Padres professional baseball team.

Section 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines reads as follows:

Incomes over $150,000

4. Where the income of the spouse against whom a child support order is sought is over $150,000, the amount of a child support order is

(a) the amount determined under section 3; or

(b) if the court considers that amount to be inappropriate,

(i) in respect of the first $150,000 of the spouse’s income, the amount set out in the applicable table for the number of children under the age of majority to whom the order relates;

(ii) in respect of the balance of the spouse’s income, the amount that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children who are entitled to support and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the children; and

(iii) the amount, if any, determined under section 7.

The Table amount for two children at $150,000.00 annually is $1,992.00 per month.  Assuming Mr. Aikman has an annual income of $300,000.00 and the Court considers $1,992.00 to be inappropriate, then the monthly support payment will be increased according to the following formula:  $1,992.00 plus 1.16% of income over $150,000.00.  Therefore, Mr. Aikman would pay an additional $1,740.00 per month.  These figures do not include his contribution towards the special and extraordinary activities of the children such as soccer, dance, or swimming.

Meanwhile, Rhonda recently purchased a $1.5 million home in Texas, so there may be some question as to whether the needs and circumstances of the children truly require money on top of what the Table prescribes. However, the Courts generally stick to the Table formula and therefore prescribe the full Guidelines amount until the paying spouse’s annual income gets into the multi-millions.

Spousal support and property in this case could also be interesting, but they are topics for another blog.

The “Baby” singer is dismissing the paternity allegations as “rumors” and “gossip”, however this matter is incredibly complex as there are claims of statutory rape floating around given that at the time of the act the singer was only 16, 2 years shy from the age of consent in the jurisdiction that the child was conceived in.

Rumors and allegations aside, if it is proven that Justin Bieber is in fact the biological father of the child, then chances are he will be required to pay support.  This would be undoubtedly so if he was a resident of Ontario.  The Family Law Act, which applies to unmarried couples who have together parented a child, states pursuant to s. 31 that “every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so.”  Given his status as “world’s richest teen”, Justin Bieber could be on the hook for quite a bit of child support, for a quite long period of time.

Let’s hypothesize that Justin Bieber was a resident in Ontario, and that the biological mother of the child brought a claim for child support while maintaining residence in the state of California.  Could an order for child support obtained in California be enforceable in the province of Ontario?

In order to answer this question we must look at the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.  Firstly, it is important to note that Ontario has formal arrangements with various “reciprocating jurisdictions” which consist of all Canadian provinces and territories, the United States and other countries, to enforce each other’s family support orders.  Therefore, through the above mentioned legislation a support order can either be obtained, varied or enforced within a reciprocating jurisdiction without having to incur the related expenses to travel thereto.

What would the process be then for Justin Bieber’s fan “gone wild” to obtain and enforce a support order from California.

Pursuant to sections 9 to 16 of the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, she would do the following:

• She would have to fill out a set of support application forms which ask for information that would normally be included in a court Application, thus giving the judge all the requisite, relevant and necessary facts to base a decision on.
• The support application forms would have to signed and sworn before a Commissioner of Oaths or Notary Public in order for the court to accept them.
• The application forms would then be sent to the reciprocity office in the “home” province, territory or state.  The reciprocity office in the “home” province, territory or state would then forward the application forms to the jurisdiction of the other parent, in this case Justin Bieber.
• Once, Justin Bieber receives the forms he would have to file a matching set of forms, i.e. his responding materials, so that the judge can have a comprehensive understanding of the familial situation when making a decision.
• Once the judge reviews all the material an order is made and same becomes enforceable in both jurisdictions.

Therefore, if Justin Bieber is residing in a reciprocating jurisdiction and the paternity tests result in a positive, then he may find himself supporting his “Baby” for quite some time.

According to TMZ.com, The Los Angeles County Superior Court has decided that as of October 2, 2011, Mr. Furlong owes $15,000.00 in back-dated child support.  This amount is representative of $12,108 that went unpaid, plus $3,840.00 in interest.  Since December of 2010, Furlong has paid Kneeland just $3,201.00 – which is hardly adequate.  Furlong has argued that since January of this year he has been broke.

Some people raise an eyebrow when they read about actors or athletes who claim they cannot make their support payments, child or spousal, on account of a lack of finances.  In most cases I would argue that the suspicions are justified, but there can be circumstances where it is possible for an actor like Mr. Furlong to not only be unable to make the necessary child support payments, but also to have difficulties maintaining a minimal standard of living for himself.  The payor of child support can make the argument that his or her income fluctuates unpredictably from year to year, and as such the determination of his or her actual income for the purposes of calculating the quantum of child support is subject to some discretion.  Assuming acting is Mr. Furlong’s sole occupation and source of income, if you take a look at his recent filmography, it does not require much common sense to realize that Mr. Furlong is not earning much money.

Assume for a minute that this matter was taking place in Ontario, Canada and consider Section 17 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines:

Pattern of income

17. (1) If the court is of the opinion that the determination of a spouse’s annual income under section 16 would not be the fairest determination of that income, the court may have regard to the spouse’s income over the last three years and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable in light of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of a non-recurring amount during those years.

This section of the Guidelines can work in the favour of both parties under circumstances such as this.  For example, if Mr. Furlong is in fact broke on account of not earning much, if any, money this year, then the Court may look at his pattern of income over the last three years and mandate that he pay an amount of child support that is reflective of this sudden drop in income.  Conversely, if next year Mr. Furlong scores a role in the next installment of the Terminator franchise and is paid handsomely for it, then his monthly child support payments would increase, probably to an amount higher than is currently stipulated, as a result of the continually changing pattern.

This section of the Guidelines is helpful for the Courts because it gives them the requisite flexibility to ensure on the one hand that payors do not constantly go deeper and deeper into arrears and on the other it ensures that any child of the marriage will benefit from significant and/or unexpected increases in the payor spouse’s income.

In any case, Mr. Furlong cannot escape the payment of the arrears owing, but there is a chance that the quantum he has been ordered to pay would be changed, based on Section 17 of the Guidelines.  Judgment Day is coming for the leader of the resistance after all.

The rumours began to swirl when US Weekly spotted a moving truck outside the couples’ L.A. area home.  Their six-year marriage was jeopardized by Kutcher’s well-publicized affair with Sara Leal this past September.   Attempts to reconcile, which included a private camping trip near Santa Barbara last weekend, have been futile thus far.   Assuming Demi was seeking child support, and she and Ashton were Canadian and their matter was resolved through the Canadian Legal System, what areas of the Family Law Act and/or the Child Support Support Guidelines should they be advised of?

Section 5 of the Child Support Guidelines reads as follows:

Spouse in place of a parent

5. Where the spouse against whom a child support order is sought stands in the place of a parent for a child, the amount of a child support order is, in respect of that spouse, such amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to these Guidelines and any other parent’s legal duty to support the child.

Was Mr. Kutcher “standing the place of a parent?”  The Supreme Court of Canada in Chartier v. Chartier said that that a person demonstrated a settled intention to parent, and stood in the place of a parent, when they have shown a settled intention to treat the child as part of their own family.  This means they will take into consideration things like the quantity and quality of time spent with the children; whether or not Mr. Kutcher was contributing to the decision-making with respect to the children; and whether or not Mr. Kutcher was open about his intention to treat the child as part of his own family.  This list of factors is merely a glimpse at some of the many that the Court will consider.

The media often portrayed Moore, Kutcher, and Moore’s three daughters as tight-knit unit, and one that frequently incorporated the presence of their biological father, Bruce Willis.  Assuming there is enough evidence to back-up a potential claim for entitlement to support, establishing the quantum becomes intriguing because of Kutcher’s annual income, which is well over $150,000.00.  As a result of Section 4 of the Child Support Guidelines, the Court has discretion to award an amount different than the Table amount of support where the Table amount is deemed inappropriate.

A third issue surrounding child support in this case would be what impact, if any, the monthly amount received by Moore from Willis would have on Kutcher’s obligation to pay moving forward.  Perhaps that is a subject for next week’s Blog.

For more information on Child Support, please see our website at www.sparation.ca

To be fair, McAlister did not earn the entire $55 million – he was cut by the Ravens after the first five years of the contract. His gross income from 2004-2008 was approximately $39 million. McAlister retired from the National Football League in 2009 and claims he has no income. This is accurate. He also claims that he lives in his parent’s home now, and that they provide him with all basic living expenses, as he does not have the money to support himself. This is also, apparently, accurate. So what happened to all that money? I can go through my paycheque pretty quickly, but I am inclined to think it would not be so easy if my bi-weekly paycheque was worth $327,380.50 before taxes.

In addition to his mega-contract cited above, Mr. McAlister received a $10 million signing bonus in 2004 and a roster bonus of $7.5 million the following year. During the years leading up to the contract when he played professional football, McAlister had an aggregate gross salary of $6 million, and earned a cash bonus for winning the Super Bowl in 2000. All of these earnings would be factored into his child support payment obligation as he should still have some capital remaining that should generate an income.

McAlister has engaged in a battle with ex-wife over custody and support. Pretending for a minute that Mr. McAlister and his ex-wife were Canadian citizens, and lived in Toronto, how would a judge in a Canadian courtroom view Mr. McAlister’s situation? What amount of child support would he be ordered to pay on a going forward basis? He currently pays $11,000.00 per month.

The quantum of child support in Canada is determined by reference to the amounts set out in the applicable tables of the Federal Child Support Guidelines (hereinafter “CSG”). The table amounts are based on the income of the payor and the number of children he or she is responsible for supporting.

Section 3 of the CSG reads as follows:

Presumptive rule

3. (1) Unless otherwise provided under these Guidelines, the amount of a child support order for children under the age of majority is

(a) the amount set out in the applicable table, according to the number of children under the age of majority to whom the order relates and the income of the spouse against whom the order is sought; and

(b) the amount, if any, determined under section 7.

In this case, the payor has no income and he is supporting two children, but the CSG has mechanisms in place to prevent payor spouses from simply not working to avoid making child payments. The Court will impute an income where the payor spouse is intentionally underemployed.

Section 19(1)(a) of the CSG reads as follows:

Imputing Income

The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following:

(a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse;

Could Mr. McAlister be working? Certainly he can no longer play professional football, but that does not mean there are no jobs out there for him. He could potentially use his status as a former NFL star to get a job in reality television or broadcasting, or even in sales for example. The judge in this case would not attribute an income of $0 to McAlister. Instead, an income would be imputed based on what he could be earning, having regard to his physical capabilities and skill-set. Ultimately, this man should be working, as he is still relatively young.

There is also plenty of evidence that the payor should have the ability to make his monthly payments. Therefore, the Judge will also consider how all the money earned by Mr. McAlister was squandered. Was it through ill-advised business ventures? Bad investments? Or was it all lost as a result of his free-wheeling, hard partying lifestyle, as alleged by many or does he still have some capital and is not disclosing same? If it were the latter, Mr. McAlister would be worse off in the eyes of the Court, however, careful consideration would have to be given the amount of income that is to be imputed because it would not be helpful for anyone if the monthly amount settled on was too difficult for Mr. McAlister to pay.

I am not sure what result Mr. McAlister is hoping for, but he certainly will not have his support payments eliminated, so my advice to him would be to update his resume as soon as possible.

As it turns out, the advice given was not very sound.  Ms. Grigorieva signed a settlement for just $750,000.00 last week.  The agreement also stipulates that the parties will have joint custody of Lucia.  Ms. Grigorieva has expressed concerns about Mr. Gibson’s anger management issues and was concerned for the well-being of the child.  She originally stated that she had hoped to minimize Mel’s unsupervised contact until the child was over three years of age.  Under the executed agreement, no such clause exists and Mel is authorized to have unsupervised access with his daughter immediately.

If these two parties were Canadian, how would the sections of the Family Law Act pertaining to domestic contracts apply to them?  Section 54 reads as follows:

Separation Agreements

(a) ownership in or division of property;

(b) support obligations;

(c) the right to direct the education and moral training of their children;

(d) the right to custody of and access to their children; and

(e) any other matter in the settlement of their affairs.

Without knowing the full particulars of the agreement, it is hard to speculate as to which issues referenced in Section 54 were most prominent during negotiations.   We can speculate, however, as to how some of the issues were resolved.  It would appear that Mel’s support obligations have been addressed through one lump-sum payment of $750,000.00.  Because Mel will have Lucia reside with him from time-to-time, the contributions he would make during their stays together are factored into the calculation for support.  With an agreement like this, it is unlikely that any additional monetary award would be ordered by the court, but what would happen if Mel flipped out and threatened or endangered the health and safety or Lucia or her mother?  Is the agreement impenetrable?  Section 56 reads as follows:

Provisions that may be set aside or disregarded

Contracts subject to best interests of child

56.  (1)  In the determination of a matter respecting the education, moral training or custody of or access to a child, the court may disregard any provision of a domestic contract pertaining to the matter where, in the opinion of the court, to do so is in the best interests of the child.

Therefore, if proof surfaced that Mel was abusive towards the child and the court believed it was in the best interests of the child to have a different relationship with her father, with respect to custody and access, then the court could order that the relevant provisions in the agreement be set aside.

The first question to ask is, do any provincial or federal statutes apply to same-sex couples? If Sara and Allison lived in Canada, the answer to said question would be, yes! Thankfully in 2004, the case of M. (M.) v. H. (J.) established that the definition of spouse as it applies to heterosexual couples is discriminatory and as such breaches s. 15 of the Charter of Rights and cannot be justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limitation. In addition, and pursuant to said case, the definition of “spouse” was redefined such that spouse means either of two persons who are married to one another.

So, following the decision in the above mentioned case Sara and Allison, if they were residents in Ontario, could look to the Family Law Act for guidance regarding resolution of their matrimonial matter. The Family Law Act applies to couples who have not entered into a legally binding marriage and, as such, are considered to be common law/cohabiting.

“Shared custody” in Ontario refers to a situation whereby each parent exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than forty percent of the time over the course of a year such that it seems as if the child is residing in two different homes and with both parents. When this is the case, child support obligations tend to differ. It becomes inequitable to require that only one parent pay full child support when reality dictates that the child is living with both parents who are incurring expenses relating to that child.

Therefore, the Child Support Guidelines created an innovative way of calculating child support in shared custody situations so that the amount that the payor-parent is required to contribute actually reflects the increased expenses that are being incurred by the recipient-parent.

To clarify, the Child Support Guidelines are a piece of legislation that dictates the quantum and duration of a child support obligation as well as the tables which assign specific monthly amounts based on the payor-parent’s annual income and the number of children to whom the obligation applies.

Pursuant to s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines:

Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 percent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account:

(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses;
(b) the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and
(c) the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought

To clarify, a simple example will follow in order to illustrate how the above mentioned concept might apply:

Sara has an annual income of $50, 000.00 and Allison has an annual income of $75,000.00. There are no exceptional increased costs relating to the shared custody arrangement nor are there any exceptional conditions, means, needs or other circumstances that must be taken into account. Consequently, child support in a shared custody situation may be calculated as follows:

The table amount for Sara (income – $50,000.00 and 2 children) = $753.00

The table amount for Allison (income – $75,000.00 and 2 children) = $1098.00

Set off: $1,098/00 – $753.00 = $345.00

Allison would be required to pay $345.00 a month to Sara in child support.

Please note that this example is just that, and does not purport to include Allison’s and Sara’s actual incomes.

The Divorce Act states in Section 15.1, that a court can order an individual to pay child support for any “children of the marriage.”  The act also provides a definition for who precisely is a child of the marriage.  That definition is:

“child of the marriage” means a child of two spouses or former spouses who, at the material time,

(a) is under the age of majority and who has not withdrawn from their charge, or

(b) is the age of majority or over and under their charge but unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessaries of life;
Child of the marriage

(2) For the purposes of the definition “child of the marriage” in subsection (1), a child of two spouses or former spouses includes

(a) any child for whom they both stand in the place of parents; and

(b) any child of whom one is the parent and for whom the other stands in the place of a parent.

So, if Jennifer was found to be standing in the place of a parent, also known as standing in loco parentis, for Marc’s children; she would have an obligation to pay support for the children. In the case of Chartier v. Chartier the Supreme Court of Canada stated that a person stands in the place of a parent when they display a settled intention to treat the child as part of their family.  So Jennifer, if she has  displayed a settled intention to treat Marc Anthony’s children as part of her own family, could discover that while “Love don’t cost a thing” child support sure can.

If the worst were to come to pass, however, and the couple were in Ontario, the Family Law system would affect how the Life Insurance would be dealt with.  The  court can order an individual making a spousal, or custody support payment designate  a person under their life insurance under section 34(1)(i) of the Family Law Act:

(i) requiring that a spouse who has a policy of life insurance as defined under the Insurance Act designate the other spouse or a child as the beneficiary irrevocably;

This allows life insurance to act as security for the support payments.  If the person paying dies, their beneficiary will still be provided for by their life insurance.  In Ontario, some courts have begun to order individuals to take out life insurance policies in order to secure their support payments.  This was first done in the 1999 case Lackzo v. Lackzo. This precedent has been viewed favourably at the trial level, but has yet to be looked at by the court of appeal.

Life insurance is something that can become quite important during a divorce or separation in Ontario.  In the end it might be more reckless and dangerous to ignore discussing such issues with your spouse than anything Mr. Pastrana does during his stunts.