Children Come First: A Report to Parliament Reviewing the Provisions and Operation of the Federal Child Support Guidelines - Volume 2

ENDNOTES

[1] A subcommittee of the FPT Task Force, the Section 25.1 Subcommittee, had discussed the key elements of a method for determining child support. The Working Group continued this work.
[2] Marcil-Gratton, N., and Le Bourdais, C., Custody, Access and Child Support: Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (Ottawa: Department of Justice, CSR 1999-3E, 1999), p. 3.
[3] Le Bourdais, C., Juby, H., and Marcil-Gratton, N., Keeping Contact with Children: Assessing the Father-Child Post-separation Relationship from the Male Perspective (Ottawa: Department of Justice, CSR-2000-3E, 2001). See also Marcil-Gratton and Le Bourdais, 1999 (footnote 2).
[4] These changes were not uniform across the country. They were most marked in Quebec, where in 1993-94 only 23 percent of children were born to parents who had married without cohabiting first, and 43 percent were born to common-law couples. The province in which the situation had changed the least from the 1960s was Ontario, where only 12 percent of the children born in 1993-94 were born to common-law couples. See Marcil-Gratton and Le Bourdais, 1999 (footnote 2).
[5] Based on information gathered from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (1994-95 and 1996-97) and other demographic studies.
[6] Personal communication with Heather Juby, Département de démographie, Université de Montréal, 2001.
[7] The most recent population estimates from Statistics Canada indicate that in 2000 there were nearly 8 million children (7,942,502) in Canada aged 19 years or less (Statistics Canada, Population by Age and Sex, CANSIM matrix 6367, 2001). Extrapolating from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (1994-95 and 1996-97), it has been estimated that 20 percent of children aged 11 and younger, and 30 percent of children aged 12-19, will have experienced life in a single-parent family by 2001. See Le Bourdais et al., footnote 2. Also, personal communication with Heather Juby, research officer, Département de démographie, Université de Montréal, 2001.
[8] See Le Bourdaiset al. , Keeping Contact with Children, p. 5.
[9] According to Marcil-Gratton and Le Bourdais, Custody, Access and Child Support.
[10] See Marcil-Gratton and Le Bourdais, 1999 (footnote 2) p. 19. These proportions are very similar to those found in the Survey of Child Support Awards under the Divorce Act. Data collected from divorce orders between October 1998 and January 2001 show that mothers are given sole custody of the children in 79.6 percent of cases, fathers are given sole custody in 8.8 percent, shared custody is awarded in 5.8 percent, and split custody is awarded in 5.2 percent (Survey of Child Support Awards database, 2001).
[11] Marcil-Gratton and Le Bourdais, 1999 (footnote 2) p. 19.
[12] This proportion increases to 87 percent when there is no court order regarding custody of the children.
[13] Marcil-Gratton and Le Bourdais, 1999 (footnote 2) p. 21.
[14] Marcil-Gratton and Le Bourdais, 1999 (footnote 2) pp. 28-33.
[15] Marcil-Gratton and Le Bourdais, 1999 (footnote 2) pp. 28-33.
[16] In Marcil-Gratton and Le Bourdais, 1999 (footnote 2) the authors refer to a statistical, correlational relationship that does not imply a causal relationship. These data do not show whether fathers who regularly visit their children are also more likely to pay child support in the first place, or whether fathers are more likely to pay when they get regular visits.
[17] Marcil-Gratton and Le Bourdais, 1999 (footnote 2) pp. 28-33.
[18] Statistics Canada, Women in Canada 2000: A gender-based statistical report (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 89-503-XPE, 2000), p. 139. See also Galarneau, Dianne and Sturrock, Jim, Family Income after Separation (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 13-588-MPB, No. 5, 1997).
[19] Women in Canada 2000, p. 139 (see footnote 18).
[20] Christopher Assié, Low-Income Lone Parents and Child Support in Canada (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Family, Children and Youth Section, BP31E, 2001). See also Richard Kerr and Associates, Social Assistance and Child Support: A Pilot Study. (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Child Support Team, 1999, BP07E).
[21] Silvia Bernardini and Jennifer Jenkins, An Overview of Risks and Protectors for Children's Outcomes: Children of Separation and Divorce (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Family, Children and Youth Section, 2001-FCY-13E, forthcoming).
[22] Research and Statistics Division, The Effects of Divorce on Children: Annotated Bibliography (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Research and Statistics Division, WD1998-3e, 1997); Ron Stewart, The Early Identification and Streaming of Cases of High Conflict Separation and Divorce: A Review (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Family, Children and Youth Section, 2001-FCY-7E, 2001); Bernardini and Jenkins, An Overview of Risks and Protectors for Children's Outcomes.
[23] A practice directive instructs provincial courts to use the Federal Child Support Guidelines. The Alberta legislature passed enabling legislation, in the form of amendments to its Domestic Relations Act, but it has yet to be proclaimed.
[24] Government of Quebec, Rapport du Comité de suivi du modèle québécois de fixation des pensions alimentaires pour enfants Ministère de la Justice, 2000.
[25] Prince Edward Island was designated on January 1, 1998. New Brunswick was designated on May 1, 1998. Manitoba was designated on June 1, 1998. Quebec was designated on May 1, 1997.
[26] Under subsection 2(5) of the Divorce Act, when a province has adopted different guidelines or has adopted the federal guidelines with amendments, the province may ask that the Governor in Council designate it for the purposes of the definition of "applicable guidelines" in subsection 2(1) "if the laws of the province establish comprehensive guidelines for the determination of child support that deal with the matters referred to in s. 26.1." "Applicable guidelines" is defined in subsection 2(1) to mean: (a) where both spouses or former spouses are ordinarily resident in the same province at the time an application for a child support order or a variation order in respect of a child support order is made, or the amount of a child support order is to be recalculated pursuant to section 25.1, and that province has been designated by an order made under subsection (5), the laws of the province specified in the order, and (b) in any other case, the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
[27] Quebec was designated by order for the purposes of the definition "applicable guidelines" under the Divorce Act (S.O.R./97-237, (1997) 131 Can. Gaz. Part II, 1415 (Schedule 2)).
[28] Regulation respecting the determination of child support payments (R.S.Q., c. C-25, a. 825.8; 1966, c. 68, s.2).
[29] Government of Quebec, supra note 24. This report, which was tabled in Quebec's National Assembly on May 3, 2000, is a progress report on the application of the new determination rules in the first three years. Its assessment is generally positive (noting, in particular, that files are settled more quickly and that the number of agreements is increasing). The report makes some recommendations for improving the system.
[30] Art. 587.2 in fine C.C.Q.
[31] To this effect, see Glen v. Glen (1997), 34 R.F.L. (4^th) 13 (B.C.S.C.); St. Croix v. Maxwell (1999), 3 R.F.L. (5^th) 161 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.).
[32] In Droit de la famille-3000 (4 February 2000), Montreal 500-09-006602-981, [2000] J.Q. No. 162 (C.A.), Quebec's Court of Appeal ruled that, in principle, capital gains are included in the definition of income, even though they are not expressly specified in the Quebec Rules.
[33] For example, student loans and bursaries are included in the definition of income within the meaning of section 9 of the Quebec Rules (although the Follow-Up Committee Report recommends their exclusion), while they are not considered under the federal guidelines (see to that effect Chute v. Chute (1999), 2 R.F.L. (5^th) 377 (Sask. Q.B.)).
[34] In comparing the monthly median support payment for various types of custody, the Committee noted that this amount is $303 when the mother has sole custody and $279 when she has custody but the father has visiting and prolonged access rights (Government of Quebec, Follow-up Committee Report, p. 124, supra note 29). This shows that in determinations of support payments, the concept of prolonged access rights does not significantly change the results.
[35] For Quebec Rules, see the Court of Appeal's decisions in Droit de la famille-3443 (1 November 1999), Montreal 500-09-007691, [1999] J.Q. No. 4890 (C.A.) and Droit de la famille-3165 (29 October 1998), Montreal 500-09-006378-988, [1998] A.Q. No. 3164 (C.A.). For the federal guidelines, see, in particular, Hall v. Hall (1997), 35 B.C.L.R. (3d) 311, 30 R.F.L. (4th) 333 (S.C.); de Goede v. de Goede (3 February 1999), Courtenay D4928, [1999] B.C.J. No. 330 (B.C.S.C.) [hereinafter de Goede]; Meloche v. Kales (1997), 35 O.R. (3d) 688, 35 R.P.L. (4th) 297 (Ont. Gen. Div.) [hereinafter Meloche]; Dennett v. Dennett (1998), 225 A.R. 50, [1998] 10 W.W.R. 725 (Q.B.); Anderson v. Anderson (2000), 5 R.F.L. (5^th) 235 (B.C.S.C.).
[36] Government of Quebec, Follow-up Committee Report, p. 127, supra note 29.
[37] See, for example, Green v. Green (2000), 75 B.C.L.R. (3d) 306, 6 R.F.L. (5^th) 197 (C.A.).
[38] Government of Quebec, Follow-Up Committee Report, pp. 152-153, supra note 29. The Committee observed that [translation] "since this type of request is an exception to a strict application of the model, the rather restrictive interpretation of the majority of cases studied seems normal and complies with the overall model." For the federal guidelines, see Van Gool v. Van Gool (1998), 64 B.C.L.R. (3d) 94, 44 R.F.L. (4^th) 319 (C.A.); Ellis v. Ellis (1999), 175 N.S.R. (2d) 268, 45 R.F.L. (4^th) 234 (C.A.).
[39] See Droit de la famille-3592 (6 April 2000), Rimouski 100-12-007622-99, [2000] J.Q. No. 1476 (S.C.).
[40] Droit de la famille-2569 (13 August 1998), Quebec 200-09-001881-983, [1998] A.Q. No. 2547 at para. 26 (C.A.) [translated by author].
[41] Government of Quebec, Follow-Up Committee Report, pp. 152-153, supra note 29.
[42]Kofoed v. Fichter (1998), 168 Sask. R. 149, 39 R.F.L. (4^th) 348 (C.A.) [hereinafter Kofoed].
[43] Droit de la famille-3210, [1999] R.D.F. 73 (Que. Sup. Ct.).
[44] Racette v. Gamauf, (1997) 158 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 38, 35 R.F.L. (4th) 357 (S.C. (T.D.)); Droit de la famille-3228, [1999] R.D.F. 422 (Que. C.A). Recent decisions in Quebec tend to use public statistical data to determine the proportion of certain items of expenditure allotted in families' budgets (see, for example, Droit de la famille-3228, ibid. and Droit de la famille-3763, J.E. 2000-2266 (C.S.), where the court considered that 5 percent of the family budget would be allotted to recreation according to Canadian standards).
[45] However, the Follow-Up Committee recommended that the basic deduction of $9000-the threshold level under which a person is not expected to pay support-should also be indexed to encourage support debtors to make their payments (Government of Quebec, Follow-Up Committee Report, p. 147, supra note 29).
[46] The courts have also noted this; see Droit de la famille-2695, J.E. 97-1321 (C.S.).
[47] The Federal Child Support Guidelines came into force on May 1, 1997 (SOR/97-175) and were amended December 9, 1997 (SOR/97-563), April 1, 1999 (SOR/99-136), November 1, 2000 (SOR/2000-337), and August 1, 2001 (SOR/2001-292) [hereinafter Guidelines].
[48] These objectives and principles were as follows:
Objectives:
1. Yield adequate and equitable levels of child support.
2. Produce amounts that are objectively determinable, consistent, and predictable.
3. Ensure flexibility to account for a variety of circumstances.
4. Be understandable and inexpensive to administer.
Principles:
1. Parents have legal responsibility for the financial support of their children.
2. Child support legislation should not distinguish between the parents or children on the basis of sex.
3. The determination of child support should be made without regard to the marital status of the parents.
4. Responsibility for the financial support of children should be in proportion to the means of each parent.
5. In determining the means of each parent, his or her minimum needs should be taken into consideration.
6. Levels of child support should be established in relation to parental means.
7. While each child of a parent has an equal right to support, in multiple family situations the interests of all children should be considered.
8. The development of any new approach to the determination of child support should minimize collateral effects (e.g. disincentive to remarriage, joint or extended custody arrangements, and voluntary unemployment or underemployment) to the extent compatible with the obligation to pay child support.
Communications and Consultation Branch, Summary: Federal-Provincial-Territorial Family Law Committee's Report and Recommendations on Child Support (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Communications and Consultation Branch, January 1995), p. 19.
[49] Francis v. Baker (1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 481, 34 R.F.L. (4^th) 228 (C.A.), aff'd [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250, 50 R.F.L. (4^th) 228 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter Francis cited to S.C.R.].
[50] Ibid.
[51] For example, in Dergousoff v. Schille (Dergousoff) (1999), 177 Sask. R. 64, 48 R.F.L. (4^th) 1 (C.A.) [hereinafter Dergousoff] the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal refused to follow Wang v. Wang (1998), 58 B.C.L.R. (3d) 1, 39 R.F.L. (4^th) 426 (C.A.) [hereinafter Wang] and decided that section 14 of the Guidelines mandated a modification of pre-guidelines child support orders. See also Bates v. Bates (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 1, 5 R.F.L. (5^th) 259 (C.A.) [hereinafter Bates], where the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the Dergousoff judgment, but because of a technical issue, could not reverse the previous Court of Appeal decision of Sherman v. Sherman (1999), 44 O.R. (3d) 411, 45 R.F.L. (4^th) 424 (C.A.) [hereinafter Sherman], which had adopted Wang.
[52] Metzner v. Metzner (2000), 80 B.C.L.R. (3d) 133, 9 R.F.L. (5^th) 162 at para. 30 (C.A.) [hereinafter Metzner].
[53] See O'Connell v. McIndoe (2000), 8 R.F.L. (5^th) 326 (B.C.S.C.); Dreichel v. Dreichel (2000), 267 A.R. 128, 8 R.F.L. (5^th) 253 (Q.B.); Orszak v. Orszak (2000), 8 R.F.L. (5^th) 350 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.); Fisher v. Heron (1997), 157 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 42 (P.E.I. S.C.(T.D.)).
[54] Hanmore v. Hanmore (2000), 225 A.R. 163, 4 R.F.L. (5^th) 348 (C.A.).
[55] Ibid. at para. 9-10, 17.
[56] Channer v. Hoffman-Turner (1997), 214 A.R. 354 (Q.B.).
[57] Ibid. at para. 12.
[58] D.L. v. F.K. (17 March 1998), Yellowknife 99-00171, [1998] N.W.T.J. No. 42 (S.C.).
[59] Cavanaugh v. Ziegler (1998), 228 A.R. 283, 43 R.F.L. (4^th) 40 at para. 12 (C.A.).
[60] When a person applies to vary a support order and the other party lives in another province or territory, the court hearing the application can make a provisional order under section 18 of the Divorce Act. This provisional order has no legal effect until it has been confirmed under section 19 of the Act by a court in the province or territory where the other party lives.
[61] Mills v. Mills (10 October 1997), Kamloops 98-01834, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2258 (S.C.) ("income"); O'Hara v. O'Hara (1997), 33 R.F.L. (4^th) 37 (Sask. Q.B.) ("income"); Schick v. Schick (8 July 1997), Regina 97-15193, [1997] S.J. No. 447 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Schick] ("income"); Meloche, supra note 35 ("table").
[62] Lee v. Lee (1998), 167 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 176, 43 R.F.L. (4^th) 339 (Nfld. C.A.).
[63] Bell v. Bell (1999), 1 R.F.L. (5^th) 1 (B.C.C.A.). See also Good v. Good (24 September 1998), Kelowna 99-01133, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2316 (B.C.S.C.).
[64] Lewkoski v. Lewkoski (1998), 40 R.F.L. (4^th) 86 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)); Vincent v. Tremblett (13 October 1998), Newfoundland 99-01210, [1998] N.J. No. 292 (S.C.); Chambers v. Chambers [1998] N.W.T.R. 252, 40 R.F.L. (4^th) 351 (S.C.); Welsh v. Welsh (3 November 1998), St. Catharines 99-04111, (1998) 79 O.T.C. 81 [1998] O.J. No. 4550 (Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)) [hereinafter Welsh].
[65] Stupak v. Stupak (1997), 155 Sask. R. 286 (Q.B.).
[66] Schick, supra note 61; Smith v. Hookey (1999), 179 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 205 (Nfld. S.C.); Stevens v. Boulerice (1999), 49 R.F.L. (4^th) 425 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.).
[67] Songui v. Songui (29 May 1998), New Westminster 98-14052, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1379 (B.C.S.C.).
[68] Ireland v. McMillan (1997), 136 Man. R. (2d) 314 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Ireland].
[69] Giene v. Giene (1998), 234 A.R. 355 (Q.B.).
[70] Ibid. at para. 11.
[71] Wieler v. Switzer (18 August 1998), Surrey 98-19051, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2231 (Prov. Ct.) [hereinafter Wieler].
[72] Where a person applies to vary child support in a divorce judgement and the other party lives in another province or territory, the court hearing the application can make a provisional order under section 18 of the Divorce Act. This provisional order has no legal effect until it has been confirmed under section 19 of the Act by a court in the province or territory where the other party lives.
[73] Dunne v. Kehler (1999), 180 D.L.R. (4th) 536, 3 R.F.L. (5^th) 35 (B.C.S.C.) [hereinafter Dunne].
[74] Both Wieler and Dunne were decided under provincial laws. However, they both referred to similar provisions in the federal laws.
[75] Beilstein v. Beilstein (1999), 47 R.F.L. (4^th) 242 (N.W.T. S.C.); Bolton v. Messett (29 September 1999), Burnaby F6120, [1999] B.C.J. No. 2950 (Prov. Ct.).
[76] Welsh, supra note 64.
[77] Shankland v. Harper (1999), 60 B.C.L.R. (3d) 242, 43 R.F.L. (4^th) 379 (C.A.).
[78] There are eight situations in which judges can order an amount of child support other than the table amount: children at or over the age of majority (section 3), incomes over $150,000 (section 4), spouse in place of a parent (section 5), split custody (section 8 table set-off), shared custody (section 9), undue hardship (section 10); special provisions have been made for the benefit of a child (subsection 15.1(5) of the Divorce Act), and by agreement of the parties (subsection 15.1(7) of the Divorce Act).
[79] For a detailed review of section 7, please see "Section 7: Special or Extraordinary Expenses."
[80] See, for example, Francis, supra note 49; Birss v. Birss (2000), 12 R.F.L. (5^th) 9 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.); Butzelaar v. Butzelaar (1998), 174 Sask. R. 125 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Butzelaar]; Digout v. Digout (1999), 180 N.S.R. (2d) 70, 178 D.L.R. (4^th) 588 (C.A.); Duncan v. Duncan (1999), 178 D.L.R. (4^th) 760, 1 R.F.L. (5^th) 46 (B.C.C.A.); Garrison v. Garrison (1998), 38 R.F.L. (4^th) 435 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)) [hereinafter Garrison]; McCarthy v. McCarthy, [1998] N.W.T.R. 344 (S.C.); Meuser v. Meuser (1998), 58 B.C.L.R. (3d) 131, 43 R.F.L. (4^th) 140 (C.A.) [hereinafter Meuser cited to B.C.L.R.]; Meyers v. Meyers (16 April 1998), Saskatoon 98-19317, [1998] S.J. No. 265 (Q.B.); Ness v. Ness (1998), 125 Man. R. (2d) 173, [1998] W.W.R. 404 (Q.B.); Vivier v. Vivier (1997), 120 Man. R. (2d) 231 (Q.B.).
[81] Ibid.
[82] See, for example, Montalbetti v. Montalbetti (2000), 10 R.F.L. (5^th) 377 (B.C.C.A.) [hereinafter Montalbetti].
[83] See, for example, Francis, supra note 49.
[84] For a detailed review of that section, see "Review of Sections of the Divorce Act That Relate to Child Support."
[85] There are other situations in which judges can order an amount of child support other than the table amount: incomes over $150,000 (section 4), spouse in place of a parent (section 5), shared custody (section 9), undue hardship (section 10), special provisions have been made for the benefit of a child (subsection 15.1(5) of the Divorce Act) and by agreement of the parties (subsection 15.1(7) of the Divorce Act).
[86] Costs for a child attending post-secondary school are a special expense listed in paragraph 7(e) of the Guidelines.
[87] See, for example, Blair v. Blair (1997), 34 R.F.L. (4^th) 370 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)) where there were two children, one under and one at the age of majority. The court determined the table value for one child, for each of the two children, and added the two figures, resulting in a larger payment than if the court had used the table amount for two children.
[88] Cornborough v. Cornborough (21 August 1991), Nanaimo 97-14801, [1997] B.C.J. No. 1981 (B.C.S.C.).
[89] Bowering v. Bowering (1998), 171 Nfld & P.E.I.R. 50 (Nfld. U.F.C.).
[90] Judges may conclude that section 15.1(4) of the Divorce Act implicitly gives them the authority to make direct payments to children at the age of majority or over. In Arnold v. Washburn (2000), 10 R.F.L. (5^th) 1 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.), Rutherford, J. concluded that the parent's eldest child-a post-graduate student living in England who had not lived with her parents for over three years-continued to be a «child of the marriage." Support was ordered payable directly to the child. In Waese v. Bojman (28 May 2001), Ontario 00-FA-9426 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.), Mesbur, J. ordered support payable directly to a child at the age of majority against the wishes of the paying parent. However, in Surette v. Surette (23 February 2000), Ontario 7875/99, [2000] O.J. No. 675 (Sup. Ct. Just.), Perkins, J. held that nothing in the Guidelines contemplated an order for direct payment of child support in the absence of consent of the parties and therefore direct payment was not ordered.
[91] For example, under the Canada Student Loans Program, student need is determined partly on the basis of the student's income. Income is defined to include "gross income from all sources, including alimony and/or maintenance received." Thus, child support received could adversely affect the amount of a Canada Student Loan. In Ontario, the Ontario Student Assistance Program requires each applicant to estimate "total gross income," which includes child support payments received. Therefore, any child support the student receives directly could reduce financial support.
[92] Although the Guidelines do not specify a continuing obligation to provide financial disclosure for a child at the age of majority or over, some judges have ordered such disclosure as a condition of ongoing entitlement to child support: Brown v. Brown (1993), 45 R.F.L. (3d) 444 (B.C.S.C.); Davids v. Davids (3 July 1998), Ontario 98-13376, [1998] O. J. No. 2859 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)), aff'd (1999), 125 O.A.C. 375 (C.A.) [hereinafter Davids].
[93] See, for example, A.H. v. M.C.G. (4 April 1997), Montreal 1997-0268, [1997] A.Q. No. 2736 (S.C.); A.G. v. D.L. (8 September 1997), Quebec 1997-0381, [1997] A.Q. No. 3112 (S.C.); Cederland v. Cederland (1997), 32 R.F.L. (4^th) 35, [1997] N.W.T.R. 319 (S.C.); Dixon v. Tovell (19 May 1999), Ottawa D0022/97 (Sup. Ct. Just.); McCarthy v. McCarthy, [1998] N.W.T.R. 344 (S.C.).
[94] Barrie v. Barrie (1998), 230 A.R. 379 (Q.B.). See also Garrison, supra note 80. In that case, the paying spouse had relocated to the United States, so the table from Ontario-the province where the non-paying spouse ordinarily lived-was determined to apply.
[95] Butzelaar v. Butzelaar, supra note 80.
[96] Francis, supra note 49.
[97] Hollenbach v. Hollenbach (2000), 82 B.C.L.R. (3d) 228, 10 R.F.L. (5^th) 280 (C.A.) [hereinafter Hollenbach cited to B.C.L.R.].
[98] Ibid. at para. 37.
[99] Metzner, supra note 52, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 527.
[100] Simon v. Simon (1999), 1 R.F.L. (5^th) 119 (Ont. C.A.) [hereinafter Simon].
[101] A similar conclusion was reached in Marinangeli v. Marinangeli. (9 May 2001), Ontario 99-FA-7603, [2001] O.J. No. 1765 (Sup. Ct. Just.) [hereinafter Marinangeli].
[102] Tauber v. Tauber (2000), 48 O.R. (3^rd) 577, 6 R.F.L. (5^th) 442 (Ont. C.A.) [hereinafter Tauber].
[103] The Supreme Court also expressed this sentiment in Francis, supra note 49.
[104] It appears that the amount of child support has to be quite high before the court will find it inappropriate: see Tauber, supra note 102 ($17,000); M.(O.) v. K.(A.) Droit de la famille-3148 (2000), 9 R.F.L. (95^th) 111 (Que. Sup. Ct.) [hereinafter M.(O.)] ($25,567); and R. v. R. (2000), 10 R.F.L. (5^th) 88 (Ont. Sup. Ct.. Just.) [hereinafter R.] ($16,398).
[105] Tauber, supra note 102.
[106] M.(O.), supra note 104.
[107] R., supra note 104.
[108] See also Hauer v. Hauer (11 April 2001), Ontario 00-BN-5294, [2001] O.J. No. 1520 (Sup. Ct. Just.), where the court held several of the budgeted items to be excessive or non-recurring. In this case, the paying parent rebutted the presumption, as the table amount was far more than the child needed.
[109] See Hollenbach, supra note 97; Simon, supra note 100.
[110] See Marinangeli, supra note 101; Tauber, supra note 102.
[111] Simon, supra note 100.
[112] See also Marinangeli, supra note 101, where this presumption was also confirmed.
[113] M.(O.), supra note 104.
[114] See the review of subsection 2(2) in the section-by-section review of the Divorce Act.
[115] Not all step-parents have a child support obligation. The terms stepchild, stepchildren, step-parent, and step-parents are used for ease of reference only. A stepchild is a child for whom a spouse stands in the place of a parent. A step-parent is a spouse who stands in the place of a parent to a child.
[116] However, in Manitoba, the legislation (Family Maintenance Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. F20, s. 36 as amended by S.M. 1997, c. 56, s. 4) provides that a step-parent's obligation to pay child support is secondary to the natural or adoptive parents' obligation. In addition, the step-parent generally has to pay support only when the natural or adoptive parents fail to provide reasonably for the children's support, maintenance, or education.
[117] See, for example, Bevand v. Bevand (20 June 1997), Barrie 97-11366, [1997] O.J. No. 2661 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen.Div.)). This case was decided under the Ontario Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, where the step-parent added the biological father to an application to vary the child support order made against the step-parent.
[118] Ibid.
[119] Simms v. Simms (16 June 1997), Vernon 97-11996, [1997] B.C.J. No. 1553 (S.C.).
[120] Apthorp v. Shearing (1998), 42 R.F.L. (4^th) 287 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)).
[121] Irwin v. Irwin (22 September 1997), Cornwall 98-03179, [1997] O.J. No. 3892 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)) [hereinafter Irwin].
[122] See Clarke v. Clarke (19 October 1998), Vancouver 98-19056, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2370 (S.C.) [hereinafter Clarke]; Kotylak v. Kotylak (21 June 1999), Regina 015727, [1999] S.J. No. 430 (Q.B.); Oliver v. Oliver (2000), 6 R.F.L. (5^th) 389 (B.C.S.C.) (sub nom. O.(T.D.) v. O. (R.G.)).
[123] Kolada v. Kolada (1999), 241 A.R. 348, 48 R.F.L. (4^th) 370 (Q.B.).
[124] This approach was rejected in Beatty v. Beatty (16 October 1997), Victoria 98-07005, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2269 (C.A.) and Gordon v. Paquette (1998), 36 R.F.L. (4^th) 382 (B.C.S.C.) [hereinafter Gordon].
[125] Dusseault v. Dolfo (26 March 1998), Kamloops 98-11794, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1209 (Prov. Ct. (Fam. Div.)).
[126] Bell v. Michie (1998), 38 R.F.L. (4^th) 199 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)) [hereinafter Bell]; Gordon, supra note 124; Wright v. Zaver (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 629, 7 R.F.L. (5^th) 212 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.).
[127] Ruth v. Young (1 August 1997), New Westminster 98-05826, [1997] B.C.J. No. 1848 (S.C.); Nay v. Nay (24 July 1998), New Westminster D037649 (B.C.S.C.).
[128] Singh v. Singh (25 September 1997), Kamloops 97-17456, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2195 (S.C.); White v. Rushton (1998), 37 R.F.L. (4^th) 373, [1998] B.C.J. No. 422 (S.C.); Adler v. Jonas (1998), 48 R.F.L. (4^th) 218 (S.C.); Bell, supra note 126.
[129] Butzelaar, supra note 80.
[130] Campbell v. Campbell (1998), 166 Sask. R. 41, 37 R.F.L. (4^th) 228 (Q.B.); Johb v. Johb (1998), 164 Sask. R. 307, 38 R.F.L. (4^th) 11 (Q.B.).
[131] Clarke, supra note 122.
[132] Irwin, supra note 121.
[133] Chartier v. Chartier, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 242, (1998), 43 R.F.L. (4^th) 1 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter Chartier].
[134] Dutrisac v. Ulm (2000), 75 B.C.L.R. (3d) 159, 6 R.F.L. (5^th) 132 (C.A.) [hereinafter Dutrisac]; Dumais v. Lupul (2000), 10 R.F.L. (5^th) 265 (B.C.S.C.); Williams v. Quigley (3 November 1999), New Westminster E3318, [1999] B.C.J. No.2605 (S.C.); Bell, supra note 126 ; Greenhalgh v. Greenhalgh (18 January 2000), Nanaimo ED02534, [2000] B.C.S.C. 163 (S.C.), sub nom G.(F.G.) v. G.(M.R.); Russenberger v. Rebagliati (2000), 5 R.F.L. (5^th) 130 (B.C.S.C.).
[135] Chartier, supra note 133.
[136] See Blair v. Callow (1998), 41 R.F.L. (4^th) 44 (B.C.S.C.) [hereinafter Blair]; Bowering v. Bowering (1998), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50 (Nfld. S.C.); Krislock v. Krislock (1997), 160 Sask. R. 212, 34 R.F.L. (4^th) 420 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Krislock]; Khoee-Solomonescu v. Solomonescu (12 November 1997), Ontario 98-09093, [1997] O.J. No. 5396 (Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)); Lockman v. MacNair (4 December 1997), Ontario 98-11589, [1997] O.J. No. 5402 (Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)); Robski v. Robski (31 October 1997), Halifax 98-05101, [1997] N.S.J. No. 444 (S.C.); Thompson v. Thompson (12 February 1998), Cranbrook 98-05167, [1998] B.C.J. No. 379 (S.C.) [hereinafter Thompson].
[137] See Bragg v. Bragg (2000), 188 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 202, 2 R.F.L. (5^th) 344 (Nfld. S.C.); Sanders v. Sanders (1998), 42 R.F.L. (4^th) 239 (C.A.) [hereinafter Sanders].
[138] See Jackson v. Holloway (1997), 161 Sask. R. 31, 35 R.F.L. (4^th) 272 (Q.B.).
[139] Hall v. Hall (1997), 35 B.C.L.R. (3d) 311, 30 R.F.L. (4^th) 333 (S.C.); Thompson, supra note 136.
[140] See Dickinson v. Dickinson (19 October 1998), Barrie 99-02399, [1998] O.J. No. 4815 (Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)).
[141] The presumption applies unless otherwise set out in the Guidelines. See subsection 3(1) of the Guidelines.
[142] See Department of Justice, Formula for the Table of Amounts Contained in the Federal Child Support Guidelines: A Technical Report (Ottawa: Department of Justice, CSR-1997-1E, 1997).
[143] Middleton v. MacPherson (1997), 204 A.R. 37, 29 R.F.L. (4^th) 334 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Middleton cited to A.R.].
[144] See Raftus v. Raftus (1998), 166 N.S.R. (2d) 179, 37 R.F.L. (4^th) 59 (C.A.) [hereinafter Raftus cited to N.S.R.]; Andries v. Andries (1998) 126 Man. R. (2d) 189, 36 R.F.L. (4^th) 175 (C.A.) [hereinafter Andries cited to Man. R.].
[145] McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (1998), 57 B.C.L.R. (3d) 186, 44 R.F.L. (4^th) 148 (C.A.) [hereinafter McLaughlin cited to B.C.L.R.].
[146] See McLaughlin, ibid.; Raftus, supra note 144; Bland v. Bland (1999), 239 A.R. 301, 48 R.F.L. (4^th) 250 (Q.B.).
[147] Di Fabio v. Di Fabio (5 January 1999), Vancouver 99-03970, [1999] B.C.J. No. 9 (S.C.) [hereinafter Di Fabio].
[148] R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8.
[149] Glen v. Glen (3 December 1997), Victoria 98-09181, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2806 at para. 14 (B.S. S.C.) [hereinafter Glen] ; Risen v. Risen (7 August 1998), Ontario 98-FA-6614, [1998] O.J. No. 3184 (Ct. Just.) [hereinafter Risen]; Di Fabio, supra note 147; Wesemann v. Wesemann (1999), 49 (4^th) 435 (B.C.S.C.) [hereinafter Wesemann].
[150] See Budyk v. Sol (1998), 126 Man. R. (2d) 305, 40 R.F.L. (4^th) 348 (C.A.).
[151] Carnell v. Carnell (1998), 165 Sask. R. 305, 37 R.F.L. (4^th) 392 (Q.B.).
[152] Wesemann, supra note 149.
[153] Risen, supra note 149. This case dealt with subsection 3(2) rather than subsection 7(1); however, after assessing the "condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child," the judge focused exclusively on «means" of the child, so the judgment is relevant to the above analysis. See also Hughes v. Blain (1998), 39 R.F.L. (4^th) 327 (Ont. Ct. Just.), where it was held (as in Di Fabio, supra note 147) that Canada Pension Plan benefits should not play a role in determining the paying parent's obligations but could be assessed when considering the child's means under section 7.
[154] Supra note 149.
[155] Morissette v. Ball (7 January 2000), Ontario 4326/99, [2000] O.J. No. 73 (Sup. Ct. Just.), aff'd (9 November 2000), Toronto C33633, [2000] O.J. No. 4307 (C.A.).
[156] Griffiths v. Griffiths (25 August 1998), Vancouver D076027, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2000 (S.C.).
[157] Wedsworth v. Wedsworth (2000) 188 N.S.R. (2d) 22, 12 R.F.L. (5^th) 232 (N.S.C.A.) [hereinafter Wedsworth cited to N.S.R.].
[158] Van Deventer v. Van Deventer (2000) 132 B.C.A.C. 186, 3 R.F.L. (5^th) 300 (C.A.) [hereinafter Van Deventer cited to B.C.A.C.].
[159] Rebak v. Rebak (1998) 61 B.C.L.R. (3d) 393, 43 R.F.L. (4^th) 124 (C.A.).
[160] See Young v. Young (2000), 225 N.B.R. (2d) 272, 7 R.F.L. (5^th) 228 (C.A.).
[161] See Wedsworth, supra note 157, where child care expenses were given priority over mortgage arrears; Van Deventer, supra note 158, where child care expenses were given priority over family debts in general.
[162] See Krislock, supra note 136; Yaremchuk v. Yaremchuk, (1998) 218 A.R. 153, 38 R.F.L. (4^th) 312 (Alb. Q.B.) [hereinafter Yaremchuk]; Tougher v. Tougher (20 March 1998), Edmonton 98-12055, [1998] A.J. No. 294 (Q.B.).
[163] Middleton, supra note 143.
[164] See White v. Rushton (1998), 37 R.F.L. (4^th) 373 (B.C.S.C.); Dion v. Dion (20 March 1998), New Westminster 98-15407, [1998] B.C.J. No. 648 (S.C.).
[165] Miceli v. Miceli (29 December 1998), Ontario 99-03035, (1998) 83 O.T.C. 297, [1998] O.J. No. 5460 (Ont. Ct. Just.) [hereinafter Miceli].
[166] See Miceli, ibid., where expenses for alternative medical remedies were accepted; Welsh, supra, note 64, where the court ordered the parents to share the cost of transportation to and from school for their physically challenged daughter; Jarbeau v. Pelletier (22 July 1998), North Bay 98-13775, [1998] O.J. No. 3029 (Ont. Ct. Just.), where the order for expenses included those incurred while travelling to a major urban hospital for treatment.
[167] Andrews v. Andrews (1999) 45 O.R. (3d) 577, 50 R.F.L. (4^th) 1 (C.A.).
[168] Van Deventer, supra note 158; Green v. Green (2000), 75 B.C.L.R. (3d) 306, 6 R.F.L. (5^th) 197 (C.A.) [hereinafter Green cited to B.C.L.R.]; Colizza v. Arnot (2000), 6 R.F.L. (5^th) 100 (Man. C.A.) [hereafter Colizza]; Andrews, ibid.
[169] Cochrane v. Zarins (1998), 36 R.F.L. (4^th) 434 (B.C.C.A.).
[170] Wait v. Wait (2000), 140 B.C.A.C. 81, 7 R.F.L. (5^th) 446 (C.A.).
[171] Green, supra note 168; Colizza, supra note 168.
[172] Green, supra note 168.
[173] Holizki v. Reeves (1997), 161 Sask. R. 76, 34 R.F.L. (4^th) 414 at para. 15 (Q.B.).
[174] See Andries, supra note 144; Raftus, supra note 144.
[175] See McLaughlin, supra note 145; Kofoed, supra note 42 (18); minority opinion in Raftus, supra note 144; Sanders, supra note 137
[176] See, for example, McLaughlin, supra note 145.
[177] Raftus, supra note 144.
[178] McLaughlin, supra note 145.
[179] Raftus, supra note 144.
[180] Andries, supra note 144.
[181] McLaughlin, supra note 145.
[182] Rolls v. Rolls, (14 January 2000), Calgary 98-17905, [2000] A.J. No. 28 (C.A.) Brown v. Simon (2000), 134 B.C.A.C. 318, 4 R.F.L. (5^th) 50 (C.A.); Schoenroth v. Ryba (1999), 180 Sask. R. 121, 47 R.F.L. (4^th) 381 (C.A.); Kofoed, supra note 42; Sanders, supra note 137.
[183] Middleton, supra note 143.
[184] R.(E.K.) v. W.(G.A.) (1997), 32 R.F.L. (4^th) 202; additional reasons at (1998), 124 Man. R. (2d) 258 (Q.B.).
[185] Kissmann v. Kissmann (28 February 2001), Ontario D14 760196, [2001] O.J. No. 770 (Sup. Ct. Just.).
[186] Ebrahim v. Ebrahim (15 September 1997), Vancouver 98-03439, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2039 (S.C.).
[187] Kelly v. Kelly (1998), 40 R.F.L. (4^th) 68 (Alta. Q.B.).
[188] SOR/2000-337, s. 1(1), (2), (3)
SOR/2000-337, s. 1
[189] Survey of Child Support Awards database, October 1998-February 2001.
[190] For a detailed review of special or extraordinary expenses, see «Section 7: Special or Extraordinary Expenses."
[191] Federal-Provincial-Territorial Family Law Committee, Report and Recommendations on Child Support (Ottawa: Department of Justice, January 1995), p. 37.
[192] See, for example, Albright v. Albright (9 June 1998), Victoria 98-15157, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1424 (S.C.) [hereinafter Albright]; Duguay v. Thompson-Duguay (2000), 7 R.F.L. (5^th) 301 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.) [hereinafter Duguay]; Forbes v. Forbes (6 May 1998), New Westminster 98-12550, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1180 (S.C.) [hereinafter Forbes]; Holtby v. Holtby (1997), 30 R.F.L. (4^th) 70 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)) [hereinafter Holtby]; Ninham v. Ninham (1997), 29 R.F.L. (4^th) 41 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)); Simms v. Simms (16 June 1997), Vernon 97-11996, [1997] B.C.J. No. 1553 (S.C.); Westcott v. Westcott (22 July 1997), Barrie 97-14219, [1997] O.J. No. 3060 (Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)); Vanderstoop v. Vanderstoop (21 January 1998), Calgary 98-11547, [1998] A.J. No. 100 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Vanderstoop].
[193] See, for example, Albright, ibid.; Forbes, ibid.; Harrison v. Harrison (18 September 1998), Vancouver 99-05376, [1998] B.C.J No. 3090 (S.C.); Vanderstoop, ibid..
[194] See, for example, Duguay, supra note 192; Blair v. Callow, supra, note 136.
[195] Herbert-Jardine v. Jardine (1997), 39 R.F.L. (4^th) 13 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)).
[196] MacLeod v. Druhan (1997), 165 N.S.R. (2d) 70, 34 R.F.L. (4^th) 206 (Fam. Ct.).
[197] Farmer v. Conway (1998), 175 N.S.R. (2d) 143 (S.C.).
[198] Dudka v. Dudka (16 December 1997), Halifax 98-09564, [1997] N.S.J. No. 526 (S.C.).
[199] Holtby, supra note 192.
[200] Hutchings v. Hutchings (1999), 72 B.C.L.R. (3d) 73, 4 R.F.L. (5^th) 79 (C.A.).
[201] See, for example, Nitsopoulos v. Alousis (2000), 5 R.F.L. (5^th) 430 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.), where the court looked at the "general pattern," which meant that summers and holidays were excluded from the calculation of time; Dempsey v. Dempsey (14 July 1997), Halifax 97-17360, [1997] N.S.J. No. 327 (N.S.S.C.), where days and nights were the standard; Droit de la famille-2912, [1998] R.D.F. 285 (C.S.), where Justice Mireault counted time in hours; Droit de la famille-2871, [1998] R.D.F. 111 (C.S.), where overnight visits were calculated.
[202] See Meloche supra note 35; Yaremchuk supra, note 162; Kolada v. Kolada (2000), 6 R.F.L. (5^th) 288, 260 A.R. 160 (Alta. Q.B.); Hamm v. Hamm, [1998] N.S.J. No. 139 (S.C.); Mosher v. Martin (1998) 166 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 97, 511 A.P.R. 97 (Nfld. U.F.C.); Crofton v. Sturko (1998) CarswellBC 36, Docket Victoria 5939/32257 Judgment January 13, 1998 (B.C. Master); Spanier v. Spanier (1998), 52 B.C.L.R. (3^rd) 343, 40 R.F.L. (4^th) 329 (S.C.) [hereinafter Spanier]; Cross v. Cross (1998) 40 R.F.L. (4^th) 242 (B.C.S.C.); de Goede, supra note 35).
[203] Rosati v. Dellapenta (1997), 35 R.F.L. (4^th) 102 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.).
[204] Henke v. Henke (2000), 3 R.F.L. (5^th) 226 (Sask. Q.B.).
[205] See also Green supra, note 168; Dennett v. Dennett (1998), 225 A.R. 50, 61 Alta. L.R. (3d) 245 (Q.B.); Ward v. Ward (2000), 7 R.F.L. (5^th) 197 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.).
[206] See, for example, Spanier, supra note 202; Baddeley v. Baddeley (10 December 1999), Vancouver D108663, [1999] B.C.J. No. 2835 (B.C.S.C.); McKerracher v. McKerracher (9 October 1997), Kamloops 98-01833, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2257 (B.C.S.C.). However, as is discussed in more detail below, in Green (supra, note 168), the British Columbia Court of Appeal subsequently rejected the use of a single definitive formula in all cases.
[207] Support payable pursuant to the simple formula = (table amount payable to receiving parent) X (% of time receiving parent spends with the child).
[208] See Middleton supra, note 143; Hubic v. Hubic, (1997), 157 Sask. R. 150 (Q.B.); Peacock v. Peacock (1999), 215 N.B.R. (2d) 39, 551 A.P.R. 39 (Q.B.); Mertler v. Kardynal (1997), 161 Sask. R. 151, 35 R.F.L. (4^th) 72 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Mertler]; Soderberg v. Soderberg (1998), 42 R.F.L. (4^th) 403 (N.W.T.S.C.).
[209] For a detailed review of the guidelines split custody provision, see "Section 8: Split Custody."
[210] Support payable pursuant to the basic set-off formula = (table amount payable to the receiving parent) - (table amount payable to the paying parent).
[211] See Hunter v. Hunter (1998), 60 O.T.C. 97, 37 R.F.L. (4^th) 260 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)) [hereinafter Hunter cited to O.T.C.]; Dilny v. Dilny (1999), 174 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 178, 47 R.F.L. (4^th) 133 (Nfld. U.F.C.); Stanford v. Cole (1998), 170 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 29, 43 R.F.L. (4^th) 237 (Nfld. U.F.C.). Some Ontario cases have rejected this approach. See Crowther v. Diet (21 October 1998), Windsor 96-DV-29092, [1998] O.J. 5376 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); Burns v. Burns (1998), 70 O.T.C. 147, 40 R.F.L. (4^th) 32 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).
[212] Support payable pursuant to the basic set-off formula with a multiplier = 1.5 X (table amount payable to the receiving parent - (table amount payable to the paying parent).
[213] See T.J. Espenshade, Investing in Children: New Estimates of Parental Expenditures (Washington: Urban Institute Press, 1984).
[214] Green, supra note 168.
[215] And the receiving parent's expenses do not decrease by 1 percent for each 1 percent of the time the child is out of her care. With access 40 percent of the time, the primary parent's expenses are not reduced by 40 percent. Some costs are fixed, such as work-related child care, housing, and overhead related to the child. Some costs are "shiftable," such as meals, clothing, and entertainment. Shared custody is more expensive than sole custody since both homes have redundant costs.
[216] Spanier, supra note 202.
[217] Middleton, supra note 143.
[218] Hunter, supra note 211.
[219] Slade v. Slade (2001) 197 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 4, 195 D.L.R. (4^th) 108 (Nfld. C.A.).
[220] Ibid. at para. 18.
[221] Ibid. at paras. 19, 20.
[222] Support is not reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of access. Rather, each parent's contribution is adjusted according to the percentage of access over 20 percent and the new proportions are used to calculate support.
[223] For example, Hawaii (set-off formula for equally shared custody), Kansas (set-off formula with a multiplier), New Mexico (set-off formula with a multiplier when each parent has an equal number of 24-hour days of responsibility), Montana (set-off formula with a 2X multiplier when each parent has the children at least 151 days and nights per year).
[224] For example, Alaska (30-percent visitation); Colorado (92 overnights); District of Columbia (40-percent visitation); Maryland (35 percent of the time); Michigan (128 overnights); North Carolina (123 days); Oregon (35-percent custody); Utah (35 percent of overnight visits); Vermont (30-percent visitation); Virginia (110 days); Wisconsin (30-percent custody); California (formula itself considers access from 1 to 365 days per year).
[225] For example, Alabama (where physical placement of the child is shared in a way that gives the child frequent and continuing contact with both parents); Arizona (time spent with each parent is essentially equal and the expenses are equally shared); Iowa (shared custody); New Hampshire (shared custody); New Jersey (non-traditional custody or visitation arrangements); Florida (reduction for block visitation greater than 28 days); and New York (reduction based on expenses incurred during extended visitation).

Date modified:: 2022-12-21

Language selection

Search

Children Come First: A Report to Parliament Reviewing the Provisions and Operation of the Federal Child Support Guidelines - Volume 2

ENDNOTES