Adult child support invokes the response that most oxymorons entail- say what now? Although adults are not children, some adult children or adult dependants cannot survive on their own and require the assistance of their parents. Some cases that fall under this category are when a son or daughter is mentally disabled or otherwise impeded by afflictions, depending on parents while attending university, or any other case that disallows these ‘children’ to support themselves.

The Divorce Act slips in a nifty little catchall allowing ‘other causes’ to be reason for adult child support. The act defines a ‘Child of Marriage’ as, “[someone] 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 necessities of life.” As blurry as the guidelines are for who exactly deserves support, judges have done a good job of restraining the age limit.

Some of the other causes affirming support payments according to case law include pregnancy, unemployment, and post-secondary education. According to the British Columbia Justice presiding in Wesemann v. Wesemann, he refers to his “four-step approach” to determine support:

1. Decide whether the child is a “child of the marriage” as defined in the Divorce Act. If s/he is not, that ends the matter.
2. Determine whether the approach of applying the Guidelines as if the child were under the age of majority (“the usual Guidelines approach”) is challenged. If that approach is not challenged, determine the amount payable based on the usual Guidelines approach.
3. If the usual Guidelines approach is challenged, decide whether the challenger has proven that the usual Guidelines approach is inappropriate. If not, the usual Guidelines amount applies.
4. If the usual Guidelines approach is inappropriate, decide what amount is appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child and the financial.

At minimum, this and other such meticulous lists depict how considerate judges are on the subject.

In the abstract for Child Support for Adult Children: When Does Economic Childhood End? Nicholas Bala notes, “Reflecting the changes in intact families where young adults are living with their parents longer as well as looking to parents for more financial support, compared to a couple of decades ago, the courts in Ontario and other Canadian provinces are now more likely to recognize the obligation to provide support for adult children.” Apparently, now more than ever, offspring are living at home and depending upon their parents far beyond the 18-year benchmark.

Although there is opportunity for exploitation because of its murkiness, adult child case law has done a good job so far of reining in the longevity of support and monitoring who and who doesn’t require continued support. Support tends to hinge on certain requirements (if for unemployment, that they are actively searching for work, or in the case of pregnancy that the young lady return to work once the baby is eight months old) that makes it less like welfare and more like welfare-to-work.

It is always recommended to consult a lawyer relating to such matters.

For more information on Find Lawyer, Lawyers, Toronto Lawyers, Vancouver Lawyers, Canadian Lawyers, Adult Child Support and Family Law visit http://www.lawyerahead.ca/

Premarital or prenuptial agreements have a reputation for being something negative and foreshadowing divorce, but many times, a couple may choose to enter into a ‘prenup’ to avoid burdening their partner with debt or to maintain previously-made arrangements with others. There are a few reasons why prenuptial agreements may be right for you and there are a few downsides.

One of the upsides to having a prenuptial agreement is it forces each partner to look at his or her finances. Prenuptials cut through the verbal promises and assumed expectations, laying out each partner’s specific intentions for the marriage. They can protect the inheritance rights of offspring from other marriage. They allow business owners to protect their business from being split up due to divorce. If the marriage requires one of the parties to quit his or her job, a prenup can make sure they are compensated for the trouble should the marriage dissolve. A debt-encumbered future spouse can protect their future partner with a prenuptial agreement. Finally, prenups eradicate some if not all conflicts during divorce proceedings should the relationship sour.

There are a few downsides of entering a prenuptial agreement. The contract may require one to lose out on assets normally acquired from their partner if he or she dies. They can cause resentment or an air of distrust. If one engages heavily in helping their partner’s business succeed, they may end up undercompensated. Blinded by love, some may agree to terms they really shouldn’t have only to realize their error after it is too late. They can be invalidated if a party forgets to mention some of their assets (the house in Guam you won in a poker game 14 years ago and have never been to). Prenuptial agreements can give off a sense that one does not expect the union to last a lifetime. Lastly, having your partner sign one does not send a romantic message.

Although there are definite downsides to having one, prenuptial agreements may be necessary. Ex-spouses may depend heavily on promises you have made. Ensuring that these are kept can sometimes be more important than your current partner’s objections to a prenup.  Make sure to consult with your lawyer or lawyers on your legal rights.

Separations are difficult in and of themselves, but when children are involved, the whole process becomes much more complicated. One party may not be able to accommodate children on a regular basis post-separation. One party may not want the other party to have regular visits or a lot of interaction with the children for reasons of lifestyle or fear of abuse. These are some of the factors courts use to determine child custody.

One misconception is that the primary caregiver of the children is the de facto custodian. This is not the case. The past care of a child may play a factor when determining custody, but if, let’s say, the other party gets a court order to get custody, they will have legal rights to the child and the child will be taken away.

There are many factors that affect a courts decision, but the three that have the most weight are in these cases. The mother is a stay at home mom. Mothers that do not have a job almost always get custody of the children over a father who works. This is because the court likes the children to be in an environment where the parent is certain to be around often.

The second is an established status quo. If children are already living with one of the parents, the court will see this as the default living situation and frown upon changing things up.

Thirdly, courts favor the primary caregiver. If a parent of the child can prove that they are the primary caregiver, the judge may presume that he or she is best able to provide care for the child in the future and grant custody. Although primary caregivers tend to win custody battles, as stated before, there is no guarantee to this effect.

Other factors like which parent can better provide for a child’s financial and emotional needs, the parent/child relationship, which parent has more time available to the child and the child’s special needs all play a part in the process as well. In addition, if the child is older, the courts may go by the wishes of the child and assign custody accordingly.

The process may take a lot of time, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The courts want what is best for the child and so do you. Determining that may take some time, but in the end, is well worth the trouble.

Finding a lawyer with lawyerahead.ca is as simple as step 1, 2, 3.  Have Family Lawyers and other Lawyers contact you with how best they can help you resolve your Family legal issues.

Unfortunately, some relationships do not work out for a variety of reasons. In some cases where counseling fails or a couple cannot continue their relationship, they may choose divorce.

Divorce can be a tricky process, but there are some general principles you should know. First, get a lawyer.

There is no law that says you have to have a lawyer to get divorced, but when it comes down to it, having one makes the whole process flow smoothly. They are able to answer whatever questions you may have relating to debt, alimony, and child support and they have a keen sense of what specific details you would need to include in a settlement agreement if you and your spouse go that route.

null

A settlement agreement is an agreement you sign voluntarily. These are negotiated voluntarily as well. Settlement agreements offer a broad range of options for both parties to pursue and they are only limited slightly, i.e. someone must support the children and the children must not be subjected to danger or neglect. Your lawyer can guide you based on her experience in court to what you will “probably” get if you go to trial. This guidance is made more accurate by your lawyer’s history with the judge and his years of experience.

Not many guidelines govern divorce. The judge uses his own discretion and each case is unique. Every divorce deals with five basic issues. These are alimony, property division, custody of the children, visitation, and child support. Obviously, if you do not have any kids, divorce is a lot simpler and deals mainly with asset/debt distribution. When it comes to property, the province needs to know who will be holding the deed to maintain the property’s transferability.

The concept of alimony also refered to as Spousal Support has changed lately. The classic view of alimony is the man paying alimony payments to his estranged spouse. Alimony used to be considered the norm, but recently there has been a push towards having both parties support themselves. Technically, the court has the right to order a wife to pay her husband alimony, but this rarely happens. Nowadays, alimony, if awarded, is awarded for shorter periods and for smaller amounts. Alimony payment amounts tend to be the hardest to agree upon during divorce settlement negotiations.

As for assets and debts, they are disseminated between the parties during the divorce process. Assets, or marital property, are tangible property like cars, jewelry and real estate and intangible property such as pensions, patent rights, or retirement accounts. The laws vary on this subject depending on where you live. Your divorce lawyer will help you with this.

The single most important step in a divorce is getting a lawyer. Divorce is extremely difficult to go through emotionally and you might not be thinking clearly. Additionally, lawyers know all the ins and outs that you do not know. Finding an attorney you trust and that works with you will help ease the mind and make the divorce process as painless as possible.

Click here to find a top Family Lawyer in Brampton or a Divorce Lawyer in Brampton.

Click here to find a top Family Lawyer in Mississauga or a Divorce Lawyer in Mississauga for your family legal matters.

Since the beginning of marriage, there has been adultery. Statistics show first marriages have a 50% chance of ending in divorce and the possibility grows larger with each successive marriage. Divorces in Canada peaked in 1987 following the introduction of the Canadian Divorce Act, which shortened the length of separation required before divorce to a year and allows an immediate divorce when adultery or cruelty are admitted to or proven. Infidelity has ruined its fair share of marriages, yet the 21^st century has brought new forms of adultery into the spotlight.

null

As times change, so must the law. Same-sex marriages are on the rise and this will inevitably lead to more and more same-sex affairs. With progressive provinces like British Colombia and Ontario taking the lead on issues like child maintenance and spousal maintenance during same-sex divorces, it is only a matter of time before these rights are ubiquitous.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of British Colombia amended their definition of adultery to include same-sex adultery. This was in response to a wife’s request for immediate divorce from her husband who had cheated on her with another man. Up until then, immediate divorce for adultery would only be granted if one of the spouses admitted to having “voluntary sex with someone of the opposite gender, to whom he or she is not married.” Although the federal definition of adultery is unchanged, this decision most likely influenced the courts of New Brunswick.

In 2006, a New Brunswick court heard a similar case. Courts initially refused Pascal Thebeau’s divorce because the federal definition of adultery was limited to heterosexual affairs. After Thebeau challenged their ruling, the New Brunswick court chose to expand the definition to include same-sex affairs as adultery and granted his request for a divorce.

This appears to be the way courts are leaning. Although there have not been landmark cases in each and every province, the cases on the books show a tendency towards granting divorce, albeit after challenge, due to same-sex adultery. The official definition of what constitutes adultery has yet to be changed and there is a chance a judge may take it upon his or herself to refuse a divorce, because the “adulterer” cheated with someone of the same sex, but that seems less than likely at this point. What is odd to me is that gay marriage was legalized in part back in 2003 and it took three years for the issue of same-sex adultery to arise- originating from a conventional marriage no less. Perhaps when 2010 brings around the dreaded “seven-year itch” there will be further precedent set on a nationwide basis.

Find a Family Lawyer, Lawyers and Attorneys at Lawyer ahead.ca.  Its quick, effective and is the best free way to find a lawyer.

After articles related the equality, freedom and anti-discrimination under the same law we will take a simple question that many women have asked themselves. 25 years ago it was impossible even to sue someone without your husband but today can you sue for emotional distress? The short answer is yes, you can. A more detailed answer will follow.

Within the Canadian Legal System a spouse can seek a divorce from a husband shall the other spouse has committed any cruelty, damages or has been physically abusive.  Unlike our neighbors down South, Canadian Law does not allow the the party seeking divorce because of emotional distress to sue for Emotional Distress.

One of the main cases in the field was McCulloh V. Drake (Wyoming, 24P. 3d. 1162 (2001)).  the case revolved around a husband that began physically and sexually abusing the wife, soon after the marriage.  the wife decided that emotional distress caused to the other spouse by extreme and outrageous conduct by one spouse that can creat a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and entitile the victim to collect compensation for her suffering.

null

The conclusion of the court was following:

“emotional distress is as real and tormenting as physical pain, and psychological well-being deserves as much legal protection as physical well-being’. In preserving marital harmony as their main goal, the court held that ‘behaviour that is truly outrageous and results in severe emotional distress should not be protected in a misguided attempt to promote marital harmony.”

 The husband’s lawyers in this case argued this decision by backing it up saying that emotional distress caused while legally bound in a marriage does not count for anything illegal. Actually in some situations it is hard to understand if the emotional distress is a cause for a trial. A family is a complex thing and it is okay that two people won’t get along well in everyday life. Still some courts consider that a distress claim is better for a family than a divorce claim.

Another example is what to do in this situation if you are from Canada and you husband is from the United States (for example). In this case the laws of the civilized countries will protect you, but similar to the Canadian case you will be able only to get a jail sentence for the husband (if this is the first case of violence, he will most probable get a scolding and probation). The fees in this case will be impossible to get. Still we live in a time when the laws protecting women are becoming stronger every year, so don’t be afraid to sue your husband and demand a personal injury fee. If you have a good lawyer and great courage, you can probably end up as one of the cornerstone cases in women rights movement and some day we will write an article about you.

A lot of people enter guilty pleas as a means to save time and avoid a lengthy trial. By doing this, they are saying they did whatever they have been accused of doing, which may not actually be the case. It is extremely important to consult a lawyer even when you intend to plead guilty.

Lawyers can determine the veracity of evidence posed against you. Even if you are guilty, there are times when the Crown may not have enough evidence to prove that you are. It is best to retain an attorney in every legal matter, even if you are intending to plead guilty. In these situations, your lawyer may be able to get the case dropped or a plea deal.

Once you find a lawyer, the next step is to determine if you even should plead guilty. Your lawyer can look at all the pertinent evidence and use their previous experience to decide how the court case will play out. This may mean an acquittal on technicalities. For example, if the Crown acquired all of their evidence through an illegal search and seizure, your lawyer can file a motion to the judge to get it thrown out and the case dropped. If the Crown’s evidence is strong, your attorney can discuss the situation with the state’s attorney and possibly agree upon a plea deal.

Plea deals can be the best of both worlds. They are almost guaranteed to be a lesser punishment than that of a conviction while relieving you of a guilty conscious. Plea deals also save precious time litigating and allow you to get back to your normal daily routine. Many variables go into plea deal arrangements. For example, if this crime was your first offense, the severity of the crime, is the evidence substantial enough to prove you caused the crime, and extramural factors that surround the case.

It may seem smart and honest at the time to plead guilty, because you know you are guilty and want to get the proceedings over with as soon as possible, but it is important that you talk to a lawyer first. They will guide you through the process and help you avoid any excess heartache the case may cause. Your attorney is able to explain what exactly you will be pleading guilty to and the implications of doing so and find some alternative methods to pursue in your case that will benefit you in the long run.

Families that suffer some lack of love (but usually have respect the years they have spent together) celebrate the last nice family Christmas, for the kids mostly, and then break up at the time of the New Year. So the year won’t be together with the annoying partner. In the UK Jan. 8 is even unofficially called Divorce Day and Divorce Day 2009 will be extra large, because thousands of families in the world are facing a difficult time right now due to the crisis. Hard times plus the usually stressful Christmas preparations shake the foundations of troubled couples and will definitely lead to increasing number of divorces. Well we live in a modern world and there is no need to continue wasting your life with someone you don’t love, you just need to be sure that you can cover the financial side of the divorce process.

The global crisis nevertheless has a negative impact on the lawyers. While the number of divorcing families increases, part of the people actually has no money for splitting up. So they are forced to stay in a failing relationship. Financial difficulties not only delay work for lawyers but also have some socially positive pressure on the couples. Some of the couples rediscover the feelings when standing before the really hard times.

The British Divorce Day (Jan. was chosen by CBC as a date to air their new documentary about break ups in Canada - How to Divorce and Not Wreck the Kids. For the most people it shows the splitting up of three Canadian couples, but people interested in law might look a little deeper. The release of this movie is not a coincidence. It shows that the situation with unhappy families is nearly critical and future will bring a lot of work for the divorce lawyers. Even if part of the couples will resolve the problem with a do-it-yourself divorce kit. The filmmakers also show that the number of lawyers practicing collaborative law rose from 75 in 2000 to 2,800 in 2008 and that even before the global problems begun. People don’t want the Hollywood movie inspired divorces and court rooms filled with tears and curses, if the couple has a kid and cares about him, there is no need to add extra pressure on the youngest family member. The couples with kids and lawyers also should not forget that as soon as the divorce battle smoke clears, the remaining emotions lead to a thing that can bring new lawsuits and costs - Custody

Even the celebrities in 2008 made some kind of a divorce preview, the lawsuits were multimillion and the geography was a bit outside of the sunny California; UK (Guy Ritchie, Paul McCartney) and Canada (Shania Twain) were also touched. The stars were basically showing the hard times worldwide. If we take the movie, the crisis and the increasing numbers, it is clear that the lawyers can expect a very busy week.

These days with development in information technology and subsequent advancements in the communication, transportation and in fact every sphere that one can think of, the interaction between people has increased manifold. People are now able to travel much more quickly and frequently than they used to in the earlier days. This increase in interaction and communication is bound to have positive as well as negative ramifications. The way the life of an average human being has changed and metamorphosed into something of a struggle and accomplishment, it is quite natural that there would be conflicts of different natures that would afflict the human society. In the society that is ripe with fights and conflicts, naturally there would be a requirement of a proper and an honest system of justice. The need of a justice system would definitely lead to the need of qualified and competent lawyers. But there is no need to worry.

The advent of internet has made the job of getting a good lawyer to fight your case a lot easier. There are many legal companies that advertise about the lawyers that are available with them on the net. Anybody who is involved in some kind of a struggle or a legal battle can easily find a lawyer to fight their cases. One just needs to log on to the net and browse through all the legal companies’ websites that are available on the net. The lawyers that these legal companies have are quite competent and know the nature of their work. Be it an accident or an injuries lawyer or a personal lawyer, or a divorce lawyer. Lawyers specializing in all the areas of law can be easily located on the net.

Yesterday, a lesbian couple from Oshawa, Ontario, was attacked outside of a school, where children (including one of the women’s son) were playing. The man screamed anti-gay slurs as he punched at Jane Currie and her partner Anji Dimitriou.

Other adults present pulled the attacker off the two women, and held him until police came. The man had been screaming anti-gay comments and accusing the women of having talked to his son. What motivated his assault was unclear from the Star’s reporting.

Mark Scott, the 43 year old parent of another child at the school, has been charged with two counts of assault. The police are apparently looking into whether or not they will charge him with a hate crime. It’s unclear from the current reporting whether or not this was a hate-motivated attack, or if the man had some other complaint and lashed out in part with such anti-gay language. (Not that the difference truly matters, attacking someone and screaming heterosexist insults is a horrible thing to do, either way).

This is only a week after California voted “yes” on Proposition 8, banning gay marriage. What exactly is going to happen to all of those whom have already gotten married in California is unclear, it seems like this will have to work its’ way through the courts in order to find out if their marriages would, through the new law, be annulled. However, if that is the case, if the law would apply in such a way, it would be unconstitutional (as it applies to actions committed before the law came into effect).

In response, however, No-on-Prop-8 groups have protested at Mormon temples. The Church of Latter-Day Saints is alleged, by opponents, of funding a large portion of the Yes-on-8 campaign. While the Catholic and Evangelical churches that have also funded this movement have also faced protests, most of the No-on-8 wrath has been saved for Mormon temples. LDS Church leaders have said that the tenor of these protests is, in its’ own way, as intolerant and hateful as they are accused of being towards homosexuals. Whether or not these groups are facing discrimination, or if this is the reasonable outcome of involving the church in a political campaign, has yet to be decided legally. Though, honestly, the irony of a movement that preaches tolerance and openness taking such a firm dislike to an entire religion is not lost on your dear writer.

In any case, we’ll have to watch and see how all these issues play themselves out on our lovely North American continent.