Child support and family violence
Family law disputes can be bitter, hard-fought, and frustrating. This is particularly so in child support disputes. Far too often, child support is used as a weapon by the parent with the stronger finances – typically the male parent. Family lawyers acting for the parent with custody are often met with an opposing parent who refuses to pay any support, who hides a income and assets, and who breaches court orders to pay. In the past, there was often little we could do except throw up our hands and complain. Judges often did very little to enforce court orders, or the law.
The Family Law Act came into force in March 2013. It has provided some new and powerful tools to go after deadbeats and obstructionists. The question was: would the Courts use those tools? The answer appears to be: “Yes”.
Chris Carta of our office recently argued, in the case of Page v. Billingsley that an intentional refusal to pay child support constitutes psychological and emotional abuse as defined by the Family Law Act. Judge Merrick of the Provincial Court of British Columbia agreed and found that:
[18] While I am of the view that the failure to pay child support will not often constitute an act of family violence, when the failure is the result of a determined decision not to pay, knowing the impact it would have on Ms. B., who had limited income, and my rejection of Mr. P.’s explanation for failing to pay, I have concluded that this was designed to inflict psychological and emotional trauma to Ms. B. and is therefore an act of family violence.
[19] I am also of the view that this has impacted S.’s well-being and that Mr. P.’s ability to care for S. is impaired.
Judge Merrick used the father’s view of and repeated refusal to pay child support as his main reasons to deny the father’s application for equal parenting time of the couple’s young daughter. Judge Merrick found that the father deliberately chose not to pay his support. The father chose instead to spend money on things like a tattoo for his new girlfriend. Judge Merrick found the father either did not really care about his daughter, or that he was so lacking in insight that he could not possibly care for the child’s needs.
This case is also notable for three decisions by Judge Merrick: (1) He fined the father for non-disclosure of financial information; (2) He ordered the father to undergo psychological counselling and parenting classes; and (3) He thoroughly discusses what can constitute “family violence” under the new Act (in this case, an invitation to breakfast was found to be an act of violence).
As far as we can tell, this is the first decision to define non-payment of support as family violence. We hope this case will help create a body of case law that calls evasion of child support what it is: abuse. The full text of the decision can be found here.