Family Law and Logic
So many contradictory statements! I found the lines reproduced below in one decision about awarding child support to an adult child. We are concerned here with the human rights of illegitimate children. We want their family status to be more precisely defined in law so that the government can't steal their child support. We think that this legal opinion is solid! It's hard to stay focused. Read on...
[25] There is no statutorily established entitlement to child support in favour of a child. What has been statutorily enacted in Ontario’s Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, as amended, is the obligation of parents to provide support for their children.[6] However, this is not a forever obligation. There are statutory qualifications that impose limits and restrictions to that obligation.[7] Entitlement of the child is the obverse of the obligation of the parent.
[41] My reasoning on this issue is the following. Notwithstanding that separation agreements or court orders dealing with child support may require one parent to pay money to another parent, the right to be supported is the right of the child. A parent cannot bargain away that right, nor can a parent, by entering into an agreement, limit the child’s entitlement either temporally, or on a contingency that is different than that provided by statute.
[42] The fact that a court order may contain the identical limitations as in a separation agreement does not change my view. Courts ought not condone the limitations sought to be imposed by parents when they curtail the rights given to their children by statute.
See Logical Equivalence, Tautologies, and Contradictions
[25] There is no statutorily established entitlement to child support in favour of a child. What has been statutorily enacted in Ontario’s Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, as amended, is the obligation of parents to provide support for their children.[6] However, this is not a forever obligation. There are statutory qualifications that impose limits and restrictions to that obligation.[7] Entitlement of the child is the obverse of the obligation of the parent.
[41] My reasoning on this issue is the following. Notwithstanding that separation agreements or court orders dealing with child support may require one parent to pay money to another parent, the right to be supported is the right of the child. A parent cannot bargain away that right, nor can a parent, by entering into an agreement, limit the child’s entitlement either temporally, or on a contingency that is different than that provided by statute.
[42] The fact that a court order may contain the identical limitations as in a separation agreement does not change my view. Courts ought not condone the limitations sought to be imposed by parents when they curtail the rights given to their children by statute.
See Logical Equivalence, Tautologies, and Contradictions
Comments
Post a Comment