Effect of order or agreement or other arrangement that benefits child; consent orders

• Author: Julien D. Payne/Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 344-361



   

EFFECT OF ORDER OR AGREEMENT

OR OTHER ARRANGEMENT THAT

BENEFITS CHILD; CONSENT ORDERS

A. ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF PARENTAL

SETTLEMENTS

Negotiated settlements are much better than court imposed orders for dealing with the

economic conseq uences of divorce. e parties them selves know best how to optimi ze and

apply their lim ited resources . e f‌lexibilit y available to them in negotiations far e xceeds

the latitude of t he court in interpreting a nd applying the le gal principles a nd rules to t he

facts of theparticular case, especially with the adventof the Federal Child Support Guide -

lines. Neither the parties nor the court can foresee all contingencies but, unlike the par-

ties, the court will not be involved in the ongoing administration of the result. A court

cannot possibly add ress all potent ial scenar ios that may befal l the fami ly members and

wherefutureeventsdooccurthatcauseamaterialchangeofcircumstances,thecourtis

an awkward forum for the resolution of those matters.However, subject to the statutory

qualif‌ic ations hereaft er considered, child supp ort is the rig ht of the child and t he jurisdic-

tion of the court to order interim or perm anent child suppor t pursuant to t he Divorce Act

cannot be ousted by the terms of a spousal or parental agreement or by mi nutes of settle-

ment.An agreement purporting to cap periodic child support payments constitutes no

bartoanorderforthepaymentoftheapplicabletableamountundertheFederal Child

Support Guidelines,wheretherearenospecialprovisionsintheagreementthatdirectlyor

indirect ly benef‌it the children so as t o render the table amount inequitable. Parents cannot

bargain away t heir children’s right to s upport. A proposed con sent order that waive s child

support entitlement i s not justif‌ied by ps ychological benef‌it s ensuing f rom the avoidance

of litigation. A ch ambers judge should not rubber stamp a proposed consent order wit hout

Kaderly v. Kaderly,[]P.E.I.J.No.(T.D.).

Richardson v. Richardson,[]  S.C.R.,R.F.L.(d) ;Willick v. Willick,[]  S.C.R. , 

R.F.L.(th) ;C .N.G. v. S.M.R., [] B.C.J. No.  (S.C.); Picco v. Picco,[]N.J.No.(U.F.C.);

Miller v. Ufoegbune, []O.J. No.  (S.C.J.); Kudoba v. Kudoba ,[] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.); Char-

pentier v. Laselle,[]S.J.No.(Q.B.).See,generally,JulienD.Payne,Payne on Divorce,thed.

(Scarborough, ON: Carswell, ) at –.

Jeannotte v. Jeannotte,[]S.J.No.(Q.B.).

Effect of Ord er or Agreement or Other Ar rangement that Benefits C hild; Consent Orders 

addressing relev ant factors pertain ing to child support. A consent order t hat provides that

the custodial parent’s application shall be dismissed “as though there had been a trial on

the merits” is not a “chi ld support order” wit hin the mea ning of the Divorce Act and the

Federal Child Support Guidelines a nd any subsequent applic ation for support should b e

brought under sec tion . of the Divorce Act,notbywayofavariationproceedingunder

section  of the Divorce Act. Con sequently, there is no need to prove that a materia l change

ofcircumstanceshasoccurredsincetheconsentorderwasgranted.



Child support and access are notinterdependentand parents cannotbarter away these

rightswithout regardto the child’sbest interestsand cannot consensually oust thejurisdic-

tion of the cour ts to determine the appropriate level of ch ild support at any time.

An interim c hild support order i n accordance wit h the Federal Child Support Guide -

lines is not precluded by a spousal agreement negoti ated without legal adv ice. Incidental

matters relating to life insurance and income tax refunds may also be addressed.

A retroactive i ncrease in ch ild and spous al support payable u nder a separation ag ree-

ment may be justif‌ied by the obligor’s failure to disclose a severance package from a former

employer.

e Court of Queen’s Bench of Alber ta has held that it shou ld not lightly disturb a

mediated comprehensi ve settlement achie ved through t he alternati ve judicial res olution

facilities except insofar as there is evidence of a material change of circumstances after the

settlement was reached. If parties can simply f‌loat a trial balloon in the mediation process,

its value wil l be signif‌ica ntly dimin ished and the more cumb ersome and expensive litiga-

tion process wi ll resur face to the detri ment of constructive attempts to re solve fami ly dis-

putes away from the adversa rial atmosphere of the court room.However, a parental wai ver

ofsupportisnotbindingonthechildorthecourtswhereinadequateprovisionhasbeen

made for the child.e test of inadequacy must be measured against t hefederal or provin-

cial chi ld support guideli nes and the provisions of sections .() to () and (.)to (.) of

the Divorce Act. Parents cannot trade of‌f child support against access.

An application to v ary chi ld support is not preclude d by the terms of a sepa ration

agreement which provide s that no such application shall be brought for a spe cif‌ied number

of years.

Spouses or former spouses may agree that the amount of child support shall exceed

that availableunder the Federal Child Support Guidelines, but t he amount and duration of

agreed child support payments remain governed by the Divorce Act and the Federal Child

 Lambright v. Brown,[]B.C.J.No.  (C.A.).

 D. A.W. v. W.M. Z., [] O.J. No. (S.C .J.),citi ng Richardson v. Richardson,[]  S.C.R.  ,

wherein it was pointed outthat child support, like access, is the right of the child.

 Ferg uson v. Ferguson, [] A.J. No.  (Q.B.).

 Simon s v. Simons,[]O.J.No. ,R.F.L.(th)(S.C.J.)(orderforchildsupportandspousalsup-

portgrantedpursuanttos.()(a)oftheOntarioFamily Law Act.

 Va rga v. Varga ,[]A.J.No.(Q.B.).

 Bosse v. Bosse (), R.F.L. (th)  (N.B.Q.B.); W.(C .S. J.) v . W.(B .H .) (), R .F.L.(th) 

(N.S.C.A.); G.(G.) v. H.(J.) (),  R.F.L. (th) (N.W.T.S.C.); Seeley v. McKay, [] O.J. No. 

(Gen. Div.).

 Black v. Black (),  R. F.L. (th )  (B. C.C.A .); D. A.W. v. W.M. Z., [] O.J. No. (S.C .J.).

 King v. King,[]N.J.No. (S.C.).

 Wilson v. Daf‌fern, []B.C .J. No.  (S.C.); Dicks v. Dicks, [] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.).