H.F.G. v. C.G.,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Wooder, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2002 NBQB 239
• Subject Matter: FAMILY LAW
• Citation: 2002 NBQB 239,(2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 359 (FD),251 NBR(2d) 359,(2002), 251 NBR(2d) 359 (FD),251 N.B.R.(2d) 359
• Date: 18 March 2002
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)

H.F.G. v. C.G. (2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 359 (FD);

    251 R.N.-B.(2e) 359; 654 A.P.R. 359

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.033

H.F.G. (applicant) v. C.G. (respondent)

(FDSJ-4561-86; 2002 NBQB 239)

Indexed As: H.F.G. v. C.G.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Judicial District of Saint John

Wooder, J.

July 10, 2002.

Summary:

The applicant mother applied to vary the child support payable by her son's bio­logical father. The father objected to a varia­tion on the basis of undue hardship.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, dismissed the appli­cation. The court found that the father would suffer undue hardship if the application was granted.

Family Law - Topic 2346

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Obligation of spouse to support other spouse's children - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "A parent who willingly assumes a step-parent role as­sumes, as a matter of law, financial obliga­tions. ... The notion that the primary obli­gation for support rests with a natural parent has not been universally accepted. ... financial responsibility for children is a 'joint and several' one between all par­ents.'" - See paragraphs 58 and 59.

Family Law - Topic 2346.1

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Concurrent obliga­tions of natural parent and step-parent (incl. apportionment) - [See Family Law - Topic 2346 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Special or extraordinary expenses - A mother sought a contribution from her son's biological father under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines for his share of the uninsured portion of an orthodontic expense ($1,293.75) - Both parties were now married - The mother and her hus­band had no other children - The father and his wife had two other children - The mother's household claimed a combined gross annual income of $109,358.77 - The father's household income was $74,723.52 annually - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Fam­ily Division, rejected the orthodontic claim - No evi­dence was given respect­ing the reason for the treat­ment or the problem that it was intended to correct - Further, while the expense might be neces­sary, it was not reasonable relative to the father's means - See paragraph 28.

Family Law - Topic 4045.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Special or extraordinary expenses - A mother sought a contribution from her son's biological father under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines for education costs (tutor, computer) of $4,828 and extracurricular activities (Jr. Ski Patrol) of $1,900 annually - Both parties were now married - The mother and her husband had no other children - The father and his wife had two other children - The mother's household claimed a combined gross an­nual income of $109,358.77 - The fath­er's household income was $74,723.52 annually - The child had ADHD and had struggled academically - The New Bruns­wick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, re­jected all s. 7 claims - The extracurricular expense was not extraordi­nary - Further, the extracurricular and educational ex­penses were not necessary or reasonable given the father's financial circumstances - See paragraphs 29 to 33.

Family Law - Topic 4045.6

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Exceptions and exemptions - Undue hardship - A mother applied to vary the child support payable by her son's biologi­cal father - The parties relationship ended before the mother knew of her pregnancy - The father had has almost no contact with the son since his 1985 birth, as the mother wished - Both parties were now married - The mother and her husband had no other children - The father and his wife had two other children - The father had consistently paid $130 court ordered support since 1990 - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that the father would suffer undue hardship if a variation was granted - He was unable to provide his two other children with the benefits that his first child enjoyed - The disparity between the standards of living in the two households would widen further.

Family Law - Topic 4045.6

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Exceptions and exemptions - Undue hardship - A mother applied to vary the child support payable by her son's biologi­cal father - Both parties were now married - The mother and her husband had no other children - The father and his wife had two other children - The mother's household claimed a combined gross an­nual income of $109,358.77 - The fath­er's household income was $74,723.52 annually - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, refused to vary the child support, holding that undue hard­ship would result - There was already a significant disparity between the standards of living in the two households - The court stated that "'First' children should not be unreasonably preferred over 'second' chil­dren. The financial well-being of one family should not be augmented to the detriment of another." - See paragraph 59.

Cases Noticed:

Parent v. Pelletier (1999), 219 N.B.R.(2d) 102; 561 A.P.R. 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Wang v. Wang (1998), 110 B.C.A.C. 302; 178 W.A.C. 302; 39 R.F.L.(4th) 426 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Van Gool v. Van Gool (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 200; 184 W.A.C. 200; 59 B.C.L.R.(3d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R.B. v. J.P. (2000), 223 N.B.R.(2d) 242; 572 A.P.R. 242 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 37].

Jackson v. Holloway, [1998] 5 W.W.R. 556; 161 Sask.R. 31 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

Casey v. Casey, [2000] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 20 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 57].

Theriault v. Theriault (1994), 149 A.R. 210; 63 W.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Chartier v. Chartier, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 242; 235 N.R. 1; 134 Man.R.(2d) 19; 193 W.A.C. 19, refd to. [para. 59].

Counsel:

Thomas A. Bishop, for the applicant;

Maria G. Henheffer, for the respondent.

This application was heard on February 8 and March 18, 2002, by Wooder, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Saint John, who delivered the following decision on July 10, 2002.