Shared parenting arrangements

• Author: Julien D. Payne/Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 270-295

   

SHARED PARENTING

ARRANGEMENTS1

A. SPLIT CUSTODY: SECTION  OF THE GUIDELINES

Section  of the Federal Child Support Guidelines providesthat,whereeachspouseorfor-

merspousehascustodyofoneormorechildren,theamountofachildsupportorderisthe

dif‌ference bet ween the amount that each would other wise pay if a child suppor t order were

soughtagainsteachofthem.

Givenpossiblefuturechangesintheparentalincomes,the

parents may be judic ially directed to e xchange complete copies of their income t ax returns

by May th of each year.Wheretheparentsearnthesameincomeandeachisresponsible

forthesupportofachildofthemarriage,thecourtmaydeclinetomakeanyorderforchild

support.elanguageofsectionoftheGuidelinessuggeststhataparentwhointendsto

invoke the section shou ld be seeking support for the chi ld in his or her care from the other

parent.Bilateral order s may be granted for child support w here each parent had custody of

oneormorechildrenofthemarriage.

Section  of the Fed eral Child Support Guidelines,

unlike section , provides no judicial discretion in the assessment of child support.

 See, genera lly, Carol Rogerson,“C hild Suppor t under the Guidelines inC ases of Split and Sha red Cus-See, generally, Carol Rogerson , “Child Support under the Guideli nes in Cases of Split and Sha red Cus-

tody”(), Can.J.Fam.L.;seealsoKimHartWensley, “Shared Custody–SectionoftheFederal

Child Support Guidelines: Formula ic?P ure Discretion? Structu red Discretion? ()  Can. Fam. L.Q.

.

S.E.H. v. S.R.M.,[] B.C.J.No.  (S.C.) (split custodyinvolving biological child andstepchild; set-of‌f

unders.ofChild Support Guidelines); Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, []N.J. No.  (U.F.C.); Wats on

v. Wats on, []N .S.J. No.  (S.C.); Bergman-Illnik v. Illnik,[]N.W.T.J.No.(S.C.);J.P. v. B.G.,

[] O.J.No.  (S.C.J.); Scodras v. Scodras,[] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.); MacLean v. MacLean,[]

P.E.I.J.No.(T.D.); Rudulier v. Rudulier, []S .J. No.  (Q.B.);Hladun v. Hladun, []S .J. No. 

(Q.B.);McLaug hlin v. McLaughlin,[]S.J.No. (Q.B.);Dobson v. Dobson,[]S.J.No. (Q.B.);

Milleker v. Milleker, [] S.J. No.  (Q.B.); Gennutt v. Gennutt,  SKQB . Compare Dudka v.

Dudka, []N. S.J. No.  (T.D.).

Hladun v. Hladun, [] S.J. No.  (Q.B.).

Cram v. Cram, [] B.C.J. No.  (S.C.).

Tanner v. Simpson,[]N.W.T.J.No. (S.C.).

Mayer v. Mayer, []O.J. No.  (S.C.J.) (cost-of-living indexat ion of orders);Holman v. Bignell ,

[] O.J.No.  (S.C.J.).

Wright v. Wright,[]B.C.J.No. (S.C.);Kavanagh v. Kavanagh,[]N.J.No. (S.C.).



Shared Parenting Arrangements 

Section  of the Gu idelines cannot be invoked by a resp ondent with respect to child ren

of a previous mar riage, where in suf‌f‌icient evidence i s adduced to establ ish a prima facie

case that theapplicant stood in the placeof a parent to those children.

Section  of the Fed eral Child Support Guidelines may be applied where e ach of the par-

ents provides a home for one or more of their dep endent children, even t hough one of the

children is a n adult attending university in respect of whom “neither pa rent has custody.”

SectionoftheGuidelineswillnotbesatisf‌ied,however,wheretheevidenceisinsuf‌f‌icient

to establish that the adult child is a “child of the marriage” within the meaning of the Di-

vorce Act. Pursuanttosection ()(b)oftheFede ral Child Support Guidelines, a trial judge

maybejustif‌iedindeviatingfromtheapplicabletableamountbecauseoneofthechildren

is over the age of provi ncial majority and is not tot ally dependent on either parent. Pursu-

anttosection(.)oftheDivorce Act, a cour t may order the dif‌ferential between the two

table amounts to be paidfor only ten months of theyear, so as to maintainconformity with

thetenmonths’patternestablishedbythedivorcejudgment.



ere have been cases wherein a court has increased the normally applicable amount

payableincasesofsplitcustodyundersectionoftheFederal Child Support Guideline s,

because the ch ild would be required to live f rugally in one parenta l household, while enjoy-

ing a luxur ious lifestyle in the ot her parental household. Deviation from the amount nor-

mally payable under section  is usually encountered in extraordinary cases, where there

are grossly disparate lifestyles. In the absence of a f‌i nding of undue h ardship, however,

section  of the Gu idelines provides no residual disc retion to the cour t to deviate from the

dif‌ferential between the two table amounts, as articulated in that section. Asignif‌icant

disparity in the lifestyles in the t wohouseholds may be addressed, however, by an order for

spousal suppor t or a variation order for increas ed spousal support. Although theremay be

littledif‌ferencefromaneconomicstandpointbetweensplitcustodyundersectionofthe

Guidelines and sharedcustody under section  of the Guidelines, thebroad discretion con-

ferred on the cour t by section  is not mirrore d in the provisions of sect ion , in the absence

of an intermingling of splitand shared custody arrangementsinvolving the same family.

e application of sect ion  of the Guideline s may result in an order t hat fall s short of

equalizing thechildren’slifestyles.

Acourtmayrefusetointerferewithaspousalagreementthatpredatedimplementation

of the Federal Child Support Guideline s, where the children are liv ing under a split custody

 Auc kland v. McKnight,[]S.J.No. (Q.B.).

 Khoee -Solomonescu v. Solomonescu,[]O.J.No.  (Gen.Div.);seealsoSutclif‌fe v. Sutclif‌fe,[]

A.J. No.  (Q.B.); Davis v. Davis,[]B.C.J.No. (applicationofs.ofFede ral Child Support

Guidelines in circumstances i nvolving split custody over summer months whenadult chi ld notaway at

university); Kavanagh v. Kavanagh,[]N.J.No. (S.C.);Bauer v. Noonan,[]S.J.No. (Q.B.).

 Tanner v. Simpson,[]N.W.T.J.No. (S.C.).

 Richardson v. Richardson, []O.J. No.  (Gen. Div.); see also Alex ander v. Alexander, [] O.J. No.

 (S.C.J.).

 Wall er v. Wa ller,[]O.J.No.(Gen.Div.);compareEllis v. Ellis, [] P.E.I.J. No.  (T.D.);Sec-

tion B,below in this chapter.

 Scharf v. Scharf, [] O.J. No.  (Gen. Div.); see also Snyder v. Snyder, [] N.B.J. No.  (Q.B.),

Farmer v. C onway,[]N.S.J.No. (T.D.).

 Plante v. Plante,[]A.J.No.(Q.B.);Inglis v. Birkbeck,[] S.J. No.  (Q.B.).

 Horner v. Horner,[]O.J.No. (C.A.);K.O. v. C.O.,[]S.J.No. (Q.B.).

 Aschenbrenner v. Aschenbrenner,[]B.C.J.No.(S.C.).

 Kendry v. Cathcart,[] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.).