I. Third Party Payments

• Author: Julien D. Payne - Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 37-38

Page 37

A court may order that child support payments be made directly to the custodial parent or to a third person¹⁰⁹or through the court¹¹⁰or a designated agency,¹¹¹such as a provincial support enforcement service.¹¹²A court order for support under the Ontario Child Support Guidelines is not precluded by a court order denying access to the father nor by the mother’s

Page 38

fear of the father where payments can be made through the Director of the Family Responsibility Office and the whereabouts of the mother and children would not be disclosed.¹¹³Child support payments made pursuant to an order of the court are usually within the exclusive control and management of the custodial parent. Although there is no guarantee that the parent will expend the payments received for the benefit of the child, courts are reluctant to impose terms and conditions that would circumscribe the discretionary authority of the parent. It is irrelevant to the obligor’s duty to support a child that the custodial parent may spend the money on items that the non-custodial parent does not approve of. There is a presumption that the custodial parent or the parent with day-to-day care of the child will act prudently with respect to spending child support payments in the best interests of the child. An interruption in the flow of child support pending an in-depth review of the custodial parent’s financial affairs is not in a child’s best interests.¹¹⁴A court may order a parent to pay a child’s tuition expenses directly to the post-secondary institution in light of the child’s past failure to disclose his academic record to the paying parent.¹¹⁵

[109] Sollis v. Sollis, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1643 (S.C.) (s. 7 expenses).

[110] Adams v. Adams, [1998] N.B.J. No. 15 (Q.B.).

[111] See Smith v. Smith (1986), 4 R.F.L. (3d) 210 (Ont. Fam. Ct.) (application under Family Law Act, S.O. 1986, c. 4). As to the assignment of orders, see Divorce Act, s. 20.1.

[112] Faulkner v. Faulkner, [1997] A.J. No. 730 (Q.B.); McKinley v. McKinley, 2011 NBQB 260; Turple v. Turple, 2011 NSSC 150; Grandy v. Grandy, [1999] N.J. No. 268 (U.F.C.); Nugent v. Nugent, 2011 NLTD(F) 4; Hare v. Kendall, [1997] N.S.J. No. 310 (T.D.); Crawford v. Crawford, [1998] O.J. No. 3894 (Prov. Div.); Bruce v. Kelly, [2001] P.E.I.J. No. 53 (S.C.).

[113] Attwood v. Sharma, [2000] O.J. No. 1129 (S.C.J.), wherein Close v. Close (2000), 50 R.F.L. (4th) 342 (N.B.Q.B.) was not followed.

[114] McIvor v. McIvor, [1997] B.C.J. No...