If my mature child refuses to speak with me, do I still have to pay child support?

If a child refuses to have a relationship with a parent and therefore repudiates the relationship with his or her parent, the question of whether that parent is still required to support the child is one of fact.

To make this determination, a three-step analysis is applicable (Wegler v. Wegler; Caterini v. Zaccaria). First, is the person for whom support is sought a child of the marriage? Second, is the table amount in the Guidelines inappropriate? If not, then the Guidelines amount should be awarded. Third, if the answer to step two is “yes,” what level of support is appropriate?

A parent who seeks to avoid or terminate child support on the basis of a mature child’s repudiation of the relationship has the onus of proving this defence. The onus is a high one. As part of this onus, the parent must show that they have made meaningful efforts to maintain a positive relationship with the adult child (Menegaldo v. Menegaldo).

The focus of the analysis is whether there has been a “unilateral termination of the relationship” by the child (Caterini v. Zaccaria). In recent jurisprudence, courts may reduce, cancel, or suspend support to a mature child if that individual rejects a parent for no apparent reason, unreasonably refuses to communicate with the parent, and if the adult child fully appreciates the consequences of his or her repudiation (Law v. Law; Lampron v. Lampron; Lawrence v. Mortensen). A parent should not be a “wallet” for an adult child’s needs (Lawrence v. Mortensen). A child that repudiates his or her relationship with a payor parent still has an obligation to have “some sensible discussion” with that parent on the matter of education (Whitton v. Whitton).

Nonetheless, a court’s analysis is holistic and repudiation of a relationship is one factor of many that are taken into account in each case (Farden v. Farden). The court draws a line where it sees it fit in all of the circumstances of the case, having due regard to the conduct of the parties, and the conditions, means, and circumstances of each of them. More specifically, courts consider:

1. Whether the child is in full-time or part-time attendance at school;
2. Whether or not the child has applied for, or is eligible for, student loans or other financial assistance;
3. The age of the child;
4. The ability of the child to contribute to his or her own support through part-time employment;
5. The child's past academic performance, whether the child is demonstrating success in the chosen course of studies;
6. The career plans of the child (i.e. whether the child has some reasonable and appropriate plan or is simply going to college because there is nothing better to do), as well as the plans made by the parents for the education of their children;
7. Whether the child, who is mature and has reached the age of majority, has unilaterally terminated contact with the payor parent (Farden v. Farden).

According to a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, a restrictive approach to the consideration of repudiation is appropriate when making a determination on child support. This is because placing the child’s conduct on trial puts the child in the centre of the family law litigation and undermines the goal of promoting family healing and resolution (Caterini v. Zaccaria).

In order to learn more about your rights and obligations relating to family law, contact us at 905.707.3370.