Wakeford v. Wakeford, 2011 ABQB 106

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Wakeford v. Wakeford, 2011 ABQB 106 Date: 20110222 Docket: 4803 116311 Registry: Edmonton Between: Wanda Jean Wakeford Applicant - and - Kevin Scott Wakeford Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms. Wakeford asks for a variation of the child support order for her adult daughter who is in full-time attendance at university in a city far removed from the cities in which the parents live to allow Ms.

Wakeford to pay the support direct to her daughter rather than to her ex-husband. [ 2 ] The application is granted. [ 3 ] The parents live in Grande Prairie and Thorhild, respectively; their daughter attends university in Calgary. The daughter has sworn that she intends to maintain a residence in Calgary, although, if necessary, she will move for four months each year to her aunt’s in Edmonton to get summer work while she is attending university, or the equivalent.

In addition, the daughter has sworn that: her father has demanded repayment of the $2,082.25 that he has given to her for this school year; she repaid him approximately $1,200.00 of that amount when she received her Rutherford Scholarship; and, the father has now said that he would forgive the remaining $800.00 if his daughter would buy a new skating jig for $200.00.

[ 4 ] The basic child support payment is intended to compensate the parent with whom the child is residing for expenses connected to the daily living infrastructure of the child: accommodation, food, transportation, clothing, etc.

Where, as here, the child is not, and will not be, residing with either parent, there is no logical basis for any child support payment other than proportional contribution to s. 7 expenses which, in this case, are the equivalent of the child’s whole budget, including accommodation, food, transportation, clothes, tuition, books, etc. [ 5 ] The father opposes the mother’s request on the basis that he does provide some financial support to his daughter and that it is appropriate for his financial support, except for the daughter’s speed skating expenses, to be either paid entirely or at least subsidized by the mother’s continued payments to him because the mother received part of the father’s pension as matrimonial property in the parents’ divorce.

The father’s position is, simply, wrong. [ 6 ] The father owes an obligation of financial support to his daughter while she is in full time attendance at university. Ideally, the mother, the father and the daughter should each contribute a reasonable amount to the daughter’s expenses; the parents’ contribution would be based on their respective incomes, and the daughter’s contribution would consist of her use of student loans and her earnings during summer vacation. In the absence of an agreement amongst the parties, the court would make an order that would reflect a fair distribution of the costs.

The award of a part of the father’s pension to the mother as matrimonial property is simply irrelevant. [ 7 ] Here, the only relief that requested is that the mother’s child support obligation be terminated or paid direct to the child. The court is not, therefore, able to make an order requiring the father to contribute to his daughter’s expenses at school. The court notes that the father has, in the past, paid all of his daughter’s speed skating expenses and that the family expects that he will continue to do so.

Indeed, both parents obviously love their daughter and will undoubtedly with or without a court order, and above and beyond a court order, continue to support their daughter to the extent that they are able to do so. [ 8 ] In the circumstances here, the mother’s application is granted; I have only concluded that the child support order should remain with the payment direct to the daughter rather than vacating the order because there may be some tax or similar benefit available to the mother if she is making payments to her child pursuant to court order. [ 9 ] Ms.

Wakeford is entitled to her costs for this application. Heard on the 11 th day of February, 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 18 th day of February, 2011. “J.B. Veit” J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Pierre R. Boileau, Miller Boileau Family Law Group for the Ms. Wakeford Kevin S. Wakeford

on his own behalf