Beckley v. Beckley, 2012 ABQB 202

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Beckley v. Beckley, 2012 ABQB 202 Date: 20120323 Docket: 4814 002720 Registry: St. Paul Between: Mary Lynn Beckley Plaintiff - and - Douglas Eugene Beckley Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Brian R. Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mary Lynn Beckley seeks child support for the parties’ 20-year-old adult daughter who has recently commenced attending college full time.

Douglas Eugene Beckley takes the position that the adult daughter is no longer a child of the marriage and that he therefore can have no child support obligation in respect of her.

[ 2 ] Ms. Beckley made a similar application in a special chambers application before Strekaf J. on November 18, 2011. Her application was dismissed but the formal order provided: “She [Ms. Beckley] may re-apply on appropriate evidence.” She re-applied before me in regular chambers earlier this week. [ 3 ] At the time of the application before Strekaf J., the adult daughter was working full time. But as of January 1, 2012 she has become a full time student in a nursing program at Lakeland College. She is currently in the midst of the first of four 4-month terms which she intends to complete by the end of 2013.

Between terms, in the summer, she will be able to work full time in the job she had prior to starting the course. [ 4 ] Ms. Beckley’s affidavit indicates that the adult daughter’s expenses this term will be: Program fees $ 2870.00 Books and supplies 800.00 Automobile insurance ($80.43 / month) 321.72 Car loan payments ($191.54 / month) 766.16 Total $ 4757.88 [ 5 ] As mentioned, the adult daughter was working full time prior to beginning her studies. She can return to the same job between terms. The only information I can find in the materials as to what she was earning and will earn in that job is $24 per hour.

I can find no information as to what savings she may have accumulated from what she earned prior to beginning her studies. At $24 per hour her gross earning in the 4 months of 2012 that she will not be studying would be about $15,000. [ 6 ] The materials indicate that the adult daughter lives in her mother’s residence. They do not indicate that she makes any contribution to the cost of her living there or what those costs might be. Neither do they contain any information about what costs she has beyond the costs of her schooling and the costs of living in her mother’s home.

They contain no monthly expense budget for her beyond the information noted above. [ 7 ] The materials also indicate that the adult daughter’s boyfriend lives in the mother’s residence and that the adult daughter and the boyfriend share a bedroom. Mr. Beckley takes the position that the adult daughter is in a common-law relationship, that her common-law spouse (who Ms. Beckley prefers to call her boyfriend) is fully employed and available and even obliged to contribute to her support. Mr. Beckley takes the position that though the adult daughter is living in Ms.

Beckley’s residence she is not a “child of the marriage” as that term is defined in the Divorce Act, s. 1 because, given her common-law relationship with a fully employed spouse and her own between terms earning ability, she is not “unable . . . to withdraw from [her parents’] charge or to obtain the necessaries of life”. [ 8 ] Ms. Beckley’s affidavit states that the boyfriend lives in her residence because, though actively attempting to find suitable alternative accommodation, he has been unable to do so. He pays Ms. Beckley $400 a month room and board. [ 9 ] Assuming the cost to Ms.

Beckley of her adult daughter living in her home is similar to the cost of having the boyfriend live there, $400 a month, the in term cost for the adult daughter is $1600. Adding that to the costs noted above, the “needs” of the adult daughter per term appear to be about $6400, or $12,800 for the two terms, so far as the materials disclose. [ 10 ] It appears, therefore, that the adult daughter’s school term expenses approximately equal the net amount of the income she can earn between terms. Of course she would require further income to pay her living costs between terms.

On the basis of the information available to me that would appear to be about $700 a month or $2800 for the between term period. Therefore, as far as I can extrapolate from the materials filed on the application, the adult daughter’s expenses in 2012 will exceed her income by about $2800.

[ 11 ] Ms. Beckley’s 2010 income was $33,793. It does not appear that that figure includes the $18,000 Mr. Beckley is required to pay her in spousal support. Mr. Beckley’s income was $161,491 after deduction of the $18,000 spousal support. [ 12 ] The relationship between Mr. Beckley and his daughter is strained. They have little contact. The materials do not permit me to determine the extent to which each of them is responsible for this unfortunate circumstance. [ 13 ] If the adult daughter is not a “child of the marriage” Ms.

Beckley has no child support obligation in respect of her. [ 14 ] If the adult daughter is a “child of the marriage” the amount of child support Mr. Beckley would be obliged to pay would be determined pursuant to s. 2 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, which reads: Child the age of majority or over – Unless otherwise provided under these Guidelines, where a child to whom a child support order relates is the age of majority or over, the amount of the child support is (

a) the amount determined by applying these Guidelines as if the child were under the age of majority; or (

b) if the court considers that approach to be inappropriate, the amount that it considers appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the child. [ 15 ] I find it unnecessary to determine whether the adult daughter continues to be a child of the marriage.

In my view the result is the same whether she is or not. [ 16 ] In my view the circumstances, in particular: - the fact that she was fully employed or employable for the two years after she gained the age of majority, - the fact that she is now capable, though a student, to earn almost all she needs to pay her living and school costs during term, and - the fact that she is living with her fully employed boyfriend, who has the financial ability to contribute to her support, make the use of the Guidelines amount inappropriate. [ 17 ] In my view, the same considerations outweigh the fact that the adult daughter is living in her mother’s residence and the fact that Mr.

Beckley appears to have a level of income at which he could easily afford to contribute to her support. In my view, taking all of the circumstances into account, if the adult daughter is a “child of the marriage” the appropriate amount for Mr. Beckley to be required by the court to contribute to her support under Guidelines s. 2(

b) is zero. [ 18 ] The application is dismissed.

Heard on the 19 th day of March 2012. Dated at the City of St. Paul, Alberta this 23 rd day of March 2012. Brian R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Linnea C. Goodhand for the Plaintiff Donnon F. Revering for the Defendant