Lalonde v Lalonde, 2017 ABQB 301

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Lalonde v Lalonde, 2017 ABQB 301 Date: 20170428 Docket: 4803 149597 Registry: Edmonton Between: Paul Richard Lalonde Plaintiff - and - Lisa Maria Lalonde Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Lee _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The father applies to terminate his child support to the wife as the child is no longer a child of the marriage, retroactive to when the child turned 18 years of age in September 2016.

This is the father’s second application to terminate this child support. I heard the first application on September 12, 2016, and delivered written reasons on October 25, 2016, now reported at 2016 ABQB 600 . [ 2 ] Since those written reasons, the father reapplied to again terminate child support to his 18 year old son, on February 28, 2017. The father’s present application is based on his son’s current educational status, and the lack of progress that he has made this school year. Both parties have filed Affidavit material. [ 3 ] The parties were married in 1992, had two children, and divorced in 2009.

The overaged child was born in September 1998, and is now 18 ½ years of age. Since February 2015 to the present this child has lived with the mother. Until January 2015, he lived with the father. The child has had little contact with the father recently, notwithstanding the father apparently reaching out to contact him.

[ 4 ] Based on the Affidavit material before me, it appears to be common ground between the parties that the overaged child has made little progress in terms of course completion recently in the Learning Stores Program. While the Learning Stores Program offers a fulltime program of study, it does not appear that the child has ever been enrolled in enough credits at any one point in time since the September 2016 school year began to be considered registered in a fulltime course of studies, pursuant either to the learning program or to the Public School Board’s criteria.

The student was taking one-quarter to one-third of a fulltime course load between September 2016 and December 2016. Of further concern is that since September 3, 2016, the child appears to have only successfully completed one five credit course. [ 5 ] Furthermore by March 6, 2017, he had withdrawn from the Learning Stores Program completely.

Apparently the child between January and March 2017, was not attending school but was actively seeking employment, and accepted a position on April 3, 2017 as a labourer. [ 6 ] The child did re-enroll recently in the same Learning Store Program after the father obtained dates from the Court in March 2017 to review the child’s status as a “child of the marriage”. However he has registered for only one course, and has yet to complete a single module in that course this school term.

Conclusion [ 7 ] Given this child’s lack of progress in his studies recently, which studies appear to have completely stopped between January and March 2017, it is difficult to consider this overaged child as a “child of the marriage”. While an overaged child can be considered a “child of the marriage” if he/she is enrolled fulltime pursuing educational studies, enrollment in fulltime studies is not in and of itself sufficient.

There has to be some meaningful progress in the studies which will lead to its completion. [ 8 ] In this case, the child is still considerably short of the required 100 credit (80 of which must come from “required courses”) for graduation with a high school diploma. A fulltime student usually takes a 40 credit course load each academic year.

At the end of the child’s grade 12 school year, in June 2016, the child then nearly 17 years of age had earned 70 out of the required 100 credits. [ 9 ] Recently the now over aged child has only completed one five credit course, is presently registered in only one five credit course, and he is now working. [ 10 ] Given that this child has made little progress recently in his educational studies, and given that it is now very debatable whether he is enrolled at all in education studies based on the Affidavit material before me, I cannot continue to order child support for him. [ 11 ] I find the present circumstances are that the child in question is an overaged child pursuing at best only part-time studies for which he has not been particularly successful at completing, while now working at least part-time. [ 12 ] As such I conclude that he is no longer a “child of the marriage”, and is therefore not entitled to child support as of January 1, 2017.

All child support payments will end to the over aged child as of December 31, 2016. Heard on the 25 th day of April, 2017. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 28 th day of April, 2017. Donald Lee J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Diane Harms, QC Barrister and Solicitor for the Plaintiff

Lisa Maria Lalonde Self-Represented Litigant for the Defendant