S.A.A.G. v. G.E.B., 2019 BCPC 213

Citation: S.A.A.G. v. G.E.B. 2019 BCPC 213 Date: 20190730 File No: 13437 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: S.A.A.G. APPLICANT AND: G.E.B. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M.J. BRECKNELL

Appearing on their own behalf: S.G. Appearing on their own behalf: G.B. Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Dates of Hearing: May 21 & 22, 2019 Date of Judgment: July 30, 2019 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] By way of An Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements filed June 10, 2015, S.A.A.G. (Ms. G.) seeks changes to a Court Order pronounced November 16, 2006 (the Order) concerning the child support payable for two children, C.W.H., born [omitted for publication] (C.), and C.G.B. born [omitted for publication] (Ca.) (collectively, the Children) by her former spouse G.E.B. (Mr.

B.) including a claim for retroactive child support back to July 1, 2007. [ 2 ] By way of a Reply filed June 1, 2017, Mr. B. disagrees with a change to the Order, the retroactive child support claim and seeks a termination of his child support obligations based on Ca. reaching the age of majority. [ 3 ] At the trial of this matter, Mr. B. asked the Court to impose a three year limit on any arrears found by the Court as described in S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.) 2006 SCC 37 rather than the decade long period claimed by Ms. G. [ 4 ] Mr.

B. also referred to the issue of undue hardship in his Financial Statement filed August 24, 2017, but no claim was made by him in his Reply under

Section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines ( CSG ) so it will not be considered in this decision. [ 5 ] With the exception of income information for both Parties verified by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and some banking documents there was little agreement between the Parties on their evidence particularly with regard to when the Children resided in one home or the other or when they may have become self – supporting. In addition, there was no complete agreement of the amounts paid by Mr. B. to Ms. G. except that he faithfully paid the amount set out in the Order until Ca. turned 19. THE ORDER [ 6 ] The portions of the November 16, 2006, Order relevant to this Hearing include:

a) a finding that Mr. B. income for CSG purposes was $90,000.00 resulting in child support for one child of $823.00 per month;

b) a finding that Ms. G. income for CSG purposes was $32,000.00 resulting in child support for one child of $299.00 per month;

c) the Parties would share joint guardianship and joint custody of C. and Ca.;

d) C.’s primary residence would be with Mr. B. and Ca.’s primary residence would be with Ms. G. although it was recognized that Ca. would be residing with each of the Parties on alternate weeks; and

e) Mr. B. would pay child support for one child in the set off amount of $524.00 ($823.00 - $299.00).

CHILD CARE HISTORY [ 7 ] The Court will give little notice or weight to evidence of matters arising before November 16, 2006, when the Parties entered into the Order which was a Final Order by Consent. [ 8 ] The Parties agreed that regardless of the Court’s findings concerning where C. and Ca. lived from time to time, all responsibilities of either party to pay child support for a child would expire no later than their 19 th birthdays namely [omitted for publication], for C. and [omitted for publication], for Ca. [ 9 ] Aside from that consensus, the Parties had great disagreement concerning which child was in whose care since November 2006.

For that reason the Court will set out chronologically the combined evidence of the Parties and will later in this decision make findings concerning where the Children were residing from time to time and the monetary implications arising from those findings. [ 10 ] During the trial the Parties made sweeping statements of what occurred in the past. In general they were vague on where each of C. and Ca. resided from time to time without providing any verifiable proof of those assertions. As such they must be given lesser weight than had they been verified [ 11 ] Ms. G. says that in 2007, C. moved from Mr.

B.’s home and was primarily residing with her until February 2010, when she moved in with Mr. B. for four months ending in June 2010. [ 12 ] Mr. B. says that C. refused to follow his rules and left his home and was couch surfing for a while. She eventually returned to live with him and didn’t move in with Ms. G. until after a trip to Mexico in 2008. In 2009, he began paying $800 per month as requested by Ms. G. [ 13 ] Mr. B. says he continued to pay the $800 until C. moved to Vancouver where she lived and was not attending school. He acknowledged that Ms. G. retained a room for C. at that time. [ 14 ] In Mr.

B.’s May 21, 2019 Affidavit, there are copies of cancelled cheques payable to Ms. G. in the amount of $800 and other amounts spanning from September 2008 until December 2009. [ 15 ] Mr. B. says that in February 2010, C. returned to Prince George and lived with him until the end of the school year. After that

she tried working at a local chain restaurant and rented a basement suite on her own. [ 16 ] Later in his evidence, Mr. B. said that both Children were with him 50% of the time in 2008 and 2009. [ 17 ] Ms. G. says that in June 2010, C. returned to live with her but worked away a lot during tree planting season. After that C. lived with her boyfriend and his family for a while. C. was living on her own for a few months but returned to Ms. G.’s home from time to time. By 2012, C. was back with her boyfriend. [ 18 ] Ms.

G. says that at first Ca. was mostly with her but by 2007, he was back and forth between her home and Mr. B.’s home on an almost equal basis. She could not recall whether Ca. was mostly with her or back and forth almost equally between the two households in 2008, 2009, and 2010. In 2011, Ca. was almost equally between the two homes. [ 19 ] Mr. B. says that in 2010, he established a new relationship with his present spouse and that her daughter and Ca. spent a lot of time with him and his spouse travelling on vacation trips. Mr.

B. says in one place in his evidences that Ca. spent upwards of 70% of his time with Mr. B. and his family in 2011 and 2012. At another point he says it was 70 to 90% [ 20 ] Mr. B. says that in 2012, an opportunity presented itself for the family to move from Prince George to [omitted for publication]. Ca. was excited about moving with the family but at the last minute he backed out. Mr. B. moved to [omitted for publication] in October 2012 and his spouse and her daughter followed in December 2012.

It was around this time that he and his spouse were attempting to have a child but their first attempt ended in a miscarriage. [ 21 ] Ms. G. says that when Mr. B. moved to [omitted for publication], Ca. returned to reside with her fulltime but did visit Mr. B. in [omitted for publication]. Ca. was in [omitted for publication] with Mr. B. for several months. Initially she said that was from late 2012 to early 2013, but later said it was from December 2014 to Easter 2015. [ 22 ] Ms. G. said that from Easter 2015 until he was shot in June 2017, Ca. resided with her.

She was uncertain when and where he lived after that incident except some of the time he was with her, some of the time he lived with his girlfriend and baby and some of the time he lived in [omitted for publication] with Mr. B. and was doing some work selling firewood and working in a fast food restaurant. [ 23 ] Mr. B. says that in 2014, his step daughter accused Ca. of sexual assault. About that time Ca. started to go downhill and got involved in the use and sale of drugs. It was in this same timeframe that he and his spouse became parents to a new daughter. [ 24 ] Mr.

B. says that starting in the Fall of 2015, Ca. began spending more time in [omitted for publication]. By Christmas 2015, he had moved to Mr. B.’s home in anticipation of starting school in February 2016. However, Ca. fell back into the drug life style and returned to Prince George a few months later. [ 25 ] Later in his evidence, Mr. B. says that Ca. moved to [omitted for publication] in December 2014 and remained there until April 2015, when Ms. G. retrieved Ca. and returned to Prince George. [ 26 ] Mr.

B. says that in May 2015, he and his spouse and new child moved from [omitted for publication] to [omitted for publication]. After that move he had little contact with Ca. except for a visit at Christmas 2015, and a fishing trip in the Summer of 2016. [ 27 ] Mr. B. says that in November 2016, he suffered a stroke which caused a temporary absence from work followed by a period of light duties. [ 28 ] Mr. B. says that in late April 2017, Ca. was involved in an altercation with another young man which resulted in that person being admitted to hospital.

That person was related to a senior drug dealer who vowed revenge on Ca. Ca. was on the run and refused to return to Ms. G. because he believed that she had turned him in to the RCMP. After Ca. was shot in June 2017, he did return briefly to live with Ms. G. but soon left and fell back into drug dealing for a time. [ 29 ] Mr. B. says that in the Fall of 2017, he got some work for Ca. in Burns Lake. Ca. came to Burns Lake with his girlfriend after he was charged with various drug offences. It was short term work and Ca. soon returned to Prince George.

However, he came back to [omitted for publication], resided with Mr. B. and worked fulltime at a local fast food restaurant from January to May 2018. At that point, Ca. moved back to Prince George to reside with his girlfriend. [ 30 ] Ca. was convicted of the drug offences but due in part to his spouse and new child he received a one (1) year Conditional Sentence Order and three (3) year Probation Order. [ 31 ] Mr. B. says that Ms. G. has undeclared income from cleaning houses and that she benefitted from the proceeds of crime generated by Ca’s drug dealing. He did not put either of those contentions to Ms.

G. in cross examination. INCOMES AND SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS [ 32 ] The Tables set out below list the incomes of each Party for the years 2007 through 2018. In most years, the figure is the CRA Assessment Line 150 income less the Union dues payable by the Party. [ 33 ] In Mr. B.’s case for 2016, 2017, and 2018, the figure is his T-4 declared income “grossed up” as required by Section 19(1)(

b) of the CSG because he is a First Nations person earning income on Reserve from a First Nations entity and does not pay federal or provincial income taxes. [ 34 ] The Tables also set out the amount of child support would be payable by a Party for 1 or 2 children based on their income. That amount changed in November 2017 when new CSG were mandated. [ 35 ] Throughout the years at issue, Ms. G. maintained employment with School District [omitted for publication] (Prince George) in the capacities of [omitted for publication]. Mr. B. was employed in the forest products industry as either a saw filer or a supervisor at

sawmills in [omitted for publication], [omitted for publication], and [omitted for publication]. Table I Ms. G. Income and Child Support Obligations Year Income* 1 Child 2007 $35,671 $332 2008 $35,597 $331 2009 $37,662 $349 2010 $40,109 $370 2011 $41,209 $376 2012 $39,186 $357 2013 $40,477 $369 2014 $41,880 $382 2015 $41,637 $379 2016 $42,080 $384 2017 $40,786 $372 2 2018 $ 30,919 $278 2 * After deducting Union Dues 2 – 2017 CSG Table Table II Mr. B.

Income and Child Support Obligations Year Income* 1 Child 2 Children 2007 $94,682 $876 $1407 2008 $88,615 $823 $1326 2009 $82,895 $775 $1250 2010 $88,559 $823 $1326 2011 $90,576 $841 $1353 2012 $112,744 $1026 N/A 2013 $113,775 $1035 N/A 2014 $119,068 $1078 N/A 2015 $63,680 $592 N/A 2016 $132,252 1 $1185 N/A 2017 $153,701 1 $1350 2 N/A 2018 $142,591 $1298 2 N/A * After deducting union dues 1- Grossed up using DivorceMate 2 – 2017 CSG Table SUBMISSIONS Ms. G. [ 36 ] Ms. G. submissions can be summarized as follows:

a) she wants a fair review of the case based on Mr. B.’s income, including his tax free income;

b) she only did housekeeping for a short time and it didn’t generate much money;

c) there were many months when C. was away that she still maintained a room for her and Mr. B. agreed with that;

d) she did receive at least $524 per month until Ca. turned 19 but she can’t comment on the documents in 2009 that indicate she received more money for a period of time. Mr. B. [ 37 ] Mr. B. submissions can be summarized as follows:

a) anytime C. was with Ms. G. he paid $800. Anytime C. was with him or after she was on her own he paid $524;

b) Ms. G. evidence is neither accurate nor reliable. THE LAW Family Law Act

[ 38 ] The following provisions of the Family Law Act have application in this case: Duty to provide support for child 147

(1) Each parent and guardian of a child has a duty to provide support for the child, unless the child (

a) is a spouse, or (

b) is under 19 years of age and has voluntarily withdrawn from his or her parents' or guardians' charge, except if the child withdrew because of family violence or because the child's circumstances were, considered objectively, intolerable.

(2) If a child referred to in subsection (1) (

b) returns to his or her parents' or guardians' charge, their duty to provide support for the child resumes.

(3) If a guardian who is not the child's parent has a duty to provide support for that child, the guardian's duty is secondary to that of the child's parents.

(4) A child's stepparent does not have a duty to provide support for the child unless (

a) the stepparent contributed to the support of the child for at least one year, and (

b) a proceeding for an order under this Part, against the stepparent, is started within one year after the date the stepparent last contributed to the support of the child.

(5) If a stepparent has a duty to provide support for a child under subsection (4), the stepparent's duty (

a) is secondary to that of the child's parents and guardians, and (

b) extends only as appropriate on consideration of (

i) the standard of living experienced by the child during the relationship between the stepparent and his or her spouse, and (ii) the length of time during which the child lived with the stepparent. Changing, suspending or terminating orders respecting child support 152

(1) On application, a court may change, suspend or terminate an order respecting child support, and may do so prospectively or retroactively.

(2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the court must be satisfied that at least one of the following exists, and take it into consideration: (

a) a change in circumstances, as provided for in the child support guidelines, has occurred since the order respecting child support was made; (

b) evidence of a substantial nature that was not available during the previous hearing has become available; (

c) evidence of a lack of financial disclosure by a party was discovered after the last order was made. Case Law [ 39 ] The Parties presented no cases to the Court. The Court consulted the following cases in arriving at a decision in this matter:

a) S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.) 2006 SCC 37 ;

b) Hinds v. Hinds 2008 BCCA 547 ;

c) G.(E.B.) v. B.(S.M.) 2016 BCSC 2434 ;

d) Dyck v. Bell 2015 BCCA 520 ;

e) Evanow v. Lannon 2016 BCSC 1871 , supplementary reasons 2017 BCSC 725 , affirmed 2018 BCCA 208 ;

f) Johnson v. Mayer 2016 MBCA 41 ;

g) Reid v. Reid 2017 BCCA 73 ;

h) S.(J.D.) v. K.(A.F.) 2018 BCSC 1102 ;

i) Geboers v. Geboers 2018 BCSC 181 . DISCUSSION The Order

[ 40 ] The wording of the Order and the Parties’

interpretation of it over the course of time poses challenges for the Court. It appears that even though Ca. was moving back and forth between homes on a regular basis, rather than treating that regime as Shared Custody under

Section 9 of the CSG which would have its own child support implications, they were content to treat the matter as if they each had financial responsibility for one child and apply the provisions of Split Custody under

Section 8 of the CSG . Mr. B. had counsel representing him and Ms. G. had the assistance of family duty counsel on November 16, 2006, and they reached a Final Order by Consent so the Court concludes that they were aware of the implications of their decision. [ 41 ] Those implications included:

a) if Ca’s time at Ms. G.’s home increased, she would have no ability to seek additional support because Mr. B. was already contributing an amount equal to if Ca. was with Ms. G. fulltime ($823.00);

b) if C. ceased residing with Mr. B. and went out on her own or reached the age of majority, Ms. G. would no longer be responsible for contributing to her welfare by the amount of the setoff ($299.00);

c) if C. ceased residing with Mr. B. and took up residence with Ms. G. Mr. B. would become responsible for paying support under the CSG for 2 Children. It appears to the Court that neither Party considered this possibility, but it is not something the Court can ignore if it was a reality. S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.) [ 42 ] This case and other appellate cases that followed provide guidance with regard to adjudicating claims of retroactive child support. Some of the principles and factors described by the Supreme Court of Canada that have application to this case include:

a) parents have an obligation to support their children in a way that is commensurate with their income;

b) the parental obligation and the children's corresponding right to support exists independent of any statute or court order;

c) if a payor parent does not increase child support payments correspond with increased income they will have not fulfilled that parents obligation to the children;

d) where there is already an existing order for support the application is not truly a retroactive application because the payor parent always had the obligation to pay and the child always had the right to receive child support;

e) other factors that the court must consider include: I. the circumstances surrounding any delay in applying, II. the payor parent's conduct, III. the child's circumstances, and IV. any hardship caused by a retroactive award. [ 43 ] In considering any circumstances surrounding the delay the Court may consider:

a) whether or not the payor informed the payee about their change in financial circumstances;

b) whether or not payee informed the payor of a request for increased support;

c) whether or not the payee had limited means or resources or a medical or emotional limitation in being able to deal with the matter. [ 44 ] In addressing the payor parent's conduct the Court may consider:

a) blameworthy conduct which is anything that privileges payor parent's own interest over the rights of the Child an appropriate amount of support (see S.(D.B.) v. G.(S.R.) and Hinds );

b) a payor who fails to increase support payments automatically when their income changes is not necessarily engaging in blameworthy conduct; ( see G.(E.B.) v. B.(S.M.) .

c) a failure increase support payments when income increases is less blameworthy if the payor is complying with the terms of a consent order based on a compromise between the parties ( see Dyck v. Bell );

d) failure to disclose significant increases in income is blameworthy conduct that may result in a retroactive support ordered dating back beyond when effective notice was given (see Evanow v. Lannon ). [ 45 ] When considering the child’s circumstances the Court may consider:

a) the present and past circumstances of the child (see S.(D.B.) v. G.(S.R.)) ;

b) whether the child will receive any benefit from the award (see Johnson v. Mayer );

c) whether a reduced amount from the raw calculated amount should be granted upon considering whether the condition, means and needs of the child has been met ( see Reid v. Reid ).

[ 46 ] When considering any hardship to the payor the Court may examine:

a) is there still a source of income similar to that during the period in question;

b) has the payor taken on new family obligations;

c) would a retroactive payment result in a redistribution of capital or become akin to a payment of spousal support (see S. (J.D.) v. K.(A.F.) and Geboers) . [ 47 ] In determining the date of retroactivity for any order the Court may consider:

a) what was the date of “effective notice”. It may be when the payor was served with pleadings but it may be earlier if the payee requested income information or an increase in support from the payor but was rebuffed;

b) usually an award will go back no more than three years from effective notice (see S.(D.B.) v. G.(S.R.)) ;

c) however there are exceptions to that general rule (see Evanow v. Lannon ). [ 48 ] The first thing the Court must determine is where each of C. and Ca. lived from November 2006 until each either reached 19 or were no longer dependent on either of the Parties. [ 49 ] Based on the evidence provided the Court makes the following findings concerning C.’s living situation:

a) from November 2006 until August 2007, with Mr. B.;

b) from September 2007 until December 2007, with Ms. G.;

c) from January 2008 until August 2008, with Mr. B.;

d) from September 2008 to January 2010, with Ms. G.;

e) from February 2010 until June 2010, with Mr. B.;

f) from July 2010 until September 2010, with Ms. G.; and

g) from October 2010 until July 1, 2011, on her own. [ 50 ] Based on the evidence provided the Court makes the following findings concerning Ca.’s in living situation:

a) from November 2006 until October 2012, between the two households as contemplated in the Order;

b) November 2012 until December 2014, with Ms. G.;

c) from January 2015 until April 2015, with Mr. B.;

d) from May 2015 until April 2017, with Ms. G. but involved in the illegal drug trade;

e) from May 2017 until June 2017, on his own;

f) from July 2017 to September 2017, with Ms. G.; and

g) from October 2017 until February 8, 2018, with Mr. B. working either part-time or full-time and involved in the illegal drug trade. [ 51 ] It is necessary to point out that the Parties incorrectly interpreted what the Order set out with regard to the Children, where they resided and what child support would flow. [ 52 ] So long as each Party had one child primarily under their care then the payment arrangement in the Order (as modified by their actual incomes and responsibilities) would prevail. [ 53 ] What the Parties didn't contemplate and the Order didn't address were the following scenarios which actually occurred:

a) when C. was not residing with either Party and Ca. was residing primarily with Ms. G. then the set-off would not apply and Mr. B. would be liable for child support for one (1) child based on his actual income (well over $800 per month);

b) when C. was not residing with either party and Ca. was residing primarily with Mr. B. then he would not be liable to pay child support but Ms. G. would be liable to pay child support for Ca. based on her actual income (well over $300 per month);

c) when C. and Ca. were residing primarily with Ms. G., Mr. B. would be liable to pay child support for two (2) children based on his actual income (well over $1200 per month). [ 54 ] Based on the findings the Court has made with regard to where each of the Children lived from time to time, and the Parties child support obligations based on their actual incomes as set out Tables I and II, the child support obligations, amounts paid and ongoing arrears for each year are set out in Appendix A to this decision. [ 55 ] There are some caveats with regard to Appendix A which include:

a) there were times in 2010 when C. was fully employed but still residing with Ms. G. until she moved in with her boyfriend. That income will not be factored into the child-support analysis;

b) there were times between May 2015 and April 2017, where Ca. resided with Ms. G. but was engaged in the illegal drug trade. Although the Court does not accept Mr. B. comments that Ms. G. profited from that activity, it did allow Ca. to be more financially independent and to meet more of his needs. That will be considered as part of the final analysis concerning child support; and

c) there was a period from October 2017 until February 2018, when Ca. resided with Mr. B. but was mostly partly or fully employed. That will be considered as part of the final analysis concerning child support. [ 56 ] Based on the calculations in Appendix A, Mr. B. was in arrears of child support in the following amounts in the following years: a) 2007 b) 2008 c) 2009 d) 2010 e) 2011 f) 2012 g) 2013 h) 2014 i) 2015 j) 2016 k) 2017 l) 2018 $3692 $1928 $5400 $3474 $3804 $6024 $6132 $6672 $-3148 $7932 $2046 $-1604 [ 57 ] The Court must apply the guidance from the case law to the facts of this case.

Based on the evidence presented the Court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that retroactivity should only be considered back to January 1, 2012, for the following reasons:

a) Ms. G. did not bring any proceedings while C. was still dependent on her;

b) Mr. B. faithfully paid at least $524 per month as contemplated by the Order until Ca. turned 19;

c) although Mr. B. income did not rise from 2007 to 2011 by 2012 and subsequently, it rose dramatically and his failure to notify Ms. G. of that change is blameworthy conduct;

d) Mr. B. family dynamics changed considerably in 2012 with his move to [omitted for publication] and an attempt to have a child with his new spouse;

e) Mr. B. serious medical issues in November 2016 briefly curtailed his ability to work; and

f) Mr. B. ability to earn tax-free income since moving to Burns Lake provided the equivalent of a very high standard of living. [ 58 ] However, the Court must also consider the additional factors of Ca.’s circumstances at the time the payments were due and if payment retroactively now would cause hardship to Mr. B.

The Court must also ensure that any amount ordered as retroactive payments does not amount to a redistribution of capital or spousal support. [ 59 ] For a considerable time between May 2015 and April 2017, and then again from September 2017 until he turned 19, Ca. was involved in the illegal drug trade to the point that he was eventually charged and convicted of drug offences. His needs and dependence on Ms. G. and Mr. B. during this time when he was residing with one or the other was most likely reduced. [ 60 ] As time went on Mr.

B. enjoyed employment income that was much more lucrative than when the Order was pronounced. Around the same time he also took on some new family responsibilities and obligations. [ 61 ] However, he deprived Ms. G. of funds she could have used for Ca.’s benefit forcing her to take on a greater financial burden than she would have otherwise had to had she been receiving the correct amount of child support. [ 62 ] In all of the circumstances of this case and in applying the applicable case law the Court concludes that a finding that Mr. B. liable to Ms.

G. retroactive child support in the amount of $20,000. [ 63 ] This retroactive amount will be repaid to Ms. G. at the rate of $1000 per month commencing on September 1, 2019, and payable on the first of every month thereafter until the retroactive amount is paid in full. This payment amount is still almost $300 per month less than the amount of child support for one child based on Mr. B. 2018 income.

__________________________ M.J. Brecknell Regional Administrative Judge Northern Region Provincial Court of BC Appendix A Chronology of Children’s Residences, Child Support Paid, Child Support Due, and Arrears Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B.

Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2007 1 1 $524 $544 $20 February 1 1 $524 $544 $20 March 1 1 $524 $544 $20 April 1 1 $524 $544 $20 May 1 1 $524 $544 $20 June 1 1 $524 $544 $20 July 1 1 $524 $544 $20 August 1 1 $524 $544 $20 September 2 0 $524 $1,407 $883 October 2 0 $524 $1,407 $883 November 2 0 $524 $1,407 $883 December 2 0 $524 $1,407 $883 = $3,692 Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B.

Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2008 1 1 $524 $492 ($22) February 1 1 $524 $492 ($22) March 1 1 $524 $492 ($22) April 1 1 $524 $492 ($22) May 1 1 $524 $492 ($22) June 1 1 $524 $492 ($22) July 1 1 $524 $492 ($22) August 1 1 $524 $492 ($22) September 2 0 $800 $1,326 $526 October 2 0 $800 $1,326 $526 November 2 0 $800 $1,326 $526 December 2 0 $800 $1,326 $526 = $1,928 Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B.

Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2009 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450 February 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450 March 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450 April 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450 May 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450 June 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450

July 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450 August 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450 September 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450 October 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450 November 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450 December 2 0 $800 $1,250 $450 = $5,400 Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B. Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2010 2 0 $800 $1326 $526 February 1 1 $524 $453

(71) March 1 1 $524 $453

(71) April 1 1 $524 $453

(71) May 1 1 $524 $453

(71) June 1 1 $524 $453

(71) July 2 0 $524 $1326 $802 August 2 0 $524 $1326 $802 September 2 0 $524 $1326 $802 October 1 0 $524 $841 $299 November 1 0 $524 $841 $299 December 1 0 $524 $841 $299 = $3,474 Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B.

Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2011 1 0 $524 $841 $317 February 1 0 $524 $841 $317 March 1 0 $524 $841 $317 April 1 0 $524 $841 $317 May 1 0 $524 $841 $317 June 1 0 $524 $841 $317 July 1 0 $524 $841 $317 August 1 0 $524 $841 $317 September 1 0 $524 $841 $317 October 1 0 $524 $841 $317 November 1 0 $524 $841 $317 December 1 0 $524 $841 $317 = $3,804 Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B.

Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2012 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 February 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 March 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 April 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 May 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 June 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 July 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 August 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 September 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 October 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 November 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 December 1 0 $524 $1026 $502 = $6,024

Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B. Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2013 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 February 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 March 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 April 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 May 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 June 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 July 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 August 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 September 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 October 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 November 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 December 1 0 $524 $1035 $511 = $6,132 Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B.

Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2014 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 February 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 March 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 April 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 May 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 June 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 July 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 August 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 September 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 October 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 November 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 December 1 0 $524 $1078 $556 = $6,672 Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B. Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2015 0 1 $524 (903)

(903) February 0 1 $524 (903)

(903) March 0 1 $524 (903)

(903) April 0 1 $524 (903)

(903) May 1* 0 $524 $592 $58 June 1* 0 $524 $592 $58 July 1* 0 $524 $592 $58 August 1* 0 $524 $592 $58 September 1* 0 $524 $592 $58 October 1* 0 $524 $592 $58 November 1* 0 $524 $592 $58 December 1* 0 $524 $592 $58 = (3,148) Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B.

Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2016 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 February 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 March 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 April 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 May 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 June 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 July 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 August 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 September 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 October 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 November 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 December 1* 0 $524 $1185 $661 = 7,932 * Ca. involved in illegal drug trade

Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B. Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2017 1* 0 $524 $1350 $826 February 1* 0 $524 $1350 $826 March 1* 0 $524 $1350 $826 April 1* 0 $524 $1350 $826 May 0 0 $524 0

(524) June 0 0 $524 0

(524) July 1 0 $524 $1350 $826 August 1 0 $524 $1350 $826 September 1 0 $524 $1350 $826 October 0 1** $524 (896)

(896) November 0 1** $524 (896)

(896) December 0 1** $524 (896) (896) = $2,046 Date Children with Ms. G. Children with Mr. B. Amount paid by Mr. B. Amount Due Based on Actual Income and CSG Arrears Yearly Total January 2018 0 1** $524 (802)

(802) February 0 1** $524 (802) (802) = (1,604) * Ca. involved in illegal drug trade ** Ca. employed in various jobs