D.R.M. v. D.C., 2021 BCPC 161

Citation: D.R.M. v. D.C. 2021 BCPC 161 Date: 20210618 File No: [omitted for publication] Registry: Prince Rupert IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: D.R.M. APPLICANT AND: D.C. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. PATTERSON Appearing on their own behalf: D.R.M. Appearing on their own behalf: D.C. Place of Hearing: Prince Rupert , B.C. Date of Hearing: June 10, 2021 Date of Judgment: June 18, 2021

[ 1 ] The Respondent D.C. and the Applicant D.R.M. are the parents of the now 19-year-old C.S.C, born [omitted for publication]. [ 2 ] On May 18, 2017, The Honourable Judge D.

Stewart made a Final Order that dealt with a number of issues, including a requirement in clause 3 that D.C. pay $887 per month child support for C.S.C. to D.R.M. “…for as long as the child is eligible for support under the Family Law Act or until further Court order.” [ 3 ] When C.S.C. turned 19 on [omitted for publication], D.C. made the unilateral decision to stop paying child support to D.R.M. after August of 2020. [ 4 ] D.R.M. disagreed with D.C.’s decision to cease paying child support and on October 19, 2020, D.R.M. enrolled in the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (“FMEP”) claiming that D.C. was required to continue making $887 child support payments to her as C.S.C. remained a child pursuant to s. 146 of the Family Law Act (“ FLA ”).

FMEP accepted D.R.M.’s claim for $887 monthly child support due from D.C. as of September 1, 2020. In a letter (Notice of Filing) dated January 19, 2021, FMEP informed D.C. that he owed D.R.M. $887 per month child support, plus interest, since September 1, 2020, and that he was in arrears. According to FMEP, as of April 30, 2021, D.C. owes D.R.M. $7,156 in child support arrears (principal and interest). [ 5 ] On February 16, 2021, D.C. filed an Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements with the Court. In his application, D.C. seeks two orders: 1.

An order of this Court terminating clause 3 of the May 18, 2017 order of Judge Stewart requiring D.C. pay $887 per month child support payment to D.R.M. “…for as long as the child is eligible for support under the Family Law Act or until further Court order.” 2.

An order of this Court reducing or cancelling the child support arrears that D.R.M. and FMEP allege D.C. has accumulated since September 1, 2020. [ 6 ] It is D.C.’s position that as of C.S.C.’s nineteenth birthday, C.S.C. is no longer a child within the meaning of the FLA and accordingly D.C. should not have to pay child support. [ 7 ] D.R.M. filed her Reply to D.C.’s application on March 15, 2021. D.R.M. opposes the application.

D.R.M. says that despite C.S.C. having turned 19, child support should be payable by D.C. until April 30, 2021, as C.S.C. continued to be a child within the meaning of s. 146 the FLA from [omitted for publication] to April 30, 2021, because: (

i) D.R.M. financially supports C.S.C., including shelter, meals, and spending money; (ii) C.S.C. lives at home. D.R.M. is financially responsible for the home, including mortgage, utilities and food; (iii) C.S.C. suffers from severe depression, which caused C.S.C. to drop out of school in grade 9; (iv) C.S.C. began attending virtual high school on a part-time basis from November 6, 2020 to the present; and (

v) C.S.C. had been unable to find work or become self-supporting until recently, when he started a job at the [omitted for publication] in May of 2021. ISSUE(S) [ 8 ] Upon turning 19, did C.S.C. remain a child pursuant to s. 146 of the FLA ? If the answer is no, then that is the end of the matter and the Court must grant D.C.’s application. [ 9 ] If the answer is yes, upon turning 19 C.S.C. remained a child pursuant to s. 146 of the FLA , then there are additional issues that need to be addressed as set out below: a. What, if any, date did C.S.C. cease to be a child for purposes of s. 146 of the FLA ? b.

Is child support payable by D.C. to D.R.M. following C.S.C. turning 19? c. If yes, child support is payable by D.C. to D.R.M. following C.S.C. turning 19, how much child support is payable by D.C. to D.R.M. for the support of C.S.C.? d. If yes, child support is payable by D.C. to D.R.M. following C.S.C. turning 19, for how long must D.C. pay child support? [ 10 ]

Section 1 of the FLA defines “child” as: "child" , except in Parts 3 [Parentage] and 7 [Child and Spousal Support] and

section 247 [regulations respecting child support] , means a person who is under 19 years of age; [ 11 ]

Section 146 of the FLA reads: 146 In this Part and

section 247 [regulations respecting child support] : "child" includes a person who is 19 years of age or older and unable, because of illness, disability or another reason, to obtain the necessaries of life or withdraw from the charge of his or her parents or guardians;

"guardian" does not include a guardian (

a) who is not a parent, and (

b) whose only parental responsibility is respecting the child's legal and financial interests; "parent" includes a stepparent, if the stepparent has a duty to provide for the child under section 147 (4) [duty to provide support for child] ; "stepparent" means a person who is a spouse of the child's parent and lived with the child's parent and the child during the child's life. EVIDENCE OF D.C. [ 12 ] C.S.C. was born [omitted for publication], and turned 19 on [omitted for publication]. At the time C.S.C. turned 19, he was not living at home with his mother and he was not attending school.

D.C. faithfully paid child support of $887 per month to D.R.M. until C.S.C. turned 19. At the time C.S.C. turned 19, there were no child support arrears. [ 13 ] D.C. stated that did not get an order of the Court cancelling the $877 per month child support when C.S.C. turned 19 because D.C. believed that he did not have to, as child support was no longer payable under the Family Law Act due to: 1. C.S.C. had turned nineteen, 2. C.S.C. was not attending school, 3. C.S.C. had no disabilities, and 4.

C.S.C. was capable of getting a job and supporting himself. [ 14 ] D.C. testified that C.S.C. did not attend or complete high school. C.S.C. dropped out of school in grade 9, which was around 2015. C.S.C. did not attend school in 2016, 2017, 2018 or 2019. Between the time C.S.C. dropped out of school and the Spring of 2020, C.S.C. was living at [omitted for publication] with his mother. D.R.M. moved out of the home in the Spring of 2020. C.S.C. remained living at [omitted for publication] with roommates who paid the rent.

D.C. does not know who owns the trailer, but he believes D.R.M. rents the trailer and that she sub-leased it to C.S.C.’s various roommates. [ 15 ] According to D.C., C.S.C. was 12, going on 13, when he stopped living fulltime with D.C. In describing his current relationship with C.S.C., D.C. stated that it is “Disassociated.” D.C. continued, “When I take him to my house for dinner, he won't speak. He just eats and wants to go home and stuff.” [ 16 ] C.S.C. does not have a motor vehicle driver’s licence. He has owned several bicycles over the years, but they have all been stolen.

C.S.C. does not use public transit, but D.C. will give him rides around town. C.S.C. never asks D.C. for money. D.C. believes that D.R.M. gives money to C.S.C. and pays for C.S.C.’s food. [ 17 ] D.C. is aware that D.R.M. believes C.S.C. suffers from depression. D.C. simply refuses to accept that C.S.C. is depressed.

In rebutting D.R.M.’ position that C.S.C. is depressed and unable to support himself because of the depression, D.C. stated, “ In this filing, she says he does not go to school for three years due to depression, but … he's never been to a doctor or been diagnosed with depression, or he's not on any medication for depression. He simply doesn't -- he's not depressed.” [ 18 ] In relation to trying to motivate C.S.C. over the past five years, D.C. testified that, “I've offered him several jobs. I've got -- I've asked him many times if he'd like to take a course, something. I've tried to get his driver's licence.

I've asked him if he wants his CORE courses or his PAL courses.” [ 19 ] In describing the effort he has made over the years to try to get C.S.C. employment, D.C. testified, “I got him a job a few years back at an upholstery shop, pulling staples and he seemed to like his first day and then when he realized that they wanted him to come back, he said, well, I don't have time for that and he basically quit that job. And I got him a job washing trucks for [omitted for publication] and he did one shift and that was enough of that.

And I tried to get him down at [omitted for publication] and he refused, he says he doesn't want to work on boats. I've got multiple crab boat opportunities for him, to be on deck on the crab boats, seeing as my partner is the manager for the [omitted for publication] .

So, we -- we get those jobs passed through us quite a bit and again, he just refuses them… I've never asked him why he don't want to work.” [ 20 ] When asked by the Court if he had ever asked C.S.C. why he did not want to work, D.C. replied, “I'm just assuming that he's -- he's entitled and everything is just paid for and he just doesn't have to.” [ 21 ] Speaking to C.S.C.’s present employment situation, D.C. testified, “A few months back, I was given a application for the [omitted for publication], the [omitted for publication], [omitted for publication] and I passed it along to -- to C.S.C. and he's actually gone through all of the training program stuff and he -- I believe he's employed at the [omitted for publication] now…He started training a month ago and I believe last -- last week he was on -- on-site training.” [ 22 ] As regards trying to get C.S.C. to take his driver’s licence test, D.C. testified that both before and after C.S.C. turned 19 years of age he had been actively encouraging C.S.C. to get a driver’s licence.

Nevertheless, C.S.C. has not taken the driver’s licence test. “Well, first of all, I've asked him if he'd like to get his driver's licence. I've taken him to the Service BC several times and picked up the pamphlet, booklet and I've told him many times that I'll pay for him to write the learner's test and he's just refused…I took him before he turned 19, Service BC to update his medical and reissue a social security number and at that time, we discussed the driver's licence and

the lady at the counter got him all the booklets that he needed and everything and he was all go, go, go and he just never did it.” [ 23 ] D.C. testified that he has tried to get C.S.C. to take education courses, including the Possession and Acquisition License for firearms, otherwise known as a Canadian Firearm Licence, and the CORE Hunter Education Course.

Approximately a year ago, D.C. says that C.S.C. reiterated that he was not motivated to get educated, “He's -- he informed me that anything to do with school is not in his foreseeable future.” [ 24 ] D.C. concluded his evidence in direct examination by stating, “I think you're aware of my -- my position, you know, I -- as a dad, I tried my hardest and got the cards dealt to me this way and I'm just trying to move forward and I actually want my son to -- to prosper and do well.

And by giving him money and letting him just lay on the couch all day, it's very unproductive.” EVIDENCE OF D.R.M. [ 25 ] D.R.M. testified that D.C. does not know his son. She stated that C.S.C., “…has been struggling with depression all his life and stayed in his room and smoked marihuana every day and I'm the one who had to get up and go talk with him and cry with him and make him clean his room once a year. And when I would ask D.C. for anything, he would sometimes not even respond. And when I'd tell him about his son, he'd just say, he should go to work, you're enabling him.

I tried to get him to go to the hospital, I tried to get him to see Dr. Kloppers for his depression because I could see he was depressed because I struggle with depression in my life and I have -- in our family, my mom is bipolar, that some is attention deficit, so I know my son could be struggling with many mental health things but I can't prove it because he won't go to the hospital. Just like D.C. said, he offered him -- he could have had any job in the world, because D.C. would give him anything when it comes to a job, because you know why? Because D.C. wouldn't have to pay for his son anymore.

His son is depressed because D.C. -- and I can prove this -- D.C. kicked me out of his house and the same day he kicked me out, the same woman that lives there pulled up in a U-Haul moved in with my son and my daughter 20 minutes later, after I left. Now, any kid that's grew up with a mother and they had a relationship and then just replaced her as easy as that and then you expect him to not be sad? D.C. loved his son for the first 12 years. He was a great, great father.

He provided for him and that's what I fell in love with about because he -- he had a daughter when I met him and that's what I admired, because he was a great father. But when he -- my son got 12, he abandoned him, mentally, emotionally, financially, everything. And before that, my son and him was like that. Any child, after adding that kind of experience with their parent, they think there would be something wrong with them. The only thing my son has a passion about is skateboarding.

And if you want to see my son, you google [omitted for publication] and you'll see my son skateboarding and his passion is what's going to get him through life.” [ 26 ] In describing D.C.’s relationship with C.S.C., D.R.M. testified, “Well, D.C. didn't believe that his son was depressed and D.C. just kept pushing him. He didn't listen to what his son's needs were. Like he said, when he goes to his house, he's a disattach [sic]. You know, in your relationship with your father, you shouldn't be disattach. But when he goes to his home, it's not his home anymore. It's his and his girlfriend's. It's not his home.

It used to be his home. There's, like, a lot of psychological feelings that he had to go through, you know and I just keep telling him, your dad loves you. Your dad loves you; he wants to have a relationship with you, but C.S.C. don't seem to want to have a relationship much with his dad because I think his dad abandoned him at 12 years old and now he feels like his dad don't care. So, D.C. needs to work on it. Even though our son is 19, he still needs his father.” [ 27 ] From her testimony, it is clear that D.R.M. has mixed emotions regarding D.C.’s insistence over the years that C.S.C. should get a job.

D.R.M. agreed with D.C. that D.C. had provided C.S.C. with several job opportunities since C.S.C. dropped out of school. [ 28 ] With regard to C.S.C.’s new job at the [omitted for publication], D.R.M. testified, “Yes, he's finally got a job at the [omitted for publication], thank you to D.C., because a friend gave him a number, but D.C. didn't get him in the door. I'm the one who got up and got over there every day, to make sure he went to training. And I'm the one who said no more money, I'll turn the internet off if you don't go to this job. If you're depressed, you go to hospital. I did that.

He didn't do any of that. I've carried my son through so much alone and I'm a single parent and I feel like, yes, I am subletting a room, a living room, with a divider up. You know why? Because D.C.'s not paying child support. I have to pay my mortgage, my strata, my property tax. I have to provide for my son, for his schooling that he was doing online, that D.C. says he was not doing. And if you look in the files, you'll see that there is proof. You can call that number and you'll find out how much he's accomplished.

He hasn't accomplished a lot, but he started with grade 9 and he's almost up to grade 10.” [ 29 ] D.R.M. confirmed, “Yes, wasn't for D.C., he would not have had that job. And like I told my son, that's the lottery and I said, if you don't take the lottery, I'm giving you internet, food, you know, Hydro.” [ 30 ] As to the effect having to be financially responsible for C.S.C. has had on her, C.S.C. and D.C., D.R.M. stated, “He got one training shift. Today will be his first pay period for one day of training of eight hours.

So, today is going to be a big accomplishment because my son's going to get his first cheque. So, today, in a way, I'm financially free from my son. And D.C., he

wants to walk away from this burden and leave me with American Express up to 10,000 and subletting my living room because he won'tbe a responsible parent until my son and his son is ready for the world because he was going to school and now, he's got a job. Becausehe has a responsibility until my son turns 21 years old if he's in school. That's the Family Maintenance, that's the law, or what I read andunderstand. And in the order, it says, D.C. is -- like, I mentioned to D.C., like you said, eligible for support and family -- until furtherCourt order.

Doesn't say on there that when our son turns 19 -- or it says when -- it doesn't say. It just says until further order. So, whatthat's saying, the law says that as long as my son is financially needing the child support until his twenty-first birthday, if he's going toschool, or he's disabled, or if he's financially burdened on me, D.C. has a duty to pay that $7,156 that I've suffered for since I did withoutbecause I budgeted in my budget. I pay for my son's internet. I pay for his [indiscernible]. I pay for his food. It's -- I buy him a skateboardtwice a month.

A skateboard is a hundred and twenty bucks for one skateboard because it's his passion. I'll do without for my son, butD.C. say I'm enabling him.” [31] In describing how C.S.C. came to be enrolled in the [omitted for publication] virtual high school in October 2020, with classesthat began November 6, 2020, D.R.M. testified, “I started looking into it. I tried to convince him, he wouldn't do it, he wouldn't do it. Eventually, I just logged in and just registered himand I said, I have you registered and I said, if you don't do this, I'm taking the internet away and you won't be playing your Xboxanymore.

That was the only way that I could get him to go to school. It was like a bribe.” [32] D.R.M. also confirmed that while she is uncertain how much time C.S.C. is putting into his virtual high school studies, her bestguess is “I would say, to be honest, probably two hours a day.” [33] With regard to C.S.C. not wanting to get a driver’s licence, D.R.M. testified, “No, he doesn't want to get his learners because he'sscared, he had no self-esteem.” [34] D.R.M. testified that C.S.C. has been living with her since he was 12-and-a-half years of age, in her trailer at [omitted forpublication].

D.R.M. co-owns the trailer with her daughter and D.R.M. is financially responsible for the trailer, including the mortgage,utilities, pad rental, property taxes, natural gas, hydro, internet, insurance, lawn maintenance, and so on. D.R.M. clarified that she nowresides in the trailer with C.S.C. only part-time, “I reside there part-time and I have a boyfriend now that I sleep there very often.”Nevertheless, D.R.M. maintains that the trailer is her principal residence, “A Every -- my taxes, all my mail goes there. I go there at least four days a week.

I clean the place; I sleep over there once a week ortwice a week. It is still my permanent residence.” D.R.M. also collects $500 per month rent from a roommate at the trailer. [35] In testifying about what she would do with the trailer if C.S.C. was not residing in it, D.R.M. stated, “If my son wasn't living there, I would -- I probably would move in with my boyfriend and I would rent it out for -- I can get 1700 for it.I've been offered 1700 for rent and that would cover everything in my trailer and I still would make a profit.

But because my son is there,it's his home, as long as it's his home, I'm not going to rent it out as to a family…And I do expect, when my son starts working,eventually he's going -- if he's going to stay there, he's going to have to pay room and board.” [36] In addition to expenses directly related to the trailer, D.R.M. pays for C.S.C.’s food, skateboarding and mobile telephone. [37] D.R.M. concluded her evidence by stating, “I just feel like my son and me are entitled to what D.C. should be paying with the court order from the beginning.

We shouldn't be herewasting the court's money if D.C. was following through and making sure that we both made sure our son was ready for work and weworked together.” THE LAW Onus on D.C. or D.R.M.? [38] The burden of proof in a family law case is “proof on a balance of probabilities” (more probable or likely than not). [39] Historically, a child support order was not automatically extinguished by operation of law when a child reached the age ofmajority. The burden to prove that child support should cease upon the child reaching the age of majority was upon the paying parent:Ruttan v.

Ruttan, (SCC), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 690 at page 694 and Johnson v Johnson, (BCSC) atparagraphs 16 to 19. [40] In the past two decades, as set out in Classen v. Anima, 2011 BCSC 868, at paragraph 6, Kumpala v. Kumpala, 2013 BCSC 396,at paragraph 22, C.M.C. v. J.F.M., 2017 BCSC 1397, at paragraph 6, D.M.H.P. v. R.J.C.P., 2018 BCSC 1755, at paragraphs 82 to 94, D.Z. v. R. H. Z., 2020 BCSC 891, at paragraph 152, W.V.A. v. J.D.H., 2020 BCPC 159, at paragraph 34, and D.C.A. v. R.D.M., 2021 BCSC385, at paragraphs 50 and 51, there has been a shift in the case law.

The law in British Columbia now places the onus on the recipientparent to prove their claim that child support payments should continue after the child turns the age of majority. It appears to this Court,and I accept, that in British Columbia Ruttan v. Ruttan and Johnson v. Johnson are distinguished by their facts and the era they weredecided in. [41] Recently, our Court of Appeal clarified the law as applied to s. 146 of the FLA in Dring v. Gheyle, 2018 BCCA 435.

As perJustice Goepel at paragraphs 47 to 50: [47] In British Columbia, a person reaches the age of majority on becoming 19 years of age: Age of Majority Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 7.However, under s. 146 of the FLA, a person over the age of 19 who is unable, because of illness, disability or another reason, to obtain

the necessaries of life or withdraw from the charge of his or her parents or guardians, remains a child for the purpose of receivingsupport. [48] Pursuant to s. 147 of the FLA, each parent and guardian of a child has a duty to provide support for their child. Pursuant to s. 149, acourt on application may make an order for child support. The application may be made by the child’s parent. [49] Once a child of the relationship reaches the age of majority, the presumption is that the child is no longer a “child” and childsupport is no longer required.

At age 19, a child is an adult who, generally speaking, must support himself or herself. To remain a “child”for support purposes, the adult child must be unable to withdraw from his or her parents’ charge, or unable to obtain the necessaries oflife because of illness, disability or another reason. Once a child reaches the age of majority, the party applying for child support bearsthe onus of proving that the child is still a child: Olson v.

Olson, 2003 ABCA 56 at para. 13. [50] If an adult child is still living at home, “but is neither ill nor disabled nor under the effect of [another reason] by which he or she isunable to withdraw from parental charge or to obtain the necessaries of life, then that adult child is no longer” a child entitled tosupport: Ethier v. Skrudland, 2011 SKCA 17 at para. 16. As noted in Kohan v.

Kohan, 2016 ABCA 125 at para. 14, the wording“signifies something more than a mere lifestyle choice to remain dependant.” [42] As per Justice Saunders at paragraph 116: [116] I conclude that the Family Law Act does not support, let alone compel, the proposition that a child support order continues untilterminated by a court order. The proposition that such an application is necessary to terminate a child support order is contrary to currentand long-standing practice in the area of support orders.

If embraced, in my view, it will be susceptible to creating great disharmonywhere none is present, invites re-opening issues quiescent between parties, and will promote further litigation expense for many families,all contrary to the objectives of the legislation. Absent clear language in the Act requiring this

interpretation, I cannot agree with theproposition. [43] Of particular application to the present case are Justice Johnston’s observations and teachings at paragraphs 5 to 9 in C.M.C. v.J.F.M.: [5] Apparently, FMEP is unable or unwilling to recognize that a child is no longer presumed a child of a marriage on reaching the ageof majority, and will continue to enforce child support for an adult child on the strength of a payee parent’s assertion alone that the childis unable to withdraw from parental charge, and that is why Mr.

M. felt he had to seek the relief in his Notice of Application. [6] In spite of the positions taken by the director of FMEP, I conclude that as of April 26, 2017, Ms. C. has the burden of establishingthat T.M. is unable to withdraw from the charge of her parents and remains a child of the marriage. [7] The factors set out in Farden v. Farden (1993), (BC SC), 48 R.F.L. (3d) 60, B.C.S.C. (Master) most oftenguide the approach to deciding whether an adult child is a child of a marriage.

These factors are: (1) whether the child is in fact enrolled in a course of studies and whether it is a full-time or part-time course of studies; (2) whether or not the child has applied for or is eligible for student loans or other financial assistance; (3) the career plans of the child, i.e., whether the child has some reasonable and appropriate plan or is simply going to collegebecause there is nothing better to do; (4) the ability of the child to contribute to his own support through part-time employment; (5) the age of the child; (6) the child’s past academic performance, whether the child is demonstrating success in the chosen course of studies; (7) what plans the parents made for the education of their children, particularly where those plans were made during cohabitation; (8) at least in the case of a mature child who has reached the age of majority, whether or not the child has unilaterally terminated arelationship from the parent from whom support is sought. [8] These factors have been approved and applied as a non-exhaustive list in many subsequent decisions, including by the Court ofAppeal in Darlington v.

Darlington (1997), (BC CA), 32 R.F.L. (4th) 406 (B.C.C.A.); Neufeld v. Neufeld, 2005BCCA 7; and De Beck v. De Beck, 2012 BCCA 465. [9] These cases also make it clear that a party need not adduce evidence on every one of the factors in every case. A corollary of thatis that no one factor is sufficiently determinative that it should overcome the others. ANALYSIS [44] As set out above, the initial issue for consideration is whether C.S.C. remained a child for purposes of the FLA following hisnineteenth birthday.

Based upon the law I have set out above, I find that the onus is on D.R.M. to prove C.S.C. is unable to withdrawfrom the charge of his parents and remains a child for purposes of s. 146 of the FLA. [45] The position of the parties can be summarized as follows: D.C.’s Position [46] D.C. bases his position on the premise that C.S.C. is a healthy, albeit unmotivated, young man, who made the conscious decision

to drop out of school in grade 9 and has enjoyed the goodwill of his mother to the detriment of obtaining the necessaries of life for himself. D.C. denies that C.S.C. suffers from depression. D.C. is of the opinion that D.R.M. has enabled their son’s behaviour and believes that C.S.C. is more than capable of providing for himself. D.C. notes that he has secured several paid employment opportunities for C.S.C. over the past 5 years, only to have C.S.C. fail to take advantage of the opportunities given to him. D.C. also secured C.S.C.’s current employment at the [omitted for publication].

D.C. says that when C.S.C. turned 19 there was no longer a need for his parents to support him financially and that C.S.C., having reached the age of majority, does not meet the s. 146 FLA definition of child. D.R.M.’s Position [ 47 ] D.R.M. bases her position on the premise that C.S.C. has undiagnosed severe depression and has been attending virtual high school on a part-time basis since November of 2020. [ 48 ] D.R.M. contends that C.S.C.’s depression made it impossible for C.S.C. to attend school or work a job from the time C.S.C. dropped out of school in grade 9 until his 19 th birthday.

D.R.M. is of the belief that C.S.C.’s estrangement from his father around 2015 caused the depression. According to D.R.M., a medical doctor or counsellor has not diagnosed C.S.C. with depression because C.S.C. refuses to see a doctor or counsellor. D.R.M. does not deny that since C.S.C. dropped out of school in grade 9 that D.C. has found several employment opportunities over the years for C.S.C., including C.S.C.’s current job at the [omitted for publication].

Rather, she believes that C.S.C.’s depression was so severe that the best he could do since dropping out of grade 9 was skateboard and play computer games. [ 49 ] D.R.M. is of the further belief that C.S.C. was unable to provide for himself and live independent of her until the end of April 2021 at the earliest. D.R.M. says that C.S.C. continues to struggle with severe depression. D.R.M. argues that since [omitted for publication], when C.S.C. turned 19: (

i) C.S.C.’s depression made it impossible for C.S.C. to secure and maintain employment until he began his employment at the [omitted for publication] in May of 2021, and (ii) she enrolled C.S.C. in virtual high school in October 2020 and C.S.C. started taking his virtual high school classes on a part-time basis on November 6, 2020. [ 50 ] Thus, according to D.R.M., after C.S.C. turned 19 he was unable to obtain the necessaries of life or withdraw from the charge of his parents because of illness, disability or another reason (i.e. attending virtual high school on a part-time basis).

As such, C.S.C. remained a child per s. 146 of the FLA following his 19 th birthday. Discussion [ 51 ] There is no doubt that both parents love C.S.C., but they have very different approaches as to how to deal with C.S.C. For purposes of my decision, I do not have to decide which, if either, the right approach is. [ 52 ] As set out above, D.R.M. believes that C.S.C. has severe depression caused by C.S.C.’s estrangement from his father.

Nevertheless, C.S.C. has not been diagnosed. [ 53 ] D.R.M. appears to have expressed and shown her love for C.S.C. by encouraging him to enjoy activities that interest him, such as skateboarding, without requiring C.S.C. to attend school or contribute to the household financially. [ 54 ] Although D.R.M. keeps a bedroom in the mobile home she owns with her daughter and pays all expenses related to the mobile home, while collecting $500 month rent from a third party, her evidence supports the proposition that before and after C.S.C. turned 19 she was living fulltime with her boyfriend in a different residence from C.S.C..

Accordingly, the inference to be drawn is that except for money, C.S.C. was already living independent of his parents when he turned 19. [ 55 ] Contrary to the approach taken by D.R.M., D.C. appears to have taken the “tough love” approach in his relationship with C.S.C., encouraging his son to become more responsible for his actions and behaviour.

Instead of rescuing C.S.C. or enabling him -- by offering cash, no strings attached room and board, extra chances, or protecting C.S.C. from the consequences of his actions -- D.C. has expected C.S.C. to pull his weight, get out of the house, and go either to school or to work. D.C. denies that C.S.C. suffers from depression. [ 56 ] Applying the factors in Farden v. Farden to the present case, the results are as follows: 1. Whether the child is in fact enrolled in a course of studies and whether it is a full-time or part-time course of studies? a. When C.S.C. turned 19, he was not enrolled in a course of studies.

Approximately two-months after C.S.C.’s 19 th birthday, D.R.M., to her credit, enrolled C.S.C. in part-time virtual high school course with the stated goal of C.S.C. working towards getting his grade 12 graduation accreditation. The evidence is unclear as to whether C.S.C. agreed with his mother’s decision to enrol him in virtual high school. C.S.C. started his high school courses on November 6, 2020, and it is D.R.M.’ best guess that C.S.C. spends two-hours a day at his high school studies. 2. Whether or not the child has applied for or is eligible for student loans or other financial assistance? b.

There is no evidence that C.S.C. has applied for or is eligible for student loans or other financial assistance for his virtual high school. 3. 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? c. There is no evidence before the Court as to what, if any, career plans C.S.C. has.

4. The ability of the child to contribute to his own support through part-time employment? d. The evidence before the court is that D.C. presented C.S.C. with several opportunities to work and earn money towards his own support. But for D.R.M.’ belief that C.S.C. suffers from severe depression, there is no evidence that C.S.C. was unable to contribute to his own support through employment. 5. The age of the child? e. C.S.C. is 19. The evidence is unclear as to C.S.C.’s maturity level compared to other 19-year-olds in British Columbia. 6.

The child’s past academic performance, whether the child is demonstrating success in the chosen course of studies? f. There is no evidence of C.S.C.’s academic performance prior to his dropping out of high school in grade 9. Furthermore, the Court was not provided with evidence of C.S.C.’s performance in his part-time virtual high school studies since November 6, 2020. 7. What plans the parents made for the education of their children, particularly where those plans were made during cohabitation? g. There is no evidence of what plans, if any, D.C. or D.R.M. had for C.S.C.’s education while they were together.

Other than D.R.M.’ expressed desire to see C.S.C. graduate from high school, there is no evidence of what plans D.C. or D.R.M. personally had for C.S.C.’s education. 8. At least in the case of a mature child who has reached the age of majority, whether or not the child has unilaterally terminated a relationship from the parent from whom support is sought? h. The evidence is that D.C. and C.S.C. are estranged. The evidence from D.C. is that C.S.C. is the source of the estrangement. The evidence of D.R.M. is that C.S.C. is unwelcome at his father’s house and D.C. has not pursued a relationship with C.S.C.

CONCLUSION [ 57 ] The evidence before the Court does not support the conclusion that C.S.C. was unable because of illness, disability, or other reason to obtain the necessaries of life or withdraw from his parent’s charge upon reaching his 19 th birthday. Simply put, other than D.R.M.’s subjective observations and impressions, there is no evidence before the Court that C.S.C. suffers from depression, never mind a depression so severe that he was unable to attend high school or work a job.

Furthermore, taking a virtual high school course of studies a couple hours a day after turning 19 has not affected C.S.C.’s ability to work or withdraw from his parents’ charge. [ 58 ] I appreciate that D.R.M. feels responsible for C.S.C. and believes that he has simply been unable, over the past five years, to go to school or work due to depression.

However, the evidence before the Court does not support such a conclusion. [ 59 ] D.R.M. has not proven that C.S.C. was a child pursuant to s. 146 of the FLA following his 19 th birthday on [omitted for publication]. [ 60 ] I find that effective the date C.S.C. turned 19, C.S.C. was no longer a child under the FLA . [ 61 ] Furthermore, and for greater certainty, after C.S.C. reached the age of 19, at no point did C.S.C. meet the definition of child as allowed for in

section 146 of the FLA . [ 62 ] Accordingly, the child support order set out in clause 3 of the May 18, 2017 Final Order of The Honourable Judge D. M. D. Stewart , terminated on [omitted for publication]. As such, D.C.’s child support obligations in relation to C.S.C. ceased as of [omitted for publication]. [ 63 ] Pursuant to s. 152(1) of the FLA , I order that the April 22, 2021 Final Order made by The Honourable Judge D. M. D.

Stewart is cancelled. [ 64 ] Finally, I find that there are currently no arrears of child support owing by D.C. and this Court orders that the FMEP zero balance their account in this matter: FMEP Case [omitted for publication], Personal Identification Number [omitted for publication], Recipient’s Name: D.R.M. The Honourable Judge D. Patterson Province of British Columbia