[Sporty_Gal]

I am a woman currently dating a single dad with 2 young children. We do not live together, I own my own home and earn a pretty decent income. My question is: If I were to move in with this single dad, and should we ever separate, can I be legally forced to pay child support for his 2 children? Can someone please answer my question, I would certainly appreciate it. Oh, and I live in the province of Ontario.

Thank You.

[joypulv]

No, not unless you adopted them.

[GV70]

No, not unless you adopted them.

I disagree. Joypul, your answer is correct if it is about the entire world without Canada,excluding Quebec /my guess the people of Quebec do not have frozen brains;););)/
According to Canadian law a step-parent is obligated to pay child support.A step-parent is a person who was married at least for a year or has dated for two years with the parent, the Divorce Act has imposed support obligations on a divorcing person who “stands in the place of a parent” despite having no biological relationship with the child. Most provinces have similar laws for step-parents leaving common-law relationships, although the criteria vary.
The Family Relations Act plainly states that stepparents can be responsible for paying child support just as biological parents are responsible for paying child support. This has meant that in some cases, multiple people who meet the act's definitions of "parent," "stepparent," and people who otherwise stand "in the place of a parent" can be simultaneously responsible for paying child support for the same child.


Definitions play an important role in determining eligibility and responsibility for child support under the Family Relations Act, just as they do under the Divorce Act. Section 88 of the Family Relations Act states that each parent of a child is responsible for the support of that child, and s. 1(1) defines a "child" and a "parent" as follows:

"child" means a person who is under the age of 19 years;

"parent" includes

(a) a guardian or guardian of the person of a child, or

(b) a stepparent of a child if

(i) the stepparent contributed to the support and maintenance of the child for at least one year

[GV70]

Some bizarre examples from Canada:

Brown v. Laurin [2004] -a step-father was ordered to pay support for two kids even after they had gone to live with their natural father. :eek:

In Cook v Kilduff-The husband was found to stand in the place of a parent for his step-child;
The mother had not pursued the biological father for support of that child. The court awarded the Guidelines amount for two children, plus one half the extra amount which would have been payable for a third child.

Kotylak v Kotylak-When there is no information about the ability of the biological parent to pay child support, the judge has to make an order for a step-parent to pay the full Guidelines amount of child support.:(

Watch v. Watch, [1999]-marrying someone with children, one is understood to be assuming responsibility for their children, thus s/he is a parent with child support obligation.:confused:

Bromberg v. Bromberg, [1998] N.S.J. No. 112 (S.C.).-same as above


T.D.O. v. R.G.O., [2000] B.C.J. No. 524 (S.C.) -relationship of under two years; no children of relationship; wife had two children from prior relationships who lived with parties; biological fathers uninvolved,because the step-parent engaged in sports he had to pay child support.

R.F.L. (4th) 24 (B.C.S.C.). The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of the s. 88 definition of parent under the F.R.A—no priority was given under the legislation to the obligation of the biological parent; no distinction was made between the obligations of natural and step-parents; and the obligations of parents were joint and several—and the matter was thus remitted to the trial court for reconsideration.:eek:

God save the Queen... and all her subjects from the Canadian Court system!.:eek:

[Sporty_Gal]

Thanks to all that answered my question. I'm definitely going to be careful. I have no children, and also earn more money than the guy I'm dating. I have no intentions of marrying or living with this guy, even though he's very nice, but I also need to look after my own interests. And yes, Canada has some very strange laws, it pays to be wise and careful in situations when one dates a single parent.
Thanks,
Sporty_Gal.

[joypulv]

Dating for 2 years makes you a step parent in Canada?!
Playing sports with the child makes you a step parent even if under two years?! (One case anyway)
Thank you, GV70.

[JudyKayTee]

Dating for 2 years makes you a step parent in Canada?!?
Playing sports with the child makes you a step parent even if under two years?!! (One case anyway)
Thank you, GV70.

Scary, isn't it?

[GV70]

Scary, isn't it?

Being a good Samaritan is punishable in Canada.:eek:

[AK lawyer]

That clinches it:

Canadians are crazy!

[GV70]

That clinches it:

Canadians are crazy!

I do not know whether the Canadians are crazy or not, but I am sure their legislation and legal system sucks.
Another bizarre example-the case Beblow vs Peter which was decided by the Supreme court of Canada.
Synopsis:
Mr. Beblow invited Ms. Peter and her four kids to move into his home, rent-free. She lived there 12 years altogether. He had owned the house before she moved in. He paid off the mortgage from his earnings,He never paid her for her housework, and she never paid him rent or board. He never promised to marry her, or to give her a share of his property.

The Supreme Court decided that Mr. Beblow had been unjustly enriched by Ms. Peter's services. The value of the work she had done, they said, outweighed the free rent and groceries she had received. They handed her Mr. Beblow's mortgage-free house.

And finally I want to cite Karen Selick who is a respectful Canadian lawyer,


"My clients were all shocked to learn that being nice to their partner's kids for a while might have sentenced them to supporting the kids for a decade or two, without any hope of reprieve. Since the 1999 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Chartier v. Chartier, it has been clear that terminating the relationship with a step-child doesn't get you off the hook, once you have been found to meet the statutory criteria.
When a step-parent bestows time, attention or material goods upon his spouse's child, the child doesn't give up any opportunities for his future in reliance upon that benevolence.
Nor does the child necessarily reciprocate with any kind of benefit to the step-parent—even filial affection. The flow of benefits is all too often completely one-way. In many cases I've seen, the kids remained aloof or even actively hostile to the step-parent despite the adult's best efforts to foster a relationship.
Good laws should encourage responsible behaviour and discourage irresponsible behaviour. The law makes people support their biological children as a disincentive to irresponsible procreation. You don't get to make babies and walk away scot-free. But this reasoning doesn't apply to step-children. The children are already in existence when the step-parent comes on the scene, so allowing step-parents to walk away would not encourage irresponsible procreation.

The step-parent support laws are actually perverse, providing disincentives for socially desirable behaviour. First, they discourage people from entering into relationships with single parents. Second, they discourage people from attempting to forge close relationships with their step-children if they are so foolhardy as to overcome the first disincentive. It is only because so many people are ignorant of the law that it “works” at all."