Today’s blog is authored by Chigozie Enwereuzo, LPP student-at-law with Hull & Hull LLP

Support claims advanced by estranged adult children are a feature of the family law landscape and beg the question: does a parent need to pay child support to a child who refuses to have a relationship with them?

There is a marked difference between when a parent refuses to or avoids having a relationship with a child to whom he or she owes child support and where a child requiring support absolutely refuses to have such a parent in his or her life. Where a parent attempts to negatively influence the child’s relationship with the other parent, it is called parental alienation. On the other hand, it is parental estrangement where the child, for reasons best known to the child, prefers to not have a relationship with the support paying parent.

The courts may consider the lack of an on-going relationship between the adult child and the parent where the adult child subsequently claims back child support from their estranged parent in a situation where the parental estrangement is so severe as to have destroyed any iota of relationship between them.

For parental estrangement to be considered a reason to deny a child support claim, even for an estranged adult child, it must have been because of the unilateral withdrawal of the child from the child /parent relationship. Opinions of the courts are strong. In Nitkin v. Nitkin, where child support was being sought from the estranged father of his 18-year-old daughter, Justice DiTomaso stated, at para. 109: 

“Mr. Nitkin feels that in the absence of any just cause for terminating her relationship with him, he is viewed as nothing more than a “wallet” or cash machine by Brenna and her mother.  He submits that Mrs. Nitkin-Siegal’s alienating influences have resulted in Brenna rejecting him.  No court has found Mr. Nitkin’s conduct to be deserving of this result.”

In Veneman v. Veneman, where the 19-year old daughter was heavily influenced to sever ties with the father by the mother, Justice Gray opined, at para. 65: 

 “In this case, there can be no question that Mr. Veneman is nothing more than a wallet. While the allocation of fault or blame for situations of this sort is difficult, at best, it seems to me that in this case both parents must assume a share of the blame.”

In Negin v. Fryers (2018 ONSC 959) a case concerning a father being asked to pay part of the cost of the postgraduate studies of his estranged twenty-four year old daughter, Justice Faieta found, at para. 127:

“Given their lack of contact with Perry, it is clear that Perry is viewed by Taryn and her adult siblings, at best, as nothing more than a wallet. I find that Taryn was no longer a ‘child of the marriage’ effective June 30, 2014.  Given all these circumstances, any child support obligations in respect of Taryn under the 2020 Order ended on June 30, 2014.” 

In CJD v. RIJ , 2017 ABQB 612 where the case was about a 16-year old daughter who was completely estranged from her mother and the mother’s family, Justice Graesser stated, at para. 40:

“Case law recognizes that a parent may not have to contribute to a child’s education past Grade 12 and age 18 if the child is alienated from the parent for no good reason. There is no good reason for the child’s alienation from the mother.  It may be unreasonable for an adult child to expect support from a parent that the child wants nothing to do with, other than his or her money.”

Finally, Justice Labrenz in the case of CLD v. RJB (2019 ABQB 852 (at para. 26) said:

“It is unacceptable at law and in practice to treat one’s parent as no more than a source of funds, the “parent as wallet” syndrome”.

These cases are all family law cases, but it is interesting to consider whether the caselaw could have a bearing on support claims advanced by adult children under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act.

Thanks for reading.

Chigozie Enwereuzo, LPP student-at-law with Hull & Hull LLP