Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Retroactive Child Support Payments: Canadian Supreme Court. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 7 page paper discusses recent decisions by the Canadian Supreme Court in the case "D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, 2006 SCC 37," which refined the law with regard to retroactive child support payments. It also briefly discusses what changes in the law might mean for Canadian women. Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Page Count:
7 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVCanaSC.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
all dealt with the same issue: retroactive child support. This paper summarizes the case and what the ruling means for Canadian women. Discussion The proper case citation is D.B.S. v.
S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, 2006 SCC 37 and deals with four couples who separated and then had to consider child support issues. Much of
the discussion in theses cases centers on the fact that the non-custodial parent requested an increase in child support, which was not always granted; further, there is a necessity to
address the fact that there are time constraints involved in making a request for increased support. In addition, these actions reveal that the financial situation of the parents is not
static, but changes frequently over time, and the court believes that these changes, particularly when the income of the "payor parent" greatly increases, should also be reflected in a change
in the amount of child support paid (Supreme Court of Canada). Well consider each of the four actions separately. The D.B.S. v. S.R.G. case is that of a common-law couple
who had three children during the ten years they were together ("D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, 2006 SCC 37"-hereafter "D.B.S. et al"). After
they separated, the father had custody for a time, but "the parties subsequently entered into an informal shared custody arrangement. Neither party paid support to the other, although the
fathers income substantially exceeded the mothers" ("D.B.S. et al"). The mother brought an action for both ongoing and retroactive support in 2003; at that time the lower court awarded prospective
support but did not grant her request for retroactive support, because she and the childrens father were making approximately the same amount of money at the time she made the
...