Parent sues adult child for parental support

[strwbrrydvl]

By Nancy Macdonald
Payback time for parents
A B.C. case is the thin edge of a growing trend: parents suing their adult children for support

It's been 16 years since Ken Anderson saw his mother. His parents moved out to B.C.'s West Kootenay region when he was 15, effectively abandoning him in the town of Osoyoos, 200 km away. (His dad, who worked for Labatt, had been transferred.) Ken was the family baby; by then, his four siblings had moved out. He dropped out of high school and took a job at the local Husky to support himself. He couch-surfed and, for a while, lived with a neighbour.

Eventually, a kindly boss let him crash in his basement. "The past is past," says the 46-year-old father of two, who lives in Oliver, where he runs a logging truck business. He's never been angry with his folks. But he's never tried to rebuild the relationship either. His dad died years ago and in 30 years, he's seen his mom Shirley fewer than 10 times. Imagine his surprise then, when one fine day he was served with papers announcing he was being sued for parental support.

Embrace the Chaos: 9 things I'd like back from my kids

Shirley, who is 71, has lupus, and has never worked. She and Ken's father split up in 1990, and her support largely dried up when he died, soon after the divorce. She's since amassed a credit card debt totalling $28,000 and is seeking $250 per month from Ken and an undisclosed sum from three of his siblings. (Neither she nor her lawyer were available for comment.)

More Stories from Macleans

Our pension system is a mess, and fixing it won't be easy
The problem with not having kids
Why old people know more than young people
A home is seen as a ticket to retirement. But is that wise?
As Ken found, every province except Alberta has so-called filial duty laws requiring adult children to support a parent who may be dependent due to age, illness or financial straits. They owe their existence to English "Poor Laws," and date back to the Depression-before the creation of the modern welfare state. Since then, government has introduced the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security, recognizing its duty to look after the elderly. Filial duty laws should be abolished, says Vancouver lawyer Lorne MacLean. The B.C. Law Institute agrees. Three years ago, it began calling for the repeal of the law, calling it a stopgap response to the problem of poverty among the elderly.

In the '30s, "seniors," people aged 65 and older, made up less than five per cent of Canada's population. Today, they total 4.3 million: roughly one in seven. Within five years, seniors-many struggling with rising costs of living and health care-will outnumber children under 15, putting profound strains on Canada's health and home-care systems and pensions that, in many cases, have been critically underfunded for years. Already, Ottawa is weighing options to address a looming shortfall with the Canada Pension Plan.

Government, not children, should be responsible for their welfare, says Law Institute lawyer Kevin Zakreski. In 2005, Alberta repealed its parental support laws. England did away with its in 1948. But that's a dangerous proposition, says Wendy Bernt, a family lawyer practising in Victoria. For some, she says, these statutes are a "last line of defence against abject poverty." Raising kids is an expensive business, she adds. "If that's where your income went, it's hard, morally, to say parents don't have a right to support." Where moral and societal pressures aren't enough to enforce family responsibility, she says, it may be necessary and proper for the courts to intervene.

Claims like Shirley Anderson's have only recently come before courts in significant numbers, but more like them are expected to hit the courts in the coming decade. Queen's University law professor Nick Bala says the bulk of claims (including six reported in B.C.) date to the past 10 years. And it's not just in Canada. In Singapore last year, the number of parents filing for filial support doubled from a year earlier, to an annual 200 cases. Bala isn't predicting a sudden flood of cases. Parents, even if destitute, will be reluctant to enforce the obligation out of shame. And unless "sonny boy's a stockbroker driving a Lexus," success isn't guaranteed, says Surrey lawyer David Greig: a child must have means to pay support.

In August, the Andersons go to court. The judge will consider the children's liabilities, responsibilities and net worth. Ken and his wife, Sherry, say they have little money saved for their own retirement.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., where some on the political right argue for wider enforcement of these laws to ease the growing strain on the public purse, third parties have begun using them to force adult children to pay their parents' bills. Last year, Don Grant, an unemployed Pennsylvania dad wrestling with a mortgage and his daughter's college tuition, was successfully sued by a hospital using the state's filial statute when his 72-year-old mom skipped her bill. Grant, raised by his grandparents and estranged from his mom, didn't even know she was in hospital.

Information is current as of the original date of publication.

I could see suing a millionaire child that won't share the wealth but this is just a little cuckoo. Perhaps he should sue her back for emotional distress after being self-suffient at 15 and having not even seen her for 16 years. She sounds like a wench.

[MAPearce]

Some one ran out of liquor money.

[V-Rated]

Just when you think you heard it all! I can't even believe anyone can entertain this as a legal case.
*shaking head*

[Poindexter]

I could see an increase in family size in coming years. If they win support it may actually make having kids worth it.

[LivinginKelowna]

I could see suing a millionaire child that won't share the wealth but this is just a little cuckoo. Perhaps he should sue her back for emotional distress after being self-suffient at 15 and having not even seen her for 16 years. She sounds like a wench.

what difference does it make if the child is financially stable or not?

Who is the government to say that a person has to share their wealth with anyone? Let alone an abandoning parent

[logicalview]

She's since amassed a credit card debt totalling $28,000 and is seeking $250 per month from Ken and an undisclosed sum from three of his siblings.

Ken has a legal obligation to support his mother. All Canadian children have that obligation except for children in Alberta (they don't have that law).

Ken should not be liable to pay his mothers credit card debt. She incurred that debt voluntarily.

[xlauvawke]

this law is garbage, if you are going to have kids be financially prepared for retirement. Think of all the EXTRA money Ken is going to have to spend on a lawyer and legal fees ON TOP of paying out every month to this wrech of a mother.

[Walking Wounded]

This so called mother left her 15 yr old son & skipped town & now has the gall to sue him for support? This woman needs a reality check. It would be different if she had been there for him throughout his life but she wasn't she ABANDONED him at 15 & that in itself is disgusting. She was never there for her son so why should he lift a finger let alone open his wallet to help her now.

[grammafreddy]

I wouldn't mind hearing the mother's side of the story ........

[wiinter]

You can choose to have kids or not. You CAN'T choose NOT to have parents.

[MAPearce]

The only person worse than a parent who abandon's a child and then sue's them for support later in life is the lawyer who is willing to take this case to court.

When she walked away on her children the damage must have been horrible,now this?? Who in their right minds could have any support for such a monster?

[ddiiaanne]

I wish my kids would get better jobs!

Seriously though, I think it's a waste of money that this is even going to court!

[kgcayenne]

This guy should counter-sue for 3 years' worth of support (15-18 yrs of age), emotional damages, and a bunch of other stuff I haven't come up with yet.

ETA: The people who gave him support and places to live should sue her too.

Why wasn't she up on charges for child abandonment? What's the statute of limitations for that?

[intheknow]

She's since amassed a credit card debt totalling $28,000 and is seeking $250 per month from Ken and an undisclosed sum from three of his siblings.

Ken has a legal obligation to support his mother. All Canadian children have that obligation except for children in Alberta (they don't have that law).

Ken should not be liable to pay his mothers credit card debt. She incurred that debt voluntarily.

logicalview?? I do beleive you need to change your handle to ILLogicalview.Ken has no obligation to support his so called"mother" Shes a mother alright a Mother ---ker
where do all these lowlife scumbag people(mothers) come from?Geez enough already

[violadagamba]

No - logicalview is right. There is law in most of Canada that children do have the legal obligation to support their parents. It's just uncommon. The BC version is in section 90 of the Family Relations Act - i.e.:

Obligation to support parent
90 (1) In this section:
"child" means an adult child of a parent;
"parent" means a father or mother dependent on a child because of age, illness, infirmity or economic circumstances.
(2) A child is liable to maintain and support a parent having regard to the other responsibilities and liabilities and the reasonable needs of the child.