Parent sues adult child for parental support

[vinnied]

I had no idea of this law.
All I have to add to this thread is,... Im no longer worried about retirement. wooo hooo.

[MAPearce]

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.:

NO logicalview is wrong.There may be a law in Canada that children have a legal responsiblity to care for their parents BUT real PARENTS don't just up and f/o on their children.

This "woman" is NOT a parent FULL STOP She should get a prison term for child abandonment not a monthly support cheque.

[violadagamba]

This won't be popular, but from reading the story as presented, there's another possibility - the parents did not abandon him, he chose to leave. Even as presented, the story acknowledges that he "dropped out" of school, and that the other kids had grown up & moved on. Maybe they were crappy parents - but it's also possible that, when his dad's work was transferred, at 15 he voted with his feet & took off. Chose to live on the streets in the community that supported his own self-view rather than move with his parents. Has since made good - and good for him - but was one of those kids that no-one could do anything with, and his parents, having other children, and having been told to move for work, refused to sacrifice the interests of the rest of the family for the selfish interests of one kid who refused to accept what his family had to offer. It's noteworthy that the mother is seeking support from all 4 kids, not just the hard luck story, but only the hard luck story has gone public.

Really - it's not that unusual, and is an entirely supportable alternative, given that the story will be slanted to give a "newsworthy" presentation, no?

The other part that may not be being reported on is that the gov't may be the source of the application since, if she's got lupus, then she's likely receiving social assistance. As such, she's assigned her rights to receive assistance to the gov't, and it may well be the gov't pursuing this on her behalf, to try to save the taxpayers the money required to support her - the same way they do with anyone else on social assistance with a right to spousal or child maintenance. Just saying.

[MAPearce]

If I didn't abandon my child I would not have to sue for support if I needed it. If I was there for him/her EVERY DAY they would be there for me when I needed.

It has been that way for 5 generations.Even my "out" laws are there for me when I need help.They don't particularily like me and the feeling could be considered mutual, BUT we don't sue each other when times get tough.

We help each other because it IS the right thing to do.To have to resort to a lawsuit is just plain WRONG.

[V-Rated]

Has anyone heard any more about this? Have they gone to court? Outcome?

[strwbrrydvl]

It has been delayed.

VANCOUVER — Ken and Sherry Anderson say they just want to focus on looking after their two sons as the couple grow older.

But the Oliver couple were in Vancouver Supreme Court Tuesday fighting an 11-year-old battle with Ken’s birth mother, who is suing for financial support from him in her senior years — even though she abandoned him when he was 15.

“I just wish this nightmare would disappear,” said Ken outside of court. “We lived in a brutal household. There was always trouble.

“Then they left me behind, and I just don’t think you should have to pay. When you are left behind at 15 years old, it is not right.

“We don’t want to end up paying. We are getting older and we want to retire soon, and we have two kids that we have to put through school — and having to pay her just takes it away from my kids, and that is just not right.”

Anderson and his four siblings are being sued by their 71-year-old mother Shirley, now living in Trail, for parental support.

She wants $750 a month from each child, all of whom claim their family life was dysfunctional. All have been estranged from their mother for years.

Under a little-used section of the B.C. Family Relations Act, there is a legal obligation for adult children to support “dependent” parents.

The law is currently under review by the B.C. Attorney General’s Ministry.

The Anderson siblings have, for the most part, been representing themselves in court proceedings to date.

But after seeing their story in the media, Vancouver lawyer Stanley Schwartz stepped in to represent Ken and Sherry free of charge.

Schwartz is also working to find the other siblings pro-bono lawyers. For that reason, their case was adjourned Tuesday.

It is likely the case will be back before the courts in two to four months.



Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/life/Mother+ ... z0zdFGAJ00

[V-Rated]

This is definately one of the craziest stories I have ever heard. I hope the children win - which I cannot see how they wouldn't and get a restraining order once this is done.

[mtnman1]

This has been going on for 11 years now. They probably have a civil suit, but they will never collect any money, maybe they will get a restraining order, if they win.

[Advocate]

This is definately one of the craziest stories I have ever heard. I hope the children win - which I cannot see how they wouldn't and get a restraining order once this is done.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/loca ... 98529.html

Works both ways..............

[V-Rated]

Thanks for the clip Advocate.

That is a story about tuition.... this parent seems is looking for support for a lifestyle. Ironically, she is from Trail, BC - where I live and there is nothing mentioned anywhere about it in any of our local papers. It will be interesting to see the ruling, I hope it gets tossed out of court.

[LivinginKelowna]

Perhaps you should make it publicly known there and that would help the children

[Advocate]

Thanks for the clip Advocate.

That is a story about tuition.... this parent seems is looking for support for a lifestyle. Ironically, she is from Trail, BC - where I live and there is nothing mentioned anywhere about it in any of our local papers. It will be interesting to see the ruling, I hope it gets tossed out of court.

yea I realize that, it's just that adult kids have also sued their parents for finanancial support.

[coffeeFreak]

Makes you wonder where the logic is in this ruling.

B.C. woman wins right to sue children for support
CBC News Posted: Nov 2, 2011 12:07 PM PT Last Updated: Nov 2, 2011 11:57 AM PT

A Kootenay woman suing her adult children for support has won the right to have her case heard in B.C. Supreme Court, after three of her children applied to have the matter dismissed.

Justice William Ehrcke ruled on Tuesday that Shirley Anderson's case for parental support can be heard, but if she continues to ignore court orders that right will disappear.

The justice gave the 73-year-old Trail resident one last chance to produce financial statements by Dec. 2 and then present herself to her lawyers for discovery hearings by the end of January.

Anderson first went to court in 2000, seeking $750 a month from her five adult children, but they objected, citing years of alienation. But Anderson won a court order granting her $50 a month total, split amongst five children.

The matter appeared to end there, until it was resurrected again in 2008, by her son, Ken Anderson, a logging truck driver with two teenagers of his own.

He argued he shouldn't have to pay anything because he was abandoned by his parents when he was just 15 years old. His mother has disputed his claims.

A rarely used section of B.C.'s Family Relations Act says adult children are responsible for legally supporting parents who are "dependent on a child because of age, illness, infirmity or economic circumstances."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/02/bc-shirley-anderson-lawsuit.html

[Pookybear]

This won't be popular, but from reading the story as presented, there's another possibility - the parents did not abandon him, he chose to leave. Even as presented, the story acknowledges that he "dropped out" of school, and that the other kids had grown up & moved on. Maybe they were crappy parents - but it's also possible that, when his dad's work was transferred, at 15 he voted with his feet & took off. Chose to live on the streets in the community that supported his own self-view rather than move with his parents. Has since made good - and good for him - but was one of those kids that no-one could do anything with, and his parents, having other children, and having been told to move for work, refused to sacrifice the interests of the rest of the family for the selfish interests of one kid who refused to accept what his family had to offer. It's noteworthy that the mother is seeking support from all 4 kids, not just the hard luck story, but only the hard luck story has gone public.

Really - it's not that unusual, and is an entirely supportable alternative, given that the story will be slanted to give a "newsworthy" presentation, no?

The other part that may not be being reported on is that the gov't may be the source of the application since, if she's got lupus, then she's likely receiving social assistance. As such, she's assigned her rights to receive assistance to the gov't, and it may well be the gov't pursuing this on her behalf, to try to save the taxpayers the money required to support her - the same way they do with anyone else on social assistance with a right to spousal or child maintenance. Just saying.

I am not sure if you are making up a senerio or if you know this family. I am sure there is another side to this story however if this were true and the one son was a screw up why are the other kids not rallying around their mother and helping taking care of her? I think this mother has alot of nerve and it's sad to see her do this to her kids.

[toughnut]

this deadfull women is a very sick individual(*bleep*) and this obsure law needs to be taken from the books .end of story