B.C. man sued by mother for parental support

[oneh2obabe]

Niamh Scallan
Staff Reporter

A B.C. man whose estranged elderly mother is suing him for parental support has had enough.

Ken Anderson — a 47-year-old logger and truck driver from Oliver, B.C. — appeared in B.C. Supreme Court earlier this week to request that the marathon lawsuit against him and his siblings be dismissed.

In 2000, Shirley Anderson, now 73, sued four of her children for parental support. She announced last year that she wanted $750 a month from each of them.

But Anderson — who said he was abandoned at 15 years old and left to fend for himself — refused to pony up the cash.

“If you love your parents, you’ll take care of them . . . but I don’t think I owe her nothing,” he said. “I dropped out of school and had to start pumping gas to make a living.”

Under Section 90 of the B.C. Family Relations Act, a parent who cannot support themselves due to “age, illness, infirmity or economic circumstances” can claim support from an adult child.

Anderson, now a father of two teenage boys, said he cannot afford to pay his mother and should not have to support her. His siblings have argued the same.

“This is a situation where there’s an enormous estrangement. It’s very sad for everybody,” Anderson’s lawyer Stanley Schwartz said. “They’ve had this hanging over their heads for a long, long time.”

Kevin Zakreski, a staff lawyer at the British Columbia Law Institute, said the Anderson case demonstrates the need to update B.C.’s family relations act. He said the rarely used law can be complicated by family issues and can lead to drawn-out, burdensome proceedings.

Canada’s parental support laws date back to the 1920s when cash-strapped local and provincial governments sought ways to reduce spending on temporary social support programs.

“The theory was that . . . they could shift the burden to adult children,” Zakreski said.

Those same laws exist across the country — except in Alberta, where the law was repealed in 2005 when the province’s Family Law Act was updated.

The B.C. Law Institute issued a report in 2007 calling for the removal of B.C.’s archaic parental support law, highlighting the need for more comprehensive policies to support impoverished seniors.

“The theory that people should look first to their families has really fallen out of favour,” Zakreski said. “This is not an effective means to deal with the problem of poverty among older adults.”

A follow-up report released by the Ministry of the Attorney General in 2009 noted that many respondents supported overturning the parental support provision.

“Reasons are that it is seldom used, it does not promote family harmony, and that care of the elderly should be the responsibility of the state,” the report said.

When asked if and when the law will be repealed, B.C.’s Attorney General Shirley Bond said in an emailed statement that “one of the ministry’s key priorities is developing new legislation to modernize the Family Relations Act . . . we hope it will be introduced soon.”

But Section 90 is still in effect in B.C. and the Anderson siblings remain embroiled in a costly, drawn-out lawsuit with their estranged mother. The B.C. Supreme Court judge reserved his decision this week.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... wsuit?bn=1

[ts]

What a crock! I can't believe this is still ongoing and hasn't been thrown out yet. She walks out on her children, then comes back years later to demand support. Only in Canada! Quit wasting taxpayer money and the resources of the adult children on BS like this. Consequence to her actions - they owe her nothing. Lawyers should be shot over this kind of pathetic lawsuit. It's lawsuits like this that gives that profession such a bad reputation.

[oneh2obabe]

Hopefully the judge awards the children legal costs when he throws out this woman's (can't call her a mother) lawsuit.

[Phoenix Within]

They had something on CHBC about this fellow, about a year ago. I'm sorry to see that he's still going through this debacle with his so-called mother.

[Mr. Personality]

Hopefully the judge awards the children legal costs when he throws out this woman's (can't call her a mother) lawsuit.

I'd say she should face charges for wasting the court's time like this.
You can be charged for wasting 911's time, why not the court's.

[oneh2obabe]

They had something on CHBC about this fellow, about a year ago. I'm sorry to see that he's still going through this debacle with his so-called mother.

This woman sued 4 of her children in 2000 wanting $750/month from each one. Must be nice to think you're entitled to $36K per year when you did squat.

[Carmencat]

They had something on CHBC about this fellow, about a year ago. I'm sorry to see that he's still going through this debacle with his so-called mother.

He was on the news just a few days ago again - the stupid case still hasn't been thrown out. This guy says he(and not sure how many of his siblings) keeps showing up for court dates and his 'mother' may or may not depending on whether she feels like it or not.

This last time she did not provide information asked for so the son asked for the case to be thrown out. The 'mother's' reply to the court is that she has run out of pro bono money (so her lawyer has been free for all these years apparently) and doesn't have money for a lawyer. Hence she didn't understand what was being asked of her.

Sounds like Mommie Dearest knows how to play the system - and has likely been playing it her whole life.