Although the judge in Johnson v. Johnson, 2002 CarswellOnt 2831 (Sup. Ct.) accepted that there was authority for such direct payment, he outlined certain policy considerations, which I consider to be germane to the inquiry in the present case: (a) Direct payments to a child should contain no amount to defray the dependent parent’s costs and therefore are only appropriate where the child maintains his or her own home and expenses; (b) Direct payments where the custodial parent still maintains a home for the child divert funds away from that parent, interfere with budgeting for both parent and child, and give a message that the parent cannot be trusted.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.