Child support disputes often arise at the intersection of changing financial circumstances, evolving parenting arrangements, and the ongoing needs of children. While the Federal Child Support Guidelines provide a structured framework for determining support, courts retain discretion to ensure outcomes are fair, child-focused, and responsive to real-world complexity.
Alina Petraru of Meridian Law Group successfully represented a claimant in a recent child support-related decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, A.C.S. v. C.J.S. This case is instructive for parents navigating post-separation support obligations in B.C., as well as for those involved in self-employment, corporate income structures, or fluctuating earnings.
From Equal Parenting to Ongoing Dispute
The parties married in 2003 and separated in 2017. They had four children, all of whom were acknowledged as children of the marriage. Following separation, the parents shared parenting time equally, and their separation agreement provided that no child support was payable because their incomes were comparable at the time.
That arrangement changed in 2021 when the claimant applied to vary the agreement. A prior court order required the respondent to pay child support retroactively and on a go-forward basis, reflecting income changes and acknowledging volatility in both parties’ financial circumstances. Importantly, the earlier judge ordered that child support be subject to review after six months, anticipating further fluctuations. Additionally, in the spring of 2021, one of the children began residing with the claimant full-time, with no corresponding adjustment in child support.
Despite the court order’s built-in review mechanism, no review occurred until years later. During that time, child support payments became irregular, and enforcement proceedings were initiated through the Family Maintenance Agency. These developments set the stage for the applications ultimately decided by the court in early 2026.
Severe Illness and Financial Collapse
A defining aspect of the case was the claimant’s health. After being diagnosed with cancer in 2022, her condition deteriorated dramatically. By late 2024 and 2025, she faced brain metastases, emergency surgeries, permanent chemotherapy, and an inability to continue working in any capacity.
The court accepted that the claimant’s loss of income was sudden, involuntary, and permanent. Her employment income (previously well into six figures) was replaced by limited employment insurance benefits that were set to expire. Her prognosis significantly constrained her ability to engage in daily activities, let alone full-time employment.
In response to her medical crisis, friends and family organized a GoFundMe campaign to help cover basic living and child-related expenses. This became a significant point of contention in the litigation.
Is Crowdfunding Income for Child Support Purposes?
One of the most legally significant issues in the decision was whether funds raised through GoFundMe should be included in a parent’s income under the Federal Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines).
The respondent argued that the crowdfunding proceeds functioned as income replacement and should be treated as income for child support purposes. He pointed to how the funds were used (mortgage payments, groceries, transportation, and child expenses) as evidence that they effectively substituted for employment earnings.
The court rejected this argument. Drawing on appellate authority, the judge emphasized that gifts are not presumptively income under the Guidelines. Only in unusual circumstances will gifts be treated as income, such as where they are regular, long-term, or entrenched as part of the family’s standard of living.
Here, the court found that the GoFundMe donations were:
- Crisis-driven and time-limited;
- A response to catastrophic illness;
- Unlikely to continue;
- Not a windfall or financial advantage; and
- Used, in part, because child support payments had ceased.
The court concluded that including the GoFundMe funds as income would be both legally inappropriate and inconsistent with the compassionate objectives underlying child support law.
Determining Guideline Income When Work Is No Longer Possible
For the period after the claimant became medically unable to work, the court fixed her Guideline income at the amount of her employment insurance benefits, annualized to approximately $32,500.
This finding reinforces a key principle in family law: child support should reflect actual earning capacity, not historical income levels divorced from present reality. Where illness permanently removes a parent from the workforce, courts will not impute income absent evidence of capacity or voluntary underemployment.
Scrutiny of the Father’s Financial Disclosure
In contrast, the respondent father’s financial evidence was treated with skepticism. Although he reported a relatively modest income, his lifestyle suggested otherwise. His rent exceeded his declared earnings, and he continued to fund discretionary spending such as travel, recreational equipment, and ski passes. He claimed that family loans and third-party contributions explained the discrepancy, but provided little documentary support.
The court noted that this was not the first time concerns had been raised about the respondent’s financial transparency. In earlier proceedings, income had been imputed to him due to selective disclosure and salary deferral through corporate structures.
Given the lack of reliable evidence and the respondent’s control over multiple corporations, the court found that he was either intentionally underemployed or manipulating income. As a result, income was imputed to him at $175,000 annually, a figure lower than what the claimant sought but substantially higher than what the respondent reported.
Imputed Income and Corporate Control
Courts will look beyond line-by-line tax returns when a parent can influence their own income. When income flows through corporations, dividends, or consulting arrangements, judges may examine:
- Corporate revenues and retained earnings;
- Past earning patterns;
- Lifestyle evidence;
- Failure to produce financial statements; and
- The ability to earn income rather than the income actually declared.
Where disclosure is incomplete or self-serving, income imputation becomes a powerful corrective tool to protect children’s right to support.
Setting Ongoing Child Support
Based on the imputed income to the respondent and the claimant’s reduced earnings, the court ordered that the respondent pay monthly child support of $2,821 going forward.
This determination reflects the Guidelines’ core objective: ensuring children continue to benefit from the financial means of both parents after separation, even when circumstances are profoundly unequal.
No Automatic Entitlement to Retroactive Child Support
During a defined historical period, the claimant’s income exceeded the respondent’s imputed income. On a strict application of the Guidelines, this could have resulted in the claimant owing retroactive support to the respondent.
The court declined to make such an order, instead applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework for retroactive child support. This requires a holistic assessment of factors, including the reason support was not sought earlier, any blameworthy conduct by the parties, the children’s circumstances, and any hardship that would result from a retroactive award.
Blameworthy Conduct and Enforcement Avoidance
The respondent’s conduct weighed heavily against granting retroactive support in his favour. He had unilaterally stopped paying court-ordered child support without notice, only initiating a review after enforcement proceedings commenced.
The court emphasized that choosing discretionary spending over compliance with a child support order constitutes blameworthy conduct. Parents are not entitled to prioritize personal lifestyle choices over legally mandated support obligations.
Children’s Circumstances and Practical Impact
There was no evidence that the children had suffered as a result of the claimant’s failure to pay support during the historical period. To the contrary, the children had enjoyed a high standard of living, supported in part by expenditures made directly by the respondent.
More importantly, the court recognized that ordering retroactive support against a parent facing terminal illness and permanent loss of income would ultimately harm the children by undermining the claimant’s ability to meet their ongoing needs.
Hardship and Compassion in Child Support Law
While child support is the right of the children, courts are not blind to reality. The decision underscores that hardship analysis must be forward-looking and grounded in fairness.
Ordering retroactive support in this case would have ignored the claimant’s present and future inability to earn income, creating financial strain that would inevitably be borne by the children themselves. Blind adherence to table amounts is neither required nor desirable where it produces unjust outcomes.
Child Support Orders Must Balance Compassion and Fairness
A.C.S. v. C.J.S. is a powerful example of how British Columbia courts balance legal principles with compassion, realism, and the overarching goal of protecting children. It demonstrates that while child support obligations are taken seriously, courts will not weaponize the Guidelines in a way that produces cruelty or injustice.
For parents navigating child support disputes, particularly those involving health crises, self-employment, or fluctuating income, this decision underscores the importance of timely disclosure, good-faith conduct, and seeking legal advice early.
Contact Meridian Law Group for Exceptional Family Law Advice in Vancouver
If you are facing a child support review, income imputation dispute, or retroactive support claim, it is critical to understand how B.C. courts assess fairness, disclosure, and hardship. The family law team at Meridian Law Group advises parents navigating complex support issues, including self-employment income, changing circumstances, and enforcement challenges.
Meridian Law Group proudly represents clients in family law matters across B.C., including in West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Penticton, Kelowna, Richmond, New Westminster, Burnaby, Surrey, Langley, and White Rock. Contact us online or call (604) 687-2277 to discuss your situation and obtain clear, practical guidance tailored to your family’s needs.
