Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:39:18.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parents Who Sue Their Adult Children For Support: An Examination of Decisions by Canadian Court Judges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

Jeanette Parsons  and
Joseph A. Tindale
Jeanette Parsons
Affiliation:
North Peace Community Resources Society
Joseph A. Tindale
Affiliation:
University of Guelph
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the factors considered by Canadian court judges in 14 cases where the provincial legislation that obligates adult children to provide support for their parents was referred to. This exploration takes place within the context of intergenerational relationships with a focus on exchange between parents and adult children. Analysis revealed that the courts promote the obligation of family members to provide for one another according to the legislation and that the responsibility to provide this support is based on certain priorities. Nuclear family obligations come before those of the extended family. Of the factors considered by the court, this paper focusses on three: the eligibility of the parent, who is initiating the court proceedings, and the definition and prioritizing of responsibilities between parents and adult children.

Résumé

Ce document explore les facteurs pris en compte par des juges de cours canadiennes dans 14 causes où la loi provinciale a obligé des enfants adultes à prendre leurs parents en charge. L'exploration se situe dans un contexte de relations intergénérationnelles et porte plus précisément sur l'échange entre parents et enfants adultes. L'analyse a révélé que les cours prônent l'obligation pour les membres d'une même famille de subvenir aux besoins les uns des autres aux termes de la loi et que cette responsabilité repose sur certaines priorités. Les obligations de la famille nucléaire ont préséance sur celles de la famille élargie. Le document se penche sur trois facteurs pris en compte par la cour: l'admissibilité du parent, l'identité de l'initiateur de la poursuite et enfin, la définition et la priorisation des responsabilités entre les parents et les enfants adultes.

Keywords

IntergenerationalExchangeLawsuitSupport.Intergénérationneléchangepoursuitesubvention.
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , Hiver/Winter 2001 , pp. 451 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banks, M. (1985). Using a law library: A guide for students and lawyers in the Common Law Provinces of Canada, 4th ed.Toronto: The Carswell Company Ltd.Google Scholar
Bengtson, V.L., Cutler, N., Mangen, D., & Marshall, V. (1985). Generations, cohorts, and relations between age groups. In Binstock, R.H. & Shanas, E. (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences, 2nd Edition (pp. 304–338). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Bengtson, V.L., Mangen, D., & Landry, P. (1984). The multi-generation family: Concepts and findings. In Garms-Homolova, V., Hoerning, E.M., & Schaeffer, D. (Eds.), Intergenerational relationships (pp. 63–80). New York: C.J. Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Bengtson, V.L., Olander, E., & Haddad, A.A. (1976). The ‘generation gap’ and aging family members: Toward a conceptual model. In Gubrium, J.F. (Ed.), Time, roles and self in old age (pp. 237–263). New York: Human Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Berman, H.J. (1987). Adult children and their parents: Irredeemable obligation and irreplaceable loss. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 10(2), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borins, C. (1984). St. Joseph's Health Centre versus Sauro et al. Ontario Reports. Vol. 45, 2nd Edition, 221–224.Google Scholar
Boyd, S.B. (1994). (Re)placing the State: Family, law, and oppression. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 3(1), 39–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
J., Collings Prov. (1985). Hua v. Lam. Reports of Family Law. Vol. 49, 2nd Edition, 6–13.Google Scholar
Daley, Fam. Ct. J. (1984). Barrington V. Shand. Reports of Family Law, Vol. 42, 2nd Edition, 38–46.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. (1988). Am I my parents' keeper? An essay on justice between the young and the old (p. 23). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dorczak, A. (1991). Unborn child abuse: Contemplating legal solution. Canadian Journal of Family Law, 9(2), 133–156.Google ScholarPubMed
Dunn. Prov., J. (1993). Godwin versus Bolsco. Reports of Family Law. Vol. 45, 3rd Edition, 310–327.Google Scholar
Family Law Digest (1995). (Vol. 4) 4th ed. (pp. 441–43). Toronto: Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing.Google Scholar
Fisher, Prov. J. (1994). Ontario (Director, Family Support Plan) v. Burgess. Reports of Family Law, Vol. 5, 4th ed., 451–456.Google Scholar
Gee, E.M., & McDaniel, S.A. (1993). Social policy for an aging society. Journal of Canadian Studies, 28(1), 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, S. (1992). Thinking methodologically. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Hancock, P., Mangen, D.J., & McChesney, K.Y. (1988). The exchange dimension of solidarity: Measuring intergenerational exchange and functional solidarity. In Mangen, D.J., Bengtson, V.L., & Landry, P.H. Jr, (Eds.), Measurement of intergenerational relations (pp. 156–186). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hayford, A. (1988). Outlines of the family. Family matters: Sociology and contemporary Canadian families.Google Scholar
Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Don Mills, ON: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Karswick, J. (1982). Blum versus Blum. Dominion Law Reports. Vol. 132, 2nd ed., 69–73.Google Scholar
Lawton, L., Silverstein, M., & Bengston, V. (1994). Intergenerational linkages: Hidden connections in American society. Washington, NY: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Lipovenko, D. (1982). Woman wins her suit for support from son under family law act. Globe and Mail, February 8, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
Nash, Prov. J. (1996). Leung v. Leung. Reports of Family Law, Vol. 20, 4th ed., 48–54.Google Scholar
Neysmith, S.M. (1987). Social policy implications. In Marshall, V.W. (Ed.), Aging in Canada, (pp. 586–597). Markham, ON: Fitzhenry & Whiteside.Google Scholar
Norris, J.E., & Tindale, J.A. (1994). Among generations: The cycle of adult relations. New York: Framen.Google Scholar
Paul, E.W., & Pipel, H.F. (1979). Teenagers and pregnancy: The law. Family planning perspectives, 11(5), 297–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pedlar, Prov. Div. J. (1994). Whiteley v. Brodie. Quick law.Google Scholar
Robertshaw, P., & Curtin, C.A. (1977). Legal definition of the family: An historical and sociological exploration. Sociological Review, 25(2), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, C.J. (1987). Aging and intergenerational relations in Canada. In Marshall, V.W. (Ed.), Aging in Canada (pp. 311–342). Markham, ON: Fitzhenry & Whiteside.Google Scholar
Snell, J. (1990). Filial responsibility laws in Canada: An historical study. Canadian Journal on Aging, 9(3), 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Duzer, U.F.C.J. (1987). Berendt v. Berendt & Berendt. Reports of Family Law, Vol 11, 3rd ed., 69–74.Google Scholar
Vogelsang, Prov. J. (1994) Bell v. Mellows. Reports of Family Law, Vol 6, 4th ed., 5–9.Google Scholar
Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic content analysis. New Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woody, R.H., Yeager, M., & Woody, J.D. (1990). Appropriate education for handicapped children: Introducing family therapy to school-based decision making. American Journal of Family Therapy 18(2), 189–196.Google Scholar
Zukewich Ghalam, N. (1996). Living with relatives. Canadian Social Trends, 42, 20–24.Google Scholar