Report of the Follow-Up Committee on the Quebec Model for the Determination of Child Support Payments

July 2004

• [ Previous Page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next Page ]

CHAPTER 4: STATISTICAL SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF DATA CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE MODEL

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 4 is divided into two parts. The first focuses on the database of child support orders. It includes an introduction, the methodology used both to put together the database and analyze them, and the results of that analysis. The second part deals with surveys providing a general appraisal of the model, comprising an introduction that states the goal survey, followed by the survey methodology, the results, and a brief conclusion.

WARNING

There were three broad stages involved in putting together the database: developing a methodology, collecting data and validating what had been collected. The three stages stretched over a period of 14 months, with the methodology developed from November 1998 to March 1999, the data-gathering period extending from April 1999 to August 1999, and the data-validation phase, from September 1999 to December 1999. As a result, the data-analysis process did not actually begin until January 2000. It is therefore important to note that the current study has focused upon the essential aspects of the model and that other relevant analyses could have been carried out if more time had been available for this phase of our work.

Furthermore, considering the deadlines and the rates of response actually obtained, surveys focusing upon a general appraisal of the model have not proven to be a precise evaluation tool, but rather a means of assessing trends and opinions of the interested parties at the point when child support payments were actually determined.

DATABASE OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS (1997-1998)

Introduction

“The Committee is instructed to verify the degree to which the objectives of the legislation have been reached and the basic principles of the model, respected. Members will carry out their study from two perspectives: how the provisions of the legislation were implemented (results assessment and analysis) and whether to amend the legislation itself (recommendations).” The data-collection process presented here was developed with the above-stated objectives in mind.

This part of the report will include a summary of the data analysis carried out as part of the data-collection plan.

METHODOLOGY

Research Protocol

The study examined a specific sample drawn from a total of 45,858 support orders, the sample cases having been taken from court files 04 and 12. Court-file 12 cases involve divorce proceedings, while court-file 04 cases include legal separation proceedings, cases involving common-law partners and marriage annulments. The entire collection of support orders comprised child support orders, orders involving both children and spouses, orders involving children of full age, and spousal support orders, whereas the sample included only child support orders and orders involving both children and spouses. The orders may have been the result of a first application for support or of a motion for variation.

The entire collection includes all child support orders issued between September 1, 1997 and December 31, 1998. Orders issued between May 1, 1997 and September 1, 1997 were removed from the collection since these orders do not accurately reflect how the model was applied. In fact, orders from this period came from files for which proceedings had already been initiated prior to the application of the model, and the latter was not meant to apply to matters pending (see Bill 68, s. 3, Schedule 1).

The data-collection plan (Appendix 4) was developed by a team from Quebec’s Ministère de la Justice (MJQ) in conjunction with the Montreal firm Neurofinance Inc. and members of the research unit of the federal Justice Department’s Child Support Team. As part of its mandate, the federal team is currently carrying out an evaluation of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, in conjunction with the provinces and territories. Since the Quebec model differs from the federal guidelines and deals both with applications for divorce (which fall under federal jurisdiction) and with applications for legal separation, as well as with all applications filed by common-law partners (the latter two categories being subject to provincial jurisdiction), a special questionnaire had to be drawn up for our model. Neurofinance Inc. was commissioned to produce the software required for data gathering for the provinces, including for the Quebec model. The federal Justice Department also commissioned the company to gather data and put together a database for purposes of analysis. The content of the questionnaire comprises information found in the Child Support Determination Form, with additional questions included in order to provide data that might be useful to the Committee in carrying out its mandate. The Follow-up Committee examined the questionnaire in order to validate the final version before the data-collection process actually began.

Data was collected directly on computer using data-input software. This direct-input procedure reduces the likelihood of double errors, namely those arising from a manual transcription on a paper questionnaire and secretarial errors resulting from transferring input from written questionnaires onto data-input software. Furthermore, an approach involving data collection followed by data input would have taken twice as long as the procedure finally adopted.

In order to obtain the sample files from each courthouse, we requested the list of numbers for files containing support orders for each selected courthouse. A sampling interval often was chosen so that 10% of all orders were selected to form the sample.

Choice of Location

Forty-two Quebec courthouses offer Superior Court services on a permanent basis. These courthouses were ranked according to the total number of orders issued during the period in question (Appendix 5). The Committee then established categories of courthouses (small, medium-sized and large) based on the volume of support orders issued by them. Since we did not have the resources necessary to compile a register for all 42 courthouses, we instead put together a representative sample on a provincial scale. In the process, the 15 smaller courthouses were eliminated, given that they issued a mere 6% of all support orders. With respect to the remaining 28 courthouses (94% of all support orders issued), we adopted a compromise position between collecting orders issued by the 5 largest courthouses representing 52% of the province and choosing a larger number of courthouses to attain an equivalent percentage. We opted for the second method, while also including the Montreal and Quebec City courthouses, which alone issued 30% of all orders for the entire province. In order to guarantee a more representative geographic distribution with respect to the origin of the data, courthouses located in Amos, Arthabaska, Rimouski, Chicoutimi, Hull, Sherbrooke and Joliette were chosen along with those in Quebec City and Montreal. In all, the 9 courthouses selected issued 51% of all support orders for the province during the period in question.

Sample Size

A total of 45,858 child support orders were issued between September 1997 and December 1998. The aforementioned nine courthouses issued 22,945 such orders. We put together a sample which would allow us to work with a 10% margin of error. The result was a sample group of 2,783 support orders, including spousal orders, support orders for children at or above the age of majority, cases involving transitional provisions and others not subject to the application of the model for the determination of child support payments. Accordingly, 753 orders were removed from the total sample, which finally included 2,030 support orders. The number of orders in the sample and the number analyzed for each judicial district are presented in Diagram 1.

Diagram 1:  The Number of Support Orders in the Sample and Those Analyzed for Each Judicial District

[ Click here to view Diagram 1 ]

Table 1 presents the number of cases excluded from the analysis along with the reasons for their exclusion.

Table 1:  Cases Excluded from the Analysis and Reasons for Their Exclusion

Targeted Results

Through the collection of data, we wished to assess the degree to which certain objectives of the model for the determination of child support payments had been attained since its coming into force and to verify whether the model was indeed being applied in an effective manner. We also wanted to track changes in the amounts of support awarded to see whether support payments corresponded to amounts produced by the Quebec table or whether, on occasion, the federal guidelines were being applied. And we endeavoured to discover the reasons for discrepancies between payments indicated in the table and amounts actually awarded. Lastly, we wished to develop a portrait of the model’s users by obtaining information with respect to the number and age of their children, the parents’ income, whether the parties filed an application for separation, divorce or termination of a common-law relationship, and/or whether the parties reached an agreement or left the decision as regards support to the discretion of the court.

Data-Collection Schedule

Districts/Courthouses Visited	Dates	Number of Sample Files	Number of People Collecting Data [7]
Montreal	April 12 to 16	399	4
	April 28
Hull	May 3 to 7	327	3
	May 10 and 11
Joliette	May 12 to 14	366	3
	May 17 to 20
Sherbrooke	May 31 to June 4	331	3
Arthabaska	June 7 to 9	214	3
Rimouski	June 14 to 17	247	3
Chicoutimi	July 5 to 9	306	3
Amos	July 12 to 16	215	2
Quebec City	March 9 to 11	378	2
	March 22, 29, 31		2
	until July 22
		2,783

Questions Concerning the Data Quality and the Limits of the Study

The initial database was validated by the MJQ support team, as well as by Neurofinance Inc. Roughly 40 validation guidelines, designed to identify discrepancies between the various areas, were developed. In general, the number of exceptions or errors of logic, revealed in a comparison of the fields, was actually rather small. Consequently, since only a few exceptional cases needed to be corrected, it can be affirmed that a solid correlation was established among the fields. Furthermore, given the homogeneous nature of the data collected, the margin of error actually turned out to be below 10%, the figure agreed upon when the sample size was determined, and thus the data are, in fact, reliable.

Given the large number of sample cases and courthouses selected, the study can be said to provide an accurate representation of the Quebec situation, and thus to serve as a useful point of reference for discussing results province wide.

The Data-Analysis Strategy

The research provides a summary of the quantitative data obtained from answers to the questionnaire with respect to how frequently certain information recurs. As concerns descriptive statistics, both the median (i.e. the number above and below which half of all cases can be located) and the average are indicated since the median is less likely to be affected by extremes. The results are presented by following in sequence the different parts of the data-collection questionnaire.

RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS

• Note 1: In all tables and diagrams, results are rounded off to the nearest whole number. Thus it may happen that the sum of the results does not come to 100%, with the difference being in the order of plus or minus one percent.
• Note 2: In Section 3.1, the results pertain to a total of 2,030 support orders, including all cases where the Quebec model and the federal guidelines were applied. However, in Section 3.2, all cases where the federal guidelines were applied have been removed, and one case had to be rejected because it did not contain the information necessary for a follow-up analysis. As a result, the analysis of Section 3.2 has been carried out using 2,004 support orders.

Characteristics of the Support Orders

Sources of Information Concerning Child Support Orders

Diagram 2 illustrates that of the 2,030 orders analyzed, 50% were issued in cases of divorce, 10% in cases of legal separation and 40% for common-law spouses; none were issued pursuant to an application for marriage annulment. Thus 60% of the sample is made up of people who were married and 40% involves common-law partners. It should be noted that in 1997, according to calculations using data provided in Appendix 5, fully 50% of all files opened in family-related matters pertained to cases of divorce, while the other half involved legal separations and common-law partnerships. We can therefore safely say that the sample analyzed provides an accurate reflection of the reality.

Diagram 2:  Percentage of Each Type of Case (on a Province-Wide Basis)

[ Click here to view Diagram 2 ]

Diagram 3(a) identifies, within the sample, the percentage of decisions pertaining to initial applications (65%) as opposed to review variation decisions (35%).

Among the decisions pertaining to initial applications (a first application), Diagram 3(b) shows that 9% are interim (or safeguard) decisions, 14% are decisions respecting transitional provisions (interim relief), 70% are judgments on the merits[8] and 7% are of other types. Eighty-six percent (59) of the latter group involve decisions determining support payments (in cases for which recourse was reserved), in other words, an application to determine support payments was part of the file, whereas 10% (7) represent changes in corollary relief as well as the determination of support payments, and 4% (3), changes in custody along with the determination of support payments.

Among the review variation decisions, Diagram 3(c) shows that 5% are decisions revising an interim ruling, 8% are decisions revising a ruling respecting interim relief, 85% are decisions revising a judgment on the merits and 2% are of other types. Forty-one percent (7) of the latter group involve decisions determining support payments and the others represent cancellations of support payments, corrected judgments, or other non-representative decisions pertaining to unique cases.

Diagram 3(a)  Percentage of Decisions Pertaining to an Initial Application and Those Pertaining to an Application for Review Variation

[ Click here to view Diagram 3(a) ]

Diagram 3(b)  Percentage of Each Type of Decision Pertaining to an Initial Application

[ Click here to view Diagram 3(b) ]

Diagram 3(c)  Percentage of Each Type of Decision Pertaining to an Application for Review Variation

[ Click here to view Diagram 3(c) ]

Type of Court

Fifty-five percent of the sample decisions were rendered by a judge and 45% by a special clerk. It should be noted that the powers of special clerks are restricted to confirming all agreements, except for those decisions concerning divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment.

Types of Decisions

Diagram 4 shows the percentage of decisions pertaining to joint applications, those pertaining to agreements, as well as both contested and uncontested decisions. The majority of decisions (73%) pertain to agreements, 16% to contested decisions, 4% involve decisions rendered by default and 1% are ex parte decisions. Five percent of decisions involve cases initiated as joint applications. It was impossible to determine the types of decisions rendered for 1% of all cases.

Diagram 4:  Types of Decisions in Percentage Terms (Joint Applications, Agreements, Uncontested and Contested Decisions)

[ Click here to view Diagram 4 ]

It is interesting to note that the percentage of contested decisions varies according to whether the decisions pertained to an initial application or to a review variation decision. The respective percentages are as follows: 10% for the 1,311 decisions pertaining to initial applications and 25% for the 719 review variation decisions.

Legal Representation

Table 2 indicates the number of cases concerning which the mother, father or child was represented by a lawyer, whenever such information appears in case files. The mother was represented in 93% of all cases (59% of the time by a lawyer working for or retained by legal aid and 34% of the time by an attorney from private practice), whereas the father received legal counsel in 65% of all cases (9% of the time from a lawyer working for or retained by legal aid and 56% of the time by an attorney from private practice). Both parents were represented by a lawyer in 1,190 cases, i.e. 59% of the sample cases. The child very rarely received legal counsel (1% of the time).

Table 2:  Legal Representation

	Mother		Father		Child
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Private Practice	687	34	1,117	56	2	0
Legal Aid	1,195	59	182	9	23	1
None	123	6	677	34	2,005	99
Unknown	11	1	35	2
Total	2,016	100	2,011	101	2,030	100

• Missing cases involving mothers=14; Missing cases involving fathers=19
• Total number=2,030.

Issues Addressed in the Decision

The issues addressed in each decision are shown in Diagram 5. The most frequent include child support (100%), custody (70%) and access rights (64%). Property sharing is addressed in 26% of all cases, 12% deal with spousal support, 12% with the exercise of parental authority and 11% with arrears in support payments.

Among the 307 cases in which the decision dealt with other issues, the most frequently addressed were: life insurance and medication (60 cases, or 20% of all such cases), use of the family residence or household effects from the residence (40 cases, or 13%), specific indexation clauses or indexation exclusion clauses (32 cases, or 11%) and revision clauses (26 cases, or 8%). Each of the other 149 cases in this category was unique and non-representative, and thus not subject to categorization.

Diagram 5  Issues Addressed in Court Decisions (%)

[ Click here to view Diagram 5 ]

Conditions Governing Access Rights

Among the 1,294 cases involving access, the conditions governing access rights are as follows:

• according to an agreement between the parties (1,012 cases, or 80%);
• according to a specified schedule (222 cases, or 17%); and
• according to other conditions (43 cases, or 3%).

Diagram 6:  Categories of Conditions Governing Access Sole custody with access rights and extended visitation Rights (%)

[ Click here to view Diagram 6 ]

The 1,012 cases of agreement between the parties on access rights can be subdivided according to different types of conditions governing access rights:

• agreement between the parties and, failing respect of the agreement, a schedule to be imposed, in 452 cases (45%);
• agreement between the parties only, in 325 cases (32%);
• agreement between the parties (parents) in accordance with the wishes of the child, in 126 cases (12%); and
• agreement between the parties in accordance with the wishes of the child, and failing respect of the agreement, a schedule to be imposed, in 109 cases (11%).

The 43 so-called “other” cases involve cases of a special nature with respect to access rights, namely 5 cases of shared custody (12%), 8 cases involving supervised visits and a specific schedule (19%), 7 cases with no access rights indicated (16%), and 4 cases of supervised visits only (9%). The rest of the cases in the “other” category can be classified as unique, and for these, the conditions governing access rights vary.

The Amounts of Spousal Support Payments

The sample includes 239 decisions (or 12%) involving spousal support; 141 of them deal with spousal support payments of over $0. It should be noted that, given the nature of the survey itself, this number only includes cases involving dependent children.

The median monthly spousal support payment is $433 (the average payment being $622), with payments varying between $36 and $4,167. Monthly payments are below $750 in 75% of all cases. It should be mentioned that, as opposed to child support payments, these support contributions remain taxable.

In 137 of the cases involving spousal support payments, the support payer is clearly specified, with the woman deemed the recipient in 136 cases.

Application of the Model for the Determination of Child Support Payments

The Quebec model for the determination of support payments was followed in 99% of the sample cases (2,005), whereas the federal guidelines were applied to 24 cases, or 1% of the total sample. It should be noted that the database includes 39 cases (7 involving the mother and 32 involving the father) concerning which the province of residence is other than Quebec. The parties chose to follow the federal guidelines in only 24 of the 39 cases where these guidelines could have been applied.

The Level of Child Support Payments (Application of the Model)

Total Income of the Parents (Line 209)

The total parental income is listed at Line 209 of the Child Support Determination Form. It includes:

• gross salary
• commissions/tips
• net income from a business or self-employment
• employment insurance benefits
• support paid by a third party and received for one’s own needs
• retirement, disability or other benefits
• interest and dividends and other investment income
• net rents
• other income except government family transfers, income security benefits and APPORT (parental wage assistance) benefits

The income of each parent is indicated in the majority of cases. In addition, there is information missing in certain cases (roughly 5%) since the support order was either not accompanied by a Child Support Determination Form or parental income was not indicated in the decision or agreement, as the case may be. Table 3 shows the total average and median income of the father, the mother and both parents.

Table 3:  Total Average and Median Income of the Father, the Mother and Both Parents (Line 209)

Missing cases involving the father’s total income: 73; involving the mother’s total income: 89; and involving the total income of both parents: 114.

Diagram 7(a) shows the total income of both parents by income bracket in percentage terms. The total parental income is below $15,000 in 10% of all cases, under $45,000 in 59% of cases and lower than $75,000 in 89% of all cases. It should be noted that the total income is above $100,000 in 4% of all cases.

Diagram 7(a): Total Income of Both Parents by Income Bracket (%)

[ Click here to view Diagram 7(a) ]

Diagram 7(b) shows the total income of each parent by income bracket in percentage terms. It should be noted that in most cases the mother’s income is to be found in the $0 to $14,999 bracket, and that it is generally much lower than the income of the father.

Diagram 7(b):  Total Income of the Father and Mother by Income Bracket (%)

[ Click here to view Diagram 7(b) ]

Table 4 presents the total average and median income of the two parents by type of custody arrangement. It is interesting to note that in cases where parents share custody or when sole custody is exercised by the father, the parents’ income is higher than in the sample cases as a whole. In fact, it becomes apparent from the sample that the income of the parties is lowest when sole custody is exercised by the mother.

Table 4:  Total Average and Median Income of Both Parents by Type of Custody (Line 209)

Comparing the Average Income of Both Parents in the Sample with the Average Income of all Families as Provided by Statistics Canada

As already noted, according to the Regulation respecting the determination of child support payments, certain types of income are not to be considered when calculating the parents’ income. These include government family transfers, in particular federal and provincial family allowance benefits, income security benefits and APPORT program benefits. The average transfer payment for a Canadian family was $6,748 in 1996. By adding this sum to the average income of the two parents ($44,208), we arrive at an average income of $50,956, which is slightly below the average income of a Quebec family, established at $53,500 in 1996 (sources: Statistics Canada, catalogues 13-208 and 13-210).

Basic Deduction and Deductions for Union and Professional Dues

The questionnaire used for data collection did not take into account the three deductions included in the model, namely the basic deduction of $9,000, the deduction for union dues, and the deduction for professional dues. However, the respondent was able to enter total income (Line 209), as well as disposable income (Line 305). Accordingly, it is possible, whenever the total income exceeds $9,000, to establish the difference between the two sets of data and thus to obtain the total deductions (Line 304). For cases where the total income is lower than or equal to $9,000, the difference is zero or less than zero; thus it is not possible to identify cases where deductions other than the $9,000 basic deduction may have been taken in account.

Table 5, pertaining to fathers and mothers whose respective total incomes exceed $9,000, shows the percentage of cases where the basic deduction of $9,000 was the sole deduction and the percentage of cases where there was at least one other deduction in addition to the basic $9,000 deduction. For both mothers and fathers, nearly 20% of all cases include a deduction for union dues and/or a deduction for professional dues, as well as the $9,000 basic deduction.

Table 5:  Number of Cases With Only the $9,000 Deduction and With More than One Deduction

Disposable Income of Each Parent (Line 305)

Disposable income, as used for purposes of calculation in the model, refers to the total income (as listed at Line 209) less the basic deduction (Line 301), the deduction for union dues (Line 302) and the deduction for professional dues (Line 303). Table 6 shows the average and median disposable income for the father, mother and both parents.

Table 6:  Average and Median Disposable Income of the Father, the Mother and Both Parents (Line 305)

Missing cases involving the father’s total income: 73; involving the mother’s total income: 89; and involving the total income of both parents: 114.

Diagram 8(a) categorizes on a percentage basis both parents’ disposable income by income bracket. The disposable income of both parents is less than $15,000 in 31% of cases, less than $45,000 in 79% of cases, and less than $75,000 in 96% of cases. It is above $100,000 in slightly over 1% of all cases.

Diagram 8(a):  Percentage of Both Parents’ Disposable Income by Income Bracket

[ Click here to view Diagram 8(a) ]

Diagram 8(b) categorizes on a percentage basis disposable income for fathers and mothers by income bracket.

Diagram 8(b):  Percentage of Disposable Income for Fathers and Mothers by Income Bracket

[ Click here to view Diagram 8(b) ]

Distribution Factor of Income (Line 307)

The distribution factor of income reflects the disposable income of each parent as a percentage of the disposable income of both parents. Using the distribution factor, the basic support contribution as well as all expenses related to child care are divided between the parents. Diagram 9 shows the percentage of cases for each category of distribution factor for fathers and mothers. It is clear that 48% of fathers and 2% of mothers contribute the child support payments in their entirety. Furthermore, the father contributes between 50% and 99% of the payments (in terms of their dollar value) in 39% of cases and less than 50% in 13% of cases.

Diagram 9:
Percentage of Cases for Each Category of Distribution Factor with Respect to Fathers

Percentage of Cases for Each Category of Distribution Factor with Respect to Mothers

[ Click here to view Diagram 9 ]

Number of Children Covered by the Application (Line 400)

The model applies to all minor children of the two parents and can also apply to children at or above the age of majority in matters of divorce. Diagram 10 shows the percentage of cases as a function of the number of children in the case that figured in the calculation of support contribution based on the model (including both minors and those having attained the age of majority). Most of these cases involve one (49%) or two (38%) children. The average number of children per case was established at 1.65 children per family.

Diagram 10:  Number of Children Covered Per Case

[ Click here to view Diagram 10 ]

Basic Parental Contribution (Line 401)

One of the objectives of the model for the determination of child support payments is to make these payments predictable, i.e. to guarantee that families in similar situations will receive similar amounts of support. This is a reflection of the model’s basic principles (see Chapter 3). Furthermore, article 587.1 of the Civil Code of Québec stipulates that this contribution “is presumed to meet the needs of the child and to be in proportion to the means of the parents.” The following analysis pertains to all cases not involving additional child care expenses and was carried out in order to ascertain how often the amount of support awarded in the court decision was equal to, less than or greater than the support payments established by applying Part 5 of the model. For cases not involving additional child care expenses, the latter amount corresponds to the basic parental support contribution of the paying parent (the amount indicated in the table based on the custody arrangement involved).

The database contains 1,400 cases not involving additional child care expenses; information concerning the amounts established by applying the model and those awarded by the court is available for 1,275 of these files.

Diagram 11 shows the number of cases for which the amount of support awarded by the court was equal to (58%), greater than (17%) or less than (25%) the payments established by applying Part 5 of the model.

Diagram 11:  Percentage of Cases for Which the Support Awarded by the Court Was Less Than, Equal to or Greater Than the Payments Established by Applying Part 5 of the Model

[ Click here to view Diagram 11 ]

Of the 316 cases for which the amount of support awarded by the court was lower than the payments established by applying Part 5 of the model (the amount indicated in the table to be contributed by the paying parent based on the custody arrangement involved):

• 198 are cases involving the application of Part 7: Agreement between parents (63%)
• 47 involve the application of Part 6: Capacity to pay of debtor (15%)
• 26 involve cases of undue hardship as accepted by the court (8%)
• 24 involve cases where the amount to be paid was established by a judge whose reasons cannot be traced (8%)
• 21 involve cases for which no information is available (7%)

In order to provide a more accurate way of measuring the discrepancies among the 316 cases for which the amount of support awarded by the court was lower than the payments established by applying Part 5 of the model, Diagram 12 shows the distribution of the percentage reduction in the support payments awarded. For example, in 52% of the cases, the amount is reduced by less than 25%.

Diagram 12: Reduction in Support Payment Awards (%)

[ Click here to view Diagram 12 ]

Table 7 focuses upon the 198 cases involving an agreement between the parties (Part 7), illustrating the number of cases ratified by a judge or confirmed by a clerk of the court for which no explanations were provided (181), and the number of cases for which explanations were provided (117), including the most frequent explanations for the discrepancies.

Table 7:  Number of Unexplained Cases (Ratified by a Judge or Confirmed by a Special Clerk) and the Most Frequent Explanations Provided in Explained Cases

Child-Related Expenses (Lines 403, 404 and 405)

The questionnaire enabled us to collate all cases involving child-related expenses. There were 604 such cases, i.e. 30% of the sample. Information concerning the type and amount of these expenses was available for most cases, whereas for others these data were unknown. Three-hundred and sixty of the 604 cases (i.e. 18% of the entire sample) involved basic child care expenses, 77 (4% of the sample), post-secondary education expenses and 119 (6% of the sample), special expenses. The amount of each expenditure could be noted in the spaces provided in the questionnaire. However, in some cases, only information concerning total expenses was actually available. Table 8 illustrates the annual average and median amount for each of the three types of expenses, concerning all cases for which the amount of the expenditures is provided.

Table 8:  Average and Median Amount for the Three Types of Expenses

• Missing cases involving child care expenses: 11;
• post-secondary education expenses: 11;
• special expenses: 5; and total expenses: 1.

Tables 9, 10 and 11 show the average age of each of the children in the same family for the 360 cases involving child care expenses, the 77 cases involving post-secondary education expenses and the 119 cases involving special expenses. Families with four or more children (a limited number of the families in question) were removed from the sample.

Table 9:  Average Age of Each Child in the Same Family for the 360 Families with Child Care Expenses

Table 10:  Average Age of Each Child in the Same Family for the 77 Families with Post-Secondary Education Expenses

Table 11:  Average Age of Each Child in the Same Family for the 119 Families with Special Expenses

Table 12 shows the total average and median income of the father, mother and both parents in 159 cases involving post-secondary education expenses and special expenses. It is interesting to note that parental incomes in these cases are much higher than those included in the sample as a whole (see Table 3).

Table 12:  Total Average and Median Income of the Father, Mother and Both Parents for Families with Post-Secondary Education and Special Expenses (Line 209)

• Missing cases involving the father’s total income: 3;
• involving the mother’s total income: 4;
• and involving the total income of both parents: 4.

Percentage of Contested Decisions

For all cases, including those involving child-related expenses, such as basic child care expenses, post-secondary education expenses and special expenses, the Committee took a close look at the percentage of contested decisions. As a rule, a higher percentage of decisions are contested in cases involving child-related expenses (21%) than for the sample cases as a whole (16%). The difference is still greater with respect to post-secondary education expenses (25%) and special expenses (26%).

Types of Custody Arrangements

Diagram 13 shows the percentage of each type of custody arrangements, for the entire sample. In most cases (71%), the mother has sole custody of the children, with the father exercising sole custody in 5% of all cases. Sole custody with access rights and extended visitation for the non-custodial parent, shared custody, and sole custody of at least one child granted to each parent occur, respectively, in 9%, 7% and 7% of the sample cases. Simultaneous sole and shared custody occurs in only 1% of cases.

Diagram 13:  Percentage of Each Type of Custody Arrangement

[ Click here to view Diagram 13 ]

If we combine cases of sole custody and sole custody with access rights and extended visitation, we discover that cases where the mother has been granted custody represent 79% of all sample cases, whereas the father has been granted custody in 6% of the cases.

Table 13 illustrates the percentage distribution of custody time as concerns the exercising of access rights in cases where the father (and, in rare instances, the mother) is the non-custodial parent. As indicated, the father’s custody time in percentage terms varies between 26% and 34% in the majority of cases (59%). There are not enough cases where the mother is the non-custodial parent for a trend to be detected.

Table 13:  Percentage Distribution of Sole custody with extended visitation

Missing cases: 8.

Table 14 shows the distribution ratio for situations of shared custody (7% of the sample). It should be noted that in the majority (78%) of cases, each parent has equal custody time (50%).

Table 14:  Distribution Ratio for Situations of Shared Custody

Missing cases: 1.

Level of Child Support Payments

Table 15 shows the average and median monthly child support payments, according to the number of children in question. Information concerning families with five or more children does not appear in the table since there was insufficient data available with respect to this category of family. The last line of the table (Total) indicates the annual average and median amount for all cases for which complete data was available. It should be noted that these sums represent net income; in other words, they are not subject to taxation.

Table 15:  Average and Median Monthly Child Support Payments According to the Number of Children

The 151 cases where the support payment is zero are not included in this table.

The average and median monthly child support payments by type of custody arrangement and number of children appear in Appendix 6. Information concerning families with four or more children is not provided due to a lack of relevant data. Furthermore, in certain cases, the data is not meaningful given the limited number of cases available and is provided for information purposes only (i.e. for cases where the father has sole custody of one, two or three children).

There are 151 cases involving support payments of zero. It is difficult to determine, given the available information, how many cases actually involve support payments of zero and how many are merely unknown. It is important to include these zero support payments in the following analysis, carried out using the medians that are less affected by extreme results than are averages.

Diagrams 14 and 15 show the median monthly child support payments for each total income bracket of the paying parent when the custodial parent has sole custody of one and two children respectively. Given the small number of cases involving three or more children in each income bracket, graphs pertaining to these cases have not been included in our report.

It will be noted that for cases involving one or two children, support payments become larger as parental income increases. For one child, the median monthly support payment rises from $97, for the lowest income bracket, to $702 for parents earning between $75,000 and $149,999. There are no cases where total income is $150,000 and above. For cases involving two children, payments climb from $106 to $1,088, according to the above-mentioned income brackets. We were unable to examine enough cases involving three children for each income bracket; nonetheless, it can be asserted that the trend is the same in this category as it is for one or two children and that, on average, the payments awarded are slightly higher than for cases involving two children.

Diagram 14:  Median Monthly Support Payments by Income Bracket of the Paying Parent for Cases of Sole Custody Involving ONE Child

[ Click here to view Diagram 14 ]

Diagram 15:  Median Monthly Support Payments by Income Bracket of the Paying Parent for Cases of Sole Custody Involving TWO Children

[ Click here to view Diagram 15 ]

Married and Common-Law Partners

This analysis represents an attempt to ascertain whether there are differences between former married and unmarried people with respect to income, number of children and levels of child support payments.

Table 16 shows the median total income of the father, the mother and both parents according to their previous marital status (married or common-law partners). It will be noted that the income of former married partners is significantly higher than that of their common-law counterparts, a phenomenon that might be explained, at least in part, by the relative ages of the two types of spouses in question. We could hypothesize that common-law spouses are, on average, younger than married couples, a hypothesis reinforced by the fact that former common-law partners have fewer children, again on average, than do former married couples. In fact, the median number of children for former married couples is two (the average is 1.9 children), whereas the median number for former common-law partners is only one (the average is 1.3). Since the parents’ ages are not available, this hypothesis cannot be verified using our data.

Table 16:  Total Median Income of the Father, the Mother and Both Parents (Line 209) Married and Unmarried

• Missing cases involving former married fathers: 46;
• missing cases involving their common-law counterparts: 27.
  
• Missing cases involving former married mothers: 51; missing cases involving their common-law counterparts: 38.
  
• Missing cases involving former married parents: 65; missing cases involving their common-law counterparts: 49.

The fact that, overall, both income and number of children are higher for parents who were married is reflected in median monthly levels of support, which are 50% higher for them ($332) than for their common-law counterparts ($223).

Part 6—Capacity to Pay of Debtor

A parent cannot be required to pay support in excess of 50% of his or her disposable income, unless otherwise decided by the court. When this rule is applied to all sample cases, we discover 108 instances (5% of the sample) where Part 5 of the model establishes payments exceeding 50% of the paying parent’s disposable income.

A variation of court decisions pertaining to the same 108 cases reveals that support payments equal to 50% of the paying parent’s disposable income were awarded in 51 cases (47%), awards over 50% were granted in 41 cases (38%) and awards under 50%, in 16 cases (15%).

Diagram 16:  Percentage of Cases Where the Court Awarded Support Below, Above or Equal to 50% of the Paying Parent’s Disposable Income (Part 6)

[ Click here to view Diagram 16 ]

Among the 41 cases where the award exceeds 50% of the paying parent’s disposable income, there are 21 cases involving agreements between the parties, while the others are either the result of a court decision or non-respect of Part 6. As for the 16 cases where the support awarded is less than 50% of the paying parent’s disposable income, there are 10 cases involving agreements between the parties, 4 cases of undue hardship and 2 cases for which the reasons are unknown.

Undue Hardship

Only 46 cases (i.e. 2% of the total sample) involve applications claiming undue hardship, the paying parent having made this claim 42 times (91%), the receiving parent, 3 times (7%), and both parents only once (2%). The income of the other members of the household was taken into account in 22 (48%) of the 46 undue hardship cases; it was not considered at all in 20 cases (43%), while there was no answer to this question in 4 cases (9%).

The application was turned down 7 times (15%), while it was accepted, leading to an increase in support payments, in 4 cases (19%). In 35 of the 46 cases (76%), the application was accepted and support payments were decreased.

The reason put forward in 14 (46%) of the 35 cases where the level of support was reduced from that established by applying the model was “other dependent children,” either from a new union or a previous one. Other reasons include “costs related to exercising access” “debts held by the paying parent,” “the court finds the evidence sufficient” (no reason provided in the judge’s decision) and other reasons arising from unique cases.

NB: These results are provided for information purposes only. The 46 cases in the database involving undue hardship are probably not the only ones for which this claim was made. We are well aware of the fact that undue hardship can be claimed in court and rejected there without being mentioned in the judicial decision. Our results do not in themselves represent the actual situation.

Conclusion

As mentioned in Section 2.4 (“Desired Outcome”), one of our objectives is to provide a portrait of people using the model. Accordingly, the following summary delineates the main characteristics of this group:

General Characteristics

Sixty percent of the sample is made up of people who were married partners and 40% came from common-law relationships. Sixteen percent of all the court decisions included in the sample involved contested cases, with the percentage of such cases rising from 10% for initial applications to 25% for applications for revision. All the decisions (100%) deal with the issue of child support payments, 70% involve custody issues and 64% pertain to access rights.

Income

The average total income for the father is $31,216; it is $12,640 for the mother and $44,208 for both parents. In fact, the total income for both parents is between $15,000 and $60,000 for slightly above 66% of sample cases, and it exceeds $100,000 for 4% of the sample group. It should be noted that this is the income provided at Line 209 of the Child Support Determination Form and does not include government family transfers, income security benefits and/or APPORT benefits.

Number of Children

The average child support application covers 1.65 children. The majority of cases found in the sample deal with one child (49%) or two children (38%).

Child-Related Expenses

Six hundred and four cases (30%) from the sample involve child-related expenses. For cases where the types of expenses are identified, 18% involve basic child care expenses, 6%, special expenses, and 4%, post-secondary education expenses.

Distribution Factor

In 50% of the cases included in the sample, the father (48%) or the mother (2%) contributed 100% of the child support; in 39% of cases, the father contributed between 50% and 99% of all support, while contributing less than 50% in fewer than 13% of all cases.

Types of Custody Arrangements

The mother has sole custody of the children in the majority of cases included in the sample (79%), with the father having sole custody in 6% of all cases. Shared custody arrangements have been established in 7% of cases; another 7% involve arrangements where each parent has sole custody of at least one child. Simultaneous sole and shared custody is the operative arrangement for only 1% of cases included in the sample.

Level of Child Support Payments

The median monthly child support payment is $282, compared to an average payment of $332 for the sample group as a whole. It is $217 for cases involving one child, $351 for two children and $434 for three children.

Lastly, the main objective of the data-collection project was to see whether the model was indeed being applied, in particular with respect to the amounts established in the Table to Determine the Basic Parental Contribution. For all cases not involving additional expenses, namely cases where the child support awarded should normally correspond to the sum listed in the table (i.e. support to be provided by the paying parent given the established custody arrangement), the results show that support payments are:

• equal to those established in the model for the type of custody arrangement in 58% of cases
• lower, in 25% of cases
• higher, in 17% of cases

With regard to cases where the support payments assumed by the paying parent are lower than those indicated in the table, the majority (63%) involve agreements between the parties. No justification for the lower figure was provided for 41% of these cases, whereas reasons were explicitly stated for the rest of the agreements. Examples of justifications for discrepancies between the model and the actual support awarded include costs relating to access, obligations to support children from an earlier union, and other expenses not included in the support award.

QUESTIONNAIRES PROVIDING A GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE MODEL

INTRODUCTION

The previous section included certain conclusions drawn from the quantitative data pertaining to the model for the determination of child support payments. In order to complete the analysis, four surveys were conducted among practitioners working directly in the field as a means of ascertaining their assessment of the model and of the Child Support Determination Form. The interested parties surveyed included, from the private sector, lawyers specializing in family law and family mediators, and from the judicial system, special clerks and Quebec Superior Court.

The parents who actually used the support determination model were not in fact surveyed since few of them had experience with the former method of determining support payments and were thus unable to compare the previous and new approaches. Furthermore, given the limited amount of time at our disposal, it would have been difficult to target those parents whose support payments had been altered and to carry out all the steps required to survey them.

The present section provides a synthesis of the most significant results pertaining to the objectives and basic principles of the model for the determination of child support payments. Given the prevailing time constraints and the limited number of replies obtained, this survey can in no way claim to be scientific; rather, it should serve as a means of assessing trends with respect to the determination of child support payments.

METHODOLOGY

Target Groups

Target groups included lawyers specializing in family law, family mediators, special clerks and Quebec Superior Court judges.

Lawyers Specializing in Family Law

Since it was not possible to obtain a list of all lawyers specializing in family law, a sample grouping of 745 lawyers from across the province was put together, made up of practitioners having dealt with at least one family-related case during September 1999. Using this approach, we have been able to look at each administrative region with respect to the volume of activity that it handles.

Family Mediators

The list of certified family mediators is available from the Ministère de la Justice (it was established under section 6 of the Regulation respecting family mediation). We sent a questionnaire to all mediators who were duly certified as of November 1, 1999, with the exception of the 606 mediators who are members of the Barreau du Québec. The 679 mediators in our sample belong to the following accrediting bodies:

• 193 from the Chambre des notaires du Québec;
• 202 from the Ordre des psychologues du Québec;
• 46 from the Ordre professionnel des conseillères et conseillers d’orientation du Québec;
• 223 from the Ordre professionnel des travailleurs sociaux du Québec; and
• 15 from child and youth protection centres.

Mediators who are members of the Barreau du Québec were excluded given that a questionnaire had already been sent to a certain number of lawyers having argued at least one family-related case.

Special clerks

A questionnaire was sent to all 46 special clerks.

Quebec Superior Court Judges

A questionnaire was sent to all 179 Quebec Superior Court judges.

Questionnaires

The four questionnaires were drawn up by the Follow-up Committee and can be found in Appendix 7 of the report. The Ministère de la Justice’s Committee for the protection of personal information gave the entire process official approval (questionnaire, target groups, etc.), to ensure respect for minimum requirements governing the protection of personal information during the conducting of surveys.

Limits of the Survey

Survey of Lawyers Specializing in Family Law

Table 1 shows the number of lawyers by administrative region that replied to the questionnaire in relation to the number of lawyers surveyed. It will be noted that, in general, all administrative regions are reasonably well represented. In all, 268 replies were received, representing a 36% response rate. As a rule, a response rate of under 50% undermines the representative nature of a survey with respect to the its target group. Given our deadlines, we were simply unable to send out reminders in order to raise the response rate to above 50%. Accordingly, it is once again important to note that the results obtained merely indicate trends and are provided for information purposes only.

Table 1:  Number of Lawyers in the Sample Group and Number of Replies By Administrative Region

* Since percentage figures are rounded off to the nearest unit, the total is not equal to 100%.

Survey of Mediators

Table 2 shows the number of mediators that replied to the questionnaire in relation to the number of mediators surveyed, by accrediting body. It will be noted that notaries and employees of child and youth protection centres are slightly over-represented as compared to members of other professions. In all, 146 replies were received, representing a 22% response rate. As is the case for the survey of lawyers, the results thus obtained are indicative of certain trends only.

Table 2:  Number of Mediators in the Sample Group and Number of Replies By Accrediting Body

* Since percentage figures are rounded off to the nearest unit, the total is not equal to 100%.

Survey of Special Clerks

A total of 29 out of 46 special clerks filled in the questionnaire, representing a response rate of 63%.

Survey of Quebec Superior Court Judges

A total of 61 out of 179 judges completed the questionnaire, representing a response rate of 34%.

Even though the response rate for special clerks was higher than for other groups surveyed, the aforementioned warning still applies to the latter two surveys, namely that the results obtained are indicative of certain trends only.

THE SURVEY RESULTS

Given the similarity in results obtained from lawyers, mediators and special clerks and the difficulty of ascertaining major differences among the three target groups, the results of the three surveys will be presented together. The survey of judges will be the focus of a separate section.

Survey of Lawyers (Question 13), Mediators (Question 11) and Special Clerks (Question 7)

The results of the three surveys will be summarized in this section. Each group was asked to respond to a similar list of statements on the model’s implementation. We have chosen to present these responses in the light of the basic objectives and fundamental principles of the model. Differences among the results obtained from the three groups will be specifically highlighted.

Objective

“Predictability of support: to guarantee families in similar situations a similar level of support.”

A majority of the respondent lawyers, mediators and special clerks believe that this objective has been reached (namely that families in similar situations receive a similar level of support) and that, as a result, support payment awards are now more predictable. Also, most members of the three groups consider that cases are closed more quickly and more easily and that fewer cases are actually contested.

Objective

“Adequate support payment awards: to ensure that the payments are sufficient to provide for the needs of the child to the extent of the parents’ ability to pay.”

Principle

“Guarantee children that their needs will be met to the extent of the parents’ ability to pay (support determined by considering the needs of the child and the means of the parents).”

More than 50% of the respondent lawyers disagree with the following two statements: “Support payments awarded meet the needs of children to the extent of the parents’ ability to pay” and “the model ensures that the parents’ basic needs will be met (deduction of $9,000, maximum of 50% of disposable income and undue hardship).”

Fewer than 33% of respondent mediators disagree with the two statements, but this level of disagreement is nonetheless relatively high as compared to reactions to other statements in the questionnaire.

The aforementioned principle includes two policy statements: “Guarantee children that their needs will be met” and “support payments are to be determined to the extent of the parents’ ability to pay.” The disagreement, it could be argued, is more with the second statement, as reflected in a number of comments made in this regard by the lawyers and mediators surveyed. These may be summarized as follows:

• the basic $9,000 deduction is too low;
• support payment awards are too high for low-income support payers; and it is very difficult to persuade the courts to reduce support payments by arguing on the basis of undue hardship.

These problem areas are addressed in Chapter 5 of the report, and the Committee has made certain recommendations in this regard.

Principle

“To give priority to the paying parent’s support obligation with respect to expenditures exceeding his or her own essential needs.”

A vast majority of the lawyers, mediators and special clerks agree with this basic principle.

Objective

“To establish clear standards and objectives in order to facilitate the determination of support payments and standardize the methods by which they are calculated, a procedure that should take into account the real costs related to meeting the needs of children.”

A majority of the lawyers and mediators agree with the following statement: “[Since the model was implemented] it is easier to identify and resolve contentious issues in contested cases.” This statement was not part of the questionnaire completed by the special clerks given that they are only permitted to confirm agreements.

A large majority of the lawyers, mediators and special clerks agree with the following statement: “The model has helped make the judicial process more effective by providing guidelines for lawyers, spouses and the courts on how to determine child support payments.”

A large majority of the lawyers and mediators, as well as a majority of special clerks, agree with the following statement: “The form is user-friendly.”

Principle

“To affirm the joint responsibility of both parents for their children pursuant to the Civil Code of Québec, in particular, articles 585, 587 and 599 C.C.Q.”

A great majority of lawyers, mediators and special clerks believe that this principle has been respected.

Principle

“To divide responsibility for providing financial support for the children between both parents (the obligation being not only that of the non-custodial parent), in proportion to their respective incomes.”

A majority of the lawyers and a large majority of the mediators and special clerks believe that this principle has been respected.

Principle

“To provide, as far as possible, equal treatment for all children from various unions with respect to their right to support.”

Fewer than half of the lawyers believe that this principle has been respected, as opposed to over 75% of the mediators and special clerks. (However, the level of disagreement for the latter group is relatively high compared to that elicited by other statements in the questionnaire.)

Furthermore, in their written observations, several lawyers and some mediators observe that the model should take into account children from other unions in the calculation of child support payments.

This problem area is addressed in Chapter 5 of the report, and the Committee has made certain recommendations in this regard.

Principle

“To maintain as far as possible the incentive for disadvantaged parents to meet their support obligations to their children.”

A majority of the lawyers and special clerks and a great majority of the mediators believe that this principle has been respected.

Lastly, a majority of the lawyers and a great majority of the mediators and special clerks believe that, on the whole, the model is a better system than its predecessor for determining child support payments.

The questionnaires for lawyers and mediators include a specific question concerning the workings of the model’s various components. Their replies indicate that the most problematic elements of the model are linked to some aspects that need further appraisal:

• the “undue hardship” principle
• the handling of children of full age
• the determination of special expenses

Furthermore, a number of the lawyers and mediators observe that the principle of undue hardship should be defined more clearly and that this principle has rarely provided a successful basis for convincing the court to reduce the level of support payments. Several respondents also add that the term special expenses should be more clearly defined. Lastly, certain respondents express a desire to see clearer guidelines with respect to the handling of children of full age.

These aspects are addressed in Chapter 5 of the report, and the Committee has made certain recommendations in this regard.

Results of the Questionnaire Addressed to Quebec Superior Court Judges

Given the duty to maintain confidentiality included in the responsibilities of Quebec Superior Court judges, the questions designed for them were of a more objective nature and focussed more precisely on the factual aspects of the model rather than requiring a subjective appraisal.

This section will provide a summary of their responses to the questionnaire.

Nearly a third of the judges who filled in the questionnaire indicate that “child-related expenses” (Lines 403, 404 and 405 of the form), as well as “calculation of custody time” are the two aspects that could and should be more clearly defined in order to foster a better understanding of the model.

Slightly under 25% of the judges singled out “determination of income,” “children of full age” and “undue hardship” as aspects that could be improved. It remains difficult to determine income from sources other than salary. In general, it would be useful to specify more clearly how to handle cases of children of full age. And with respect to the principle of undue hardship, certain judges observe that parties forwarding this argument tend not to provide evidence to support their claim.

In general, it may be observed that documents which must be submitted in accordance with the Regulation respecting the determination of child support payments are not always provided as required in spite of their utility for a majority of cases. As for the Child Support Determination Form, the sections which are often completed incorrectly are Part 4—Calculation of annual parental contribution, Part 7—Agreement between the parents and Part 8—Statement of each parent’s assets and liabilities.

CONCLUSION

As a rule, the lawyers, mediators and special clerks who completed the questionnaire seem satisfied with the model for the determination of child support payments. Furthermore, in general, the model is seen as providing a better system than its predecessor for determining child support payments. However, the survey results also indicate that the following aspects of the model remain problematic;

• The amounts established in the support determination table are too high for low income earners
• The $9,000 basic deduction is too low
• The principle of undue hardship is interpreted in too narrow a fashion
• Children from other unions are not taken into account when calculating support contributions (except with respect to undue hardship)
• The determination of special expenses
• The handling of children of full age
• The determination of income for self-employed workers

These problem areas are addressed in the next chapter of the report, and recommendations on how to solve some of them have been provided.

• [ Previous Page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next Page ]