BC woman wins right to sue children for support

... this statement is false and it's a blatant example of the cbc taking the crown's side in a legal dispute. in actual fact, there is NO LEGISLATION that says children are obligated by law to support their parents ...

... what a load of total b.s. from the crown and the crown's propaganda machine ...

 

Whether it is the Liberals or NDP, they are all the same when it comes to government

 

... it sounds to me like the people who are supposedly being sued by their mother for support are being criminally extorted by devious lawyers and unscrupulous civil court judges and they need help. and believe me, it does happen. i was supposedly sued by my own father for massive cash payments on two occasions in the bc supreme court -- even though my father was DECEASED (!) when the petitions took place. the bc supreme court is a corrupt sewer hole and it stinks ...

... the people supposedly being sued by their mother should read the FIGHT LAWYER CRIME website at this link HERE ...

 

Obligation to support parent

90 (1) In this section:

"child" means an adult child of a parent;

"parent" means a father or mother dependent on a child because of age, illness, infirmity or economic circumstances.

(2) A child is liable to maintain and support a parent having regard to the other responsibilities and liabilities and the reasonable needs of the child.

Source: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96128_01

 

... not legitimate legislation. how much has to be paid? not specified. when does it have to be paid? not specified ...

... sorry. not legal. not enforceable ...

 

^It looks pretty legal to me. I would imagine the amount and timing of payment are subjective factors to be determined in court.

There's not enough information to comment on this case particularly, but I see no problems in that piece of law. Elder abuse/neglect is a common problem. People should be responsible for their parents unless there are extenuating or unique circumstances such as the ones cited by the defendants in this case.

 

... elder abuse? elder neglect? take a closer look at the act, there's no mention of elder abuse or elder neglect in it. further, it would be illegal for anyone, including the crown, to unlawfully misuse that legislation to combat elder abuse or elder neglect ...

 

This story is just so sad. Sad for the children who feel alientated and abandoned by their own parent, and sad for the parent who doesn't have family to take care of her. This is obviously not how things should be.

 

... let me explain how this story shows that the bc supreme court is a totally lawless wreck that should be demolished:

... in the year 2000 shirley anderson went to the bc supreme court and she asked a judge to award her $750 per month from her children because she wasn't able to support herself financially. according to the bc government legislation applicable to this matter, if the judge agreed that anderson was dependant on her children then her children would have a lawful obligation to "maintain and support" anderson. and yes, in this case the bc supreme court judge did indeed rule that anderson was dependant on her children and that her children must "maintain and support" her ...

... yet, even though the bc supreme court judge ruled that the children had an obligation to maintain and support anderson, for some inexplicable reason the incompetent bc supreme court judge broke the law and the judge awarded anderson a paltry $50 per month (!) and not the correct amount of money she was lawfully entitled to. this was a totally illegal adjudication on the part of the incompetent bc supreme court judge. the incompetent bc supreme court judge had no lawful authority to award anderson a mere $50 per month. why didn't the incompetent bc supreme court judge have the lawful authority to do this? the reason the incompetent bc supreme court judge didn't have the lawful authority to award anderson a mere $50 per month is because it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE to maintain and support anyone on the sum of only $50 per month. by law, the incompetent bc supreme court judge had a lawful obligation to award anderson a reasonable amount of money to live on. $50 per month is not a reasonable amount of money for anyone to live on ...

... nonetheless, the incompetent bc supreme court judge did render this verdict and the verdict was an award of $50 per month to be paid to shirley anderson by her children ...

... according to the law, that should have been it. it should have been cased closed, matter finished, proceedings concluded. period. the incompetent bc supreme court judge's questionable ruling was not appealed by any of the children and as such the questionable verdict was written in stone. the incompetent bc supreme court judge's shitty verdict was now the law for this family ...

... now here's where this bc surpeme court corruption story takes a turn for the worse. even though the matter was finalized and the proceedings were concluded in the year 2000, the bc supreme court illegally agreed to allow one of shirley anderson's children, ken anderson, to return to court in the year 2008, eight years (EIGHT YEARS!!!) after the judge had rendered his final decision in the matter, to appeal the $50 per month judgment that was awarded to anderson. this was another TOTALLY ILLEGAL move by the supreme court of british columbia. it is simply NOT LAWFUL for a party to return to court eight years after receiving a binding court judgment to appeal that judgment ...

... further, if it is actually the law in british columbia that children have a legal obligation to support their broke parents, then it's the responsibility of the province of british columbia to enforce this law. it's not the responsiblity of anyone other than the government to prosecute and enforce this type of totally illegal bc government legislation ...

... and there's a hell of a lot of other bc supreme court fraud going on here as well, including:

-- since the matter was already heard and finalized in the year 2000 it's not lawful for shirley anderson to sue her children again for support payments in the year 2011 ...

-- since the matter was already heard and finalized in the year 2000 it was totally criminal for a bc supreme court judge to order that shirley anderson produce personal financial information AFTER the trial concluded ...

-- since the matter was already heard and finalized in the year 2000 it is totally illegal for justice william ehrcke to demand that anderson produce financial statements and present herself for discovery hearings by december 2, 2011 or at any other time ...

... boy, they sure like breaking the law and beating the crap out people in the bc supreme court. like i said in an earlier post, this matter is a CLEAR-CUT CASE of a family being criminally extorted by unscrupulous british columbia attorneys and by officials of the supreme court of british columbia, including criminally-inclined judges ...

 

take a case of a child who has been abused, molested, tortured, neglected by his parents. As soon as the child is 16, he leaves the home to never talk to his parents again....parents don't make any attempts to contact their child. A child doesn't choose when they will be born. Parents do decide to give birth. I totally understand parents having to support a child until 18 yrs old....but take a case of neglectful and evil parents, would you have to pay someone who has abused you just because they gave birth to you?

 

THIS!!!

... great post! how true!

... this case commenced in the year 2000 and it's getting reignited again for at least two new trials in the year 2011. ELEVEN YEARS AND COUNTING!!! does the cbc actually expect us to believe that the proper application of the bc government leglislation that obligates children to support their parents is the commencement of opened-ended bc supreme court trials that never conclude?

... and there are other important bc supreme court fraud issues that should be brought up here as well, including:

... if shirley anderson is ignoring court orders, why has justice william ehrcke ruled that her case can still be heard? that is a totally illegal application of the law and it is totally unfair to the respondents named in shirley anderson's petition. if shirley anderson is disobeying court orders and breaking the law then the law dictates that her right to petition other people gets removed -- NOT REINFORCED BY THE CROWN!!! justice william ehrcke is basically saying that if the children, the respondents, win this new lawsuit, anderson can disobey any judgments that are rendered against her, such as judgments to pay their court costs, and there's little the respondents can do about it. this a very bad message for justice william ehrcke send to the respondents when a civil lawsuit is commencing ...

... and does shirley anderson even know that the court judgments that supposedly order her to produce financial records and present herself to her lawyers for discovery hearings exist? very doubtful. most likely, the lawyers claiming to represent shirley anderson are acting unilaterally without instruction from anderson and anderson doesn't know a goddamn about this new petition that is being illegally litigated in her name ...

... also, ken anderson is supposedly appealing a judgment that forces him to pay a mere $10 per month (his share of the total $50 per month) to his mother. this simply isn't a credible petition. who in their right mind retains legal counsel to file a lawsuit to overturn a judgment that orders you to pay essentially nothing to someone else. nobody does. even to a poor person, paying ten dollars a month to someone is not onerous and it sure as hell isn't any reason to file a lawsuit against anyone. and apparently anderson isn't unemployed and he does bring in an income. ken anderson's lawsuit also sounds like a phony petition that has been fabricated by unscrupulous lawyers ...

... not only is this family being abused by lawyers and the lawyer-controlled government of bc, but it appears to me that shirley anderson is a horrible parent who is guilty of harassing her grown children by attacking them with lawyers and illegal court action. shirley anderson is guilty of child abuse ...

 

I think you are confusing some aspects of criminal law with civil law. A better analogy would be when parents split up and child support/alimony is being calculated. The amounts are calculated based on set approaches which have a lot to do with the amount of income each parent has. If the situation changes significantly for either parent, they have the right to go back to court to request a reconsideration. For example, lets say a parent is making $200,000 per year (I know, that is huge). They are ordered to provide support in the amount of $50,000 per year to the other parent in support payments, as they other parent did not work and has no income. 1 year later, the first parent loses their job and has to take a new job at $50,000 per year. Obviously, it is not possible to meet the support payments previously calculated as they won't even make $50,000 after taxes. In this case, the first parent can go back to court and ask for a change in support payments (much as has happened in this case) due to change in circumstance. The law that details this is within the same act that deals with support payments for parents. And no, amounts are not given because it depends on circumstances like those I have indicated. Instead, judges rely on the precendents that have been ruled on before.

 

... i'm not confused. you're confused. i can see a blatant lawyer fraud scam when i can see one. you're the one who seems to think this is a child support case which it is not ...

... here are some other very important aspects of this lawyer fraud matter that the cbc isn't willing to identify to us:

-- it's clear that ken anderson is a victim of lawyer fraud. ken anderson has been conned by a british columbia lawyer to proceed with court action that he absolutely cannot win under any circumstances. why can't he win? let me explain.

... ken anderson is currently paying $10 per month in support payments to his mother. even if a bc supreme court judge agrees with his lawyer and strikes down the year 2000 judgment that orders him to pay $10 per month to his mother he will still be saddled with the exorbitant fees his lawyer has charged him to go to court ...

... we all know that british columbia lawyers are exceedingly expensive. just to retain a british columbia lawyer usually requires you to pay a retainer of several thousand dollars. i would estimate that to hire a lawyer to prepare and file the court materials and to then appear in court before a judge to argue the case would cost ken anderson not less than $5,000.00 and it probably would cost a lot more than $5,000.00. however, ken anderson cannot recoup this money. even if the judge orders shirley anderson to pay her son's court costs, since shirley anderson is broke (which the bc supreme court has already agreed she is, that's why she's getting payments from her children) she won't ever be able to pay his costs. as such, it would still be way cheaper for ken anderson to just keep paying his mother the ten bucks a month and stay away from lousy british columbia lawyers ...

... at $10 per month it would take ken anderson something like fifty years to even come close to paying his mother the kind of money he's paying his lawyer to go court. shirley andesron is 73. she might have another twenty years left in her and even if she does, at $10 a month that amounts to only about $2,000.00. ONLY TWO GRAND!!! that's WAY less than paying a lawyer to go to court ...

-- plus, the bc supreme court adjudicated in the year 2000 that shirley anderson meets the requirements of the bc government legislation that requires children to maintain and support their parents, so it's already been decided by the court that ken anderson and his siblings have to pay shirley anderson. the only thing that is going to change in a new trial is how much they have to pay. and if ken anderson is currently only paying $10 per month, it's highly unlikely that the amount can get any lower and it will probably increase after another trial. just keep paying the $10 a month, bro ...

-- since the bc supreme court adjudicated in the year 2000 that shirley anderson meets the requirements of the bc government legislation that requires children to maintain and support their parents, the only way ken anderson can get around his legal obligation to pay his mother monthly payments is by striking down the government legislation that orders him and his siblings to pay her what the government says they owe her ...

... there it is. that's why ken anderson can't win the appeal he's supposedly mounted to have a judge strike down the $10 per month he's been ordered to pay his mother. there'll be no cash in it for him even if he gets a winning judgment, only massive legal fees. but what'll probably happen is the judge will order a huge increase in the amount of money he has to pay his mum. and that's why his petition makes no sense other than as a lawyer fraud scam ...

-- also, since the bc supreme court adjudicated in the year 2000 that shirley anderson meets the requirements of the bc government legislation that requires children to maintain and support their parents, why is ken anderson being allowed to sue his mother eleven years later? he's been ordered to look after her, not sue her. since the bc supreme court adjudicated that shirley anderson is destitute and must be supported by ken anderson, allowing ken anderson to challenge shirley anderson in court, thus requiring her to hire lawyers at her own expense to oppose her son, is contrary to the year 2000 bc supreme court judgment that orders ken anderson to maintain and support his mother ...

... finally, if the legislation that requires children to maintain and support their bankrupt parents applies to all british columbians, why has the anderson family been singled out to be abused with this illegal law? the reason is because the bar in british columbia is a mangy lynch mob of rotten maggots and they've decided to use this unlawful legislation to attack this poor family and make an example of them. and of course the cbc is there to help the lawyers of british columbia humiliate this poor family ...

... although we're being told by the government's propoganda machine that this matter is a supreme court of british columbia lawsuit, it's not a lawsuit at all. not only does this story show that the supreme court of british columbia is playing extortion games with innocent individuals, it also shows that the cbc is playing games with the truth as well ...

 

Has anyone have any further updates on this topic? I wasn't sure if this case was done yet.

 

... done yet? it's gone on for ten years, doesn't sound like it'll ever be done. it's another one of these illegal, open-ended bc supreme court trials that never conclude ...

... there's another aspect of this deplorable bc supreme court debacle that proves that it's just a lawyer fraud scam. while the lawyers (and the cbc!) would have us believe that there exists provincial legislation that forces children to support their broke parents if they fall onto hard times, in actual fact the province of british columbia has a welfare system for supporting people who don't have enough money to makes ends meet ...

... in fact, if shirley anderson needs funds to support herself she has an obligation to apply for welfare from the province, not initiate illegal court petitions against her children for financial support. that's another reason why this is just a lawyer scam to get people into court to extort legal fees from them. if shirley anderson really needed money should could apply for welfare and the province would give her money to support herself ...