A v J: Court Blocks Unenforceable Child Support Agreement
In the 2025 decision A v J, 2025 ABKB 698, Justice Hollins rejected the father’s bid to cancel his child support arrears. The judge concluded that the private deal under which the mother agreed to forgive roughly $4,588 in past and ongoing support in return for a substantial cutback in the father’s parenting time was not legally enforceable.
Both parents represented themselves and had consented to limit the father’s court-ordered access to a single Saturday daytime visit each month, in exchange for the mother waiving the arrears and future payments. They followed that arrangement for about nine months, but when disputes arose they abandoned it and reverted to the original court order—overnight access once a month and regular support payments. A disagreement then emerged over whether the mother could insist on the unpaid support she had previously agreed to waive.
Justice Hollins began from the established principle that a child’s right to support and meaningful time with each parent cannot be contracted away. While she acknowledged that parents sometimes informally agree to alter those rights, she emphasized that it is a very different matter for a court to enforce a contract that public policy has declared void. There was no suggestion the father was unfit; indeed, the child stood to gain from both the court-mandated parenting schedule and the father’s financial contributions.
Observing that children’s welfare sometimes diverges from their parents’ wishes. Justice Hollins explained that the court will not give effect to custody or support agreements that undermine a child’s interests, even if those agreements advantage a parent. She warned that efforts to achieve what seems “fair” between the adults risk undercutting the public-policy rule designed to protect children against being treated as bargaining chips.
For the same policy reasons, the father could not invoke equitable or promissory estoppel to avoid paying arrears, since that doctrine applies in child-related matters only when consistent with the best interests of the child.
Additionally, Justice Hollins granted the father an additional Saturday visit each month to compensate for the approximately 12 days of access he lost under the unenforceable arrangement. She also found that although the father may not have realized the agreement was void, the mother did—and she used it to his legal detriment. As a result, the mother was ordered to pay costs, which the court set off against the unpaid support.
Need clarity on child support or parenting arrangements? Reach out to Mint Legal today!
