Skrzypacz+c.+Skrzypacz

**Facts:** Applicant (Zofia) is seeking an order for interim support from her son (Ryszard) pursuant to sections **32**, **33** and **34** of the **Family Law Act**. While the mother contends that she was his primary caretaker, the respondent alleged that his mother had in fact abandoned him at the age of 7 days, and that his maternal grandparents had been his court-ordered guardians in Poland throughout his childhood. **Issue(s):** 1) Is the mother entitled to support from her son? 2) How much? **Held:** 1) No 2) Consequently Null. **Reasoning (Wolder J.):** 1) Section 32 does not impose an obligation on all children, only on those whose parents “cared for or provided for the child”. Because the mother did not provide any evidence to counter her son’s allegations, the Court concluded that she had not met the evidentiary basis for making such an order of support. 2) Does not need consideration. Note: whether or not there is an obligation arising from immigration sponsorship is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. **Important, paras 6-7:** “Section 32 does not impose an obligation upon every child to support his or her parent who is in need. It limits the class of parents entitled to receive support from the child to a parent “who has cared for or provided support for the child.” The test for determining whether a parent has provided a level of care or support for a child: “Care should be taken to avoid measurements like a minimum or maximum approach. The test should be: What care and support for children would reasonably have been expected from a parent in the circumstances in which the family found itself?” (From //Godwin v. Bosco//, Dunn J.)
 * Skrzypacz** **v.** **Skrzypacz** (**ONCJ**) (**1996**):