Edward Furlong, an actor best known for portraying the young John Connor
in the greatest action movie of all-time, Terminator 2: Judgement Day,
has been accused of being a “Deadbeat Dad” by his ex-spouse,
Rachael Kneeland. The two were married in the Spring of 2006 and were
divorced three years later. Their son Ethan was born in the Fall of 2006
and while the parents have joint custody, Ethan resides with Ms. Kneeland
as a result of Mr. Furlong’s sordid past (he has a history of drug
and alcohol abuse and has allegedly been violent towards both Kneeland
and his son).
According to TMZ.com, The Los Angeles County Superior Court has decided
that as of October 2, 2011, Mr. Furlong owes $15,000.00 in back-dated
child support. This amount is representative of $12,108 that went unpaid,
plus $3,840.00 in interest. Since December of 2010, Furlong has paid Kneeland
just $3,201.00 – which is hardly adequate. Furlong has argued that since
January of this year he has been broke.
Some people raise an eyebrow when they read about actors or athletes who
claim they cannot make their support payments, child or spousal, on account
of a lack of finances. In most cases I would argue that the suspicions
are justified, but there can be circumstances where it is possible for
an actor like Mr. Furlong to not only be unable to make the necessary
child support payments, but also to have difficulties maintaining a minimal
standard of living for himself. The payor of child support can make the
argument that his or her income fluctuates unpredictably from year to
year, and as such the determination of his or her actual income for the
purposes of calculating the quantum of child support is subject to some
discretion. Assuming acting is Mr. Furlong’s sole occupation and source
of income, if you take a look at his recent filmography, it does not require
much common sense to realize that Mr. Furlong is not earning much money.
Assume for a minute that this matter was taking place in Ontario, Canada
and consider Section 17 of the
Federal Child Support Guidelines:
Pattern of income
17. (1) If the court is of the opinion that the determination of a spouse’s
annual income under section 16 would not be the fairest determination
of that income, the court may have regard to the spouse’s income over
the last three years and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable
in light of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of
a non-recurring amount during those years.
This section of the
Guidelines can work in the favour of both parties under circumstances such as this.
For example, if Mr. Furlong is in fact broke on account of not earning
much, if any, money this year, then the Court may look at his pattern
of income over the last three years and mandate that he pay an amount
of child support that is reflective of this sudden drop in income. Conversely,
if next year Mr. Furlong scores a role in the next installment of the
Terminator franchise and is paid handsomely for it, then his monthly child
support payments would increase, probably to an amount higher than is
currently stipulated, as a result of the continually changing pattern.
This section of the
Guidelines is helpful for the Courts because it gives them the requisite flexibility
to ensure on the one hand that payors do not constantly go deeper and
deeper into arrears and on the other it ensures that any child of the
marriage will benefit from significant and/or unexpected increases in
the payor spouse’s income.
In any case, Mr. Furlong cannot escape the payment of the arrears owing,
but there is a chance that the quantum he has been ordered to pay would
be changed, based on Section 17 of the
Guidelines. Judgment Day is coming for the leader of the resistance after all.