Canada has some different legal rulings based on different laws, but - the principle here and there is that the money is owed to the child, not the other parent; support is an obligation to the child. It is paid to the custodial parent because the child is a minor and the parent is the one paying for the house, food, etc. of which the child consumes a share. Hence no matter what the finances of either parent, normally a parent owes their fair share to the child.
Obviously, if a judge was a dick way back when, and for whatever reason said the non-custodial parent owes nothing, then… he owes nothing. If you get that reversed, it would only be going forward.
I recall talking to a lawyer once and he mentioned the system, especially at the bottom, is as much an old boy’s club with nudges and winks as much as it is about justice. A prominent and duly respectful family-law specialist and the judges he appears before probably have a professional relationship that trumps the letter of the law. Unless the case is blatantly impossible to rule otherwise, the “friend” will get what he wants. This is why hiring a “good” lawyer (one with a good reputation in the locale) is the first step to winning.
Technically, an adoption means the new parent assumes the same obligations as a biological one. If the judge rules otherwise, there was some serious nudge-nudge-wink-wink going on.
I’m surprised if your mother was on social assistance that the state did not pursue him. Some places, they WILL chase a parent who is able to pay, in order to recoup some of the welfare paid out. Even a single mother does not want the father’s money, welfare will sometimes even threaten to cut off support if the father is not identified and go to the steps of ordering a DNA test if the father objects to paying.
In Canada, it does not even take adoption. A man “acting in the role of parent” for a decent length of time (as little as a year) has been held liable for child support when the common-law marriage broke up. The court here ruled that “once established, the parental relationship is not something that can be unilaterally broken”.
IANAL!! In your case - this is why they pay lawyers and there are books and books of precedents to dig through. If the father is obliged to support you medically while you are full time at school, then being hospitalized should not count. I guess it depends on several things that may help your case- does the college recognize “medical leave”? (I.e. “I’ll be back next semester”?) The logical argument is that if you were covered for hospitalization (you were for a month) then the possibility that you would need on-going coverage for an extended stay, may need to sit out half a semester and still be considered “full-time”, etc. was implicit in that order. The Law makes logical inferences and does not need EVERY case spelled out in minute detail. I bet somewhere some parents sued an HMO who tried this same weasel tactic to deny coverage to an over-age child. (Knowing HMO’s, I bet there are already a large number of such cases!) This is why you pay the “good” lawyers and this is why it is important to fight it. I’m sure there is a correct way to phrase the arguments in court, but you and I haven’t a clue how to do it.
The climate has changed concerning child support and the dick judge is probably long gone, so a good lawyer would also probably also be able to make a good case for child support going forward too if daddy dearest is being such a jerk. Some judges also like to stretch judgements whichever way to reinforce the learning experience for parents who act like dicks.
The previous advice is good - if your campus has a legal clinic or law school, that would be a good place to start. Also, in the wonderful land of contingency fees, maybe they can point you to a good lawyer who will take the case in return for making daddy pay 30% extra for him.