Hearthrob Louis Miguel is a staple of the Latin music industry. An icon in Latin America, he is referred to as "El Sol de Mexico," meaning "the sun of Mexico." The 5-Grammy and 4-Latin Grammy winner began his musical career in his childhood and won his first Grammy at the age of 14. Now, however, the Mexican pop star is on the hook for considerable child support. According to TMZ online, the Latin pop phenomenon hasn't been paying support to his ex, actress Aracely Arambula, for his two sons, Miguel and Daniel.

Aracely, a Telenovela star, and Luis were together for approximately five years, in which time they had two sons, now 6 and 4. Three years ago, the couple split and Aracely moved back to Mexico with the children; Luis stayed in Beverly Hills, California, where the children had been raised up until the split.

TMZ reports that the pop star hasn't been paying regular child support and hasn't seen the children in 6 months. While it is rumoured that Luis contributes on an irregular basis, Aracely is understandably upset as she is without reliable support from the children's father.

This news is perhaps all the more shocking given Luis' continued success. Mr. Miguel is actually known for his high-grossing live performances and tours. His Mexico En La Piel Tour, occurring between 2005-2007, consisted of 129 concerts and grossed over $95 million giving Luis the highest grossing tour performed by a Latin artist of all-time. So, while his extensive tour schedule may begin to explain his lack of contact with his children, it makes the lack of support that much more incomprehensible.

Miguel's early professional career mirrors that of the late Michael Jackson. Miguel was managed by his father, a strict disciplinarian. While this helped Miguel's career success, it caused problems in their personal life. Further, Miguel's mother disappeared mysteriously in 1986; he found her in a mental hospital in 2012. He fired his father as his manager in the late 1980s; his father fell into a depression and died in 1992. Miguel does not grant media interviews and carefully guards his private life.

While Luis and Aracely were never married, in Ontario this would have no effect on Luis' support obligation. According to s. 31 of the Family Law Act, each parent is required to support, to the extent of his or her ability, an unmarried child who is: 1) under the age of 16; 2) ages 16 or 17 and who has not withdrawn from parents control; or 3) 18 or over and enrolled in a full-time program of education, and who has not withdrawn from parental control.

In terms of whether Aracely will be able to receive child support retroactive to the parties' separation, the general rule is that the payor parent is required to pay from the date the payor parent is provided with notice of their obligation (Howe v Tremblay). Thus, depending on when Aracely requested support, she may be owed considerable retroactive support in addition to the child support Luis will have to pay going forward. In the end, however, the doctrine of Laches, or delay, in requesting support may not apply provided there was no sinister reason for the delay (Phiroz v Mottiar).