View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-22-2014, 06:45 PM
scarycheri scarycheri is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 129
scarycheri is on a distinguished road

Originally Posted by stripes View Post
The payor (Parent A) should increase his CS payments accordingly now that both parties have the NOAs. (BTW the other parent (Parent B) is not "demanding" anything here, this is a completely reasonable expectation. Parent A is not conceding anything by paying what he is legally required to pay).

As for the S7 expenses: I am going to assume that Parent A has been paying his $158 per month promptly for the entire year, so that what is at issue is the residual amount of S7 which exceed $158 x 12. (If Parent A has not been paying promptly, then he's created this mess by not abiding by the court order, giving license to Parent B to do the same)

Parent A has a choice, he can either

a) pay 50% of the residual amount based on receipts submitted by Parent B. The residual amount here is not ridiculous if both parents are earning in the six figures. It's also not unreasonable for costs to go up as child gets older (no more day care, but other activities cost more). Tell Parent A that in future expenses need to be cleared before they are incurred, not on presentation of receipts. Save energy for more important battles.

b) not pay any of the residual amount. Engage in pointless back-and-forth with Parent B, which may or may not result in court costs which far exceed the amount being haggled over.

These parents have a bad court order, which is the source of the problem. A statement that A will pay B $158 per month now and forever isn't going to work out in the long run. Clearly A thinks he is doing everything necessary by paying $158 (following the letter of the agreement); clearly B thinks the situation has changed and $158 no longer represents A's half of the expenses (following the spirit of the agreement). I can see how each parent believes they are right, and the fault lies with whoever drew up the court order.

If I were Parent A, I would respond to Parent B's letter with a proposed agreement that in exchange for A paying B the residual amount for 2013, going forward Parent A will approve Parent B's expenditures before they are incurred, and that expenses will be reconciled once (or twice) a year. That's all you really need to avoid this mess.
The increase in CS was never up for debate. Parent A has always been forth coming with his NOA and offered an increase when applicable. Last year Parent B turned it down. This year she wants it.

Parent A has told Parent B he will sign a motion to change on consent without question for the purpose of CS. Didn't mean to imply the CS increase was a demand. It's the s.7 increase that came off as one.

Parent A is and always has been in complete compliance with his CS and S.7 payments. He has never been late, in arrears, etc. He knows it's his child's right to receive support. As of June 1, 2014 there has been an excess of funds in the FRO account as he has been remitting the increase to CS while waiting for the new order. FYI...Parent A registered for FRO to simplify his payments. Parent B insisted on PDC's and would cash 3 or 4 months at a time.

Parent A has requested Parent B to discuss changes to s.7 activities and she ignores his request. Previously it wasn't for the purpose of costs as she didn't want his contribution prior to Feb 2013. Parent B often enrolls child in activities that conflict with Parent A's access and expects him to take her to them. She been doing it for years. He doesn't have a problem taking the child to activities even though he doesn't live local to the child however being told as you pick up the child that she is committed to a party, swimming lesson, etc and Parent A has already made plans for him and the child is disrespectful to say the least. When he tries to communicate with her about these things she involves the police claiming harassment and threats. She has never been successful and laying charges and the officers are sympathetic with Parent A. The only way they can get along is if Parent A agrees to everything Parent B wants. When they attended court ordered mediation she said no to everything, even when he was agreeing to what she wanted. Communication is limited and strained to say the least.

The court order only adds to the tension. Parent b follows the order when convenient for her. Example. Previous order stated parent a was to have Father's Day access. For 6 yrs the child has dance recital that day. He asked to have her after recital. Told no. Asked for an alternate day. Told no. Parent b said if he wanted to see her he would have to spend the day with her and the child. He removed fathers day from his access in feb 2013 because she wouldn't agree to any changes. 2013 and 2014 she emails him the day before to ask if when he's picking up child for Father's Day. He reminds her that she took that out of the order and she berates him. A lot of games being played

Last edited by scarycheri; 09-22-2014 at 07:18 PM.
Reply With Quote