Refusal to pay for after school program?

[Dadx5]

Question for a friend:

She has recently done up a separation agreement with assistance of lawyers. She has primary residence , joint custody and dad has every other weekend and 2 mid week visits (not overnight) but must give 2 days notice of intention to have mid week.

Since the finalization of the separation agreement in October dad has not exercised his mid week access.

Agreement also states that he shall pay 75% of section 7 expenses.

She started a new job in January and due to issues with her schedule, and dad not taking any mid week visits even when he requests it he doesn't show. She placed child in an after school program until she gets home from work.

She contacted dad to inform him of the situation and he is telling her because she didn't get his approval he will not contribute to the cost of the after school program.

She did write back and asked him to tour it and if he had concerns about the centre that she chose there was an alternate centre in the area that picks up from childs school.

Is he responsible to pay for 75% of the cost? can he stop her from putting child in program?

I have never dealt with section 7 as in my situation we each have just paid our own costs when we have child so its never come up. I don't know much about them.

[The Iceberg]

Doesnt change anything. She has to work and she put the kids in daycare. In fact it may be good for the kids to be involved in that program too, depenfing of age.

The only thing that comes to my mind is, would the dad watch the kids and would she let him?

[Beachnana]

Well poster did state that Dad has not exercised his midweek access so likely not and if he works likely not available anyway. After school is usually 3-5:30 maybe 6 pm.

Its Section 7 daycare for purposes of work. She informed him and he has to pay. I guess if he wAnts to exercise his midweek access and pick child up from the school he can save that cost but otherwise he is on the hook for it.

[Gilligan]

I think it would be prudent for the mother to offer the father the opportunity to care for this children after school. It is unlikely that he would do so, but that would clearly indicate that an afterschool program "is required" and as you state, it is a legitimate section 7 expenses. Also, if she's addressed any possible "concerns" of the father, then it should be a pretty clear cut case. Unfortunately, I believe that she will have to bring it to court to be enforced, but I think any lawyer wouldn't let the father go to court with such a weak case.

[Beachnana]

I think it would be prudent for the mother to offer the father the opportunity to care for this children after school. It is unlikely that he would do so, but that would clearly indicate that an afterschool program "is required" and as you state, it is a legitimate section 7 expenses. Also, if she's addressed any possible "concerns" of the father, then it should be a pretty clear cut case. Unfortunately, I believe that she will have to bring it to court to be enforced, but I think any lawyer wouldn't let the father go to court with such a weak case.

You would think. But we are hading to a motion hearing on the very same issue. Non payment of section 7 expenses. Currently arguing a 1.33% difference in calculation. Which is $209 over the past 2 years. Lawyers can always see a mug who willing spends his money to screw over his ex rather than pay for childs care.

Sorry a bit of a rant on my part.

[Gilligan]

I couldn't agree with you more... It's sad when you have to consider paying a financial amount even if there is no legal basis for it because to argue the case would cost you more than the expense itself. Something wrong with this system.

[Beachnana]

Yes, the system is setup to work with 2 parents who are caring, rational, acting in the best interests of their child/children. Who can and do communicate in an appropriate manner and are honest and reliable.

Where are these Ex's. !!!!!

[Rioe]

Yes, the system is setup to work with 2 parents who are caring, rational, acting in the best interests of their child/children. Who can and do communicate in an appropriate manner and are honest and reliable.

Where are these Ex's. !!!!!

In my experience, there's only one per break-up, at maximum. My ex is mostly reasonable to communicate with, but it comes with a different set of costs. There's always something!

As for the matter at hand, if one parent needs the care because of work obligations, the other parent must share the cost unless they are willing to look after the child themselves.

[Gilligan]

This is an interesting concept and one that I am experiencing at the moment (sorry as I don't mean to hijack the conversation).

I have a situation where my child is old enough to walk home from school and does so on my days, however my ex refuses to allow the child to walk to my home on her days and has placed them in a childcare provider. My ex is of the view that she's not comfortable with the child in my care and that she must retain childcare services for work purposes (even though I am able to and willing to care for the child at no cost to her). This may one day find it's way back to court, if it does, I will happily share the outcome. This is in a 50/50 time sharing schedule.

[Rioe]

This is an interesting concept and one that I am experiencing at the moment (sorry as I don't mean to hijack the conversation).

I have a situation where my child is old enough to walk home from school and does so on my days, however my ex refuses to allow the child to walk to my home on her days and has placed them in a childcare provider. My ex is of the view that she's not comfortable with the child in my care and that she must retain childcare services for work purposes (even though I am able to and willing to care for the child at no cost to her). This may one day find it's way back to court, if it does, I will happily share the outcome. This is in a 50/50 time sharing schedule.

If she's got 50-50 with you, guess what, she's comfortable with the child being in your care. Her problem is actually something else. If you can figure out the something else and address it, you may be able to avoid court.

Is she not comfortable with you getting those extra hours with the child? Does she worry that you'll try to change the CS over it?

Is she not comfortable with you knowing when she finishes work?

Is she not comfortable with having to pick the child up from your house and have a face-to-face exchange with you?

Is she jealous of your work schedule that permits you to be at home for the child after school, and is taking it out on you this way?

[mcdreamy]

I think it would be prudent for the mother to offer the father the opportunity to care for this children after school. It is unlikely that he would do so, but that would clearly indicate that an afterschool program "is required" and as you state, it is a legitimate section 7 expenses. Also, if she's addressed any possible "concerns" of the father, then it should be a pretty clear cut case. Unfortunately, I believe that she will have to bring it to court to be enforced, but I think any lawyer wouldn't let the father go to court with such a weak case.

No need. The working parent is under no obligation whatsoever to provide a ROFR unless same is called for in their separation agreement.

Move the kidlets into her daycare during her necessary work hours and carry on, seek the proportionate share of costs. It's a legitimate expense and will be held.

[Dadx5]

I think that in her case its going to be a legal battle. Dad is still refusing to pay anything. Since she told him where the child care will be dad contacted to say that he does not consent to child being there as they have joint custody. Its been a long weekend so she couldn't go to Flic today but will try and go tomorrow.

Dad is hung up on the fact that she didn't tell him prior to registering child. He just keeps messaging her that they have joint custody and that he needed to agree prior to the decision.

[nfc4ever]

I wonder if there is anything else going on? Is the new daycare provider a third party with no ties to either of you?

I'm aware of a situation with my kid's provider a few years back where the dad switched providers as the provider was the ex's friend, and moved to a third party. Ex wife didn't like the loss of income for her friend so filed a complaint against the daycare provider.

[Dadx5]

Its not my case its a friend but she hasn't mentioned any connection. I don't really know though.

[Beachnana]

I think that in her case its going to be a legal battle. Dad is still refusing to pay anything. Since she told him where the child care will be dad contacted to say that he does not consent to child being there as they have joint custody. Its been a long weekend so she couldn't go to Flic today but will try and go tomorrow.

Dad is hung up on the fact that she didn't tell him prior to registering child. He just keeps messaging her that they have joint custody and that he needed to agree prior to the decision.

I believe, well have actually been told by our CC judge that while one party might not have been informed prior to registering the child for Child Care service ( an oversight). Daycare for purpose of work is usually indisputable.

If it is a registered licensed daycare and the Mother is working thats it. If Dad wants to arrange to pick the child up from School on his week days then He can committ to that.

Register the child but expect no payment unless you go to a motion And unless you self rep the cost is not worth it.

It is tax deductable, so thats a help.