How to Share Daycare Costs?

[#1StepMom]

Understandably, the guiding principle for the sharing of daycare costs is in proportion to income (i.e. proportionate share). That is what is currently in the court order and what has been our practice to date; my husband and I do not dispute it.

Unfortunately, my stepson's mom does dispute it.

Because daycare costs increase when the child is absent from daycare during the time that he is with us on court-ordered vacation time (5-6 weeks per year), the mom claims that she should not be responsible for any portion of this expense.

She believes that we should be responsible for 100% of the daycare costs incurred during the time the child is with us, plus our proportionate share of all other daycare fees.

My husband and I believe that daycare is a shared total expense, and that the entire costs should be shared. After all, is it not my husband's right to exercise his court-ordered visitation time? Is it not his right to do so without any additional financial penalties for abiding by his court order? Is it not the custodial parent's obligation to help facilitate access? We don't believe that it is fair for a parent to have to pay to see their child.

Of course, the mom disagrees and claims that our situation warrants special consideration. We are quite certain that she will be taking this to court, and soon.

We live 1.5hrs away, one way. We cannot take the child to daycare daily during the time he is with us. Not only that, even if we lived closer, my husband and I would much rather prefer spending time with the child than sending him to daycare daily. And what about vacations? Are we not entitled to a vacation away with the child? Unfortunately, the mother believes that since we "choose" to not take the child to daycare daily, we should cover 100% of the expenses associated with the absences during the time the child is with us.

Does she have any leg to stand on? Or do we have an easy open-and-shut case here? Any advice or information you may have would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[representingself]

The way I understand it, and in my personal experience, if you live in a fairly populated area, and the child is attending "daycare" in a facility, rather than private home daycare, the "client" (ie. parents) are responsible to pay for ALL scheduled days, regardless of illness or vacation.

The reason for this is because "real" daycare centres have limited availability, and many have wait-lists. As such, they will not allow a client to have an irregular schedule, nor will they allow for excessive vacation time (ie. 5 to 6 weeks a year).

If they did, they'd loose money. And there are many, many more families who would take the spot, without complaint.

So you are asking if the "mother" should have to pay her portion of the daycare costs while the child is with you and your husband?

Basically, she would be paying the fee regardless.

#1. If the child wasn't with you, he/she's still need care while mom is at work those weeks right???

#2. She has to pay to keep her "place" at the centre.

The fact that the child is with you for access/vacation should play no part in that.

That being said, in court, your guess is as good as mine.

A Judge could deem it unfair to the mother, and nail your husband with 100%, as the child should be IN care, and HE CHOSE to remove them from care....

Now you could just suck it up and pay the exta costs for those 5 to 6 weeks, because she didn't choose to pull the child from care for those weeks.....

Or fight her in court and pay your Lawyer substantially more money... "because of the principal of it"...

[#1StepMom]

The way I understand it, and in my personal experience, if you live in a fairly populated area, and the child is attending "daycare" in a facility, rather than private home daycare, the "client" (ie. parents) are responsible to pay for ALL scheduled days, regardless of illness or vacation.

The reason for this is because "real" daycare centres have limited availability, and many have wait-lists. As such, they will not allow a client to have an irregular schedule, nor will they allow for excessive vacation time (ie. 5 to 6 weeks a year).

If they did, they'd loose money. And there are many, many more families who would take the spot, without complaint.

So you are asking if the "mother" should have to pay her portion of the daycare costs while the child is with you and your husband?

Basically, she would be paying the fee regardless

#1. If the child wasn't with you, he/she's still need care while mom is at work those weeks right???

#2. She has to pay to keep her "place" at the centre..

That is exactly the way is is, and the way it was explained by the judge who put together the first court order.

The fact that the child is with you for access/vacation should play no part in that.

It shouldn't, I agree... unfortunately the mother does not.

That being said, in court, your guess is as good as mine.

A Judge could deem it unfair to the mother, and nail your husband with 100%, as the child should be IN care, and HE CHOSE to remove them from care....

Now you could just suck it up and pay the exta costs for those 5 to 6 weeks, because she didn't choose to pull the child from care for those weeks.....

Or fight her in court and pay your Lawyer substantially more money... "because of the principal of it"...

Yes, we could end up with a wacko judge like we did at the last two court appearances, where my husband was nailed 250% of costs. (Surprising AND infurriating.)

We contemplated "sucking it up" but that would mean an extra $750 AT LEAST per year, every year. Why should my husband PAY to exercise his court-ordered time and see his child? After all, the wacko judge even indicated that the family court frowns upon parents who demand that the other parent pay extra in order to see their child. But, just as is the case in family law... you just never know what the outcome will be! It seems that rules and guidelines don't apply and it's all at the whim of the judge.

As for lawyer fees... no way, no how... given our financial situation at the time, getting a lawyer is just not an option. Sadly, this would be another self-represented case.

It just seems so unjust that a parents would be forced to pay extra in order to see their child for their court-ordered time? What if the parent couldn't afford the extra $50-1000 yearly and as a result was forced to reduce his visitation/vacation time. I'm sure he would look even less favourably in the eyes of the judge than the parent demanding the extra payments. You know what I mean?

[representingself]

Ok, so I went and read your other thread on this issue and just to clarify:

"Mom" gets subsidized daycare.

Subsidy covers 28 "sick" days per year.

You are supposed to "share" these paid sick days. 8 for the child and 10 for each parent.

Anything over 28 days is NOT subsidized, and Mom is charged $35 per day. Payment is mandatory to keep the childs spot in the daycare centre.

You and your husband have the child 5 to 6 weeks per year for "vacation". I assume that is your summer access schedule.

Given the 10 days that you have that are "covered" that leaves anywhere from 3 to 4 weeks that are charged at the full rate ($525 to $700 per year).

You want Mom to pay for half of those costs.

Here lies the problem.

For Mom to even qualify for subsidy, she has to be low income. Given that , she probably can't afford these costs, (not to say that you can either).

Also, Mom is p*ssed, because she doesn't think she should have to pay $17.50/day for your access to the child.

If you didn't have this "access", she wouldn't have to pay anything!!

You claim she is obligated to "facilitate" access and as such should pay half of these added costs.

Soooooo...it looks like you've got 5 options here:

You could treat this like a section 7 expense, and share the cost proportional to the parties incomes.

You could split it 50/50.

You could cancel/reduce the vacation time.

You could pay for the costs yourself.

You could put it to a Judge to determine how to deal with it....

I am no Judge, but rarely does common sense prevail.

Sooooooo, as far as I see it, to avoid some unnecessary confrontation:

Allow her to have the 8 + 10 days for the child and herself. It sounds fair, and a Judge probably wouldn't vary from that. How she uses her days is her concern. If she uses up her quota, that wouldn't effect yours. Period.

There should be no need for Doctor's notes here. And if you do demand them, then you could be responsible for the cost of them (usually $25 per note). Kind of counter-productive don't ya think????

Also, do you really want the child to be dragged into a waitingroom everytime he/she is sick, instead of at home in bed???

Keep your 10 days for yourself. It's pretty simple. You get 10 "free" week days per year.

As far as the rest, unless the parties can negotiate and agree on this, you'll have no choice than to have a Judge to do it for you.

Something tells me though, that if Mom is low income and qualifies for subsidy... she has a pretty good chance at winning this one.

A Judge wont want to impose any financial hardship on the child, and by forcing a low income, single mom to foot a bill that big, would probably be considered "hardship". Also NCP usually pays for all costs associated with access (ie. fuel, transportation, etc), and the Judge could very well lump this in with that type of "cost", making it the responsibility of the NCP.

You will probably be ordered to pay it all yourself.

Unfair, maybe, but I really can't see any way around it.

That being said, if you are representing yourself, it shouldn't cost you too much to have a Judge decide.

Worse case scenario, you loose, and get no help with the daycare costs. Keep in mind, if you do loose, you may have to pay some/all of her legal fees...

Best case scenario , you at least get to have her pay something!!!

Remember: Applying for, and maintaining a child care subsidy is a seriously humiliating experience. Their application process is EXTREMELY intrusive, and has to be done every 6 months.

If the Government were to realize that they were funding an "access order", and not daycare attendance, the fit could hit the shan!

If "Mom" lost her daycare subsidy, you would be worrying and fighting about paying $35/day EVERYDAY, instead of 15 to 20 days per year.

Maybe... all of the parties involved should be thankful that you get any subsidy at all!!

[#1StepMom]

I'll write more later... but I just wanted to clarify that the mom is not low income. She makes $40,000 per year and has no expenses as she lives with family and only pitches in for groceries. Her only actual expenses are her car (she just bought a 2008 luxary sedan) and cell phone (though we think her work gives her a car and phone allowance too). So really, she is in a better financial position than my husband or I.

[dinkyface]

Was this a consent order i.e. did mother explicitly agree to it? Did you live 1.5 hours away when it was signed? And she agreed to share daycare costs proportionately to income? If yes to all, then I'd say she had full knowledge that she was agreeing to share the cost of having the child out of daycare for those 5-6 weeks. (actually, it being a consent order should have nothing to do with it, but it might be in your favour if it was i.e. it shows she is changing her mind about what she agreed to)

I probably missed this in the prior posts, but are you sharing daycare costs (which comprise only the fees for extra absent days) 50-50 or according to income? If it is according to income, and she is fully subsidized, then I take it your income/share is already quite a bit higher than hers, so the difference between her paying nothing vs just her proportionate share might not be that big? but then, you mentioned hubby is having some back/job problems, so maybe your incomes are more equal at the moment?

[dinkyface]

From what you wrote about bio-mom, I'm starting to wonder if my BF has another partner <joke>

[representingself]

Even so, if she is getting government subsidy, her parents are giving her rent receipts. Otherwise there would be NO subsidy!
You wont be able to prove your allegations in court... I'm sure that SHE will make sure of that!

So she makes $40,000/year. Sounds ok, but in reality, isn't much more than $19.25/hr. She's not loaded by any means, (company cell phone or not). And she is "single" (no man paying half her bills)?!?!

Go ahead and petiton the court for her to cough of some $$$$. It will be interesting to see what one of our allmighty Judges has to say.

Hopefully in all their powerful wisdom, they will see what is RIGHT, and make sure that she is paying exactly what she is obligated to pay!

Ohh, and while you are in Court, you should review your CS, and Sect. 7 expenses. You said before that your Hubby is paying over the Guideline amount, and that YOU are chipping in some extra moooolah.
If I were you, I'd make damn sure THAT was stopped a.s.a.p.

[#1StepMom]

Thank you for your responses.

To clarify...

The mom became eligible for subsidized child care long before the first court order was written. She was considered a "young, uneducated, single mom." When the child began going to daycare (so that the mom could attend school full time) the costs were shared proportionately (my husband was employed full-time, she had a part-time job). When my husband returned to school to complete his degree, the costs were shared 50/50 because she wouldn't agree to proportionate share anymore (for fear that she might have to pay slightly more than him, perhaps?) Since then, the costs were shared 50/50 until my husband returned to work full-time, at which point she went to court for a court order for access and child support, and the judge ordered that each parent shall pay their proportionate share of all daycare costs.

Well, the mom wouldn't agree with our calculations of proportionate share. She demanded that her share be calculated using her previous tax year's total income while my husband's be calculated using his current income. We did not agree, and told her that unless the incomes used are from the same taxation year, we would not pay more than 50%. So, she agreed to sharing the costs 50/50.

We have been paying 50% of daycare expenses since 2005... despite the 2007 court order for proportionate share (because the mom would throw a fit if she had to pay any more than us). Well, when my husband was making more than her, she had no problem with proportionate share. When he was making less, she wanted 50%. Most recently, a few months ago, she filed in her conference brief that she wanted daycare costs split 50/50 (my husband had lost his job and his proportionate share would have been less than 50%). Unfortunately, the matter never came up in court, and so the provision to pay proportionately as written in the 2007 order remains.

What we're fighting for is the philosophy explained by the judge who had written the original order. That a NCP has every right to exercise their access and vacation time without having to incur additional financial penalties (i.e. having to pay to see their child). The judge also explained that child care is a fixed cost that is to be shared proportionately (or 50/50 if the parties agree)... regardless of who the child is with and how many daycare days they are using or not using.

This makes perfect sense to us. After all, when the mom takes the child out of daycare for her own vacations, we still pay our share of the bill. Granted, her vacation time is not as lengthy as my husband's, but my husband's time is court ordered and should not be reduced in order to eliminate additional child care costs.

It just seems so ridiculous to me.

We don't want to fight this - we're quite happy with the court order as is. She wants to change it, so she'll be the one having to take it to court. Of course, the problem with court is... as you said... common sense rarely prevails.

As for the child support amount... we don't even want to go there. Each time we bring the matter up in court, it ends up costing us more. It seems that there are no guidelines to follow, just whatever the judge feels should be the right amount. After all, our last judge clearly stated that "it costs approximately $800-1,000 per month to support a child, and each parent should be responsible for at least half that amount. I realize the NCP has lost his job, however his wife's income is more than adequate to support the couple, therefore not causing the NCP undue hardship (even though my husband never indicated undue hardship). Therefore the NCP shall continue paying the court ordered amount (based on the income from his terminated employment) while he attempts to secure another position. We will reconvene in 3 months time to revisit the issue of child support." [Three months later] "Seeing as the NCP obtained a new position, child support shall be increased in accordance to the salary of this new job. In addition, since the court finds the NCP's request for a reduction due to loss of employment premature, the court orders the NCP to pay the legal costs of the other party, plus arrears."

It just seems that guidelines are useless. Since then, my husband has been layed off (due to company re-organization) and so here we are again... living only on my one income and still having to pay child support for his 1 child in an amount that is close to that for 2 children... on top of rent, cars, utilities, insurance, groceries, etc. No fun!

It just seems so unfair and we have lost all faith in the justice system.

[#1StepMom]

From what you wrote about bio-mom, I'm starting to wonder if my BF has another partner <JOKE>

Huh? I'm confused. Did I miss something?

[dinkyface]

How you describe bio-mom and her situation/attitude is eerily similar to my BF's ex. Sad to know there are multiples out there!

Unfortunately the forum software deleted my JOKE tag because it was enclosed in angle brackets!! Sorry for the confusion!

[cmacdonald77]

I'll write more later... but I just wanted to clarify that the mom is not low income. She makes $40,000 per year and has no expenses as she lives with family and only pitches in for groceries. Her only actual expenses are her car (she just bought a 2008 luxary sedan) and cell phone (though we think her work gives her a car and phone allowance too). So really, she is in a better financial position than my husband or I.

At 40K she still qualifies for subsidy...

[FightingForFamily]

Necropost...