What does my CS cover in my home?

[bcgooddad]

Hi all, my question is regarding my expenses and relation to my support payments. I have my daughter 30% (one week out of four plus half time for holidays). We live 10 hours apart and share travel equally. I've been paying less than table amount because I provide everything in my home for our daughter, but my ex wants me to pay full table amount. We are headed to court over it. I was told by our mediator that my support amounts should cover all of her clothing and necessities, but it seems hugely inconvenient to shuttle 10 hours with everything a child needs between two homes. I don't get any clothes or items from my ex. There are tons of expenses for me in having her 30% including having a room for her, clothes, toys, books, food, gear, etc.



Is any of this deductible from the support amount? It seems that food and other daily costs are the only real difference in costs between our homes, as we share most of the other costs as they arise. I'm just wondering what my ex is supposed to provide for our daughter in my home, if I am paying full table amounts. She also obviously gets the CCB and tax benefits.



It seems weird that I could have nothing to do with my daughter and pay full table amount and that's it, but I provide an entire life for her for 1/3 of the time with all associated expenses and still have to pay the same amount as someone who is totally uninvolved. Are the laws unfair here?



Another issue that has come up is child care costs. Normally these are split, which I understand. In my case though, because I have her for one week per month, it doesn't make sense to book for a month of daycare so I've taken the week off from work while she was with me. My ex had child care costs that she wanted me to contribute to, but my position is that I had several thousand dollars in lost wages that is actually more than her care costs for the past year, and so we should leave that out of it. Anybody know how a court deals with this? I think it makes more sense to care for her myself than to book her into care, when I would just be working for that week just to pay for the month of daycare. For some reason, my ex doesn't see it like that, but how do the courts see it is the question.


Thanks for any info.

[standing on the sidelines]

Who moved If anyone.

[rockscan]

If you live ten hours away you are an EOW parent and therefore subject to full table support.

If you agreed to let her move with the child you *may* qualify for a reduction in support to cover transportation costs. That’s a big if though and normally reached on agreement.

This reduction in support does not mean you are exempt from paying section 7 expenses which include daycare so the custodial parent can work. What you do on your time is your business and your expense.

Your ex is more than likely not sending your child with extra clothes for your parenting time as a point of contention that you are not paying support. What you need for your house is irrelevant. You pay cs to cover expenses for your child in the time they are with mom.

Fighting this is a losing battle and you will lose costs. If she moved away you could argue for a small reduction incs to cover your travel but expect her to stop meeting you halfway or driving part of the travel. You could request that she pay all travel costs if she moved and you pay full table support.

Either way you are EOW and this is now status quo. You will be obligated to pay full table cs as well as your proportionate share of expenses like day care.

[Asphenaz]

I agree with Rockscan, it's pretty much a losing battle. CS does not cover anything in your home. Unfortunately you are the support PAYOR, and your obligation is to pay.

[bcgooddad]

She moved away, and yes the reduced payment amounts were by agreement reflective of travel costs and supplying items for her in my home. It was based on a budget of her moving being affordable so I could agree to it. She wants to change the agreement now, but I made the agreement for her to move based only on that financial arrangement. We were days before court when we finally settled on that, otherwise I was going to fight to prevent her from moving and was aiming for half time parenting then.



I also have a son with joint custody, different mom, and I ran into a similar issue there and the 40% rule. It comes down to a matter of a few days a month being the difference between paying full support or offset amounts and gaining half CCB. A couple of extra days parenting being worth hundreds of dollars. Super frustrating. Why does one parent get supported and the other not? If it's unequal time, then that should be accounted for, but these blanket amounts up to an arbitrary threshold seems pretty blunt.

[standing on the sidelines]

How do you manage to keep your job taking off a week a month? I suspect a judge will tell you to find a sitter for that week while you work. Besides when she is in school there is no way you will be able to have her for a week. You cannot expect the child to not go to school a week a month to be with you.

[bcgooddad]

Rockscan, if I have her 30% of the time, I'm not really and EOW parent, it's much more than that, and 3 days more a month would put me into shared parenting status.


Regarding Section 7 day care expenses, my approach to child care while our daughter was with me was that it was better for her and about as economical to care for her myself, rather than pay for a month of care, when only a week was needed. Does this not make sense? If there is no equivalency there and I need to pay half of ex's costs and it just comes as a loss in wages to me, then I should book her in for full time day care and work during the week she is with me, even though there little net gain? The idea is that I am helping pay care costs so mom can work full time, but I am not able to work full time with out doubling our care costs. I don't know, it just seems like hiring someone else or losing wages to to the care yourself should be the same thing.

[bcgooddad]

I do seasonal contract work and it is normally fairly flexible, so I usually can take a week off, but not always. And she is starting kindergarten this year in an alternative school that is part time in class, part home home school, so yes, she will be missing a week per month. Please remember, I was completely opposed to the move because of all of this complication, and it's been a nightmare for scheduling and financially ever since. Maybe I should have fought it, but I was trying to be a good person and let her get on with her life. Just trying not to get screwed over now.

[standing on the sidelines]

I do seasonal contract work and it is normally fairly flexible, so I usually can take a week off, but not always. And she is starting kindergarten this year in an alternative school that is part time in class, part home home school, so yes, she will be missing a week per month. Please remember, I was completely opposed to the move because of all of this complication, and it's been a nightmare for scheduling and financially ever since. Maybe I should have fought it, but I was trying to be a good person and let her get on with her life. Just trying not to get screwed over now.

you cannot be completely opposed to something and not fight it. You accepted it.

when you cannot take that week off what do you do for child care then?

[rockscan]

She moved away, and yes the reduced payment amounts were by agreement reflective of travel costs and supplying items for her in my home. It was based on a budget of her moving being affordable so I could agree to it. She wants to change the agreement now, but I made the agreement for her to move based only on that financial arrangement. We were days before court when we finally settled on that, otherwise I was going to fight to prevent her from moving and was aiming for half time parenting then.

You agreed to her moving. There's no argument or going back. You agreed, she moved, now there are costs. As many people (like Janus) will say--never agree to reduced time. EVER.

I also have a son with joint custody, different mom, and I ran into a similar issue there and the 40% rule. It comes down to a matter of a few days a month being the difference between paying full support or offset amounts and gaining half CCB. A couple of extra days parenting being worth hundreds of dollars. Super frustrating. Why does one parent get supported and the other not? If it's unequal time, then that should be accounted for, but these blanket amounts up to an arbitrary threshold seems pretty blunt.

You don't have 50/50 therefore you pay full table. Again, you let her move. You let her move 10 hours away. You have been living with this situation for however many years now and it is now status quo. She is seeking to change the agreement because a) there is a material change in circumstance -- the child is going to school in the fall and b) status quo dictates full table support. Granted this has not been tested in court yet but the fact is, the child lives full time with mom therefore the tables are applied.

Rockscan, if I have her 30% of the time, I'm not really and EOW parent, it's much more than that, and 3 days more a month would put me into shared parenting status.

30% of the time is nothing. And it doesn't matter what happens with your other child. That is worked out between you and that baby mama. This baby mama has a legit reason to change the agreement.

Regarding Section 7 day care expenses, my approach to child care while our daughter was with me was that it was better for her and about as economical to care for her myself, rather than pay for a month of care, when only a week was needed. Does this not make sense? If there is no equivalency there and I need to pay half of ex's costs and it just comes as a loss in wages to me, then I should book her in for full time day care and work during the week she is with me, even though there little net gain? The idea is that I am helping pay care costs so mom can work full time, but I am not able to work full time with out doubling our care costs. I don't know, it just seems like hiring someone else or losing wages to to the care yourself should be the same thing.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Your ex needs care to go to work. It's a section 7 expense. What you do on your time is your business and how you fund it is your business.

Please remember, I was completely opposed to the move because of all of this complication, and it's been a nightmare for scheduling and financially ever since. Maybe I should have fought it, but I was trying to be a good person and let her get on with her life. Just trying not to get screwed over now.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. For dads, they should never give up custody of their kids. They should never allow them to move. They should never agree to anything but 50/50 or more. Period. You did this, now you have to live with the unfortunate consequences. Your choices are: move closer and fight for 50/50 or offer to pay table support less the amount it costs to travel and your proportionate share of the net cost of daycare.

[bcgooddad]

you cannot be completely opposed to something and not fight it. You accepted it.

when you cannot take that week off what do you do for child care then?

I agreed on the basis of the conditions set out in our agreement. Now she wants to change those conditions, which is not what I agreed to.


I missed a visit with her this spring because I was working. Another time, my mom was able to come be with her.

[bcgooddad]

It's these stupid laws that lead people to say never give up anything, never let your ex move, never agree to reduced time. Rockscan, I am guessing you are in agreement that the laws let one parent screw over another, that's why you should never concede to anything. It's a terrible philosophy, but one that is encouraged by the laws. It's an all or nothing system with no grey areas or flexibility for different arrangements. I did my ex a huge favor and now I get punished for it. There is something wrong with this system, no?

[rockscan]

I have a hard time feeling sorry for your “I did this to help my ex” argument. This is your child. You let her move ten hours away. Fuck her mother. What is best for a child is to have two parents in their life. Sorry but I grew up without a dad. That leaves a mark no one can fix. You handed your YOUNG daughter over and said bye. Ten hours. TEN HOURS AWAY. In some areas thats a whole province. I can’t get my head around it. I don’t care what sort of benefit your ex was getting, if you were as hands on as you want us to believe then ... no, there’s no reason.

Further, you both agreed away child support which the law does not allow. Even holding on to the argument that you did this for mom’s benefit is bad. Child support is the right of the child.

Your ex bamboozled you.

[standing on the sidelines]

what exactly was the agreement for the reduced CS? You keep saying that you didnt fight the move because she agreeed to conditions.

Have you updated your financials for every CS and Sec 7 each year?

[Selfrepmom]

I think everyone here is all very well experienced in how unfair and screwed up family law and family law proceedings are.

You complaining about how unfair it is and refusing to pay your ex full table plus s7’s does nothing but rack up your soon to be arrears bill, unfortunately.

Like other posters have said, soon your child will be in school anyways. Even if she is in some weird alternative week on/week off school, you will find her patience for a 10 hour trip (one way) to see dad multiple times a month will only grow more thin the older she gets. I wouldn’t be surprised if she begins only coming 1 weekend a month plus holidays and summer when she is older. That’s a trek and a half and unfortunately you are the sucker that let it happen.

All access parents have to pay out of their own pocket for furnishing their kids bedrooms etc. my partner pays almost $900/month in CS for his two daughters, but we still purchase a small limited wardrobe for them to keep here along with toys bikes furniture etc, so they can feel like they properly belong at our home on the weekends they are here. That’s just the name of the game.