Extra-ordinary Expenses 50/50?

[got2bkid]

Shouldn't extra-ordinary expense be split 50/50, no matter what each parents income? I mean if they were an "intact" family, they would share the impact equally, no matter the incomes. I don't quite understand how after divorce one person has to take a bigger hit for things above "basic" CS.

Another issue I have is that they can FORCE the extra-ordinary expenses on divorced parents, when as an "intact" family, they may not have been able to afford it. In our case my husbands daughter needed very expensive orthodontic work. If husband and wife were together, they would have had to wait to get the work done, as ex wife wasn't working and was going to school. They would have waited untill she finished and was working, so they could afford it.

However, it was shoved down our throats that she needed the work done NOW. So, my husband had to fork over ALL the money for the work, even though his ex wasn't working and didn't contribute. (And I was on Maternity leave and had just had twins!). We couldn't afford it either at the time, but we HAD to.

Sometimes it seems to me that after divorce the recipients of CS and extras are actually in a much better position than they were while married.
It is almost like they get the "benefits" of being single (out of a "bad" relationship) but have all the FINANCIAL benefits of still being married, even more so!

As a "second" wife, we have the emotional benefits of being married (and all the good stuff that goes with a "good" relationship), but the FINANCIAL benefits of being single (none) LOL!

[farmgirl5]

The thing I don't like about special expenses is that the recipient tends to use it as a punishment. ie: "I'm pissed at you, so I'm going to get little Billy another pair of glasses. Or mabey enroll him in guitar lessons." I feel sorry for her though, she left my husband because he worked too many hours as a long haul driver. After we got married he got a "day"job and she's been bitter ever since. Can you imagine how much energy it takes to be bitter for a whole decade? Special expenses tend to give the recipient the attitude that they are the only ones who have enough brain power to determine what extras the child needs and when.

[#1StepMom]

The thing I don't like about special expenses is that the recipient tends to use it as a punishment. ie: "I'm pissed at you, so I'm going to get little Billy another pair of glasses. Or mabey enroll him in guitar lessons." I feel sorry for her though, she left my husband because he worked too many hours as a long haul driver. After we got married he got a "day"job and she's been bitter ever since. Can you imagine how much energy it takes to be bitter for a whole decade? Special expenses tend to give the recipient the attitude that they are the only ones who have enough brain power to determine what extras the child needs and when.

Amen, Farmgirl! I don't disagree with special and extraordinary expenses, if they are truly necessary and cannot reasonably be covered by child support (as it is stated in the guidelines) but what irks me most is being forced to pay for petty little things. For example, what we're dealing with now... "I paid for the birth certificate registration when our son was born over six years ago and you did not contribute a cent so you cannot see or have a copy of the birth certificate until you pay me your proportionate share of the cots - I'll provide you with the receipt." Petty, petty, petty. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say that birth certificates (or passports or immunization records or travel visas, etc.) are a special or extraordinary expense. With some people, it really is more about a fight for money than anything else. How sad is that?

Got2bkid, I agree with you that special/extraordinary expenses should be split 50/50 without regard of each parent's income. The only exception, perhaps, should be child care as it is an expensive and regular expense.

[billm]

Shouldn't extra-ordinary expense be split 50/50, no matter what each parents income? I mean if they were an "intact" family, they would share the impact equally, no matter the incomes. I don't quite understand how after divorce one person has to take a bigger hit for things above "basic" CS.

This is not a fair statement, but first I view expenses in two categories, special and ordinary.

Oridinary expenses are things that all reasonable parents would buy - clothes, coats, boots, food, housing, some toyes, dental checkups...this is covered by CS.

Extraordinary, or special expenses, are things that some parents would not buy or are unexpected things - glasses, medical costs for illness (other than checkups), camps, sports,...not covered by CS

Now parents pay for their kids based on their income, so if an expense is special, it is only fair to pay for that in proportion to the parents income.

Now for oridnary expense,for sole custody, if the paying parent buys something that is ordinary and to be used at the non paying parents house (used by the kid all the time - a winter coat for example), the receiving parent should reimburse the paying parent the full cost (the purchase should be agreed upon first though). For the case of shared custody, the CS payments reflect the shared custody, so normal expenses should be split 50/50 in this case (ie the money should come from both parents evenly as this is to be paid from the monies evened out by CS for both). There are not many normal expenses, but there are some - a passport for example is a normal expense, winter boots, dental checkup.

For special expenses, they are not part of the monies evened out by CS, so they should be split according to the relative incomes of the parents - just like CS is. For non health related things, both parents must agree to the expense, if not, it is up to the one parent to decide if they still want to do it and pay for it all - you cannot force this on the other parent, even if you think they would have paid for it in marriage. Sucks but that is just the way it is. Note - I am the payor and have 50/50 custody, and if my ex would not pay for something that I wanted for the kids, I would proabably go ahead and pay for it anyway (assuming I had the means).

This is just my opinion on what I think is fair, I am not trying to state what would happen if you went to court - dental checkups for exmaple - I think they are normal, but I wonder if the court would call them special.

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

For non health related things, both parents must agree to the expense, if not, it is up to the one parent to decide if they still want to do it and pay for it all - you cannot force this on the other parent, even if you think they would have paid for it in marriage. Sucks but that is just the way it is. Note - I am the payor and have 50/50 custody, and if my ex would not pay for something that I wanted for the kids, I would proabably go ahead and pay for it anyway (assuming I had the means).

I soooooooo agree with this!!!
Only because what one parent may feel it essential to a child's upbringing another may see as an extra or unnecessary, (IE extra curricular activates etc). We are all of different parenting types, and I feel that this should also be the bases when section 7 of the law is applied. Not any medically necessary things though. A good example, braces can be seen as necessary or unnecessary, depending on perspective. I know several adults with braces simply because their parents A) felt it was not medically necessary or B) they simply could not afford it.
It would avoid situations where some parents are enrolling children in activates just because or wanting things just because they can cover their request by a law. I think that if one parent feels something is important, they should be of the mind set, if the other parent is not in agreement can I cover the costs alone? One has to be willing to realize there are limits and not all people think alike.

[#1StepMom]

Well said Billm and FL! It is so true, and so often this fact is forgotten.

I particularly wish to respond to Billm's post:

Now for oridnary expense,for sole custody, if the paying parent buys something that is ordinary and to be used at the non paying parents house (used by the kid all the time - a winter coat for example), the receiving parent should reimburse the paying parent the full cost (the purchase should be agreed upon first though).

I am in complete agreement. We have, unfortunately, fallen into a status quo where we alternate the purchase of complete winter gear (coat, snowpants, boots, hat and mitts) yearly with my stepson's mom (who is the receiver of child support). This practice started when both her and my husband were full time students and she claimed that the "measly" (yes, she used that word to describe his voluntary child support which he was paying without any legal obligation) amount he was paying was not enough for her to purchase proper winter attire for the child, and so he went out and purchased it himself. The following year she purchased it, and the year after that claimed she once again didn't have the financial means and that he had to purchase it. Well, you get the pattern, and before we knew it, we were alternating this purchase, which has now become the status quo. We are going to try and break it our next "turn" but I don't know if we'll have much luck. At least not with a person who is arguing for us to pay our proportionate share of birth certificates, vaccinations, passport photos, etc., without regard that these are not considered special or extraordinary expenses in the child support guidelines. (Guidelines which we've quoted her countless times over!)

Not to mention, we pay 100% of anything that we feel is beneficial for the child, without any financial assistance from her (or argument as to why she should pay her proportionate share).

It's just the reality of some situations. Sad, and costly!

[got2bkid]

Good points by everyone. It just doesn't seem right that, if they were still together the braces would not have gone on yet (till she was employed) but becasue they are divorced, they were forced through, and I (step-mom) end up paying "bio-moms" share!

I am quite sure they were forced through as bio-mom knew her income was so low that her "share" would be almost zero (in fact, we don't even bother it is so measly). And the "jealousy" thing and punishment (as per Farmgirl) thing maybe played a part as ex hubby found someone else and got on with his life. Come to think of it, the extra-expenses soared into the stratosphere when she found out we were having twins.

I just feel nervous all the time, not knowing what "extras" she is going to demand next. And why she isn't responsible for more of the cost, because she could have had a full-time job all these years? ARRGGHHH.