Tweet
I have a serious issue with the guidelines in that they do not consider "access costs" as part of the specified extraordinary expenses. These expenses are supposed to be those that "are necessary in light of the needs of the child and means of the parent". What could be more necessary than contact with BOTH of their parents on a regular basis? I am all for the person who moves away paying 100% of the access costs, whether they have the children with them or not. But since that would never fly the LEAST the guidelines should provide for is that they be included as "extra" expenses!!! Is it more important for little Johnny to see his dad or go on a camping trip with school???
We are in a situation where the custodial mother left with my husbands 2 kids, and moved accross the country. We pay 100% of the flights for the kids to come visit, once in spring break, and for summer. The ex refuses to share in the expense, which totals around $3600/year. She says she doesn't have to. So now, my husband is forced into the worst and most grim of circumstances - we cannot afford to fly his kids here for spring break. We have topped up our credit cards bringing them here for the last 5 years, and we just can't do it anymore. So now, this is forcing a good and loving father from having contact with his children for one full year!!!
Who decided that the NCP's are responsible for 100% of flights? Whoever came up with this stupid rule doen't care one-iota for the well being of the children involved. And to ONLY have access costs recognized through a claim of undue hardship is ridiculous. His ex doesn't work (maybe part-time now) so we will never have a lower standard of living (on paper anyway) than her. I am really upset about this. The system designed for the children is responsible for alienating kids from their parents because they force the NCP to pay for far too much, and at some point he may face a very grim choices indeed.
Excerpt from the guidelines:
The basic amount of support as established by the tables may be adjusted for specified extraordinary or special expenses, provided they are reasonable and necessary in light of the needs of the children and the means of the parents and the child. In making such adjustment, the income of the recipient parent and the family’s spending pattern before separation will both be taken into account.
The most important specified expenses are:
Child care expenses (net of the tax benefit);
Medical and health-related expenses not covered by insurance plans;
Extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education, or for special programs;
Expenses for post-secondary education; and
Extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.(6)
The Payor is invited to apply to the court for an abatement of child-support if paying the full amount would impose on the payor “undue hardship” and a lesser “standard of living” compared to the recipient (¶10). The CSG suggests that this may be caused by a Payor having an unusually high load of matrimonial debts, high access costs, or support obligations towards another person.
We are in a situation where the custodial mother left with my husbands 2 kids, and moved accross the country. We pay 100% of the flights for the kids to come visit, once in spring break, and for summer. The ex refuses to share in the expense, which totals around $3600/year. She says she doesn't have to. So now, my husband is forced into the worst and most grim of circumstances - we cannot afford to fly his kids here for spring break. We have topped up our credit cards bringing them here for the last 5 years, and we just can't do it anymore. So now, this is forcing a good and loving father from having contact with his children for one full year!!!
Who decided that the NCP's are responsible for 100% of flights? Whoever came up with this stupid rule doen't care one-iota for the well being of the children involved. And to ONLY have access costs recognized through a claim of undue hardship is ridiculous. His ex doesn't work (maybe part-time now) so we will never have a lower standard of living (on paper anyway) than her. I am really upset about this. The system designed for the children is responsible for alienating kids from their parents because they force the NCP to pay for far too much, and at some point he may face a very grim choices indeed.
Excerpt from the guidelines:
The basic amount of support as established by the tables may be adjusted for specified extraordinary or special expenses, provided they are reasonable and necessary in light of the needs of the children and the means of the parents and the child. In making such adjustment, the income of the recipient parent and the family’s spending pattern before separation will both be taken into account.
The most important specified expenses are:
Child care expenses (net of the tax benefit);
Medical and health-related expenses not covered by insurance plans;
Extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education, or for special programs;
Expenses for post-secondary education; and
Extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.(6)
The Payor is invited to apply to the court for an abatement of child-support if paying the full amount would impose on the payor “undue hardship” and a lesser “standard of living” compared to the recipient (¶10). The CSG suggests that this may be caused by a Payor having an unusually high load of matrimonial debts, high access costs, or support obligations towards another person.
Comment