Lack of consent for S7

[FightingForFamily]

So out of nowhere my partner's ex sends a bill from a psychologist for an assessment, for almost $4000.

My partner wasn't consulted or involved, did not consent to the child being seen by a psychologist (has joint custody). It was all done in secret, until the bill arrives.

What do you think my partner should do?

We don't have money to cover such an expense right now, we had no notice and were not involved in the decision to incur the expense.

We technically don't disagree that the assessment was done, and the results may help our child in the future, but we strongly disagree that it was done without our involvement or consent, behind our backs.

[blinkandimgone]

Most of this should be covered by both parents employment benefits and the difference split proportionate to income.

This definitely should have been consulted on and both parents involved - not sure how old the kid is - so there are definitely grounds to refuse to pay.

[FightingForFamily]

We are seeing what the insurance will cover, but it is expected to cover only a few hundred dollars of the $4000 cost.

My partner's agreement does state that she should seek consent before incurring the S7 cost so you're right about grounds to refuse to pay.

The biggest problem is the lack of consent. This parent has done this to us several times already, this is the just the most recent and most expensive incarnation of the ongoing issue of a joint custody Mom who prefers to imagine she has sole custody and an unlimited ATM machine.

[Maggie82]

Speaking from experience, you have grounds to refuse to pay your proportionate share. However, if that parent decides to take you to court over the expense, speaking from experience, this is how it might go: she will demand proportionate share, he will refuse on grounds that he was not consulted and did not consent to the expense, judge will ask why this was done and determine whether it was a reasonable and necessary expense, and if it was deemed a reasonable and necessary expense, judge might order him to provide proportionate share and remind her that in future she needs to seek consent prior to incurring such expenses. (Happened to us with extracurricular activities.)

Best thing you can do is be very clear in your email explanation to her exactly why you are not willing to share the expense. Clearly spell out that you were neither informed, consulted nor gave your agreement to the assessment and expense. If at any point you give indication that you are "maybe" okay with it or agree that it was necessary, it will likely be seen as you consenting to it as you did not refute it. Tricky stuff! Good luck!

[FightingForFamily]

Part of the problem of course is incomes. Because she is unemployed, my proportionate share is close to 100%.

So she can wrack up whatever expenses she wants and stick with me with the bill. She will never have to pay anything nor suffer any consequences for failure to seek consent for the cost, or include the joint parent in the discussion.

Another disappointing day in family law, apparently.

[rockscan]

Being unemployed doesnt mean she gets to make decisions for you. It wasnt an emergency, it wasnt necessary treatment (ie a bone being set while on vacation outside Ontario) and she had no reason to not consult.

Im with everyone else who says tell her you werent consulted on the cost and will not be contributing. Add that in the future she should be discussing these expenses with you prior to incurring them if she wants reimbursement.

[Maggie82]

And if there is no medical reason for her to be unemployed, I would seek an order for income to be imputed to her. After all, they do it for parents child support purposes. So why not have an income imputed for section 7 purposes? Or even 50/50.

[stripes]

It wasn't medically necessary, it wasn't agreed to in advance, it isn't part of a long-standing habit, and it isn't covered in your order. It doesn't appear to fit the definition of S7 in the FCSG. So it isn't S7, and you have no obligation to pay. Whether or not it is beneficial to the child is irrelevant here - lots of things are beneficial to kids but are not S7. Don't get caught up in the argument that this is good for Kid, therefore Dad needs to pay (or he's not a good parent). Tell Mom that this is not a S7 expense and therefore you decline to pay for it. In future, if Mom wishes to incur expenses for activities to benefit Kid, Dad is willing to consider these requests but Mom should not assume that she has his consent unless he has explicitly given it.

[Nurse_Lisa]

Thats very sneaky. I would see how much of this is covered by any insurance first. I do not know how she could rack up $4000 with the psychologist. Im in a similar boat in that our D10 was having issues in school for the last 3 years and we agreed to an psychoeducational assessment was needed. I have paid every penny to this day as Dad agrees it needed doing but doesn't consent to paying or using his benefits. My experience was the psychologist wanted to be paid every meeting and would not keep a running tab. I would maybe speak to the psychologist, most of them need a direct letter for both parents if they have joint custody. Our psychologist said there has to be without a doubt that both parties agree in writing first, something to do with their practicing license.

[FightingForFamily]

In the end my partner split the bill 50/50 after making sure the Mom was fully aware she did not have consent and he was under no obligation to play.

Better than having to pay 90+%, and cheaper than court.