Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/index.php)
-   Financial Issues (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Section 7 Expenses (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23262)

Taher 08-05-2020 12:02 PM

Section 7 Expenses
 
Ex didn't and doesn't work. Would start working soon as I understand and would get a child care while working. I am trying to get my head around the section 7 expenses. If she now starts working after living separate for about a year and gets a child care, would that be considered a section 7 expense that I'd have to pay as well? She has the primary custody of the child.
The child didn't use to go for swimming classes/gym etc. before separation. If now she starts taking the child to these classes and places, would these be considered section 7 expenses if these exceed $100?
Child support agreement is in place and the CS as per the guidelines is being paid.

tilt 08-05-2020 01:06 PM

Yes, child care for either of you to work is Section 7 and you usually pay proportionate to income.

Swimming classes and gym would most likely be allowed, as long as your CS payments are super high - I think around $2,000 a month is when Judges say extracurriculars of a few hundred are in clouded in the CS. Something like putting the child in very expensive hockey or a professional-level sport which costs thousands per year is generally only allowed when they were in those activities prior to separation.

Adding new extracurriculars is accepted, especially if the child was young when you separated - some extracurriculars are only available when the child hits a certain age.

Taher 08-05-2020 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tilt (Post 243321)
Yes, child care for either of you to work is Section 7 and you usually pay proportionate to income.

Swimming classes and gym would most likely be allowed, as long as your CS payments are super high - I think around $2,000 a month is when Judges say extracurriculars of a few hundred are in clouded in the CS. Something like putting the child in very expensive hockey or a professional-level sport which costs thousands per year is generally only allowed when they were in those activities prior to separation.

Adding new extracurriculars is accepted, especially if the child was young when you separated - some extracurriculars are only available when the child hits a certain age.

Thanks tilt.
- Does that mean the parent with the child day to day decision making rights can decide to put the child into any extracurricular activity as they feel right without asking the paying parent for consent? And then claim these as section 7 expenses?
- Sorry for my lack of knowledge but I am trying to get my head around this: what if the paying parent does not have enough financial resources to pay additional section 7 expenses such as day care/child care, extracurriculars, etc.?

rockscan 08-05-2020 01:54 PM

Day care for either of you to work is s7.

Other activities are grey. If your child was in activities before separation they may be allowed. Camp during the summer can be considered day care and will be s7.

The term REASONABLE comes up a lot for s7. One parent cannot put kids in a pile of activities just as the other parent cant say no to everything. Would swimming lessons be reasonable? Yes as it relates to safety. Would private swimming lessons be reasonable? No because basic group classes are available.

For daycare remember you pay your share of the net cost. If you ex gets any subsidies and tax benefit from daycare, that comes off the top before you split it.

May also be a good idea to start putting money away for university/college. That will be a big cost in the future and not many plan for it. You can open your own RESP to use for your share of that expense.

rockscan 08-05-2020 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taher (Post 243322)
Thanks tilt.
- Does that mean the parent with the child day to day decision making rights can decide to put the child into any extracurricular activity as they feel right without asking the paying parent for consent? And then claim these as section 7 expenses?
- Sorry for my lack of knowledge but I am trying to get my head around this: what if the paying parent does not have enough financial resources to pay additional section 7 expenses such as day care/child care, extracurriculars, etc.?


You dont have to agree to everything. But if your ex goes to work then you do pay for daycare. The good part is they are earning income and pay a portion as well.

The ex will have to get agreement in writing from you to have it as a s7. They cant simply register and then tell you to pay up.

Taher 08-06-2020 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan (Post 243323)
Day care for either of you to work is s7.

Other activities are grey. If your child was in activities before separation they may be allowed. Camp during the summer can be considered day care and will be s7.

The term REASONABLE comes up a lot for s7. One parent cannot put kids in a pile of activities just as the other parent cant say no to everything. Would swimming lessons be reasonable? Yes as it relates to safety. Would private swimming lessons be reasonable? No because basic group classes are available.

For daycare remember you pay your share of the net cost. If you ex gets any subsidies and tax benefit from daycare, that comes off the top before you split it.

May also be a good idea to start putting money away for university/college. That will be a big cost in the future and not many plan for it. You can open your own RESP to use for your share of that expense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan (Post 243324)
You dont have to agree to everything. But if your ex goes to work then you do pay for daycare. The good part is they are earning income and pay a portion as well.

The ex will have to get agreement in writing from you to have it as a s7. They cant simply register and then tell you to pay up.

Thank you so much rockscan for the replies. Thanks for taking time for a comprehensive reply. Highly appreciated :)

Janus 08-07-2020 12:15 PM

Section 7 expenses are extraordinary, not extracurricular.

Swimming lesson are not extraordinary, so they would be covered by child support. Olympic training is extraordinary, and as such would not be covered by child support.

Daycare is always considered to be a S7 expense if it is for employment purposes.

Taher 08-08-2020 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus (Post 243340)
Section 7 expenses are extraordinary, not extracurricular.

Swimming lesson are not extraordinary, so they would be covered by child support. Olympic training is extraordinary, and as such would not be covered by child support.

Daycare is always considered to be a S7 expense if it is for employment purposes.

Thanks Janus. I am however very confused about the daycare considering the following scenario:

- Mother doesn't work before separation. Father works
- Father pays child support as per the guideline income after separation
- Mother demanding full spousal support
- Now say mother starts receiving the full spousal support as well
- Father is hardly going to make both ends meet after the above scenario
- Father doesn't have the child's custody and sees the child over weekends but spends a lot of money on the child's needs while the child is with the father including food, clothes, diapers, play places (paid), etc. and all of this amount is not considered S7 expenses!!
- Then mother starts working and hires a nanny/send the child to daycare and claims that as a S7 expense while already taking all of the above amounts although father does not have resources to pay this anymore

Please let me know what can a father do in the above scenario? If the father cannot pay the S7 expenses for the childcare due to inability/lack of funds, what would happen in such a case? Thanks

tilt 08-08-2020 02:25 PM

If she is working the Sec 7 is proportional to income, including her spousal support and CCTB. You want to be thinking long term that her working is going to decrease your expenses and possibly affect the amount and duration of spousal support she received. Spousal and child support should max out at around 50% of your joint income.

Janus 08-08-2020 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taher (Post 243352)
confused about the daycare considering the following scenario:

I'll go through each part of the scenario:

Quote:

- Mother doesn't work before separation. Father works
S7 expenses are split proportional to income. If the mother does not have an adequate income, father can get income imputed. That said, since mother did not work before separation, she is unlikely to have any meaningful income imputed, so it is probably not worth the fight.

Quote:

- Father pays child support as per the guideline income after separation
Why would that matter?

Quote:

- Mother demanding full spousal support
Why would that matter?

Quote:

- Now say mother starts receiving the full spousal support as well
I'm not sure if "full" spousal support has any meaning. Assuming it means high-end spousal support, why would that matter?

Quote:

- Father is hardly going to make both ends meet after the above scenario
If father is paying table child support, then the father does not have custody. If the father does not have custody, then his living arrangements are not really a concern, since it does not affect the children.

Father can live in a rented basement apartment, for example. Father can also eat more kraft dinner and ramen noodles. Father possibly should have thought of this before giving up custody, because nobody cares about fathers who give up custody.

Quote:

- Father doesn't have the child's custody and sees the child over weekends but spends a lot of money on the child's needs while the child is with the father including food, clothes, diapers, play places (paid), etc. and all of this amount is not considered S7 expenses!!
The child support guidelines assume that if you have less than 40% custody, then you are spending ZERO dollars on the child. Seriously, that is the official presumption of the child support calculations. In theory, the custodial parent is supposed to be providing the NCP with clothing during the NCP's parenting time.

The father probably should stop bringing the kid to play places, parks are free. The father can also start feeding the kid kraft dinner, kid will survive. If the custodial parent won't provide clothing, you can get a full set of clothing at walmart for $8 ($4 bottoms, $4 tops). Buy two sets, and wash them. Alternatively, there are many second hand clothing shops everywhere.

The father needs to understand that he gets absolutely no credit for any money directly spent on the child. It is considered a gift that he freely gives above and beyond his child support and S7 obligations.

Quote:

- Then mother starts working and hires a nanny/send the child to daycare and claims that as a S7 expense while already taking all of the above amounts although father does not have resources to pay this anymore
You again seem to have this weird idea that people care about the father (or more generally, the non-custodial parent). The father definitely has the resources, he just has to reduce his standard of living. The courts do not mind if the father's standard of living is far below that of the mother, because the child's standard of living is equal to the mother's standard of living.

Quote:

Please let me know what can a father do in the above scenario? If the father cannot pay the S7 expenses for the childcare due to inability/lack of funds, what would happen in such a case? Thanks
If the father does not pay the S7 expenses, then the enforcement agencies will take his license, his passport, and will directly garnish the money from any tax refunds or other money that the father might get.

If the father honestly feels that he cannot cut expenses at all, then the father needs to go to court. The father should be aware though that nothing he has said here will be persuasive, and he will lose the money he pays his lawyer, plus the money that the mother paid for her lawyer.

Taher 08-08-2020 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus (Post 243354)
I'll go through each part of the scenario:



S7 expenses are split proportional to income. If the mother does not have an adequate income, father can get income imputed. That said, since mother did not work before separation, she is unlikely to have any meaningful income imputed, so it is probably not worth the fight.



Why would that matter?



Why would that matter?



I'm not sure if "full" spousal support has any meaning. Assuming it means high-end spousal support, why would that matter?



If father is paying table child support, then the father does not have custody. If the father does not have custody, then his living arrangements are not really a concern, since it does not affect the children.

Father can live in a rented basement apartment, for example. Father can also eat more kraft dinner and ramen noodles. Father possibly should have thought of this before giving up custody, because nobody cares about fathers who give up custody.



The child support guidelines assume that if you have less than 40% custody, then you are spending ZERO dollars on the child. Seriously, that is the official presumption of the child support calculations. In theory, the custodial parent is supposed to be providing the NCP with clothing during the NCP's parenting time.

The father probably should stop bringing the kid to play places, parks are free. The father can also start feeding the kid kraft dinner, kid will survive. If the custodial parent won't provide clothing, you can get a full set of clothing at walmart for $8 ($4 bottoms, $4 tops). Buy two sets, and wash them. Alternatively, there are many second hand clothing shops everywhere.

The father needs to understand that he gets absolutely no credit for any money directly spent on the child. It is considered a gift that he freely gives above and beyond his child support and S7 obligations.



You again seem to have this weird idea that people care about the father (or more generally, the non-custodial parent). The father definitely has the resources, he just has to reduce his standard of living. The courts do not mind if the father's standard of living is far below that of the mother, because the child's standard of living is equal to the mother's standard of living.



If the father does not pay the S7 expenses, then the enforcement agencies will take his license, his passport, and will directly garnish the money from any tax refunds or other money that the father might get.

If the father honestly feels that he cannot cut expenses at all, then the father needs to go to court. The father should be aware though that nothing he has said here will be persuasive, and he will lose the money he pays his lawyer, plus the money that the mother paid for her lawyer.

Janus, thanks for taking time to answer the questions thoroughly. Basically, what I deduce from the above is: fathers have no rights!

Another question if you don't mind answering: how difficult it is to get the 50/50 custody of a child considering that the mother and child are living together for about 7-8 months (status quo), the father doesn't have any charges or anything and the current court order is for father to see the child over the weekend only for 10-ish hours? (The father has not fought for the 50/50 custody yet as the father works full time)
Also, if the father loses this battle, the father would have to pay for the mother's lawyer as well? What could be the reason for a father to lose a 50/50 custody? I thought a 50/50 should be a default unless one gives up?
Is it possible to fight this battle without a lawyer? (self-representation?)
Sorry for asking too many questions

Taher 08-08-2020 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tilt (Post 243353)
If she is working the Sec 7 is proportional to income, including her spousal support and CCTB. You want to be thinking long term that her working is going to decrease your expenses and possibly affect the amount and duration of spousal support she received. Spousal and child support should max out at around 50% of your joint income.

Thanks tilt. Didn't know that CCTB is considered as well when calculating the S7 expenses. As for the spousal support, I thought that it remained constant throughout the years it has been ordered for. For example, say a $1000/month of spousal support for 5 years has been ordered when she wasn't working. Now she starts working and therefore due to an increase in her income, the S7 expenses will be shared proportionally. But the original $1000/month would stay for the next 5 years although she's working and the circumstances have changed unless there's a specific clause in the agreement saying otherwise?

To me, it just sounds crazy, i.e. she's awarded for example $1000/month when she's not working. Now, she's working and making X amount of dollars plus the childcare being paid proportionally. So the father is now paying $1000/month plus proportional childcare because she's working now. Looks to me that the father is being screwed in every scenario? or am I missing something? Thanks

Janus 08-08-2020 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taher (Post 243355)
Janus, thanks for taking time to answer the questions thoroughly. Basically, what I deduce from the above is: fathers have no rights!

Nope, incorrect.

1) Parents do not have rights, only obligations

2) More importantly, the court is unconcerned with the welfare of non-custodial parents, not necessarily just fathers


Quote:

The father has not fought for the 50/50 custody yet as the father works full time
Lots of fathers work full time and still have custody. In fact, the vast majority of fathers work. Abandoning your child because you value work over the child generally looks terrible in court.


Quote:

Another question if you don't mind answering: how difficult it is to get the 50/50 custody of a child considering that the mother and child are living together for about 7-8 months (status quo), the father doesn't have any charges or anything and the current court order is for father to see the child over the weekend only for 10-ish hours?
Almost impossible. It will be at least a year until the matter is heard, and by then there will be 2 years of status quo. Even worse, the father has no reasonable excuse for why he did not pursue custody immediately.

Quote:

Also, if the father loses this battle, the father would have to pay for the mother's lawyer as well?
Very likely yes. A portion of it at least.

Quote:

What could be the reason for a father to lose a 50/50 custody?
1. Status quo against the father
2. Mother is unemployed and stays home with child
3. Father has a weak support system
4. General sexism in the family courts

Quote:

I thought a 50/50 should be a default unless one gives up?
A presumption of shared parenting was explicitly rejected by the legislature. The bar association argued strenuously against that. Appropriate conclusions can probably be drawn.

Also, in this case, the father did give up. Remember? Allowed the mother to take the kid because he was working? That's giving up.

Quote:

Is it possible to fight this battle without a lawyer? (self-representation?)
I think you will likely lose either way. What has changed in the last 7 months (besides realizing the child support is expensive)? Why was the child better off with the mom 7 months ago, but that is no longer the case?

rockscan 08-08-2020 04:30 PM

If she is entitled to spousal (and truly you should have a lawyer) then try to fight to have it reviewed at different periods like three and five years or even stepped down. If you are young and you havent been married long, the likelihood of long or permanent spousal support will be lower.

Janus is right about the rest. No one cares about the non custodial parent and getting upset about it is a waste of energy.

Focus on getting less spousal for a shorter period of time, transitioning to 50/50 and getting your ex back to work.

Taher 08-10-2020 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus (Post 243360)
Nope, incorrect.

1) Parents do not have rights, only obligations

2) More importantly, the court is unconcerned with the welfare of non-custodial parents, not necessarily just fathers




Lots of fathers work full time and still have custody. In fact, the vast majority of fathers work. Abandoning your child because you value work over the child generally looks terrible in court.




Almost impossible. It will be at least a year until the matter is heard, and by then there will be 2 years of status quo. Even worse, the father has no reasonable excuse for why he did not pursue custody immediately.



Very likely yes. A portion of it at least.



1. Status quo against the father
2. Mother is unemployed and stays home with child
3. Father has a weak support system
4. General sexism in the family courts



A presumption of shared parenting was explicitly rejected by the legislature. The bar association argued strenuously against that. Appropriate conclusions can probably be drawn.

Also, in this case, the father did give up. Remember? Allowed the mother to take the kid because he was working? That's giving up.



I think you will likely lose either way. What has changed in the last 7 months (besides realizing the child support is expensive)? Why was the child better off with the mom 7 months ago, but that is no longer the case?

Janus, thanks for your replies. The father did not leave the child with the mom because of work only. There were some valid reasons and circumstances making things difficult for the father to take his child's custody. Now that the things are in a better state, he can go for a 50/50.
Secondly, not fighting for 50/50 just for money. There are things that are beyond this which cannot be disclosed here. Thanks for your help. And just to clarify, father leaving the child is a presumption here; the reality is opposite unfortunately.

Taher 08-10-2020 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan (Post 243361)
If she is entitled to spousal (and truly you should have a lawyer) then try to fight to have it reviewed at different periods like three and five years or even stepped down. If you are young and you havent been married long, the likelihood of long or permanent spousal support will be lower.

Janus is right about the rest. No one cares about the non custodial parent and getting upset about it is a waste of energy.

Focus on getting less spousal for a shorter period of time, transitioning to 50/50 and getting your ex back to work.

Thanks rockscan for your reply. Honestly, after reading janus' replies, I went into a shock although I know that the response is correct as per the limited information provided from my side.
The marriage was a bit long-10ish years. Looks like will need to go for a 50/50 battle soon. With 10ish years of relation, how many years of spousal support should I expect based on your observations in the forum? Sorry I am new to this forum and not much knowledgeable of the family law. Thanks

rockscan 08-10-2020 08:12 PM

I know nothing about spousal. Your best bet is to do a deep dive into these forums and read up on other questions posted. Then take a hop over to canlii.org and search for cases like yours. It will take a lot of research and understanding Im afraid. No two cases are the same and you know the circumstances of yours the best.

Taher 08-10-2020 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan (Post 243379)
I know nothing about spousal. Your best bet is to do a deep dive into these forums and read up on other questions posted. Then take a hop over to canlii.org and search for cases like yours. It will take a lot of research and understanding Im afraid. No two cases are the same and you know the circumstances of yours the best.

Thanks so much rockscan. Will do. Take care

Janus 08-10-2020 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taher (Post 243373)
The father did not leave the child with the mom because of work only. There were some valid reasons and circumstances making things difficult for the father to take his child's custody. Now that the things are in a better state, he can go for a 50/50.

What would you have done if the mother had died the day you separated. Would you have been able to take custody then? How was separation different than death?

Quote:

Secondly, not fighting for 50/50 just for money.
I never said you were.

I truly believe that 50/50 should be a default presumption, and I think it is a travesty that it is not.

But... the courts will think you are doing this just for money. Also, most of your posts on this forum to date have been about money.

My advice: Don't mention money at all. For the love of God don't send anything in writing to your ex complaining about money, or how you don't have any, or how you are broke. All those messages will be used to show that you are going for 50% custody just to save money.

Quote:

There are things that are beyond this which cannot be disclosed here.
Unless you have a criminal conviction, it probably isn't as special or unique as you think. If it is a criminal conviction, save your money. We had a poster here not long ago who tried to solve his family law troubles before his criminal trial. It didn't end well.

Quote:

Thanks for your help. And just to clarify, father leaving the child is a presumption here; the reality is opposite unfortunately.
If the mother stole away the child, and the father did not immediately bring that to court, then the court sees that as the father agreeing that the child should live with the mother.

The child has been with the mother for almost a year, and the child has not died. That means her parenting is effective. Do you have any evidence that the child is suffering?

Taher 08-13-2020 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus (Post 243385)
What would you have done if the mother had died the day you separated. Would you have been able to take custody then? How was separation different than death?



I never said you were.

I truly believe that 50/50 should be a default presumption, and I think it is a travesty that it is not.

But... the courts will think you are doing this just for money. Also, most of your posts on this forum to date have been about money.

My advice: Don't mention money at all. For the love of God don't send anything in writing to your ex complaining about money, or how you don't have any, or how you are broke. All those messages will be used to show that you are going for 50% custody just to save money.



Unless you have a criminal conviction, it probably isn't as special or unique as you think. If it is a criminal conviction, save your money. We had a poster here not long ago who tried to solve his family law troubles before his criminal trial. It didn't end well.



If the mother stole away the child, and the father did not immediately bring that to court, then the court sees that as the father agreeing that the child should live with the mother.

The child has been with the mother for almost a year, and the child has not died. That means her parenting is effective. Do you have any evidence that the child is suffering?

Thanks for your help Janus.

LovingDad1234 08-13-2020 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus (Post 243340)
Swimming lesson are not extraordinary, so they would be covered by child support.

I have paid my share of these types of expenditures to avoid the atomic bomb that would go off if I were to contest ex. It keeps the peace and to date the expenses have been reasonable.

But most importantly, there are good chances that without my contribution my ex would not sign up for these types of things at all, and then the kids would suffer.

Taher 08-13-2020 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LovingDad1234 (Post 243410)
I have paid my share of these types of expenditures to avoid the atomic bomb that would go off if I were to contest ex. It keeps the peace and to date the expenses have been reasonable.

But most importantly, there are good chances that without my contribution my ex would not sign up for these types of things at all, and then the kids would suffer.

Agreed and doing the same. No contribution from the other side. And as you said, if I stop, the child would suffer...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:34 AM.