The time that each parent spends is not Dad's or Mom's, it's the child's. It a right of the child.
A better word to use would be "agreed", not "allowed". The child's time is not property of either parent.
Separation agreements/Court orders are like cars. The minute you drive them off the lot they depreciate. The most recent parenting schedule was appropriate at the time it was made but it's not appropriate a month, a year, five years hence. You recognized that the children's needs change over time early on in this thread. You can't have it both ways by stating the kids needs change and should be with you, but then for $$ purposes you rely on an agreement that is outdated in order to cling to your desire to retain full table CS.
How important is it to you that Mom gets full CS? Cause now you're squeezing 45% down to 39% and claiming that even at 39% the setoff is not automatic. Hmmmmm. That's just ridiculous and blatantly self-serving.
All this at a time when Dad has been paying only slightly less than table amount and only recently backed off on section 7 expenses. One wonders whether Dad even has a say in the extra cirricular activities in which the children are enrolled.
From here it appears that Mom is creating an issue over $75/mth and some section 7 expenses. What's that a couple thousand a year at most?
From what you wrote, if I was that Dad and she dragged me into court over that small an issue, I would also be asking for a change in the parenting arrangement and a change to CS to reflect shared parenting. I don't blame him one little bit. Especially when considering that you are not only subordinating the children's time with their father to time with their step-siblings, but also using language that conveys that Mom is "allowing" him to spend time with his kids?!?!? Hello, no wonder he has said some of the things you reported above.
A better word to use would be "agreed", not "allowed". The child's time is not property of either parent.
Separation agreements/Court orders are like cars. The minute you drive them off the lot they depreciate. The most recent parenting schedule was appropriate at the time it was made but it's not appropriate a month, a year, five years hence. You recognized that the children's needs change over time early on in this thread. You can't have it both ways by stating the kids needs change and should be with you, but then for $$ purposes you rely on an agreement that is outdated in order to cling to your desire to retain full table CS.
How important is it to you that Mom gets full CS? Cause now you're squeezing 45% down to 39% and claiming that even at 39% the setoff is not automatic. Hmmmmm. That's just ridiculous and blatantly self-serving.
All this at a time when Dad has been paying only slightly less than table amount and only recently backed off on section 7 expenses. One wonders whether Dad even has a say in the extra cirricular activities in which the children are enrolled.
From here it appears that Mom is creating an issue over $75/mth and some section 7 expenses. What's that a couple thousand a year at most?
From what you wrote, if I was that Dad and she dragged me into court over that small an issue, I would also be asking for a change in the parenting arrangement and a change to CS to reflect shared parenting. I don't blame him one little bit. Especially when considering that you are not only subordinating the children's time with their father to time with their step-siblings, but also using language that conveys that Mom is "allowing" him to spend time with his kids?!?!? Hello, no wonder he has said some of the things you reported above.
Comment