We are currently arguing with my stepson's mom about who is required to pay the costs associated with the child's passport application. The bio-mom is intending to travel with the child to Disney World in a couple months and requires a passport for him.
Our court order reads: If either party requires a travel consent for the child to travel with him/her outside of Canada, the other party shall agree to sign whatever document is necessary to accommodate this request, with all costs involved for the preparation of such documents to be paid by the party making the request for same.
My husband and I understand this as her having to pay all the costs for the passport (including passport pictures, etc.) as she is the one that intends to travel with the child outside of the country.
However, she is interpreting this as the costs having to be split. How she is managing to interpret this clause in that way, I do not know. She even threatened to never provide us access to the child's passport if she is to cover all the costs. She stated that this clause "is a matter of interpretation" and that she will be asking her lawyer for clarification.
How would you interpret this clause?
Also, how have you dealt with this particular expense?
Our court order reads: If either party requires a travel consent for the child to travel with him/her outside of Canada, the other party shall agree to sign whatever document is necessary to accommodate this request, with all costs involved for the preparation of such documents to be paid by the party making the request for same.
My husband and I understand this as her having to pay all the costs for the passport (including passport pictures, etc.) as she is the one that intends to travel with the child outside of the country.
However, she is interpreting this as the costs having to be split. How she is managing to interpret this clause in that way, I do not know. She even threatened to never provide us access to the child's passport if she is to cover all the costs. She stated that this clause "is a matter of interpretation" and that she will be asking her lawyer for clarification.
How would you interpret this clause?
Also, how have you dealt with this particular expense?
Comment