Section 7 Expenses - third party paying

[billm]

...Who's to say that the Op's S7 contribution doesn't go back to the grandparents to help offset what they paid? Who's to say that they may allow their daughter to keep it as a gift?

In my opinion, the Op will go down a rabbit hole, if he refuses to contribute to the S7 that was paid for by the grandparents.

There is truth, and then there is game playing.

Truth should rule - Lying or playing games is for people with moral issues.

If the GP's paid, then the cost to the parents is $0, and the NCP should not pay.

If the GP's give a gift money to the CP and it was NOT for anything other than a gift and had nothing to do with the section 7 expense (which is not the case here), then the cost for the S7 expense should be shared according to income between the parents.

(But the gift income should be added to the CP's income for CS and S7 considerations).

[Teenwolf]

There are many times my parents pay for things for my children (dentist is a great example) then when the insurance comes in I pay them back the full amount. Money is tight in my home just paying for the day to day so they help me out as they can, this has included paying for camp in the summers and I paid them back on an installment plan.

This has never affected my x as s7 has never really been an option for me unless I take him to court.

I thought about this after I made my last post. It's not uncommon for a CP to pay the cost upfront, get receipts and get reimbursed from the NCP after the fact. If the CP is tight on cash, then a GP or new partner may help out, with the expectation that it will be paid back.

There is truth, and then there is game playing.

Truth should rule - Lying or playing games is for people with moral issues.

If the GP's paid, then the cost to the parents is $0, and the NCP should not pay.

If the GP's give a gift money to the CP and it was NOT for anything other than a gift and had nothing to do with the section 7 expense (which is not the case here), then the cost for the S7 expense should be shared according to income between the parents.

(But the gift income should be added to the CP's income for CS and S7 considerations).

I don't disagree with you that the truth should rule, but the truth isn't always easy to prove. The Op doesn't know if there is an expectation from the GPs that the amount will be repaid to them. He may speculate that it is not to be repaid, but how does he prove this? How does he really know?

Speaking from my own experience, my partner lives with me with a child from a previous relationship. I don't get involved with any of her child related expenses, but if I did, my intent would not be to relieve the NCP of his financial obligations. I may be the most horrible person in the world for saying this, but my potential generosity would cease if that were the case. I have no intentions of impeding the NCP's right to play an active role in his child's life, and this includes his financial obligations to support his child.

[jaysneed]

Thanks, but trying to prove your hardship to the courts always makes us look like we're dead beats. Will try to prove my case...

Disagree hardship is hardship, please difine dead beat? One might say your infringing on ones human rights! Its just like being racist to catagorize a person debtor is the proper term! Never let any call you that! *tisk*
The minute you Pay you cs and the next month is due they'll call you a dead beat!

[Teenwolf]

Disagree hardship is hardship, please difine dead beat? One might say your infringing on ones human rights! Its just like being racist to catagorize a person debtor is the proper term! Never let any call you that! *tisk*
The minute you Pay you cs and the next month is due they'll call you a dead beat!

There's hardship and then there's undue hardship. Big difference between the two.

[KAH1976]

Our lawyer told is that section 7 was extraordinary expenses and not extracurricular. So for example, child support is supposed to cover dance classes but if the child was to go to NYC for a dance competition that would extraordinary.

[standing on the sidelines]

Our lawyer told is that section 7 was extraordinary expenses and not extracurricular. So for example, child support is supposed to cover dance classes but if the child was to go to NYC for a dance competition that would extraordinary.

I think you are wrong on your definition of extracurricular activiity. That is more school based activities like football etc that are not part of the academic side of things. I could be wrong but to me a dance class where money is paid to a someone running a dance company would be S7

[KAH1976]

Well this was after ex filed with FRO. The letter I got said "don't pay your ex anything" so when ex asked for me to pay for dance and I asked lawyer he said not pay anything more. Could be wrong but I haven't paid anything for extracurricular for years. Coincidentally ex decided to remove children from all activities.

[billm]

I think you are wrong on your definition of extracurricular activiity. That is more school based activities like football etc that are not part of the academic side of things. I could be wrong but to me a dance class where money is paid to a someone running a dance company would be S7

The CS guidelines and specifically Section 7 are clear that being extracurricular has nothing to do with being covered by CS or by Section 7.

CS covers normal expenses which can include anything (except medical/dental - that is always Section 7 if over $100)

Section 7 is for 'extraordinary' - with extraordinary being defined by what can reasonably be afforded given the income and CS of the parents.

In my case, I consider one extracurricular non trival cost activity to be normal considering our combined incomes (and subsequent CS based on that) has ranged from 140K to 190K since separation.

All 3 of my kids play house league hockey (total cost about $600 on average per child) - it is their only paid extracurricular activity for about 6 months. Given our incomes there is nothing 'extraordinary' about that. It is covered by CS (which in my case as a 50/50 parent and offset CS means that we should share the cost 50/50).

But, I just spent $1300 paying for it, and my ex says she can't afford to give me $650, and is giving me $0, but that is another story...

I also paid for it last year, when despite having the kids equally, and due to support payments based on the previous year's income, I had only 38% of the combined NDI.

[Berner_Faith]

Well this was after ex filed with FRO. The letter I got said "don't pay your ex anything" so when ex asked for me to pay for dance and I asked lawyer he said not pay anything more. Could be wrong but I haven't paid anything for extracurricular for years. Coincidentally ex decided to remove children from all activities.

So instead of pitching in so the kids could attend extracurricular activities, you are happy with them being pulled from all activities?

[billm]

So instead of pitching in so the kids could attend extracurricular activities, you are happy with them being pulled from all activities?

I realize you were talking to the OP.

This is a tough call - it feels like being taken advantage of when the other parent does not contribute when they should. Either by spending the CS appropriately, or paying for extracurricular in a 50/50 offset situation, or paying for extraordinary Section 7.

I honestly don't know if my ex is playing me (assuming I will pay for things either way), but in the end I make sure my kids always have one sport going on outside school. My ex rarely contributes.

Perhaps she really would, if a single parent, not have the kids in that activity.

She just views me as the one with all the money to spend, even though despite making 2x as much as her, we have so far split our combined NDI 52/48, over the 5 years since separation.

I couldn't stand to not have my kids in sports, so I pay and ask her to contribute, never assuming she will.

[KAH1976]

No not at all. Sorry I should have explained further. I have my children 50% of the time but still pay the highest child support table amount. I agreed to this because 50% was more important to me than money. The ex started entering children in events 3 nights a week and both days on weekend. My ex would show up to these activities even though it was my time with the children. It was quite clear all of these activities were their way of seeing the children when it was my time instead of being a fun activity for the children. It was also very uncomfortable for the children because they weren't sure who they were supposed go to after. I never attended when it wasn't my turn. Then when ex filed with FRO, the documents clearly stated not to pay my ex anything and to only pay them which is what I did. When ex started asking for all of the fees that I had been paying up to then my lawyer told me not to pay them and that they were not extraordinary especially considering I was overpaying CS. I know enter my children in private lessons when they are wih me. I pay for them100%

[billm]

... The ex started entering children in events 3 nights a week and both days on weekend. My ex would show up to these activities even though it was my time with the children. It was quite clear all of these activities were their way of seeing the children when it was my time instead of being a fun activity for the children. It was also very uncomfortable for the children because they weren't sure who they were supposed go to after. I never attended when it wasn't my turn.
...
I know enter my children in private lessons when they are wih me. I pay for them100%

Hmmm - bad attitude mister.

The only one uncomfortable I'll guess was you.

Try to think of both of you as parents 24x7.

I go to (almost) all of my kids activities. End of story. I don't care if my ex does or does not - that is NONE OF MY BUSINESS and is obviously good for the kids to see their parents as much as possible - and together is just a bonus for them.

So now you sign them up for 'private' activities to intentionally exclude their other parent, and you don't participate or go to activities on the mom's time. This is not in anyone's best interest and I suggest you man up and get over what ever issues you have with your ex, at least for the times when you could experience your kids more, or allow your ex to do the same.

[KAH1976]

Ouch! Everyone is entitled to their own opinion! Just try to remember that every situation is different and not all situation require the same approach. I have found a very happy solution to tough situation. It might not be right for everyone but works for us.

[Berner_Faith]

Absolutely Billm... both parents should contribute, but to state that the kids have no Section 7 expenses because FRO advised him not to pay the ex, is not right... FRO only enforces court orders and if their court order did not specify section 7, FRO won't enforce (which I know you are aware of), but to blatantly say there are no section 7 expenses because FRO is not enforcing them, seems petty to me.

KAH- I am well aware of what it feels like to be nickle and dimed... I understand it sucks when you pay CS and one parent does not seem to spend it on the child...however, I also do not see it in the best interest of the children to miss out on activities, simply because FRO does not enforce...maybe a more appropriate action would be, figure out what the kids would want to be in, approximate costs and then see if they fall under section 7 expenses... if they do...figure out an annual total, go on a consent motion with the other parent and get a court order to enforce section 7 expenses through FRO...that way your children can enjoy extra activities... but that is only my opinion.

[Berner_Faith]

I have to agree with Billm... the activities are for the kids...it should not matter if both parents are present, the ADULTS should be able to act like adults for the children.