Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paying Grandma to Babysit?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by kate331 View Post
    That's the problem, its hard to focus
    I completely understand. That's why I suggested to just let it go.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk

    Originally posted by kate331 View Post
    Either way I need daycare for his week during the Christmas Break, either my Mom does it for $14.00 an hour (with some help or a break, I can cover that with Respite funds) or the $24.00 an hour babysitter does it.
    In the case of the maternal grandmother, at that point, does it really become "daycare" or Christmas at grandmas ?
    Last edited by tunnelight; 11-27-2018, 10:27 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by iona6656 View Post
      Ex's lawyer requested receipts- I tracked all my e-transfers to my mom and tagged them with the line- "Babysitting for August, 2018"-
      Receipts can't be coming from you. They will need to come from the service provider.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by tunnelight View Post
        In the case of the maternal grandmother, at that point, does it really become "daycare" or Christmas at grandmas ?
        ??? My ex and I are both off on Christmas Day, why would either one of us need daycare?

        Thanks for all your help and insight Iona, much appreciated

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by tunnelight View Post
          I completely understand. That's why I suggested to just let it go.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk
          Let what go??? Letting the ex get away with his responsibilities? He willingly brought 2 children into this world. What is so unfair in my proposal to split the school holidays 50/50? Why should I cover all the daycare cost or Grandma pick up his slack for free?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by kate331 View Post
            ??? My ex and I are both off on Christmas Day, why would either one of us need daycare?
            I didn't say Christmas day. Christmas is a 12 day holiday...
            Last edited by tunnelight; 11-28-2018, 01:15 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by kate331 View Post
              Let what go??? Letting the ex get away with his responsibilities? He willingly brought 2 children into this world. What is so unfair in my proposal to split the school holidays 50/50? Why should I cover all the daycare cost or Grandma pick up his slack for free?
              Let those thoughts go. That's what you let go.

              IF you have hired daycare, paid them, and have receipts, then you could seek that as a section 7, if this is ongoing for work/school. Father has already said he is not available to provide care. However, I am not sure if just one week of daycare over Christmas [holidays] is extra ordinary.

              With respect to grandma, since someone mentioned they like their case laws...

              Secondly, there are cases which implicitly acknowledge that child care provided by family members is considered to be unremunerated. In the B.C. Court of Appeal case of McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (1998), 1998 CanLII 5558 (BC CA), 113 B.C.A.C. 224 (B.C.C.A.). Prowse J.A. found as follows:

              (b) Child care for Sean

              ¶ 88 This is the largest single expense to which Mr. McLaughlin has been ordered to contribute pursuant to s. 7(1)(a) of the Guidelines. The total child care expense is $380 per month, of which Mr. McLaughlin's proportionate share was found to be $224.20.

              ¶ 89 The chambers judge was satisfied that the child care expenses claimed by Ms. McLaughlin were both necessary in the best interests of Sean and reasonable in the circumstances.

              ¶ 90 Mr. McLaughlin submits that child care is not necessary because Dana (16 years) and/or Kimberley (14 years) should be able to provide care for Sean before and after school while their mother is at work. He also submits that the chambers judge failed to take into account the tax benefit to Ms. McLaughlin with respect to this expense as required by s. 7(3) of the Guidelines (quoted at para. 28 of these reasons).



              ¶ 93 There may be cases in which families simply have no financial alternative but to call upon their other children to assist in providing child care to younger members of the family.

              [50] I read this decision as implying that child care, when provided by a live-in family member, is deemed to be “free” child care and not subject to payment from the separated parent, even for “room and board.”
              Last edited by tunnelight; 11-28-2018, 02:00 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tunnelight View Post
                With respect to grandma, since someone mentioned they like their case laws...

                Me- I'm that someone- hit me with the cite of the case you excerpted.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Im with tunnellight on the idea of letting things go. You can’t fix stupid. Your ex left his family because he didn’t want to be a dad anymore. My dad did the same. Unfortunately you have a high needs child which taxes your resources. You will learn to cope and manage. You won’t change your ex.

                  Let the feelings you have about his jerk behaviour go. Let your desire for him to be a father go. Let your unhappiness over his decisions go. All they do is weigh you down. It sounds hard but when you really try, it works.

                  (And I say all this from a place where I spent years trying to let shit go. I held on to everything. It almost destroyed me. Letting go is cathartic. Find the resources you need for your kids and live your life.)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Rockscan, I get what your saying emotionally. But I still think he should hold up his end financially if he is unable to take the kids physically. I do get funding for respite care, its just not enough to be used for daycare as well.

                    I think the case Tunnelight is referring to is this one: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/do...&resultIndex=7

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Tunnelight was citing McLaughlin v McLaughlin- which has been considered (positively) and distinguished in a number of subsequent cases.

                      This case: http://canlii.ca/t/g5fgm - Sage v. Sage- is a really good case to apply- because it actually has some factors to apply in creating a quasi test on whether family members are entitled to remuneration:

                      [14] The effect of McLaughlin is that child care services provided by a family member will usually not attract any remuneration, unless the circumstances dictate otherwise. To determine whether the circumstances warrant remuneration and financial contribution by the parents, the overriding consideration is whether, in all the circumstances, child care provided by the family member, is in the best interests of the children and whether it is reasonable to provide financial compensation, to the family member, for providing those services.
                      [15] Such an analysis warrants the consideration of a series of factors, some of which include:
                      (a) Why is the child care service necessary?



                      (b) Is it in the best interest of the child for child care services to be provided by the family member?



                      (c) Was child care provided by the family member prior to separation?



                      (d) Did the family member receive any compensation for child care services provided prior to separation?



                      (e) Will the child care services be provided solely by the family member or will there be other persons assisting with the activity?



                      (f) Will the family member provide child care services as part of normal, inevitable, family interaction or do special arrangements have to be made to facilitate the activity?



                      (g) Is the family member foregoing employment or other activity to provide the child care?



                      (h) Is the provision of child care the dominant activity or is it ancillary to normal, inevitable family interaction?



                      (i) Does the family member have some special child care qualifications?



                      (j) What type of child care services will be provided? Will the services be the same as a structured day care service or will the service be similar to a babysitting service?



                      (k) Will the provision of child care service be the dominant service or will it be intermingled with caring for other family members?



                      (l) How were the amounts charged for child care expenses arrived at? Is it based on speculation or based on some objective basis?



                      (m) What is the nature of the financial relationship between the parties?



                      (n) Given the nature and circumstances of the family relationship, is financial compensation a reasonable expectation?



                      (o) Are the time periods for which financial compensation is expected defined or open-ended?



                      (p) Are the child care expenses claimed reasonable in all the circumstances?



                      (q) What is the ability of the parents to pay for the child care expenses?



                      (r) This is not an exhaustive list; the circumstances of each case will dictate which constellation of factors will be determinative.
                      emphasis added.

                      So- common sense here.

                      Of course emotion is going to come in to play Rocksan- Kate is pissed. She has every right to be- but just cause there's emotion doesn't mean her claim for s7 is invalid.

                      But I will say this- because there is a court approved babysitter at the cost of $14/hr each...v. how much were you going to pay your mom Kate? IF you can get the babysitter- maybe do that. If you can't- then use your mom.

                      The court in Sage is pretty damn clear that they favour what's least disruptive to the children and in their best interest.

                      Another thing that would actually help your claim is if you started paying your independently of the holidays. That's what I did- I started paying my mom from the time she gave up legit income to start caring for my daughter.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Im not saying stop section 7. Definitely have it in your agreement and make sure it is enforceable by FRO.

                        What Im saying is to let go of the wishing he was a better parent and wanted to be with the kids. Otherwise you will just get eaten alive by it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by iona6656 View Post
                          Tunnelight was citing McLaughlin v McLaughlin- which has been considered (positively) and distinguished in a number of subsequent cases.

                          This case: http://canlii.ca/t/g5fgm - Sage v. Sage- is a really good case to apply- because it actually has some factors to apply in creating a quasi test on whether family members are entitled to remuneration:

                          emphasis added.

                          So- common sense here.

                          Of course emotion is going to come in to play Rocksan- Kate is pissed. She has every right to be- but just cause there's emotion doesn't mean her claim for s7 is invalid.

                          But I will say this- because there is a court approved babysitter at the cost of $14/hr each...v. how much were you going to pay your mom Kate? IF you can get the babysitter- maybe do that. If you can't- then use your mom.

                          The court in Sage is pretty damn clear that they favour what's least disruptive to the children and in their best interest.

                          Another thing that would actually help your claim is if you started paying your independently of the holidays. That's what I did- I started paying my mom from the time she gave up legit income to start caring for my daughter.
                          I always recommend that people check citations before relying upon caselaw. The two cases relying upon Sage failed to meet the test.

                          A judge will read the citations and see why the test failed. So review the failures before moving forward as a judge will read them too.

                          Suffice to say... You have a low chance of success on getting money out of the other parent for a relative providing childcare. Really low success in Ontario especially. Especially if you are in Peel, Hamilton or Toronto courts.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Paying Grandma to Babysit?

                            Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                            I always recommend that people check citations before relying upon caselaw. The two cases relying upon Sage failed to meet the test.



                            A judge will read the citations and see why the test failed. So review the failures before moving forward as a judge will read them too.



                            Shockingly enough- I actually know how to noteup case law.

                            Judges read cases that follow to see under what circumstances ratios are followed or distinguished. In fact the cases that cite Sage v Sage treat it positively. The fact that those cases didn’t pass the threshold doesn’t mean the test in Sage is flawed. And without Kate providing further information- you can’t say her claim would fail either. To be fair though- I don’t think it has enough to meet the Sage test...but Sage itself says the factors are non exhaustive.

                            In both of the cases that cite Sage, the s7 seeking custodial parent was seeking compensation equivalent to a licensed daycare provider or private trained nanny. Simply speaking, they probably shot themselves in the foot with an overreaching claim amount.

                            Also- what Kate’s lawyer needs to do is establish that there ARE grounds to seek section 7 expenses when a licensed childcare provider is not available, and that the amount she’s seeking isn’t unreasonable.



                            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                            Last edited by iona6656; 11-28-2018, 11:46 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Disgusting that this is even an issue.

                              Grandparent is actually wiling to look after children (high-needs at that)?
                              Minimum wage is ridiculous and demeaning.
                              Hard-line negotiation between lawyers needs to occur IMO.
                              Garner a monthly average it would cost to hire someone to do this and make agreement on this amount to be paid. Who the custodial parent decides to hire (grandmother/Santa Claus) is irrelevant.

                              Pay the angel who will look after high-needs children amount which is negotiated.

                              If parties can't agree on it then I'm sure a judge will set the amount. Kind of a no-brainer IMO.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X