Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1st post, intro, and a ? re: extracurricular expenses

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by pc550 View Post
    so if i have the kids 40% of the time, am i not immediately exempt from any kind of CS whatsoever ? i thought that was the premise.
    40 to 60%, this is when you use the offset method - and you pay each other CS.

    Originally posted by pc550 View Post
    so yes, i have to pay half for swimming lessons and the bathing suits, and the towels, and the crocs they use in the changeroom, and the bags they use to take their gear in to the ymca....

    and for hockey, yes i have to share the sign up fee, the equipment, her gas she uses, the frenchfries he eats after the game, the roll of hockey tape he needed, and the skate sharpening that was done too....

    i have to make this extreme, to illustrate my point. where does the associated costs end...
    Yes, you should raise your kids in proportion to income. So offset CS balances the money in both households. So one parent should not be expected to pay more than the other at that point. So you can share the cost everything via reimbursements, or whatever method works for you to have the least amount of arguments.

    Food is extreme - because you both feed the kids on your time, so that should balance out.

    Clothing - you can assume you each buy the same amount, but for me I would rather just balance receipts. That way I don't have to hear from my ex complaining that she spends more clothing the kids - if she likes to do more of the clothes shopping and I just have to pay my 50/50 share - all the better for me cause I don't have to be at a mall!

    Sports and sports equipment - just split 50/50

    School costs and trips - just split 50/50

    Things you don't share 50/50? Those have to be extraordinary as defined by Section 7 - those get split according to income.

    ALL of what I said applies to an offset CS situation only!!!! (which is what the OP has the equivalent of).

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by HammerDad View Post

      With regard to your request for $X in reimbursement of costs associated with taking [child] to hockey, it is my position that those expenses are not extra-ordinary and thus are not entitled to reimbursement. As such I will not be reimbursing you for such amount.
      HD has it wrong here. This is an offset CS situation, the kids basically live at each house the same time, and it is not full CS, it is essentially offset CS.

      This means the money to raise the kids has been balanced in both homes, and now anything not directly related with that house, should be shared 50/50 if it is NOT extraordinary.

      So if hockey is not extraordinary, and covered by CS, both parents should pay for it 50/50 in this case.

      Section 7 (aka extraordinary) is not covered by CS, so should be split according to income according to Section 7.

      Originally posted by HammerDad View Post

      Food = not s7. She is expected to feed the kid during her time, just as you are.

      Gas = depending on where the game was, it may or may not be s7. If you live in Windsor and need to travel to Kingston or North Bay for a game, that would be extraordinary IMO. But if you live in Markham and need to go to Newmarket for a game, that would not be s7.

      Skate sharpening - what is that, like $10? Not extraordinary unless she makes about $12k per year.
      Food - Ignore food including restaurants of course - you both feed the kids and it will balance out.

      Gas - never extraordinary, but should be shared 50/50 if one drives the a lot more than the other - however I personally would not track this.

      Skate sharpening - should be shared 50/50, but given the small cost it is petty.

      Again HD is confusing things here.

      In a full CS situation, section 7 are the only things that need to be shared.

      But in a offset CS situation, all child non section 7 expenses should also be shared 50/50. How this is done is up to the parents so that the least amount of arguments occur. Personally, I think the more expense tracking the better - that way there should be no arguments about who is spending more because it is reimbursed - in fact as I said if my ex takes the effort to spend money on the kids (shopping, signing up for sports, etc), and all I have to do is pay my share - great! Less work for me and because she is responsible for half, that is enough incentive for her to spend reasonably.
      Last edited by billm; 09-18-2012, 09:57 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm not sure I agree with ya Billm, but I'm not an authority on shared as I don't have it.

        edit - insert of quote

        HD has it wrong here. This is an offset CS situation, the kids basically live at each house the same time, and it is not full CS, it is essentially offset CS.

        This means the money to raise the kids has been balanced in both homes, and now anything not directly related with that house, should be shared 50/50 if it is NOT extraordinary.

        So if hockey is not extraordinary, and covered by CS, both parents should pay for it 50/50 in this case.

        Section 7 (aka extraordinary) is not covered by CS, so should be split according to income according to Section 7.
        I wasn't say hockey isn't s7. I was saying taking the kid to hockey and the costs associated with it, aren't s7 unless it is a fair distance away and/or hotel stay is involved.

        End edit.

        Personally, I wouldn't like the idea of sharing costs for things like clothes and such, because even in shared custody, if there is offset c/s, the payor is already paying amounts to the recipient to cover their proportional share. To pay c/s (even offset) and then to pay some more to cover a receipt seems like double dipping.

        For the minor expenses like $10-$15 skate sharpening they are not s7 as they simply are not an extraordinary expense. To expect costs like this to be reimbursed would be onerous and cause conflicts. You'd have either parent nickle and diming the other for costs that simple are not "extraordinary".

        The sports registration fee part would be s7 and yeah, we pay our proportional share. But I would never expect, shared or not, to receive a bill from the ex for school clothes. If it were hockey equipment, different story. But clothes, food, gas and other incidentals of that nature are covered by c/s, even offset IMO, and thus don't get reimbursed.

        Another edit - Another reason why costs like skate sharpening shouldn't be shared is because it is expected both parents will have such costs, and thus will balance out. It is shared, they both take the kid to hockey, they both incur the same costs. You'd have one asking for 1/2 or whatever one week, and the other asking for virtually the same amount back the next week. There is too much going on. The simple way to do it is to pay your own costs when you have the kids, because at the end of the day, they should be near equal.
        Last edited by HammerDad; 09-18-2012, 10:26 AM. Reason: Inserted quote and reasoning

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
          Personally, I wouldn't like the idea of sharing costs for things like clothes and such, because even in shared custody, if there is offset c/s, the payor is already paying amounts to the recipient to cover their proportional share. To pay c/s (even offset) and then to pay some more to cover a receipt seems like double dipping.
          Well it may seem that way, but it is simply not double dipping.

          Again this is only in a 50/50 offset CS situation:

          Let's focus on clothing. I agree they have already paid their proportional share. So at that point BOTH parents should each buy the same amount of clothes. If that is the case, done! But that is seldom the case - usually one parent buys more clothes, or at the least the parents don't actually know, and they both want to make sure they share the cost fairly. So they keep all receipts and each pay 50% of the total.

          Maybe a few examples - again this is all a 50/50 situation with offset CS.

          Same incomes so offset CS = $0.

          It seems clear in this situation that one parent should not buy more clothes than the other.

          Different incomes so offset CS = $$

          Still, offset CS has balanced the money in each house to buy things like clothes. Again it would not be fair if one parent bought most of the clothes. They should share receipts and balance it out 50/50.

          Now clothing may not be the best example because a lot of people think that it will just balance out, and that may work for them great.

          In my case my ex does not want to share receipts (says it is too much work - however the reality is that she knows I spend more overall on common things such as sports). But she does complain that I don't spend enough on clothes (for example), and then tells my kids to tell me to take them shopping. But if we shared clothing receipts (which really there would not be that many of), I would never have to hear about! There would be nothing to argue about because I would have paid exactly half for the kids clothes regardless of who did the shopping.

          HD - don't get hung up on S7 (I don't think house league hockey is section 7 btw for a combined income of $150K in my case for example).

          The point is that the parents should raise the kids in proportion to their income. CS covers all things that are not Section 7, Section 7 deals with the rest.

          In offset CS situation, the parents should spend the same on non section 7 (and thus should balance receipts 50/50), and should spend in proportion to income for Section 7.

          Skate sharpening is not section 7, but for offset CS parents, they should share the cost because it is not fair that one parent pays for it. But because it is a small expense, they may not want to track it - assuming that they both have little expenses like that - but the idea is the same - for offset CS, all expenses should be shared, the amount just depends on whether it is a section 7 expense or not.
          Last edited by billm; 09-18-2012, 10:32 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            OK, I see your reasoning and it does make more sense. But only fear would be, who determines "I bought more" or "I spent more".

            I generally feel in 50/50, you just buy for your house. The household expenses relating to the child should be about the same. If your kid takes something back and forth between homes, fine. I take the position that the stuff belongs to the kids anyway, so they can do as they please....within reason - read, they can't start taking all their stuff over and not bringing it back.

            But I see your point. It is likely cheaper in the long run to share clothing expenses and other similar expenses, as then the clothes would be shared between houses. But other, what I will call "cost of living/parenting" expenses like gas/food/minor activity costs etc, they are simply the costs of being a parent that all parents have to deal with. For one to ask for a portion to be paid back, when the other parent will be incurring it next week, isn't reasonable.

            Also, to the OP. Do you ask for reimbursement for costs you incur? ie...skate sharpening...

            Comment


            • #21
              But in a offset CS situation, all child non section 7 expenses should also be shared 50/50.
              In terms of amicable co-parenting, this may be a good idea.

              With regard to the law, there is no support for this to my knowledge.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                ...

                ... Do you ask for reimbursement for costs you incur? ie...skate sharpening...
                In my case, I keep all receipts and when my ex tells me to reimburse her I just say 'sure, lets balance out, I have all my receipts'.

                She never replies because she knows I spend more than her. Still though, she wants me to reimburse her regardless of what I spend. It should be so simple!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by billm View Post
                  Skate sharpening is not section 7, but for offset CS parents, they should share the cost because it is not fair that one parent pays for it. But because it is a small expense, they may not want to track it - assuming that they both have little expenses like that - but the idea is the same - for offset CS, all expenses should be shared, the amount just depends on whether it is a section 7 expense or not.
                  But, assuming they both are paying for skate sharpening during their parenting time, the cost would balance out.

                  Costs that each parent pay as a course of being a parent, that are similar in amounts and nature that the other parent will have to pay, will balance out on their own over time.

                  I can see where it would be great in instances where you each parent communicates well with each other, but in situations where they can't (which is likely going to be the greater number of situations) I can only see this as a recipe for creating issues etc. You'd get into the "you owe me $50 for this", and "oh yeah, well you owe me $30 for this and $15 for this and $28 for that" etc etc....

                  You sound like you have, if nothing else, a reasonable/mature relationship with your ex. I feel like I do as well. But I would hate to see it turn sour over negliable amounts.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by billm View Post
                    In my case, I keep all receipts and when my ex tells me to reimburse her I just say 'sure, lets balance out, I have all my receipts'.

                    She never replies because she knows I spend more than her. Still though, she wants me to reimburse her regardless of what I spend. It should be so simple!
                    Actually, looking it this, while we are taking different routes, we are essentially getting to the same point. Me, I am suggesting that costs balance out so there is no need to reconcile. You are saying to balance receipts, which in most instances would cause the amounts to nearly zero out (outside of the fact that you do pay more, which in your case, would mean you get a small amount back from the ex - by small I mean <$300 for 6 months costs).

                    Costs in each home should be near equal, so there shouldn't be a reconciling unless one parent carries more the cost weight than the other (in OP's instance, it would be if his ex took the boy to all of his games).

                    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