H&D benefits and Supplies

[Mother]

Two questions, please.

1. Parent 1 works full time but doesn't have H&D benefits (personal choice of this parent as the benefits are not free and so this parent doesn't want to pay). However this Parent 1 is on the benefit plan of Parent 2 as a spouse. Divorce is not finalized yet but one year separation period has ended.

Can Parent 2 remove Parent 1 from the benefit plan without any sanctions/repercussions?

2. Parent 1 is accessing parent, eow; Parent 2 is de facto primary caregiver who gets CS etc. Can Parent 2 demand from Parent 1 to get own baby supplies, clothing, etc or this stuff to be provided by de facto primary caregiver as this parent get CS?
<table class="gt-baf-table"><tbody><tr><td>
</td><td>
</td><td style="width: 100%;">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

[blinkandimgone]

1: for what purpose, what is the goal in doing so?

2: the parent receiving full CS should be providing clothing and necessities for the kids. Why should the payor pay twice? The payor (in this situation) should have a few things just in case, however, they should not have to pay twice for everything.

[Mother]

1: for what purpose, what is the goal in doing so?

2: the parent receiving full CS should be providing clothing and necessities for the kids. Why should the payor pay twice? The payor (in this situation) should have a few things just in case, however, they should not have to pay twice for everything.

1. Because Parent 2 simply doesn't want Parent 1 to get the benefits and to be on the plan especially since Parent 1 is not hmmmmm.... so nice and peachy towards Parent 2.

Just doesn't want to. Period.

Parent 1 can get own H&D benefits, if needed.

2. The Parent receiving CS is demanding saying that that Parent's lawyer advised that non custodial parent should get own supply. What can be done?

[Mother]

Is there any link to this information on line?

[blinkandimgone]

1. Because Parent 2 simply doesn't want Parent 1 to get the benefits and to be on the plan especially since Parent 1 is not hmmmmm.... so nice and peachy towards Parent 2.

Just doesn't want to. Period.

Parent 1 can get own H&D benefits, if needed.

2. The Parent receiving CS is demanding saying that that Parent's lawyer advised that non custodial parent should get own supply. What can be done?

1: This is petty, spite-driven and conflict seeking.

2: The payor should stop taking advice from the payee's lawyer. The payee is obligated to provide whatever will be needed for kids' visit at their place (ie: beds, bedding etc) however clothing and supplies should travel with the children as the payor has already paid for those items.

The payor should politely reply ONE TIME, to let the payee know that as these items are covered by CS they will not be purchasing duplicates and the expectation is that the items will travel with the children. Should the payee have an issue with that, they may choose to pursue via mediation or court.

[Mother]

1: This is petty, spite-driven and conflict seeking.

2: The payor should stop taking advice from the payee's lawyer. The payee is obligated to provide whatever will be needed for kids' visit at their place (ie: beds, bedding etc) however clothing and supplies should travel with the children as the payor has already paid for those items.

The payor should politely reply ONE TIME, to let the payee know that as these items are covered by CS they will not be purchasing duplicates and the expectation is that the items will travel with the children. Should the payee have an issue with that, they may choose to pursue via mediation or court.

1. Well sort of but also Parent 2 H&D benefit plan doesn't allow non spouse to be on the plan, it's in the benefit booklet. Would you keep your ex on your plan? If yes - why yes?

2. The Payee sincerely believes if it's not convenient for that Parent than it is totally, totally wrong and acts accordingly.

The payor has tons of everything for the child. It's just unbelievably arrogant in my view to demand more and more from the payor and (in my view again) needs to be stopped otherwise the demands will go well beyond anything reasonable.

[standing on the sidelines]

if they are not divorced then they are not a "non spouse" I am still on my exs plan after a being separated for around two years. His idea was/is to keep me on it until we are divorced.

It sounds like the payee is having a case of "sour grapes" because the payor is doing better then them. I concur with blink, the big items like bed etc the payor provides for use at their place. Clothes etc travel with the child as the payor has already paid for the items with the CS.

[Mother]

if they are not divorced then they are not a "non spouse" I am still on my exs plan after a being separated for around two years. His idea was/is to keep me on it until we are divorced.

It sounds like the payee is having a case of "sour grapes" because the payor is doing better then them. I concur with blink, the big items like bed etc the payor provides for use at their place. Clothes etc travel with the child as the payor has already paid for the items with the CS.

1. That's very true.

2. The payor is doing good under the circumstances. I can assure you the child has absolutely everything you can possibly imagine and more, including bed and stuff, stroller, different types of special children's furniture, tons of clothing for all seasons, collection of shoes, tons of toys, you name it. Only organic food (which is not cheap). Food is cooked for this child separately from the other family member, fresh each day (it's a bit too much but whatever). Child is with this parent only eow. The issue is not that the payor doesn't want to buy or provide for the child but the greediness of the payee and endless demands.

[Mother]

Just remembered for whatever reason.

The "main" parent said to the OCL investigator that that the child is sleeping on the floor when in the care of ewo parent....?????? No clue where did it come from but it was actually written (sleeping on the floor accusation was texted to the eow parent). It took an OCL investigator to convince that "main" parent that the child is sleeping in own bed and has all of the above.

How the heck someone who never was in another house can claim things like this unless coo-coo is involved!?

Kinda disgusting.

[blinkandimgone]

Is there any link to this information on line?

This is from a Nova Scotia based website, however it is the same here:

Frequently Asked Questions About Child Support | Family Law Nova Scotia

3. What is child support meant to cover?

Child support is meant to contribute to the living expenses of the child. This includes things like food, diapers, clothing, personal care items, school supplies, and, generally, basic extracurricular activities. Child support is also meant to contribute to the extra cost a parent has to pay to provide additional living space for a child (for example, having to pay for a 2 bedroom apartment instead of a 1 bedroom, once you have a child).

There are also ‘special or extraordinary’ expenses that can be paid in addition to the table amount.

Here is a list of expenses that fall outside of CS:

Are there some expenses not covered by the Table amount? | CLEO (Community Legal Education Ontario / Éducation juridique communautaire Ontario)

1. Well sort of but also Parent 2 H&D benefit plan doesn't allow non spouse to be on the plan, it's in the benefit booklet. Would you keep your ex on your plan? If yes - why yes?

2. The Payee sincerely believes if it's not convenient for that Parent than it is totally, totally wrong and acts accordingly.

The payor has tons of everything for the child. It's just unbelievably arrogant in my view to demand more and more from the payor and (in my view again) needs to be stopped otherwise the demands will go well beyond anything reasonable.

1 - Yes, my ex is on my plan and I intend to keep it that way. Why wouldn't I? If it were an additional expense I could not afford, I would reconsider, however it is not. There is no benefit to me changing it, and there is no harm in me keeping it this way.

On being petty and spiteful: Two wrongs don't make a right. Where does one get off being critical of an ex's behaviour if one goes out of their way to knowingly be petty and spiteful for no other purpose than to be petty and spiteful?

2 - The guidelines are set, and done so for this exact reason. If the payor follows the guidelines then there is nothing to worry about. As previously stated, if the payee truly feels there are additional expenses that should be covered, they can either take it to mediation or court to sort out.

Otherwise, the payor should disengage from the conflict and move on.

[blinkandimgone]

Just remembered for whatever reason.

The "main" parent said to the OCL investigator that that the child is sleeping on the floor when in the care of ewo parent....?????? No clue where did it come from but it was actually written (sleeping on the floor accusation was texted to the eow parent). It took an OCL investigator to convince that "main" parent that the child is sleeping in own bed and has all of the above.

How the heck someone who never was in another house can claim things like this unless coo-coo is involved!?

Kinda disgusting.

All of this is irrelevant.

The payor (or perhaps just you) needs to disengage emotionally and handle things in a business like manor, keep discussions focused solely on the care of the kids, stick to the agreed arrangement and the guidelines and stop being drawn into the conflict.

There is no need for either side to respond to every point of contact, especially those that are obviously intended to incite conflict.

It isn't rocket surgery, just stop playing the game and break the cycle. The other party will eventually get bored of no response and stop.

[standing on the sidelines]

Just remembered for whatever reason.

The "main" parent said to the OCL investigator that that the child is sleeping on the floor when in the care of ewo parent....?????? No clue where did it come from but it was actually written (sleeping on the floor accusation was texted to the eow parent). It took an OCL investigator to convince that "main" parent that the child is sleeping in own bed and has all of the above.

How the heck someone who never was in another house can claim things like this unless coo-coo is involved!?

Kinda disgusting.

isnt it amazing what a person who wants to cause conflict will say? I wouldnt say they were "coo-coo" (not politically correct and all that) but just want to fight and willing to lie to do it.

How old is the child(ren)in question here?

[Tayken]

All of this is irrelevant.

The payor (or perhaps just you) needs to disengage emotionally and handle things in a business like manor, keep discussions focused solely on the care of the kids, stick to the agreed arrangement and the guidelines and stop being drawn into the conflict.

There is no need for either side to respond to every point of contact, especially those that are obviously intended to incite conflict.

It isn't rocket surgery, just stop playing the game and break the cycle. The other party will eventually get bored of no response and stop.

I agree and would add that making it "relevant" or trying to "make it relevant" before the courts could paint you, Mother, in a very negative light. My recommendation would be to let the evidence stand on its own. Do not go on an "attack campaign" against the other parent. Let them spout off all the nonsense they want. Justices are very attuned to identifying the nonsense of it all. You don't need to add weight by responding to or even demonstrating "offense" to the "evidence" in the report.

Not much churns on this kind of evidence. If this is what you are relying upon as your primary evidence Mother in the matters you are dealing with... It is insignificant and irrelevant mostly. Custody and access doesn't often churn on weak evidence. Blink is very correct in asserting this and many other observations in this thread.

The nonsense you quoted is not "shocking" nor is it "disgusting". It demonstrates a desperate person willing to try anything. A justice will see that. If you respond with "disgust" it only sinks the evidence further and not elevate it.

Honestly, it is mild in comparison to what I have seen in other files that I have reviewed from the courts. It is mostly noise and static. If you allow it to emotionally overwhelm you and your partner, it could lead you down to a very hostile position that would not be beneficial if you are trying to demonstrate in your evidence that you are willing to cooperate and work collaboratively with the other parent... Even despite their nonsense allegations against you and your partner.

To quote NBDad... Some times you have to poop rainbows and fart glitter.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Mother]

Blink and Tayken, thank you for your advice. I agree with you and recognize that the parties involved (on our side) need to learn how to deal with this situation(s) calmly and professionally. It's just so hard when the allegation factory works non stop, 24/7, producing what it is producing, spraied with venom and the process lasts forever, but what can we do, right?

There is no need for either side to respond to every point of contact, especially those that are obviously intended to incite conflict.

The problem is, 99% of the other party contact is something to cause the conflict. Some of the stuff that the other party says and writes makes me wonder if everybody's home up there, you know. But again you'll say it's irrelevant and you'll be right.

Tayken, like your "rainbow" quote.

[Mother]

isnt it amazing what a person who wants to cause conflict will say? I wouldnt say they were "coo-coo" (not politically correct and all that) but just want to fight and willing to lie to do it.

How old is the child(ren)in question here?

Child is under 5 and no, I am not politically correct, I am sorry. Could tell you more about it (p.c. bs thing) but I won't.