Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calculating Section 7

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

  • #16
    Work with FRO for CS and S7. I wouldn't expect much from you ex.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Gilligan View Post
      Work with FRO for CS and S7. I wouldn't expect much from you ex.


      So fro is collecting the child support. They won’t collect S7 because agreement didn’t give percentages. Which is why I started the motion to change. So we are trying to enforce the agreement and get it more clear so fro can enforce in the future.


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • #18
        It can get weird with S7 in my experience (I'm the payor). But often the payor needs to provide "consent". In my case, even though my ex is the recipient she simply ignores my requests to share expenses (section 7 or otherwise) and refuses to provide items for the child.


        These include school trips, lunches, shoes, tutoring, extra-curricular activities.


        I was shocked that when this was mentioned at the motion, the judge simply said it was "reasonable" for mom not to pay for tutoring, but held me accountable because ex terminated child care, and retained one just for herself, but I was stuck paying for it and she got the tax relief. WTF?

        Comment


        • #19
          Gilligan, your case sounds super strange.

          From what my man was told, s7 was debatable at different incomes but school and medical were a given. The rest would be open for negotiation and a reasonable approach. He was presented with expenses that were $50-100 each (not s7) when his ex did not ask or advise and he was provided no further info. Lawyer said none of it was s7. In her filing, the ex claimed he paid less than $1000 in five years ignoring the fact that she gave no info and most of the expenses were not considered s7. The judge blasted her. Fortunately the judge was an experienced and knowledgeable one.

          From what I’ve read online and from what the lawyer said, s7 is completely grey and open to interpretation unless it is school or health. In mom2twos case, her expenses are completely medical and school related and her ex is pulling a “i didnt agree” defense. He also has bad legal advice. Im hoping the judge also points out the money he is wasting on his piss poor legal advice.

          The bigger problem is FRO. If the government isnt going to improve it then the courts need to set clear guidelines in agreements. Annual expenses will total x dollars and the parties agree to update after an annual reconciliation. Or they set up a DRO aspect where the parties meet with an expert and update an order each year. There’s no solution right now that stops this bs. Parties end up spending thousands to recover hundreds. In most cases it is a reasonable expense like glasses or dental care!

          Comment


          • #20
            Rockscan,


            I completely agree that reform is required and that things need to be clearer. For example, when do you re-calculate CS? In my case, it wasn't stipulated and my ex wanted to back date it. One shouldn't have to go to court to figure this out and it shouldn't be that debatable at a "Cost Indemnity Basis"? Many people pay CS and putting some clarity would go a long way in avoiding conflict.

            Same applies to S7 costs. I agree that education / medical are a given but I a parent shouldn't be able to say "they can't pay" and get away with it. In my case, Mom stopped paying for a tutor with a child requiring it on an IEP, how can a judge say it's reasonable to let the child go without?


            I know I'm on a soap box here, but I am frustrated by the lack of clarity, the exorbitant legal fees that the lack of fairness. Some clearer guidelines would go a long way in avoiding litigation for many.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Gilligan View Post
              Rockscan,


              I completely agree that reform is required and that things need to be clearer. For example, when do you re-calculate CS? In my case, it wasn't stipulated and my ex wanted to back date it. One shouldn't have to go to court to figure this out and it shouldn't be that debatable at a "Cost Indemnity Basis"? Many people pay CS and putting some clarity would go a long way in avoiding conflict.
              We were told it updates immediately. Whether up or down, if your income changes, cs changes too as the children should get the full benefit of the update immediately as they would in an intact family. Sadly the cases you hear where there was an increase normally include people who hid that increase. It works both ways though, one party can’t withhold agreement because they like a cs amount. In my man’s case, his ex wanted to keep all the high amounts!

              Originally posted by Gilligan View Post
              Same applies to S7 costs. I agree that education / medical are a given but I a parent shouldn't be able to say "they can't pay" and get away with it. In my case, Mom stopped paying for a tutor with a child requiring it on an IEP, how can a judge say it's reasonable to let the child go without?
              Ditto for the parent who makes unilateral decisions on expenses or enrolls the kids in shit without permission. This was a beef during my mans marriage and continued into their divorce. He finally stopped agreeing to pay for shit because she just enrolled and demanded money. He was paying for school dance tickets, photos, $20 expenses etc. He finally wised up after a year of it and told her they weren’t s7. What the courts SHOULD DO is an “education” type of class where they explain what is and isn’t a s7 and then penalize people for going against the law. And I won’t even start on the $500+ designer glasses frames the kids were wearing while the two of us were going to superstore on discount days for our glasses.

              Originally posted by Gilligan View Post
              Iknow I'm on a soap box here, but I am frustrated by the lack of clarity, the exorbitant legal fees that the lack of fairness. Some clearer guidelines would go a long way in avoiding litigation for many.

              I agree with you. Like I said, if they had some sort of legal service that explained to people what the proper way to do things was and the difficult ones were penalized, it might help. As it stands, theres too much “getting away with it” going on. Especially people who refuse to work. If you were married or had no cs coming in, would you still be playing that game? Everyone is responsible for their kids!!

              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