Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

special expenses money being wasted can i stop the order

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

  • special expenses money being wasted can i stop the order

    I pay 200 extra a month for holistic suppliments for my autistic son , basically vitamins ,
    my ex is not provideing me with reciepts and last couple of times she has not send any thing when he visits , or a bag with empty bottles in it , payments are made via FRO
    i feel she is just grabbing cash can i have this stopped ,
    i love my boy but if she is not using the 200 on him why pay it

  • #2
    Originally posted by nomad View Post
    I pay 200 extra a month for holistic suppliments for my autistic son , basically vitamins ,
    my ex is not provideing me with reciepts and last couple of times she has not send any thing when he visits , or a bag with empty bottles in it , payments are made via FRO
    i feel she is just grabbing cash can i have this stopped ,
    i love my boy but if she is not using the 200 on him why pay it
    Always go back to the separation agreement/court order.

    Does it say she must provide you with receipts? Does it also say that they must be mutually agreed upon expenses? If not, it should.

    I might be tempted, were I you, to take the bottles to a health food store and find out what the real prices are.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by nomad View Post
      I pay 200 extra a month for holistic suppliments for my autistic son , basically vitamins ,
      my ex is not provideing me with reciepts and last couple of times she has not send any thing when he visits , or a bag with empty bottles in it , payments are made via FRO
      i feel she is just grabbing cash can i have this stopped ,
      i love my boy but if she is not using the 200 on him why pay it
      Having a family member with the same condition, as a non-partisan parent here, I'd do whatever I could. It's not easy. Neither for your ex or you. Do what's best for they boy.

      Separate what's *legal.* Make it about your boy with open good faith. $200 is not a lot of money.

      Comment


      • #4
        $200 is a LOT of money to a lot of people. Apparently you are better off than many of the people on this forum.

        The OP is not opposed to providing for his child, and he is right in wanting to ensure that the monies he is providing specifically for the supplements is being used to help his child. It is standard procedure that in claiming extraordinary expenses be paid, receipts are to be provided.

        OP: Insist on the receipts to be provided, especially if the vitamins are not being provided for the child when he is in your care as it is in his best interest to have consistent treatment. Have you the information directly from the doctor that indicates he should be taking them? Alternatively, you could discuss with the ex withdrawing from FRO and you purchasing the vitamins and supplying them to her.

        You have options, but first step would be trying to get the receipts to indicate this is actually an extraordinary expense that is being incurred.

        Comment


        • #5
          blinkandimgone, you've followed all of my contributions to any posts today with contradictory responses. You're entitled to those. Not everything is about *legal* steps, but PARENTS here should be encouraged to do their best with their children's best interests at heart. Nothing more -- until it gets ridiculous. Thanks.
          Last edited by MommyTime; 10-19-2014, 06:59 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            The questions being asked are questions specifically about the legality and steps to take. Your 'advice' has been completely unrelated to the actual questions being asked.

            If you have an issue with me posting relevant information to the issues actually being asked about to the persons asking the questions, feel free to take it up with me by PM or with Jeff. I would ask that you refrain from hijacking every thread with your personal opinions and your arguments about why your posts are "valuable". You made your post, I made mine, allow the OP and others to focus on the actual topic at hand.

            Comment


            • #7
              I cant see that the OP has an issue with the 200 bucks. He has an issue because he isn't sure that the mother ISN'T buying the vitamins etc that the money is earmarked for.

              To the OP: I would ask for receipts or something to prove that the kid is getting the vitamins. If she refuses then I would think she isn't using the money for that.

              Comment


              • #8
                If she doesn't send the vitamins to your house for consumption during your access time, I would question the value she places on them in benefiting the kid. Ordinarily, I would advise not to pay unless you see receipts, but in this case you are going through FRO, so that means you have a court order dictating the amount. You would have to take your ex to court to stop paying, so you'd want to have a LOT of documentation to prove that the money is not being used properly. Things like, your journal of how many days the child was with you and didn't get the vitamins, how many times you've asked for receipts and been denied, any research on the benefit or lack thereof of these vitamins for your son's condition, etc.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Do what is best for your kid. It's that simple. This does not need to be so complicated and *legal.*

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MommyTime View Post
                    Do what is best for your kid. It's that simple. This does not need to be so complicated and *legal.*
                    you don't get it do you???? he wants to to the right thing for his kid but if the mother isn't using the money for the vitamins etc like it is suppose to be used for then she isn't doing what is best for the kid is she??? If she isn't sending the meds with the kids to dads (stopping and starting meds isn't good) then he has every right to have that expense stopped as she isn't using it for the purpose it was earmarked for *for the good of the child* He could use the money himself and buy the meds so he knows the kid is getting them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MommyTime View Post
                      stading on the sidelines, the courts deem "the best interests of the children." That would be the Positism view. Please stop following most of my posts that I make today in order to antagonize fire. It's about the KIDS by law. Isn't it? How is it that I am wrong in one post and then wrong in another post based on a different situation? Stop it.
                      I am following threads, not you. It is about the best interest of the child. All the father wants in this case is to make sure the extra money earmarked for the kids vitamins are being used for that purpose. If the mother isnt buying the vitamins with that money and pocketing it for herself, then how is that in the best interest of the child???

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Can you please explain more of this "Positism View" for those of us who are unfamiliar? Thanks.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I should probably just put the keyboard down and step away, but I think MT is referring to positivism - the idea that an observer (a court in this case) can/should be absolutely unbiased and neutral. Knowledge and ensuing actions are based solely on premises which follow from objective evidence, not on any assumptions, desires or preconceptions of any party. Think Spock (Mr, not Dr). Completely unattainable in the realm of divorce.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by stripes View Post
                            I should probably just put the keyboard down and step away, but I think MT is referring to positivism - the idea that an observer (a court in this case) can/should be absolutely unbiased and neutral. Knowledge and ensuing actions are based solely on premises which follow from objective evidence, not on any assumptions, desires or preconceptions of any party. Think Spock (Mr, not Dr). Completely unattainable in the realm of divorce.
                            No idea. Being unfamiliar with the term I googled it and this came up:

                            Positivism is the philosophy of science that information derived from logical and mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience is the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge, and that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in this derived knowledge.
                            Still makes absolutely no sense in relation to ensuring a child with a prescribed need for vitamins is actually provided with the vitamins via the money that is paid for them.

                            Bizarre, really.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
                              Can you please explain more of this "Positism View" for those of us who are unfamiliar? Thanks.
                              Ahh, blinkandimgone is still on my tail... Positivism view... Simple. The law is the law and strict as per each word and not anything outside of it:
                              • Law is not more than the language that expresses it;
                              • Law should accurately express the intent of lawmakers, and they should be intererpreted without distoring the language used;
                              • A positivism view shouldn't be concerned with moral content to test its validity.


                              Goes against the Constitution in some cases as well as the basic common law rules.

                              So shoot me. Nothing I'm saying is *against the law* in the matters I'm responding to, and those that have been attacked for personal reasoning. Do the research on the Positivism View and how courts have the power to interject Judicial Realism. There are two types of judges -- the constructionists that rely on the strictness of law, and those that are more realistic and make change in a common law society.

                              Do yourselves a favour. Look up these key words in Canadian Law:
                              1. Common Law;
                              2. Positivist Law (vs Natural Law); and,
                              3. Judicial Realism (justice activism).


                              Other key observances to look up:[LIST=2][*]The Hobbesian View (16th century law); [*] The Locklean View (17th centre law to present); and,[*] What happens at the end of the day? A combination of both, depending on the judge.

                              Please refrain from attack. It comes across as inferior antagonism for lack of literal substance, therefore lack of emotional substance.

                              I already know that having been relegated to *another thread* as more than personal for the individual who felt she had the *personal* power to do so.
                              Last edited by MommyTime; 10-19-2014, 10:35 PM.

                              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