Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child support DECREASED due to Section 7???

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

  • Child support DECREASED due to Section 7???

    My husband pays for the medical insurance premium off his paycheck everyweek. It is quite high, and due to the fact that he is covered under my benefits, he only has it to cover his children from a previous marriage.

    I have just learned that these can be considered Section 7 expenses. He has spoken to his ex, and she is livid that we could even consider using them. Well, they are expensive, they are over 200.00 a month (his portion), they employer pays an additional 200.00.

    My question is.......has anyone had their CS payments adjusted lower, due to Section 7,as opposed to higher?

  • #2
    Originally posted by CISTEAD View Post

    My question is.......has anyone had their CS payments adjusted lower, due to Section 7,as opposed to higher?
    I have never heard of such a change. Section 7 expenses are expenses above and beyond the scope of child support, so I would not expect CS to be lowered in contemplation of section 7 expenses.

    Comment


    • #3
      I know, it is rather unusual. However, I did read on this forum somewhere that the payee gave the payor money every month to reimburse him for the same thing. However, their case was different as they were civil. Our case is a little more complicated due to high conflict and court proceedings.
      We are due for Settlement Conference in September. At last Conference, the judge ordered them to both fill out the calculation forms, and we did our side, we show her owing us 2600.00 for section 7. Her papers show Ortho work she paid for at 2600.00, for the last 3 years, our portion for insurance is 5200.00 over last 3 years.

      We never ever considered such a thing until we were dragged into court again......"hi ho hi ho, you owe you owe".......and we filled out the papers and lo and behold, we have paid more.

      The guidelines clearly state that BOTH parents are responsible for Extraordinary Exp. However, because it is usually the custodial parent, or, payee that originally puts out the money, and then gets reimbursed. In this instance, we put out the money for Ex Exp first, so naturally we should get credit back, or else we are paying 100%.

      Comment


      • #4
        For medical and dental insurance this is how it should be working (I know this is how it works for me and others).

        My ex has family medical/dental insurance which covers my daughter. I have family medical/dental insurance which also covers my daughter. My ex's is significantly better then mine (she is a gov't worker).

        My ex, being the custodial parent, would claim on her insurance any claim relating to our daughter. Any amount remaining, I would claim on my insurance. If, after using both of our policies, there is a residual amount, we would pay proportionally to our incomes the difference.

        So his ex should have medical and dental insurance also, and be required to pay for that herself, just as your husband is paying for his medical coverage. Use both policies for any claim and pay proportionally any amount left over. It almost sounds like your husband is the only one with medical coverage (which I doubt he would be able to claim as a section 7 expense).

        If there is a significant difference in incomes, then I can see why he may be paying more. But she should also be mitigating any costs by having her own medical/dental plan.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks for your input HammerDad:

          As of now, she is currently unemployed. Her benefits were greater previous years however, as she too was a gov't worker......however she was fired recently.
          Now, due to various welfare, ei, cs, etc......her net income is approx. 2x what my hubby is. Which is where the problem lies. Also, due to one of the many social agencies that she collects from, the boys have 100% coverage from the government as well. So really, from the onset, we have been paying for years, for nothing, as they have been covered under better plans all along. However, because of the Order, we pay.
          Hubbys income after CS and medical insurance is approx. 400.00 -550.00 per week. vs her take home income of 975.00 per week.
          I don't mind paying for these boys to have coverage, I am a huge believer in medical coverage, however, the double standard here is getting out of hand. If the shoe was on the other foot, and she was paying these premiums, on that income, it would be a no brainer.

          Comment


          • #6
            What does his order say? Does it say he pays for all medical coverage and expenses?

            Without knowing what the order/agreement provides it is hard to tell why your husband is paying for all of this and why his ex hasn't been caused to mitigate the costs of medical coverage by using what she is entitled to use (through welfare etc).

            If you could quote his agreement, it would make life easier to determine on how is best to proceed.

            If he is ordered to pay it all, then you have no recourse.

            If it medical coverage is based proportional off of income, than he is responsible for any amounts his insurance doesn't cover. However, he should be causing her to mitigate such amounts by having insurance of her own, or using benefits at her disposal.

            He would need family insurance anyway to cover himself and you, with his children as extra beneficiaries. So the costs of insurance will always be there. It is just why he is paying more on top that is the bigger issue.

            Comment


            • #7
              You know what? I think you might be right HammerDad.
              I think it is worded as " The Respondant to cover children under his medical benefits as long as they are available to him". So you are right, it's part of the Order.
              Thats ok. Really didn't need another pissing contest. Didn't really want to lower CS while she in unemployed in the first place.
              However, the cost will still go toward the pot as far as extraordinary expenses go, and will offset any that she pays, and will keep us from paying over and above. I am happy with that.
              The cost of his benefit plan is 100% for the kids, as he was covered under my plan, and he was without his own benefits for some time, until she filed a Motion for him to include herself and the boys. The judge denied her, as SS obligation was terminated.
              We work in the same company, so we are out over 400.00 a month.......for the same plan.....thats a lot of money.

              Thanks again.
              Last edited by CISTEAD; 07-21-2010, 10:06 AM. Reason: spelling......

              Comment


              • #8
                If you both work at the same company, is there a reason for 2 policies for the same house?

                Can you not either go on his, or him and the boys go on yours? It makes no sense for you and him to be on one policy and the boys on a separate policy. Talk to you policy provider about getting everyone under 1 policy.

                Also, I do not understand this:

                However, the cost will still go toward the pot as far as extraordinary expenses go, and will offset any that she pays, and will keep us from paying over and above. I am happy with that.
                Are you suggesting that the cost of the insurance be deemed a section 7 expense, and be used against any costs for medical expenses? If so, I don't agree.

                Your husband has been ordered to maintain an insurance policy for his sons. This cost would not be a section 7 expense, as it is an ordered amount. Further, should the boys require any medical or dental attention, the insurance policy would cover it portion and any remaining amount would be split between the ex and your husband proportional to their incomes.

                I think if you argued in court that your payments for insurance be deemed your proportional amount to any section 7 expense relating to medical and dental health would be shot down pretty quick.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hmmmmmmmm........Ok. I just took it for granted that is was allowed due to the forms from Dept of Justice federal guidelines step by step worksheet. The line for insurance premiums, ortho, child care, etc........is all on it, so we just followed along.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hmm, now I am not sure about things. I have read about this in a number of instances before, and everytime they said that you cannot attribute the costs associated with insurance to offset medical or dental costs.

                    If you've been getting away with it for now, run with it, but here is what the Family Law Act (Ontario) provides:

                    Medical and dental insurance

                    6. In making an order for the support of a child, where medical or dental insurance coverage for the child is available to either parent or spouse through his or her employer or otherwise at a reasonable rate, the court may order that coverage be acquired or continued. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 6.

                    Special or extraordinary expenses

                    7. (1) In an order for the support of a child, the court may, on the request of either parent or spouse or of an applicant under section 33 of the Act, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the parents or spouses and those of the child and to the spending pattern of the parents or spouses in respect of the child during cohabitation:

                    (a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the custodial parent’s employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment;

                    (b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child;

                    (c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;

                    (d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs;

                    (e) expenses for post-secondary education; and

                    (f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 7 (1); O. Reg. 446/01, s. 2.

                    Definition, “extraordinary expenses”

                    (1.1) For the purposes of clauses (1) (d) and (f), “extraordinary expenses” means

                    (a) expenses that exceed those that the parent or spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that parent’s or spouse’s income and the amount that the parent or spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate, or

                    (b) where clause (a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account,

                    (i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the parent or spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the parent or spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate,

                    (ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities,

                    (iii) any special needs and talents of the child,

                    (iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and

                    (v) any other similar factors that the court considers relevant. O. Reg. 102/06, s. 1.


                    So I look at it as two separate and distinct amounts. There is the insurance premium and then there is the cost of work over $100, which would be paid proportionally to incomes.

                    IMO, you are better off running with what you got if she's been letting you attribute the premium towards any costs. But if you want to challenge her on anything in court, I would argue that she is not providing the necesssary insurance to mitigate any costs of dental or medical work, and to cause her to either register with the government body which will cover a substantial amount of the costs or to purchase insurance on her own for coverage.

                    Each parent should have their own coverage, which is generally why I believe that the cost of the premiums would come out as a wash.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think we will just run with it, as you say. After filling out the Dept Justice forms, we are in a position that she owes us 2600.00. Really? She can't afford to give us 2600.00. And I don't want it. However, I can no more afford to give her the 1,000 she is demanding for Ex. Exp.
                      I am hoping that seeing the forms, and filling them out, she will conclude, that we are doing our part, and that unlike in her prior employment,(gov't) the benefits for us aren't free. Hopefully we can all just back away and feel good about it.
                      Maybe she will allow us to drop the coverage and free up some money that would only benefit the kids.......as they have 100% coverage through a gov. agency and ours are never touched........(lol......now I am dreaming aren't I?)
                      I just hate to see money wasted like this.

                      I guess a New Order may be necessary, as I think you could throw bricks through the holes in ours, which we paid dearly for in legal fees.

                      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