Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eyeglasses - Extraordinary or Special Expense?

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

  • #16
    Do you have an agreement in place on how to deal with extraordinary expenses? My partner and his ex have one in place that states they will agree to share in agreed upon special and extraordinary expenses based upon their proportional share.

    It has saved him the hassle of needing to fight with the ex (who does also like to send the kids in terrible clothes to our house and likes to try and get every penny out of us she can) every time she wants us to pay for water babies swimming lessons, or operation wobbly legs skating lessons, or hockey helmets or the repair of her fridge because she wanted a water dispenser etc..... People can ask for the sun, but our lawyer told us this was the best way. That way, everyone had to agree it was a special expense before the expense could be charged to either party. Otherwise, it is just one persons decision.

    As someone who wore glasses for many years (pre laser surgery), $280 is a bargain for 2 pairs of glasses, and she should be satisfied with that as it's not likely they will be replaced soon than a year or two down the road (and then maybe just new lenses right). $23 per month for a year seems a reasonable expense for the kid that should be expected by her.

    Comment


    • #17
      Thanks Momof3. But it's been "resolved." As in... I added my stepson to my health benefit plan which covers eyeglasses every 2 years.

      Comment


      • #18
        Doesn't Bio-Mom have some sort of health benefit plan? IMO that should be mandatory for both sides....it also effectively reduces the cost to 0. (most of the time you can cross bill those kinds of things)

        Comment


        • #19
          If it was someone working at say Tim Hortons, and they had to buy their own plan, they would pay much more to the insurance company than they could ever bill. It wouldn't reduce the cost to 0, they are still paying, and they are paying more for the insurance than for the glasses.

          It's not nearly break even, even if you submit claims for every possible thing. The plans are set up so the insurance company makes money after all.

          Where your idea is important is if you get someone who is irresponsible, won't pay for the necessities, and won't set aside money for emergencies. Then it certainly makes sense to require a plan, but it still isn't cost effective.

          Comment


          • #20
            I would look at it like this...the kids are protected if anything ever happens to one of the parent's or their jobs.

            Also having 2 benefit plans to draw upon gives you a greater range of options. (Even using glasses as an example, MOST plans only allow for one expense every 2 years....if you have two benefit plans, you can "trade off" each year...I've worn glasses for 24 years...when you are dealing with a younger child, a 2 year difference can result in a HUGE change in the prescription).

            There are innumerable health factors that can result in needing a yearly checkup and sometimes a yearly change in prescription.

            Also when you look at things like ortho work, which run into the 1000's of dollars....having access to two plans is helpful beyond words.

            It's something that from what I've seen, heard and experienced, makes more sense. It takes a lot of the headache out of arguing over who covers what. Does it cost more? Almost always. Does the benefit outweigh the gain? For me, you bet. (Well assuming I could get my ex off her butt and into a job it would...)

            Comment


            • #21
              NBDad makes a good point.

              Most judges order that both parties continue or commence to provide health benefits for their child(ren) separately through their employers.

              It's difficult in family law situations to decide who provides health benefits, and who does not. So, it's easier to order both parents to provide them. That way, any health expenses are covered and what little is left to pay is shared proportionately.

              My stepson's mom has coverage for the child on her plan (it's not a great plan, but better than nothing) and I have both my husband and my stepson on my plan (which is pretty darn amazing). So, most expenses are covered.

              But, I can understand Mess' point too. Sometimes, it's just not financially rational to carry a health plan. That is why most judges will order for parents to carry coverage available "through their employer," as those plans are often less expensive to carry than ones from an outside source.

              Either way, it is in the child's best interest to be covered by 2 plans.

              Comment


              • #22
                Seriously?! What if he doesnt "agree" medical expenses

                So the order states that he is responsible for 100% of unreimbursed medical expenses not covered by his insurance. It also says that any thing over $100 per item needs to be discussed amd it is all enforced through FRO. So now he is disputing all medical reciepts I have submitted, saying that they were not approved by him. So our daughters have dentist appointments and require fillings etc and the amount not covered is lets say $175 for one child, this needs to be approved? It is medically needed, and routine but he can dispute? I dont get it!!! How do I take this back to court AGAIN, and waste more time to get this clarified? Is this even section 7? Its all about control and him continually draggin his feet. What form etc?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by #1StepMom View Post
                  Now, for a parent making at minimum $35,000 per year and receiving $420 in CS monthly, would $280 in eyeglasses be considered "extraordinary?"
                  I am surprised that this question went left unanswered. Is there any case law or any written law what is an ordinary expense? I know the guildelines define extra-ordinary.

                  I would think that a normal kid would need glasses, play sports, and go to summer camps which would be covered as ordinary, but if that kid is good enough to be competitive levels, it would be extra-ordinary and the costs split proportionally.

                  But then again what I think doesn't matter, it is what the law says.

                  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