Hey everyone, I have a question regarding section 7 expenses. My ex has parents who are financially secure and can afford to pay for day camp and put the children in numerous actvities. I think its great for the children, but its becoming hard to pay child support and pay these extra expenses. If the grandparents are paying for these activities, how much do I contribute if anything?
Section 7 Expenses - third party paying
- Thread starter DadinLaw
- Start date
- Status
From my understanding, the generosity from the grandparents doesn't change your child financial obligations. Your CS would be based on your income in the tables; your S7 expenses would be based on a ratio of your income relative to the ex's income. If the grandparents pitch-in, this doesn't change.
standing on the sidelines
New member
if you consent then you have to pay.
I'm glad that my kids are able to join in these activities, but the expenses on top of the child support is really hard to afford. What happens if I Didn't consent? Would I stand a chance using this arguement in court?
OrleansLawyer
Active member
The reasonableness of s.7 expenses is taken into consideration, along with the history of expenses provided to the children and the financial means of the parties.
If the extra expenses are causing you undue hardship then you have reasonable grounds to withhold consent.
billm
New member
For non medical section 7, I think you are only responsible for what you can afford (ie what you say yes to), and in proportion to the actual cost incurred.
If the grandparents are paying for it, you are not responsible to reimburse your ex, as she did not pay for it.
If they are saying that it is a gift to your ex and not for the kids activities necessarily, but you know otherwise, then they are playing games and I still would not contribute.
The parents are supposed to share the cost of raising the kids. If someone else pays for an activity, it is to the benefit of both parents, not just the one.
Greedy ex!
If the grandparents are paying for it, you are not responsible to reimburse your ex, as she did not pay for it.
If they are saying that it is a gift to your ex and not for the kids activities necessarily, but you know otherwise, then they are playing games and I still would not contribute.
The parents are supposed to share the cost of raising the kids. If someone else pays for an activity, it is to the benefit of both parents, not just the one.
Greedy ex!
What happens when a single mom and her child are being fully supported by the grandparents? Or mom re-marries and is a stay-at-home spouse? Mom isn't paying for anything, but I'm pretty sure that the NCP is still required to pay CS and S7.
C/S will always be payable so long as the NCP has less than ~40% parenting time.
The s7, well there are ways for determine an amount payable by the other parent, simply by asking the courts to impute an income to them. They cannot have an income of $0.00. They have an obligation to financially support the children as well. Ask the courts to impute an income to the ex to what they are reasonably able to make in the local market, or failing that, full time min-wage.
billm
New member
Agreed.
For section 7 it is always the ACTUAL cost incurred, after insurance and discounts etc are applied. So if someone else is paying that is not one of the parents, the cost is $0.
I agree, but using billm's point of view, the CP with imputed income and the NCP are off the hook for any S7 because the grandparents or new spouse paid for it. Using my example from earlier, a stay-at-home spouse could have her income imputed, but based on what I read here, it wouldn't matter because someone else paid the bill and both parents are off the hook.
I agree that a NCP shouldn't pay more than was actually paid for the S7 expense, nor should it be any higher than his/her determined portion, but if someone else from the CP's family is paying or helping out, then that shouldn't negate the NCP's S7 obligations. Who's to say that the Op's S7 contribution doesn't go back to the grandparents to help offset what they paid? Who's to say that they may allow their daughter to keep it as a gift?
In my opinion, the Op will go down a rabbit hole, if he refuses to contribute to the S7 that was paid for by the grandparents.
TiredOfTheDrama
New member
There are many times my parents pay for things for my children (dentist is a great example) then when the insurance comes in I pay them back the full amount. Money is tight in my home just paying for the day to day so they help me out as they can, this has included paying for camp in the summers and I paid them back on an installment plan.
This has never affected my x as s7 has never really been an option for me unless I take him to court.
billm
New member
There is truth, and then there is game playing.
Truth should rule - Lying or playing games is for people with moral issues.
If the GP's paid, then the cost to the parents is $0, and the NCP should not pay.
If the GP's give a gift money to the CP and it was NOT for anything other than a gift and had nothing to do with the section 7 expense (which is not the case here), then the cost for the S7 expense should be shared according to income between the parents.
(But the gift income should be added to the CP's income for CS and S7 considerations).
I thought about this after I made my last post. It's not uncommon for a CP to pay the cost upfront, get receipts and get reimbursed from the NCP after the fact. If the CP is tight on cash, then a GP or new partner may help out, with the expectation that it will be paid back.
I don't disagree with you that the truth should rule, but the truth isn't always easy to prove. The Op doesn't know if there is an expectation from the GPs that the amount will be repaid to them. He may speculate that it is not to be repaid, but how does he prove this? How does he really know?
Speaking from my own experience, my partner lives with me with a child from a previous relationship. I don't get involved with any of her child related expenses, but if I did, my intent would not be to relieve the NCP of his financial obligations. I may be the most horrible person in the world for saying this, but my potential generosity would cease if that were the case. I have no intentions of impeding the NCP's right to play an active role in his child's life, and this includes his financial obligations to support his child.
Disagree hardship is hardship, please difine dead beat? One might say your infringing on ones human rights! Its just like being racist to catagorize a person debtor is the proper term! Never let any call you that! *tisk*
The minute you Pay you cs and the next month is due they'll call you a dead beat!
There's hardship and then there's undue hardship. Big difference between the two.
- Status