Uniform
- Thread starter zanman
- Start date
Tayken
Well-known member
The simple answer is no. A school uniform is neither SPECIAL nor EXTRAORDINARY.
SadAndTired
New member
Tayken, YOUR simple answer is no.
My answer would be it depends. My lawyer's answer was yes.
Here is the Ontario Child Support Guidelines:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/970391 See 7.1.d
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.
Extraordinary is relative. The school requires a uniform. It is mandatory and not something a teen would wear when not at school.
New uniforms for my daughter to attend Catholic High School cost me over $700 last year. Her high school is very specific and has their own provider. We simply can't run down to the local store and get what we need. That $700 was in addition to her back pack, gym uniform, other school stuff and normal fall clothing needs/shoes/coats/etc.
If I was receiving $300 a month, high school uniforms would certainly be section 7.
My answer would be it depends. My lawyer's answer was yes.
Here is the Ontario Child Support Guidelines:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/970391 See 7.1.d
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.
Extraordinary is relative. The school requires a uniform. It is mandatory and not something a teen would wear when not at school.
New uniforms for my daughter to attend Catholic High School cost me over $700 last year. Her high school is very specific and has their own provider. We simply can't run down to the local store and get what we need. That $700 was in addition to her back pack, gym uniform, other school stuff and normal fall clothing needs/shoes/coats/etc.
If I was receiving $300 a month, high school uniforms would certainly be section 7.
Last edited:
Tayken
Well-known member
Topic was already covered in 2015:
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f5/school-uniform-special-extraordinary-expense-19294/
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f5/school-uniform-special-extraordinary-expense-19294/
Tayken
Well-known member
Also, I guess your lawyer isn't Andrew Feldstien:
Section 7 Expenses - Some are Just Not Worth the Fight
Andrew does a great job of explaining the complexities of the situation overall. I would recommend the OP to read this article and consider the actual Lawyer's advice. It is the more complex answer.
Good Luck!
Tayken
Section 7 Expenses - Some are Just Not Worth the Fight
Andrew does a great job of explaining the complexities of the situation overall. I would recommend the OP to read this article and consider the actual Lawyer's advice. It is the more complex answer.
Good Luck!
Tayken
SadAndTired
New member
See? This is a ridiculous argument.
In addition to the fact that your post talks about private school (high income families) Taken, your argument misses the point for me.
So, let's say for argument sake that uniforms are section 7.
Parent 1 says "Well, I am not paying."
Parent 2 says "But it is section 7"
Parent 1 says "No. Not paying."
Parent 2 receives $200 a month in CS.
Tayken says it isn't worth the fight. And he is right, Parent 2 couldn't afford the uniform, how could they afford a court case to take dick parent1 to court?
It is the same for my current situation, dance is over $5,000. Ex says "nope. not paying". So I have to take him to court and pay a lawyer to collect what he should be paying?
No parent should bother to pay anything under your philosophy of it will cost more to collect. Why pay when there is no consequence?? Further no parent should ever bother to go after any financial support as it costs too much to collect.
Perhaps the emphasis should be on concrete section 7 expenses so the parent1s of the world cannot create arbitrary situations and refuse to pay.
In addition to the fact that your post talks about private school (high income families) Taken, your argument misses the point for me.
So, let's say for argument sake that uniforms are section 7.
Parent 1 says "Well, I am not paying."
Parent 2 says "But it is section 7"
Parent 1 says "No. Not paying."
Parent 2 receives $200 a month in CS.
Tayken says it isn't worth the fight. And he is right, Parent 2 couldn't afford the uniform, how could they afford a court case to take dick parent1 to court?
It is the same for my current situation, dance is over $5,000. Ex says "nope. not paying". So I have to take him to court and pay a lawyer to collect what he should be paying?
No parent should bother to pay anything under your philosophy of it will cost more to collect. Why pay when there is no consequence?? Further no parent should ever bother to go after any financial support as it costs too much to collect.
Perhaps the emphasis should be on concrete section 7 expenses so the parent1s of the world cannot create arbitrary situations and refuse to pay.
Last edited:
On the flip side my partners ex deemed expenses she estimated as section 7 and is now taking him to court to recover them. He has to pay to have a judge school her.
The expenses arent concrete because theyre open to interpretation by income levels. Your ex is a stingy ass who refuses all. OP could be paying $1000 a month. It may not be a s7 expense.
The expenses arent concrete because theyre open to interpretation by income levels. Your ex is a stingy ass who refuses all. OP could be paying $1000 a month. It may not be a s7 expense.
Tayken
Well-known member
Yes. It in fact is. Fighting over pennies with pounds is always silly in family law.
Most Catholic schools (which are part of a public system) have systems where people who truly cannot afford a uniform can get them. Parent counsel and other organizations at the school often raise uniforms for this. In addition, the affiliated Church often has a program.
The point I am making that school uniforms are not worth the fight. Find alternative means to get assistance rather than duking it out in a court battle where NO ONE WINS.
Correct. If the parent is truly in poverty and cannot afford the uniform then there are alternatives to assist with the problem as mentioned above. You often can buy second-hand uniforms as well at significantly reduced rates.
Also, the risk is high because a judge *may* evaluate your situation against the average income of the school. No doubt there are families making less than the two goofs in court fighting over hundreds of dollars who are making ends meet and paying for the uniforms.
The courts are not for wasting taxpayer dollars on petty disagreements is my point. So the simple answer is "no".
Or the children don't participate in dance. Knowing your situation I do agree with you that the other parent is just being cheap. But, the courts don't like to meddle in the "cheapness" of parents. So, you are probably SoL. But, yes, in your situation the other parent is just being cheap.
What about the benefits to the kids by paying and sucking it up? If a child wants to participate in it and you can afford it without the other parent's assistance. Just do it for the benefit of the child. Not so you can "collect" from the other parent.
Majority of children do not participate in extracurricular activities like $5000 dance. Special kids with rich parent(s) do. Majority of society doesn't live in the 1% or doesn't share children with the 1%. So, don't try to relate every situation to the 1% problem you have. Your situation is very different than 99% of the people on this site. They don't share children with a cheap 1%er. They share children with the 99% than't are the "have nots".
There is a cost benefit analysis that is in ratio to the house hold income. Some times, the conflict isn't worth the couple of hundred bucks depending on the house hold income. Too many people in family court spend 10's of thousands chasing conflict that boils down to 100's or even a couple of 1000's of dollars. All on the "principal" of it... Waste of resources and taxpayer moneys.
I do agree. There should be way better guidance on "what is" and "what is not" a "section 7 expense".
Good Luck!
Tayken
SadAndTired
New member
Now the shoes I would NOT consider section 7. My daughter's school has a requirement that shoes are all black including the sole. But the shoes can be worn other places. The uniform is section 7 to me because it can't be worn anywhere else and is a requirement of attendance. Child support you already paid should cover shoes that can be worn on an everyday basis (which the shoes for high school can be).
And before Tayken decides to jump down my throat, my ex had his lawyer exclude uniforms from section 7 expenses specifically in our agreement due to his high child support. Both my lawyer and his lawyer agreed that uniforms are section 7.
And before Tayken decides to jump down my throat, my ex had his lawyer exclude uniforms from section 7 expenses specifically in our agreement due to his high child support. Both my lawyer and his lawyer agreed that uniforms are section 7.