I am looking for some guidance defining direct expenses in Johnson County.  My wife and her ex-husband share 50% custody of the children and used to have a shared expenses plan.  At the most recent support modification, he had the shared expense plan removed and my wife is now responsible for all direct expenses (with separate wardrobes).  Medical expenses are still shared with some disputed information

Since the new agreement, he has chosen to basically pay for NOTHING.  I understand the basics of the direct expenses but can not find definition of some aspects. My wife and I have no desire to constant court battles and attorney fees, but do want to be sure of his obligations outside the direct expenses.

Questions:
1-  Is school lunch covered under direct expenses?  Are we to pay for lunch at school when children are in his custody?
2-  Are cell phones considered direct expenses?
3-  Is an automobile and insurance for a 16 year old considered common direct expense?
           If so, what is our liability while car/ driver are in his custodial care?
4-  With separate wardrobes, are shoes and coats considered wardrobe or direct expenses?
5-   Does proportion of medical payment automatically correspond with income percentage?
       Recently ratio went from 60:40  to 70:30 and he is refusing to adjust medical payment proportion without an additional court order.

any general guidance regarding these issues would be greatly appreciated

Step Dad In Need

1. Your X is not responsible to feed your children while they are in your care. School lunches are to be paid by the respective parents on the day they drop their child off at school. Due to conflict over this matter in my case we each pay cash directly to the child on a per diem basis.

2. I think that Cel Phones are still considered to be a luxury item and not a "direct expense".
See this other chain of conversation from this website for more information: direct expenses
« on: September 22, 2013, 09:14:50 PM »

3. Driving is a privilege and I do not believe it's associated costs are considered to be a "direct expense". This is an opportunity for a child to learn responsibility and economic costs by getting their own source of income to pay for the privilege. All teens in all income brackets do not have the right to their own vehicle nor do all families own a vehicle which is why I do not believe that it is considered a "direct expense".

4. Yes. But, your x is not obligated to reimburse you. They can choose to purchase items of any quality, including use and provide them for use at both homes. I take the position that the items belong to the children to take wherever they want and do whatever they want with.

5. If the Court did not state in your Orders specific instructions about the process for either party to collect on unreimbursed medical expenses than you are stuck without an ability to enforce the Order. If the expenses are significant enough to justify the cost of enforcement than peruse it. If not than drop it. What matters is that your child(ten) is/are healthy.

Guru,  You mentioned page 84 of the guidelines.  How can I obtain a copy of the guidelines?

reading the post by KTM, it just reaffirms my confusion regarding the guidelines.  It sounds like everything is a matter of interpretation and the only way to resolve interpretation conflicts would be court order and more attorney's fees..........money that would be better spent on the children directly by both parties.

Thank you again very much for your support and guidance.   I enjoy being able to support my step children, but want to be sure their father is also providing at least his minimal legal requirement.

sounds like we are pretty close to the legal requirement and no need to run up legal fees.

KTM, I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying if it's listed in the guidelines, period, there's a very good chance a judge will entertain the idea.  Do you disagree with that?

Glad we could help you in some small way - that's exactly why this site was created.