Author Topic: extraordinary expense  (Read 8257 times)

Dad

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35
extraordinary expense
« on: October 01, 2012, 09:46:04 AM »
The extraordinary expense is new in the updated guidelines this year.  Is there any case, commission intent or other information to decide how this should be divided, shared or adjudicated to the payee or payor?  Any information and documentation you could provide would be greatly appreciated.


Guru

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
Re: extraordinary expense
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2012, 09:00:40 PM »
Just looking through the surveys that were submitted to the committee, there were quite a few parents and attorneys (and judges) who completely disagreed with the committee's decision to introduce "extraordinary" expenses this time.  Personally, I think it's going to cause more trouble than its worth, but that's beside the point.

The answer to your question actually lies directly in the advisory committee meeting minutes from about a year ago where Brian Mull (Wichita Father) asked that very question.  The reason is because the way the guidelines are written, one parent would have to pay for 100% of all the expenses. There are no directions on how to divide those amounts.  I would propose maybe the income share %.  A concern Brian had with the new rule is that a portion of child support already goes to pay for some of those expenses.  This leaves the child support paying parent paying double.  But you have to dig pretty deep into the guidelines to see exactly why that is.  Brian could probably explain it better.

For other members' benefit, and if you don't mind, what is the nature of the expense that is being deemed "extraordinary" in your case, and what amount of money are we talking about?
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 05:11:06 PM by Guru »

Dad

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35
Re: extraordinary expense
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2012, 10:21:09 PM »
The nature is tutoring for my step son who is moderately to secretly dyslexic.  Specialized tutoring has been very beneficial through his Orton Gillingham trained tutor, Pam Dudley in Parkville.  The cost averages out to be about $425 per month.  We have been told this is an extraordinary/  special needs expense and since those are either added in or deducted, it should be deducted.  I would have no problem with prorata, if Mom was not purposefully under employed, making less than minimum wage (with a degree in education) and on government subsidy.  Right now we are ordered to pay $825 a month for 2 children with 50/50 custody, as well as 90% of all shared expense (including tutoring, medical, etc).

Dad

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35
Re: extraordinary expense
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2012, 03:15:44 PM »
That was supposed to be moderately to severely dyslexic.  I apologize for the error.  Also, I am wondering if you believe we are paying double in this instance. 

Thanks for your continued help.

Guru

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
Re: extraordinary expense
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2012, 08:51:56 PM »
The type of expenses you are describing to me sound very much in line with actual "special needs" expenses.  Those are not included in the basic child support amount and to answer your question, no, you are not paying double for those expenses (as far as I am aware).  The extraordinary expenses issue, to which I referred, and that which has caused so much controversy, is that the committee opted to lump expenses for travel for sports activities, premiere sports costs, and maybe things like optional private instruction for dance directly in with those expenses required for a dyslexic child to do well.  Therefore, it was cautioned to the committee that many parents may be coming forth asking for all kinds of expenses to be considered "extraordinary" or "special."  I think the expenses you are talking about are legitimate special needs expenses.  And, these kinds of expenses have been included in the guidelines for quite a long time.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 06:34:58 PM by Guru »