From what I have read, the 2016 guidelines will more clearly indicate what is meant by "direct expenses".  In reading the committee meeting minutes, cell phone and car related expenses for a child will be included in "Direct expenses" as well as extracurricular activities (with the removal of the exception about extraordinary activities).

So here's my question:  In the case of a 50-50 parenting plan, with the lower-earning parent being responsible for direct expenses (which doesn't make any sense to me to have as a standard), what happens when that parent is repeatedly saying they "can't afford" things?  Is the higher earning parent then expected to pay for anything the parent responsible for paying DE's "can't afford" on top of CS?

In our situation, we have a court order saying the other parent will pay DE's (which in the order explicitly includes extracurricular activities).  The other parent will agree to pay for one night of activity for each kid but will not do more. We decided to enroll one child in additional classes (after 1.5 years of her begging) plus she is borderline diabetic and needs more exercise.  We made it clear that the other parent was not expected to take the child to the activity because it was not agreed upon by both parents before enrolling her.  However, the other parent IS taking her to the additional classes. 

The other parent is also refusing to pay for 1/2 of mental health counseling being provided to both children (which we have a written recommendation for by a therapist).   Because of her refusing to pay mental health costs, we will likely be filing a motion for re-reimbursement.

The lawyer has recommended keeping receipts of everything that we cover that the other parent refuses to pay and that we can request a change in who is responsible for DE's.

My question is, why is it the default for the lower-earning parent to pay DE's in a 50-50 parenting plan if both parents don't agree to split DE's 50-50?  That seems completely backwards to me.  Second, does the court generally rule in favor of keeping that status quo regarding DE's if the other parent is having to pay a portion of those expenses?  Will the changes in 2016 likely impact our chance of success in court for requesting changing who is responsible for DE's?

If this had been the arrangement for years, we might not be interested in proceeding legally about it.  However, previous to this year there was a verbal agreement to do 50-50 split of expenses so this is the first year the other parent is responsible for 100% of it and (not surprisingly) many of the things she would presumably be responsible for aren't' being covered.  We've done the math and with the amount of CS paid each month, much less than 1/2 of the monthly amount would cover all of the extracurricular activities. We have 10+ years to go with co-parenting so if it would be possible to be responsible to pay for DE's, we could afford to give the children much more than we are able to do now on top of the CS payment.  I understand that, due to the differences in income, there will still be a CS payment but it would be less which would make it much easier for the kids to get what they need.

Yes.  As of last year, the parent paying DE's income was set as full-time minimum wage (roughly $15,000).  The other parent's income is $40,000.  There are two kids (one 10, one 7).  CS is $400 per month.  When negotiations took place, both lawyers indicated that if the higher earning parent wanted to pay DE's, they would have to PROVE the other parent isn't capable of doing it.  Since it wasn't possible to prove that at the time, it was agreed that the lower-earning parent would pay DE's, mostly to avoid having to proceed legally. 

If you haven't guessed by now, the Mom is the lower earner and Dad earns more.  Mom's lawyer wanted her responsible for DE's because it gave her more child support.