Travel Costs

[anapr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida. Child lives in NY. Support and visitation decided in NY.

Support was decided several years ago...BUT travel costs were never factored into support obligations.

I've read in other threads that in cases where interstate travel is involved, the parent who created the distance is responsible for all travel costs. Wondering if this advice rings true, and how it would apply in this case.

In this case, both parents never lived in the same state. It was a long distance relationship.

Visitation costs are significant. Several trips a year. For each trip, 6 plane tickets must be purchased--one to go up and get child, two for child and parent coming back. Same deal for return trip.

There are also rental car costs because child's mother will not take him to the airport.

In the event that this case would head back to court, are travel costs significant enough to affect support obligations? Is this something that could be pointed out by an attorney and settled more fairly?

In a perfect world, I would believe parents would split travel costs. The current support breakdown is approximately 60% obligation to the mom, 40% obligation to the dad.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[mistoffolees]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida. Child lives in NY. Support and visitation decided in NY.

Support was decided several years ago...BUT travel costs were never factored into support obligations.

I've read in other threads that in cases where interstate travel is involved, the parent who created the distance is responsible for all travel costs. Wondering if this advice rings true, and how it would apply in this case.

In this case, both parents never lived in the same state. It was a long distance relationship.

Visitation costs are significant. Several trips a year. For each trip, 6 plane tickets must be purchased--one to go up and get child, two for child and parent coming back. Same deal for return trip.

There are also rental car costs because child's mother will not take him to the airport.

In the event that this case would head back to court, are travel costs significant enough to affect support obligations? Is this something that could be pointed out by an attorney and settled more fairly?

In a perfect world, I would believe parents would split travel costs. The current support breakdown is approximately 60% obligation to the mom, 40% obligation to the dad.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

First, the statement that "the parent who creates the distance should be responsible for the costs of transportation" is a very general guideline and not a hard and fast rule anywhere that I know of.

But even that guideline only applies when the parents are both close together and then one picks up and moves. It's really not going to apply when the parents never lived close together.

When the parents never lived in the same state, it could go any way:

- NCP pays transportation
- Parents split transportation 50:50
- Parents split transportation on an income shares model

it's going to really depend on the circumstances and the judge.

 

[anapr]

intereresting. there are other support issues at play in this case, but is it possible this issue alone is enough to request modification?

by the way, thank you for your prompt advice!

 

[LdiJ]

intereresting. there are other support issues at play in this case, but is it possible this issue alone is enough to request modification?

by the way, thank you for your prompt advice!

Transportation is really a stand alone issue. We have seen some cases where judges have modified child support to take transportation costs into consideration but that is generally when the costs are less defined (mostly the ncp driving to the area for visitation).

Taking it back to court to have transportation costs addressed is a valid reason to go to court.

 

[stealth2]

However... support has been ordered as-is (w/o transportation) for several years. OP changing his mind doesn't necessarily warrant a modification. Besides - the child will, within a few years, be able to fly alone. Decreasing the cost significantly.

 

[anapr]

Stealth--

you mention that the child will be able to fly on his own in a few years. that's what the father had hoped, but now the mother has made it clear that she will not allow that to happen.

would a judge ever step in and order the mother to take her child to the aiport?

 

[CSO286]

Stealth--

you mention that the child will be able to fly on his own in a few years. that's what the father had hoped, but now the mother has made it clear that she will not allow that to happen.

would a judge ever step in and order the mother to take her child to the aiport?

A judge certainly can order that, but the Judge would (should) also consider the child's age, maturity and how often the child has previously flown into consideration.

I haven't seen a Judge order a parent to send a child as an unaccompanied minor at age 6 when he or she hasn't flown at all......(Not yet, anyway)

 

[anapr]

one more thing i should add--when CS was originally calculated, father had his original attorney. she made several missteps with his case, including CS calculation.

now he has an attorney that he feels can handle his case better. is "my attorney didn't know what she was doing" a valid arguement before a judge?

 

[CSO286]

one more thing i should add--when CS was originally calculated, father had his original attorney. she made several missteps with his case, including CS calculation.

now he has an attorney that he feels can handle his case better. is "my attorney didn't know what she was doing" a valid arguement before a judge?

Father should have fired the orginal attorney way back when the original order was established. I would say it's possible, but unlikely.

 

[mistoffolees]

Stealth--

you mention that the child will be able to fly on his own in a few years. that's what the father had hoped, but now the mother has made it clear that she will not allow that to happen.

would a judge ever step in and order the mother to take her child to the aiport?

Yes and no. The judge probably would not order the child to fly alone. What the judge COULD order is that the child needs to get from point A to point B and that parent x is responsible for y% of the cost and parent z has to make it happen.

In practice, that might amount to "Dad will pay the cost of flying the child to his city and Mom must arrange for the child to get there".

Given an order like that, Mom would have a number of options:
1. Fly there with the child at her own expense
2. Have the child fly alone (with airline supervision, of course)
3. Drive there and use the air cost to pay the cost of driving

So the judge might not specifically order the child to fly alone, but that might be the eventual outcome.

Transportation is really a stand alone issue. We have seen some cases where judges have modified child support to take transportation costs into consideration but that is generally when the costs are less defined (mostly the ncp driving to the area for visitation).

Taking it back to court to have transportation costs addressed is a valid reason to go to court.

Not necessarily. What is the change in circumstances that justifies reopening the case? They apparently always lived far apart, so it's not clear that they could even have grounds to file.



Also note that there are fees for the child flying alone. In low cost air routes, the cost of a parent accompanying the child may not be much more than the unaccompanied minor fee:
http://www.independenttraveler.com/resources/article.cfm?AID=203&category=21

As for the other costs (rental car, etc), that can be minimized by the other parent coming to the airport to get the child.

 

[anapr]

mistoffolees, thank you for your advice. the cost of a rental car, etc. could be cut down by the mother taking her child to the aiport, but she has repeatedly ignored requests for this kind of compromise.

as for a change in circumstance, the father was laid off from his job a year and a half ago. he's kept consistent employment since then, finding work with gradual pay increases--but he has not been able to get back to the level of income he was making prior to the layoff.

it's important to note that throughout his layoff, he still paid CS consistently and managed to avoid arrears.

still, money is tighter now than it was when the original CS order was decided.

 

[CSO286]

mistoffolees, thank you for your advice. the cost of a rental car, etc. could be cut down by the mother taking her child to the aiport, but she has repeatedly ignored requests for this kind of compromise.

as for a change in circumstance, the father was laid off from his job a year and a half ago. he's kept consistent employment since then, finding work with gradual pay increases--but he has not been able to get back to the level of income he was making prior to the layoff.

it's important to note that throughout his layoff, he still paid CS consistently and managed to avoid arrears.

still, money is tighter now than it was when the original CS order was decided.

If Dad's income has been reduced involuntarily, then he most certainly could (and should) request a modification of his child support obligation.

I do have to ask...with all these 3rd party pronouns, WHO are YOU in this situation?

 

[anapr]

the reason for all the pronouns...i've been dutifully trying to sidestep explaining my relationship to this issue.

i'm married to the father. i've read this forum for awhile and have noticed that stepparents are often told to "butt out" or they are asked why they are on these board enquiring about legal situations.

i'm trying to avoid that

as it stands, the CS and travel issues affect us both because of our joint finances as a married couple.

my husband doesn't know that i come on these boards to ask for legal advice...but it's important for me to know how these legal issues affect our financial outlook.

thanks for giving me some answers.

 

[mistoffolees]

the reason for all the pronouns...i've been dutifully trying to sidestep explaining my relationship to this issue.

i'm married to the father. i've read this forum for awhile and have noticed that stepparents are often told to "butt out" or they are asked why they are on these board enquiring about legal situations.

i'm trying to avoid that

Good. You understand. Now avoid it by butting out. (hint - it's even worse (not better) that you KNOW that what you're doing is unacceptable and you're doing it anyway).

If Dad is concerned, have him post his own questions.

 

[anapr]

why on earth you think my asking questions about my husband's legal situation is unacceptable is beyond me. these issues affect my life. i have every right to be better informed on the issues affecting my life.

it would be unacceptable for me to use names, dates, locations, or to identify these people in any way. it would be unacceptable for me to post on this legal board with the intent of hurting any of the people involved in this case.

it is not unacceptable to ask for the help i asked for.

believe it or not, not every stepparent is the "bad" guy. not every stepparent is so self-centered as to think the needs of the child are not of the utmost importance. some of us are just people trying to live our lives the best we can.

i'm sorry that by revealing what i am, and not who i am, i am suddenly being told to get lost.