able to substantiate?

[angeleyzad]

What is the name of your state? Maine

Okay, I searched, and found the same answer given to many people, but no justification backing it up. It's in regards to the moving parent being responsible for travel expenses. I would say that around 85% of the time, advise is given stating that the moving parent would be fully responsible for the cost of travel for their visitation. Other answers have been split expenses 50/50, and the moving parent responsible for any extra traveling from the previous location.

I have been trying to search for the "legal" argument to substantiate this, but have not been able to find anything decisive. All that I have been able to find is where the CP has relocated the children (which the NCP fought), so the CP had to bear the expense, by way of a reduction in the NCP's amount of child support.

Any assistance that you could give in regards to these arguments would be much obliged.

My ex (the NCP) moved further away almost a year ago, and is now looking to have me reimburse him for his traveling expense, or meet him half way. I have not relocated the children in question. I can prove that his travel expense from his previous location does not meet the greater than 15% rule that the state child support guidelines carries, plus the fact that his relocation was voluntary - to live with his girlfriend. I know that he is going to argue that he eventually had to move there because that is where his job was; however, the job in question was actively seeked out by him, for it's location close to his girlfriend. His job did not transfer him there. He had the ability to seek out employment closer to his children.

 

[Ohiogal]

basically it is an equity argument and the courts are courts of equity. Which is how they determine who is responsible for bearing the cost of transportation. Unless your state statutes allow a deviation due to a voluntary move then he will not win that argument.

 

[angeleyzad]

basically it is an equity argument and the courts are courts of equity. Which is how they determine who is responsible for bearing the cost of transportation. Unless your state statutes allow a deviation due to a voluntary move then he will not win that argument.

As far as I could find, the only transportation deviation is based on if the cost of transportation is more than 15% of the yearly child support obligation. I am going to argue that where he would still be responsible for 1/2 the traveling if we had been meeting half way, his deviation should only take into concideration 1/2 of his travel distance, and at that, only the original distance, not the extra distance from his move. Going with that arguement, he does not meet the greater than 15% rule. Hopefully the judge will see the same thing as me, because I definitely do not think it's fair.

 

[LdiJ]

As far as I could find, the only transportation deviation is based on if the cost of transportation is more than 15% of the yearly child support obligation. I am going to argue that where he would still be responsible for 1/2 the traveling if we had been meeting half way, his deviation should only take into concideration 1/2 of his travel distance, and at that, only the original distance, not the extra distance from his move. Going with that arguement, he does not meet the greater than 15% rule. Hopefully the judge will see the same thing as me, because I definitely do not think it's fair.

I am not sure that you will even need to go that far into the argument. He voluntarily chose to move further away from his children, therefore he should bear the cost of the extra transportation. Then if he brings up the job argument, then your response is that he voluntarily sought that job in order for his job to be closer to where he wanted to live.