Divorce can be a complicated process, especially when children are involved. One recurring issue that arises is the topic of significant expenditures for children, often referred to as “big-ticket” items. This includes things like purchasing a car, expensive electronics, funding extravagant vacations, or acquiring costly clothing, shoes, or jewelry. The approach to these purchases often differs between families, leading to disagreements between divorcing couples. Let’s explore two common scenarios.
One scenario involves anticipating the need for expensive purchases, such as a laptop. Parents want to ensure the financial burden is shared appropriately, whether proportionally to income, equally, or through another agreed-upon method. The key is to ensure your co-parent contributes to these expenses instead of one parent footing the entire bill.
The crucial aspect here is to address these types of purchases specifically within the child support section of your divorce agreement. The agreement should outline how you and your co-parent will share the responsibility of purchasing these big-ticket items. If your divorce agreement is already in place, carefully review it with your attorney or mediator to confirm whether such purchases are addressed. If the specific purchase, like a laptop, isn’t mentioned, your co-parent might not be legally obligated to share the expense. Conversely, you wouldn’t be legally required to contribute if your co-parent makes the purchase. This assumes no further court intervention has occurred.
If the agreement lacks clarity on this issue, either parent can petition the court to modify the child support agreement, arguing why the court should mandate shared responsibility for the purchase. If successful, future purchases of that type would be shared as outlined in the revised agreement.
Absent such an agreement or court order, the parent who makes the purchase is generally responsible for covering the entire cost. Therefore, it’s vital to consult with legal counsel to ensure the responsibility for big-ticket items is clearly defined in your agreement or by mutual consent.
The second scenario involves parents disagreeing about the appropriateness of expensive purchases for their child and one parent wanting to restrict the other’s ability to make them. This differs from the first scenario where the purchasing parent seeks financial contribution. Here, the purchasing parent understands the other parent’s disapproval and isn’t seeking financial help. However, the non-purchasing parent objects to the purchase on principle, often stemming from differing financial parenting styles. One parent might believe in showering the child with gifts as a sign of affection, while the other fears it could instill a sense of entitlement and undermine the value of hard work. There are various reasons why a parent might oppose expensive gifts or experiences for a child at a particular age.
In cases of conflicting financial philosophies, the opposing parent might attempt to limit the other parent’s spending. It’s essential to prioritize the purchases you deem absolutely unacceptable. While you can’t force your co-parent to adopt your financial parenting style entirely, you can attempt to restrict specific purchases you believe would be detrimental to your child.
Focus on critical items that you believe are inappropriate for your child to receive at a specific age. Then, clearly specify these restrictions in your agreement. Such stipulations should typically be included in the legal custody or parenting decision-making section, rather than the child support section, as they pertain to parenting values rather than financial obligations.
For example, you might negotiate a clause stating, “We agree not to purchase a car for our child unless both parents mutually agree to it at the time,” or “We will not do that for our child under the age of 18 or 21.” This represents a parenting decision regarding the child’s best interests.
While it’s rare for agreements to contain such clauses and for parents to subsequently violate them, a court could potentially order the parent to rectify the situation if it contradicts the parenting commitments outlined in the agreement. The best-case scenario would be the court ordering the undoing of the gift.
Prioritize and limit the number of purchases you want to restrict.
For instance, firearms could be considered a big-ticket item, but the primary concern might be the parenting values it conveys. Specifying in your agreement that both parents have discussed and determined it’s not in the child’s best interest to receive such items is the most effective way to prevent certain major purchases before the age of 18. After 18, custody is no longer relevant, and you can’t effectively restrict your co-parent’s purchasing decisions for your child.
Addressing big-ticket purchases for children in your divorce agreement requires careful consideration of your parenting styles, financial circumstances, and most importantly, your child’s best interests. By proactively addressing these issues, you can minimize conflict and ensure a more stable future for your family. Remember to consult with legal professionals to ensure your agreement is comprehensive and legally sound.
