The order "Parties agree to locate "mutually agreeable" daycare and summer programs. Pet to pay 65% and Resp to pay 35% of all such costs.
If the respondent has not agreed to the expensive child-care services the Pet has selected on her own, should the Pet be required to pay 35% of those services?
The Pet has initially proposed taking the child to and from school to unnecessary child care expenses. The Resp has not agreed to the former. The Pet additionally proposed cheaper services offered by the state. And I paying 35% of the cheaper services even though the child is not enrolled in the cheaper services.
The Pet has now filed a complaint of the Respondents failure to pay child care costs.
The petitioner pays 35% of the cheaper option anyway. should the petitioner be found in default?