In a recent Rockland County case the Father had paid childcare expenses for their two children from May, 2025 to February, 2026. The parties settled their divorce case in February 2026 with a written Stipulation of Settlement. The Settlement Agreement stated that the Father was to pay 63% of childcare expenses "for expenses incurred during actual engagement of employment". The Father claimed that despited repeated requests for proof that the expenses were incurred during the Mother's actual employment (including copies of requests on Our Family Wizard) the Mother refused to provide such proof. The Father had already paid the expenses and was seeking reimbursement of $3,198.00.
The Mother stated that she works for her employer as a Media Planner and Buyer, has a flexible work schedule that varies day to day based upon client needs, time of meetings, deadlines, deliverables and business requirements. At the hearing the Mother provided documentation of her work schedule, compensation records and work logs along with documentation of the childcare services and expenses.
It would appear obvious that the Mother would prevail given she provided proof in court of her work schedule and the expenses. However, the Father's argument was that she did not provide it to him when requested and therefore she was not entitled to the monies. The court stated that the Stipulation of Settlement which is a contract between the parties did not specifically state that such proof of hours and days of employment is required as a condition to seeking childcare expenses. The court further stated that if that was the intent it should have been added to the Agreement. Further analysis by the court was that the statute allowing childcare expense reimbursement did not have a provision stating only upon proper documentation.
Bottomline if you want that documentation it must be in the Settlement Agreement. The statute only requires that the expenses be incurred for childcare for work-related need be "actually incurred, instead of speculative".
Do I think the Mother should have provided the proof when requested, of course. However, she did prove it in court so I think that because she had the proof and the Agreement did not require prior production, she was entitled to the monies. Other legal technicalities of the case are not discussed in this blog for brevity.