Blake
Thank you for providing the background—your situation is deeply sympathetic, and I want to commend you for continuing to prioritize your child's stability during such a difficult and vulnerable time.
To address your questions individually:
-
Does Idaho law (specifically I.R.F.L.P. Rule 120) support your position that child care during medical leave qualifies as “work-related” due to temporary incapacity?
Yes, Idaho Rule of Family Law Procedure 120 does support an argument in your favor. While the term "work-related child care" typically refers to child care required so a parent can work, courts often interpret that phrase with reasonable flexibility—particularly when the parent is temporarily incapacitated due to medical reasons. Temporary medical incapacity, especially when verified by documentation, has been recognized in various jurisdictions as a situation where child care remains “necessary” for the health, safety, and well-being of both the parent and child.
The key is whether the care is necessary and consistent with the child's established routine, and your circumstances appear to meet both of those criteria. Courts also weigh whether maintaining care supports the child’s best interests—and here, continuity and stability during your recovery very likely would.
-
Can the other parent be legally required to pay their share even if you weren’t working but were medically incapacitated?
Yes, there is a strong argument that the father should still be responsible for his share—80%—of the child care costs incurred during your period of medical leave. Because the decree does not define “work-related” narrowly or exclude circumstances like temporary incapacity, and because the care remained necessary during your recovery, a court is likely to interpret the decree in light of its intent—to ensure shared responsibility for essential child care.
Medical incapacity is not the same as choosing not to work—it is an involuntary and serious health-related condition. Courts tend to look unfavorably on arguments that seek to escape responsibility based on overly narrow readings of such provisions, particularly when the care supported your recovery and allowed your son to remain in a stable environment.
-
Is the court likely to view your decision to maintain child care as reasonable and necessary under the decree?
Yes, very likely. The decision to continue your child’s care schedule—especially during such a difficult and sensitive time—demonstrates a commitment to his stability and emotional well-being. Courts are highly sensitive to the disruption that abrupt changes in care arrangements can have on children, particularly young children. Your explanation that you kept the same child care schedule for consistency, and that the tuition was even temporarily reduced, supports the view that you acted prudently and in your child's best interest.
Additionally, by seeking only the reduced actual cost and remaining open to resolving this reasonably, you have demonstrated good faith—something courts look at closely.
Final thoughts:
Given the circumstances, the court will very likely see your actions as reasonable and within the spirit—if not the letter—of the decree. I would recommend gathering the following to bolster your position if this goes before the court:
- A letter from your doctor verifying your medical incapacity and recovery period.
- Documentation of your son's enrollment dates and consistent attendance.
- Copies of invoices and tuition reductions from the child care provider.
- Communications with the father’s attorney showing your good faith efforts to resolve this.
It may be necessary to file a motion with the Idaho court to clarify or enforce the decree if the father continues to refuse payment. I would recommend speaking with a local Idaho family law attorney who can assist with this, and you can find one at Avvo.com.