Legal tactic

There is language I somehow missed, when signing my divorce settlement. It worries me because it may mean that my ex does not have to contribute toward's Cate's nursery school at all (much less, for college in the future). I'm not absolutely sure that that is what the language means since I cannot consult my lawyer who will not do any more work until I pay the $12,000 outstanding bill! The language, unfortunately, does seem to suggest that my ex does not have to help pay for nursery school. It reads:

"The amount of child support provided for herein deviates to the extent that it has been rounded up from $297.36 to $300.00 per week from the presumptive amount of the basic child support obligation determined pursuant to the guidelines of the Child Support Standards Act for the following reasons:
.... (B) The physical and emotional health of the CHILD, and their education or vocations needs and aptitudes."

I am contemplating filing a motion in court, to demand R to pay. I have an uncle who is a divorce attorney who suggested I use the argument that Cate's educational needs have changed since the signing of the settlement. However, I'd like to go further. Here is what I wrote in an email to my uncle:

"I will point out the rather ridiculous fact, hidden within the self-congratulatory 'rounded up' language used by R's lawyer in that statement above, as if there was some kind of generousity involved on R's part. Here's the ridiculous fact:

I am being given only $2.64 per week from R to pay for education.

What kind of education is that? A coloring book for Cate to teach herself how to draw?

If the judge then comes back and tells me that I signed the settlement too, then I can then proceed along your suggested line of argument to say that her educational needs have increased from $2.64 per week when she was a 2 year old doing coloring books, to $100 / week as a 3 year old attending nursery school, her enrollment in which, has been approved by the father.

Moreso, I am hoping to point out something that could be easily missed, particularly given that my own lawyer missed it, to wit, the sneaky manner in which R's lawyer phrased the settlement in order to allow R to not have to pay what every red-blooded decent father should pay, as a basic parental responsibility.

It may not be an "argument" per se, but a pointed-out detail to help the Judge understand what kind of person R really is, and the opportunistic and unfair manner in which he and his lawyer have operated during the divorce, in writing the settlement, and now, in terms of allowing R to avoid his financial responsibility as a father."