Both parties in Florida.
Parties have been living by a stipulated agreement since July 2004.
This agreement was finally signed by the Judge and recorded into
public record April 2005 as "Amended Judgment and Order Denying Supplemental Petition to Modify Custody and Ratifying Stipulated Agreement". Also signed at this time was the "Income Deduction
Order".
i.e.--The ink is barely dry on what it took our respective lawyers
a long time to accomplish.
In the Order concerning the Stipulated Agreement, it states:
a. The Mother will maintain health and dental insurance coverage
for the parties' minor children so long as it is reasonably available.
The Mother shall provide insurance cards to the Father within (10) ten days of this Order.
In the Order concerning the Income Deduction Order, it states in full:
TO: Each employeer, present and former or subsequent, or any other person or agency providing income money or benefits to XXX XXXXXX , Petitioner and obligator, including any Workers Compensation Center;
YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to Florida law to make regular deductions from all income of (my name), Social Security No.:(my SS number) in accordance with the terms of this Order.
YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED:
1. To deduct from all income due and payable to the obligor $XXX.XX per month to meet the obligor's support obligation.
2. To promptly forward payment to (ex's name), c/o (ex's bank), Account number (ex's bank account number).
3. This Order is effective immediately.
The flies in the ointment are the following:
a. I am currently working two jobs, and will be leaving the first job
I have had for several years to go to the second.
b. As part of this job change, insurance will not be "reasonable available". The cost of "family" insurance through this small company
would equal my gross wages. It will, however, increase my annual
gross income by $4-6,000 with a potential to increase my annual gross
by $8,000 in the next few years.
c. In litigation we have a history of the fact that I did not want ex's spouse to carry the insurance as it meant a change in health providers. However, our children can at this time be added to MY spouse's insurance and still keep the same providers.
Questions:
1. Should I write something to state for the record that I am leaving my current job for another, so that that the Judge would not think it hinky that just as the Order is signed, I appear to "quit working'?
2. Considering that having my spouse cover the children on his insurance is not directly money out of my pocket, even though it is money from our household, can this be considered as me
maintaining health coverage?
3. Should I send my ex the insurance cards, knowing full well that this
insurance will be cancelled within the month?
4. Isn't an Income Deduction Order made so that it goes through the state depository?
5. Have you ever heard of "direct deposit" such as this before?
6. Is this "double dipping" in that if I did have two jobs, both employers would be required by law to take the full monthly amount out of any pay received?
Thanks,
FLMom
>Questions:
>
>1. Should I write something to state for the record that I am
>leaving my current job for another, so that that the Judge
>would not think it hinky that just as the Order is signed, I
>appear to "quit working'?
Nope. Judge doesn't care, unless a party complains.
>
>2. Considering that having my spouse cover the children on his
>insurance is not directly money out of my pocket, even though
>it is money from our household, can this be considered as me
>maintaining health coverage?
Order only says that you will maintain insurance if reasonably available. Doesn't say "how" you will accomplish this end.
>
>3. Should I send my ex the insurance cards, knowing full well
>that this insurance will be cancelled within the month?
Probably a waste of time.
>
>4. Isn't an Income Deduction Order made so that it goes
>through the state depository?
Depends on FL state law, of which I am not familiar with this provision.
>
>5. Have you ever heard of "direct deposit" such as this
>before?
Yes, it's completely normal for an employer to pay the obligee parent directly.
>6. Is this "double dipping" in that if I did have two jobs,
>both employers would be required by law to take the full
>monthly amount out of any pay received?
There is no double dipping. If the order was presented to both employers to deduct the entire amount, then you would be able to challenge the amounts as not per the orders. But, under the circumstances, it's irrelevant -- you will shortly only have one job.