Does this statement mean we are responsible for 50% of medical and dental expens...

[ts_mom]

Dear Socrateaser,

In regards to court order issued by the State of Hawaii:

Health Care Coverage
"Both parents are equally responsible for all unreimbursed extraordinary medical and dental expenses of the child(ren)".


Problem:
Both parents live in different states. CP takes child to doctor and signs all paperwork. However, CP has been having the doctors offices send child's medical bills directly to NCP.

NCP would pay doctors 100% for these bills and deal with the CP directly for reimbursement if the relationship was agreeable. However, the relationship between CP and NCP is conflict-ridden.

CP will be writing letters to the doctors offices stating he will pay only for what he thinks he is legally obligated to pay--which is 50%--and request that they either bill CP directly or send separate bills to both of them for half the payments.

Questions:

1. According to the court order's terminology, is each parent responsible for only 50%, or can it be interpreted as they are equally responsible for any debts incurred as a result of CP not paying her share of the bill, even if NCP pays for 50% of the overall bill?

2. Is CP legally considered the responsible party to the doctor and therefore should be getting billed instead of NCP?

NCP does not want to pay for more than he is responsible for and does not want to be held liable for debt he did not incur. NCP just wants assurance he is handling the situation properly.

Thank you
TS_mom

[socrateaser]

>Dear Socrateaser,
>
>In regards to court order issued by the State of Hawaii:
>
>Health Care Coverage
>"Both parents are equally responsible for all unreimbursed
>extraordinary medical and dental expenses of the child(ren)".
>
>
>Problem:
>Both parents live in different states. CP takes child to
>doctor and signs all paperwork. However, CP has been having
>the doctors offices send child's medical bills directly to
>NCP.
>
>NCP would pay doctors 100% for these bills and deal with the
>CP directly for reimbursement if the relationship was
>agreeable. However, the relationship between CP and NCP is
>conflict-ridden.
>
>CP will be writing letters to the doctors offices stating he
>will pay only for what he thinks he is legally obligated to
>pay--which is 50%--and request that they either bill CP
>directly or send separate bills to both of them for half the
>payments.
>
>Questions:
>
>1. According to the court order's terminology, is each parent
>responsible for only 50%, or can it be interpreted as they are
>equally responsible for any debts incurred as a result of CP
>not paying her share of the bill, even if NCP pays for 50% of
>the overall bill?

The language of the order is highly unusual. I have never seen an order that used the word "extraordinary" in combination with healthcare. My first thought is that whomever wrote the order didn't know what they were doing, or alternatively believed that they were pulling a fast one.

It's not clear at the moment, that the NCP owes anything to anyone, because "extraordinary" costs generaly refers to costs other than the "ordinary," i.e., routine visits, cold, flu, etc. And, if there were healthcare insurance in place, then extraordinary would likely refer to payment for uncovered healthcare, but not deductables, i.e., CP would be responsible for deductables, NCP for 50% of whatever healthcare didn't cover after the deductable was paid.

So, then, please help unconfuse me. These questions are all important:

1. In what state was the original support order made?
2. What other text in the order addresses the child's healthcare?
3. Is the current order the original support order?
4. Is the current order a "final" order?
5. Where does the child and the custodial parent live now?
6. Where does the NCP live now?
7. Did the NCP cause the child to live in the state where he/she currently resides (either by bringing the child to that state or by having sexual intercourse in that state so as to conceive the child?
8. Were the parents ever married?
9. If #8 is no, then in what State was the judgment or acknowledgement of paternity entered?

[ts_mom]

Dear Socrateaser,

Thanks for the swift reply.

>1. In what state was the original support order made?
Hawaii.

>2. What other text in the order addresses the child's
>healthcare?
"The non-custodial parent(s) shall maintain and/or obtain health insurance coverage for THE PARTIES' childr(ren) whenever it is available through an employer or union. The court authorizes the issuance of a medical support order without further notice to the parties.

[ ] The child(ren) are currently covered by an insurance plan provided by [ ] NATURAL FATHER and/or [ ] NATURAL MOTHER.

[ ] An insurance plan for the child(ren) is not currently available to [ ] NATURAL FATHER and/or NATURAL MOTHER at a reasonable cost.

Both parents are equally responsible for all unreimbursed extraordinary medical and dental expenses of the child(ren)."

For your info, Socrateaser, none of the boxes were checked.

>3. Is the current order the original support order?
Yes. It was issued in 1999 and has not been modified as far as NCP knows.

>4. Is the current order a "final" order?
Yes and no, I guess. According to the wording of the order posted above, no; however, NCP is not aware of any changes to the existing order as authorized by the court.

>5. Where does the child and the custodial parent live now?
New Mexico.

>6. Where does the NCP live now?
Hawaii.

>7. Did the NCP cause the child to live in the state where
>he/she currently resides (either by bringing the child to that
>state or by having sexual intercourse in that state so as to
>conceive the child?
No. CP caused NCP to live in NCP's current state of address (Hawaii). CP gave birth to child in Hawaii, and decided to take child out of state (most recently to New Mexico) for economic reasons. CP filed child support papers in Hawaii and the State of Hawaii is handling child support. NCP suspects CP will be in NM for a while as CP stated she bought a house there.

>8. Were the parents ever married?
No.

>9. If #8 is no, then in what State was the judgment or
>acknowledgement of paternity entered?
Hawaii.

Sorry about the lack of information regarding health care coverage. Posting the full text would have probably eliminated any confusion the first time around. As a side note--in Hawaii, state law mandates employers to offer employees health insurance if they work 20 hours a week or more for something like a month (lucky we live in Hawaii), so most of the folks here have some type of health care coverage.

As far as the order goes, it looks like a generic fill-in-the-blank form with blank spaces to fill in names and check off information to better tailor the form to each individual case. I suspect that many people have the same exact form in their hand.

[socrateaser]

OK, I assume that the child has health insurance coverage. However, whether or not the child does, according to the terms of the order, the NCP is only obligated for "extraordinary" healthcare costs, and to me, this means costs for extraordinary healthcare.

There may be HI case law specifically interpreting "extraordinary" for the purposes of healthcare, but I don't have time to research this.

So, what this means is that, for example, let's say that the child breaks his/her arm. The NCP would be responsible for providing insurance if available through an employer, and then the NCP would be responsible for 50% of any extraordinary cost that the health insurance would not cover, such as, an unusually lengthy physical therapy, or for a large deductable directly associated with an orthopedic surgery to repair the break.

But, for routine physician check ups, vists for cold, flu, a routine bacterial or yeast infection, sore throat, etc., the NCP would owe nothing.

Obviously, there's some gray area here, because there are bacterial infections that are usually no big deal if treated quickly, like an typical strep throat infection, and then there's life threatening illnesses, like Group A strep (skin eating bacteria).

Same goes for dental. NCP would not owe for routine dental visits, occasional fillings, teeth cleanings, x-rays, etc., but would owe for orthodontics, dental surgery, root canal, bridge, implant, serious gum disease, TMJ, etc.

And, for mental health, well, unless the CP seeks psychiatric aid for the child, then the NCO would owe nothing, no matter how serious a psychological problem because pyschologists and counselors do not provide "medical" or "dental" care. They provide mental health care.

Which is why MOST modern support orders use the phrase, "reasonable healthcare," rather than "extraordinary medical and dental," because the former phrase covers just about everything from an asprin to a heart transplant, while the latter leaves out general vision care, routine dental, psycological counseling, etc.

So, it seems that the NCP has dodged a small bullet on that issue.

As for an NM doctor being able to hold the NCP directly liable in an NM court, that would violate constitutional due process, because the NCP has no minimum contact with NM as a forum state, and the NCP does not personally avail himself of the protections and benefits of the state of NM such as would make it fair to bind him to the jurisdiction.

The physician could sue in HI court, but, no collection agency would take a case like that, because there's no contract that the physician can assign on which to collect. Of course, physicians sometimes like to go to HI, so it's not inconceivable that a doctor might try to do both in the same trip -- however, it's not real likely.

The CP, could, of course, file a motion for reimbursement under the support order in HI family court, and the NCP would be forced to pay his fair share.

But, under the more common scenario, if the CP can't pay, and the physician tries to sue the CP in NM, then the CP would have to try to join you to that case for contribution to her obligation under the contract, and due process would prevent such a suit in NM (but not in HI), so that would leave the CP holding the bag for the judgment, until she used it as evidence to get the family court to order you to reimburse for half of her judgment.

Anyway, those are all the obvious scenarios. You should be able to apply them to your facts and figure out where you stand.

[ts_mom]

Thanks for the thorough and informative reply!