Medical Insurance

[spshell]

I posted on the Soc board, but I thought I'd get your input too.

Washington state CS order states:

Unless one or more of the alternatives below are checked (neither are checked), each parent (underlined and bold) shall maintain or provide health insurance coverage if:

a) coverage that can be extended to cover the children is or becomes available to each aprent through employment or is union related; and

b) the cost of such coverage for the mother does not exceed $112.50 and the cost of such coverage for the father does not exceed $149.75.

The parent (s) shall maintain health insurance coverage, if available for the children listed until further order of the court or until health insurance is no longer available through the parents employer or union and no conversion privileges exsist to continue coverage following termination of employment.

1. The wording is so confusing!  Are we both liable for paying medical insurance?

2. Mother owns her own business. She can obtain insurance for as low as $31 per child (we have two children). If I choose to stop paying insurance is she just as liable to pay for it as I am? Or because it is available at my work am I responsible to pay it no matter what?

3.  If she is liable to pay how do I go about getting her to pay?  

4.  If she is liable will she have to pay since when order was established?

[breezy]

From what you wrote, the cost for her to insure the children is less than $112.50. Therefore I read the orders to state that she should have been paying for healthcare ins for both children since reciept of the order or shortly after.

If insurance is availabe through your work for less than 149.75 then I read that you too should be carring and are required to carry ins. on the children.

I would 1st broach the issue of her insuring the children with her. If you aren't satisfied with that, then you can and would have to file contempt charges to "enforce" her having to insure both children.

[leon clugston]

there is many factors to this that are misssing, one is who has the child(children) who is responsible for support, and who is the obligor,( the one that has the child the least,) and where is the court order setting all this forward.
Secondly who set the amount that you or her, are responsible for depending on the price of availibility,,it dont work that way,,nor does the state have the authority to set it up that way, or even set it at the matter of pricing availibility to which parent is responsible. The states dont have the authority to regulate healthcare in this way,,and its not the way the regulations are written up.Dont know if this helps,,but it does raise a lot of questions of legitibility,

[notnew]

Not legal advice and not even based on experience I've had legally.

It is your kids and they need health insurance. You can provide it - so do. Personally, I would not want to count on a parent to provide it who may be unreliable or commits actions that are not in the best interest of the children. It is in the best interest of the children for you to make sure they have health insurance.

As per the previous poster, I would try to resolve this issue first with BM via a business like letter that addresses the issue you want to resolve only. Send it certified return receipt requested.

If she does not respond or becomes argumentive. I would suggest filing a motion with the court to clarify the order being that it is vague. I don't know that you have the grounds for contempt. Socrateaser would be the best source for that.

If the court does not provide clear and concise direction on this in the end (and how many times does that happen - oh about a million!). I would continue to provide the health insurance and either request a review in CS (if a proper time frame has elapsed since last review typically 3 years), or when the next review comes up, include the amount you have been paying in your calculations.

BTW - how does your order handle co-pays and uninsured costs? This sounds like an issue just waiting to blow-up into a big mess in my opinion.

I hope this helped a little.

[4honor]

Obligor == NCP (Usually)
Obligee = CP (usually)

1. you are both responsible to provide health insurance if it can be had for the amounts listed in section 3.18 of your court order. One amoutn for you and one amount for BM.

2. You cannot decide to stop paying for health insurance, unle s the children's shares for insurance exceed $149.75, or is no longer available through your insurer. You are court ordered to carry it and WSSR can force the issue.

It was explained to me like this, you are ordered to carry it and she is ordered to carry it, so either one or both could be in contempt if you each do not provide the required insurance. What happens to you is separate from what happens to her.

3. Start with an on-point businesslike letter requesting she comply.

4. If she has not been complying, your would likely have to prove she is willfully in contempt and then it is a craps shoot as to when the judge would order it back to  (if at all.)

[leon clugston]

I like youre deffinitions, for obligee-obligor,,notice that you did in fact define correctly, because there is no true deffinition in relation towards the child.
An obligor is a person found obligated under law, contrary to ones standing and any other factors sourrounding this person,,but what no legal dictonary,Blacks, or any others will define is what law, there is many, and most have no application to the public. It was just nice to see that someone knew that the deffinition wasn't a solid deffinition.