Can a QMCSO be changed involuntarily?

[SquirrelSM]

According to the Qualified Medical Child Support Order in my divorce decree, I am designated to carry my children on my health insurance until they reach age 19 (or 23 if in college full-time).  I have joint custody, but my ex-wife is the primary residence of the children.  I live in AL and she lives in TN.

My ex-wife has informed me that she wishes me to drop the children from my insurance plan so that her husband may put them on his.  She believes her husband's insurance coverage is better than mine;  I believe my insurance is as good or equal, so long as she follows the procedures to claims correctly.

As a Federal employee, I am not allowed to remove coverage for my children so long as the QMCSO designating me remains in effect.  My ex-wife wants me to sign a notarized petition to the court asking that I be removed from the QMCSO.  I do not wish to do this.

1.  Can she have me removed from the QMCSO against my wishes?

[socrateaser]

Can she have me removed from the QMCSO
>against my wishes?

If she files a motion to do so and the court agrees with her argument, then yes -- otherwise, no.

[SquirrelSM]

>Can she have me removed from the QMCSO
>>against my wishes?
>
>If she files a motion to do so and the court agrees with her
>argument, then yes -- otherwise, no.
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you for your prompt response!  I do have a couple of follow-up questions:  

My ex-wife is not the one with the insurance.  It is her husband's policy.  I am concerned about what might happen in the event that my ex-wife should get divorced.

1.  Would a judge write a QMCSO for a step-parent to be the responsible party for the children's health insurance coverage?

I am also concerned that if I voluntarily agreed to petition the court to remove me from the QMCSO, then that would give the appearance of me relinquishing my parental obligations.  I have reason to suspect that my ex-wife has an ulterior motive in requesting the insurance change.

2.  If I were to voluntarily petition the court to remove me from the QMCSO, could that be construed by the court (or my ex-wife) as me relinquishing my parental rights?

[socrateaser]

>1.  Would a judge write a QMCSO for a step-parent to be the
>responsible party for the children's health insurance
>coverage?

No, the court would just reestablish the order against you.

>2.  If I were to voluntarily petition the court to remove me
>from the QMCSO, could that be construed by the court (or my
>ex-wife) as me relinquishing my parental rights?

No, but you can bet that your ex will ask the court to increase your child support to cover part of her husband's monthly insurance premium -- and the court would grant such a request, because you have been relieved of part of your previous financial obligation.

Most courts order both parents to obtain insurance, in order to avoid this issue. I doubt that a court would relieve you of the insurance obligation in favor of the step parent, as part of an adversarial action, because it's not the stepparent's responsibility -- it's yours and the mother's.

So, if you don't want to do it, just say no, and let her sue you, because I think that she will lose this argument before a judge, unless there's some really substantial difference and improvement between the two insurance policies.

[SquirrelSM]

>So, if you don't want to do it, just say no, and let her sue
>you, because I think that she will lose this argument before a
>judge, unless there's some really substantial difference and
>improvement between the two insurance policies.
>

Her complaint about my insurance is that some expenses were not covered this past year; however, I suspect the expenses were not covered because she did not use the insurance properly.  For example, she paid more for one of the children's eye exams because she did not go to an eye doctor that was listed as a preferred provider on my insurance.

1.  If she did petition the court on this matter, wouldn't it serve to hurt her case if I showed that she did not utilize the insurance properly to receive the maximum coverage?  (I'm trying to determine what information I would need to have prepared to counter her claims in court.)

[socrateaser]

>1.  If she did petition the court on this matter, wouldn't it
>serve to hurt her case if I showed that she did not utilize
>the insurance properly to receive the maximum coverage?  

You say you "suspect" that she didn't go to a preferred provider. If you don't know it for a fact, then you're just speculating about a possible defense, which may divert you from a better argument.

I suggest that you simply argue that public policy requires you to carry insurance, that you are carrying said insurance, that it's a reasonable commercial product, and that if Petitioner wants more insurance, then she is free to buy it. Then move for dismissal on grounds that the action is frivolous.

Frankly, I don't think that an attorney would be willing to bring such a motion, because the judge just may decide it's bull, and sanction the attorney for advancing an unmeritorious request.

[SquirrelSM]

>You say you "suspect" that she didn't go to a preferred
>provider. If you don't know it for a fact, then you're just
>speculating about a possible defense, which may divert you
>from a better argument.
>

Actually, I now know for a fact that at least in one instance she did not use a preferred provider because just a few moments ago I received an email from her where she gave an example of my daughter's eye exam that she feels she paid too much for.

The exam was $86 and the contact lenses were $176.  She states that my insurance did not cover it at all and she had to pay the full $262.  However, had she gone to one of the providers on my insurance, the exam would have been $43 and the contact lenses would have been $40, for a total of $83 out-of-pocket expense.  According to her, her husband's policy would have covered all but $36 of this visit.

She wants me to either change the QMCSO or pay the difference in the cost of out-of-pocket expenses from what my insurance covers and what she claims her husband's insurance would have covered.  So, she wants me to pay the 'extra' $226 that she incurred by not 'being allowed' to have the children exclusively on her husband's policy.

Her exact legal threat:  "If you do not state, in writing, that you will cover the additional out-of-pocket expense from being on your policy, then I will have to bring the matter before the court."  Of course, I'm not going to agree to any such thing in writing.

1.  I'm hoping that you are laughing as much as I am at her threat, but in the event she tries to make good on it, does she even have a case?

[socrateaser]

>1.  I'm hoping that you are laughing as much as I am at her
>threat, but in the event she tries to make good on it, does
>she even have a case?

Anyone can sue for anything. The court will kick most things out unless there's a real or reasonably likely injury. You're doing what you're legally obligated to do by carrying the insurance. If your ex wants more insurance, then she can buy more insurance. She could ask you to compensate her for some of the cost, but the court would have to reduce your support obligation correspondingly, because there's no justification for making you buy multiple insurance policies.

It's theoretically possible that the court could relieve you of the responsibility for insurance and then order you to pay an additional support amount for the kids to compensate for the cost of the other policy. But if that were to happen, why do you even care?

It's the same amount of money from your pocket, either way.

I'm not sure why this is even a big deal to you. Why don't you try to negotiate something for yourself, i.e., you'll sign her stip in return for her giving you more time with the kids, or similar.

[SquirrelSM]

I did have a follow-up question regarding my obligation in paying unreimbursed medical expenses.  I gave the example of my daughter's recent eye exam:

>The exam was $86 and the contact lenses were $176.  She states
>that my insurance did not cover it at all and she had to pay
>the full $262.  However, had she gone to one of the providers
>on my insurance, the exam would have been $43 and the contact
>lenses would have been $40, for a total of $83 out-of-pocket
>expense.

Per our divorce decree:

"The Husband shall maintain a policy of major medical and hospitalization insurance covering the minor children and shall pay any and all premiums for the same.  Each of the parties agree to pay fifty percent (50%) of all health care expenses of the parties' minor children including but not limited to medical, dental, hospital, orthodontic, prescription and psychological expenses which are unreimbursed by the insurance provider."

1.  If the medical expenses are unreimbursed because my ex-wife did not use the insurance properly, am I still obligated to pay half of those expenses?

[socrateaser]

>1.  If the medical expenses are unreimbursed because my
>ex-wife did not use the insurance properly, am I still
>obligated to pay half of those expenses?

In some jurisdictions (e.g., CA), a parent's failure to use the insurance provider places the burden to pay on that parent. In a jurisdiction where no such statutory provisions are enacted, it becomes a question of what is "reasonable" for the court. If you can show that the child had no special need that could not have been serviced by a preferred healthcare provider, then the court will likely rule in your favor. However, if your insurance could not have covered this particular cost, because of some requirement for a specialist, or because it was an emergency and only an out-of-network healthcare provider was available, then the court will likely rule against you.

I suggest that you explain your position in writing to your ex, in a non-adversarial tone -- show her the healthcare providers available in her locale and show her that her expenses would have been lower had she used one of those providers.

This is the kind of circumstance where there's just enough money to cause a battle, but not enough for a judge to find it worth the time to listen to the case. So, what inevitably happens is that the party who thinks they're being injured spends 10xs the money at stake on attorney fees, in order to "vent," and in the end, the other parent frequently ends up putting up time and money needlessly.

So, you may want to offer a compromise, in the interest of cooperation, because sometimes, it's just not worth the aggravation. Obviously, you want to try to communicate your message along with the compromise -- otherwise you'll find yourself in court anyway, having paid a bill for nothing.