finally progress

[m_t]

Would you rather we told you that everything would be hunky-dory, Dad would win, Mom would fall off the face of the earth and you'll all live happily ever after? I guess so....

[NoLongerLost]

Number one: I don't want mom to fall off the face of the earth - I want what is fair
Number two: when, typically, one gets divored it is not "hunky-dory" but after 7 years people can be civil when visitation, child support, etc. has been followed to the letter. Get over being divorced already.
Number three: I hope to live "happlily ever after" because a life of 7 years with an ex is not "our" whole life. The things my husband is in court for affect his daughter, not us, except for the taxes. How would you like to be paying for health insurance (the best offered) for your children and it's dropped and your ex keeping the money and you pay for the unpaid bills?
Number four: dads as a whole will never win because "people" as a whole think it's all about moms.
Number five: being a smart ass isn't the best way to address this board when people ask for help.
Number six: we got an email today where the ex is being tried with sanctions on February 5th, so you know what, sometimes the good guy DOES win.

[livealittle]

sure am glad to hear #6.

[m_t]

Number one: I don't want mom to fall off the face of the earth - I want what is fair

You won't like this, either, but I'm being honest. Your opinion is moot. You are a legal stranger.

Number two: when, typically, one gets divored it is not "hunky-dory" but after 7 years people can be civil when visitation, child support, etc. has been followed to the letter. Get over being divorced already.

Yeah, that's nice in theory. Doesn't always work that way in reality. After 10+ years, my ex and I cannot communicate at all. 'Cause he won't. Oh well.

Number three: I hope to live "happlily ever after" because a life of 7 years with an ex is not "our" whole life. The things my husband is in court for affect his daughter, not us, except for the taxes. How would you like to be paying for health insurance (the best offered) for your children and it's dropped and your ex keeping the money and you pay for the unpaid bills?

I'd like to know how Dad didn't know it was dropped. And once he did, why he didn't immediately take it back to court, cover them himself, etc.

Number four: dads as a whole will never win because "people" as a whole think it's all about moms.

Bull. "People" as a whole think it's all about the kids.

And if you look at the stats? Dads who actually fight for their kids win custody the majority of the time. Don't blame others for their not doing so.

Number five: being a smart ass isn't the best way to address this board when people ask for help.

Being ungrateful when asking people for free help isn't the best approach either.

Number six: we got an email today where the ex is being tried with sanctions on February 5th, so you know what, sometimes the good guy DOES win.

Here I go, being negative again! Being tried with the possibility of sanctions DOES NOT MEAN sanctions will be imposed. So who knows who wins. I can tell you who loses, though. The kids. They almost always lose.



You didn't like the first response you got on this thread:

It seems like most reponses here are negative, could I get a positivie one? Surely not EVERYONE'S experiences have been negative. Give me some hope for my husband here after the turnmoil he has been through. Tongue

Frankly - we volunteer here. To try and answer questions. Don't like it? Go pay someone. Seriously. TC has been in your husband's position. So he's giving you a BTDT response. He's NOT all about Mom. That's BS. Same with liv and silly dreamer. Oh, but they're Moms, so I guess you figure their input is biased. 

[NoLongerLost]

He didn't know about the insurance because the insurance was payroll deducted from HER check in Alabama. She dropped it when the contract came due and applied for Child Caring Foundation, which in all actuality she doesn't qualify for. After my husband got a letter declining a claim from the local hospital he started investigating and realized that she had dropped the coverage that he is paying for.

How was he supposed to know? The divorce decree states that she is to let him know, but she refuses to cooperate even if it affects her daughter. The insurance she has now is great for people who can't afford insurance ('it's free) but it doesn't cover hospitalization, prescriptions, out of state, etc. Guess who pays what insurance doesn't pay? Dad. And he is paying for the premium care that blue cross provides.

And he has attempted custody twice, the first time the judge said, and I quote, "If you lived a little closer I would award you custody." Her whole family, except for mom, lives here or within 50 miles of here. Now she is embarrassed to live in the neighborhood she's in, no home phone, etc.

you don't know the whole story.

[m_t]

you don't know the whole story.

Nope - only the version you've provided. So don't get pissy with us when that's all we have to go on. And honestly? *You* only know the version of the marriage, etc. that your husband has provided to you.

In any event, I will leave it to others to help you.

[TC]

I find it interesting that your husband was ordered to make payments to an insurance policy his ex secured through her place of employment.  I have never heard of such a thing.  Not saying it isn't possible, but mercy, that IS a new on on this old dog.  Personally, I am somewhat of a control freak.  I would have never agreed to such a thing.  If I were ordered to provide insurance (which I was during my divorce) I made sure "I" paid for a policy that "I" controlled...not the ex.  I knew that if I were to send the ex money so she could pay toward a policy where she worked, the policy would never get paid for.  But that is just me.

As for the whole story, we only know what you tell us and frankly, there are ALWAYS two sides to every story.

Bottom line: I wish your husband good luck in his contempt efforts....and I hope his daughter gets the attention and parenting she needs and deserves.

TC

[NoLongerLost]

My husband is self employed and is covered by VA benefits. I cannot add daughter to my insurance because she lives out of state. The divorce decree states that ONE parent is to provide insurance. His ex had the premium that BC/BS offers, so the judge calculated support with the insurance premium included and he pays that amount. This way the child gets the best coverage and mother is not out additional money and it is much cheaper than him buying an individual policy that would not provide the same exellent benefits that a group plan does.  He also pays 1/2 of anything insurance does not cover.

There is no more to that story than 3 months after this was calculated she dropped the insurance and got free state insurance. This was 18 months ago. For example, if the daughter got hurt out of state, a broken leg, and the bill was $2000, they would each have to pay 1/2. If she had kept insurance he is paying for, there would be a deductible and that's all.

If she has an appendicitis attack even in AL, the current insurance pays NO medical. My husband and his ex would be responsible for the $10,000 bill. If she gets an infection and has to get a round of antibiotics, tests, etc. prescriptions, tests, etc. are not covered.

I hope some of you can see the seriousness of this situation. He cannot buy insurance in KY for a child living in another state unless he wants to purchase in AL and the ex would have to help share the expense, which she won't. She has refused to cooperate at all with anything to do with this insurance. My husband has already paid out 1/2 of bills in the past 15 months that would have been covered had she kept the insurance the court ordered.

She has claimed the daughter twice during my husband's years for the allowed tax deduction. His return was sent back and he had to pay the extra taxes until the IRS got it straightened out after he had to go through the trouble of sending in copies of the divorce decree from  6 years ago. She signed a Form 8332 in court in front of two attorneys and 3 weeks later STILL claimed the daughter and applied and received a rapid refund loan.

He moved here 5 months before the divorce was final and they had not lived together in over a year at that point. I met him a month after his divorce was final, which was  6 years ago this month. I am very aware of what has gone on. She has manipulated, lied, refused to cooperate, and basically tried to make his life miserable and it was her idea to get divorced in the first place.

If this was a recent divorce, or I had not known him long, it would be different, but I have been with him longer than he was married the first time. Sometimes people are just not good people....

[TC]

Your argument here will all depend on the specific language of the Decree.  Regardless of what was discussed in court at the time, if the Decree doesn't spell it out specifically, then there is little that will be done.  Does the decree require her to purchase/provide a certain type of insurance?  Or does it stipulate something to the effect of "reasonable insurance will be provided?"

As for your statement that he can not buy insurance in KY for a child living in another state...I don't fully buy into that.  Since my divorce, I have lived in Utah and Colorado.  My ex moved with the children to Iowa before the divorce was even final.  I have never had a problem providing insurance coverage for my children even though they live in a different state.

He should have filed a copy of the Form 8332 each time he filed taxes...had he done so, I doubt he would have had these problems with the IRS.  As a matter of fact, as I recall, the Tax forms ask that NCPs claiming the exemptions do so.

I do not doubt that this has been an ugly divorce.  I went through a very ugly divorce.  And I assure you, there are always two sides to every story.  I'm not taking her side...I'm not taking your side...what I am trying to get you to see is that the real truth always lies somewhere in the middle.  We all let our own biases influence how we view life and the situations we find ourselves involved in.

I agree, sometimes people are just not good people.  However, that is also a very subjective call and courts don't deal well with subjectivity.  Courts operate within the black and white of the law....period.

TC

[InDenial]

What NLL describes is also the law in my state (not AL).   If the CP pays for health insurance, the NCP adds a share of it to the child support check.  If NCP pays for health insurance for the children, a portion of that is subtracted from monthly child support.

In the case discussed here, the mother apparently canceled the insurance, and no longer had $$ deducted from her paycheck.  Dad didn't know and continued to pay his share of it in child support.

I could easily do the same thing to my Ex -- not that I would!  And like NLL's husband, I don't see that he'd have any way of finding out UNTIL a claim was rejected.

Luckily my Ex and I have a good enough relationship that we can agree on who provides insurance, and he trusts me that I'm way too responsible to let our kids go uninsured.

[TC]

I do not dispute that this is the way it happens InD.  What I question is the Decree language mandating that the CP maintain a certain type of insurance.  It may, but I have found that most Decrees stipulate that "reasonable insurance" will be provided.  That leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation.  In the case being discussed here, insurance is provided that apparently covers most issues that occur within the state of residence where the child lives.  It may well be that the court views this as "reasonable insurance." 

In fact, unless the Decree specifically spells out what type of coverage will be provided...I would bet the court will see it as outlined above.

TC

[NoLongerLost]

You are exactly right, as long as the child is "covered" specific insurance is not required. The point is that he is PAYING for the best his daughter can get and she is not receiving the best care, the ex is keeping the money for herself, and there are medical bills having to be paid that would be covered under the premium policy. This is not only penalizing my husband, but you would think that she could see it's penalizing her. She is one that is "cutting off her nose to spite her face."

His daughter is a bit clumsy and is sick quite often, so over the next 5 years this could become a real problem. He is trying to help everyone here, not just himself.

He is not going back to court to force her to change insurance, but for her to be forced to reimburse him 15 months or so worth of premiums that she has kept. This adds up to a lot of money that could be applied toward child support, medical bills, etc.

[TC]

You are exactly right, as long as the child is "covered" specific insurance is not required. The point is that he is PAYING for the best his daughter can get and she is not receiving the best care, the ex is keeping the money for herself, and there are medical bills having to be paid that would be covered under the premium policy. This is not only penalizing my husband, but you would think that she could see it's penalizing her. She is one that is "cutting off her nose to spite her face."

His daughter is a bit clumsy and is sick quite often, so over the next 5 years this could become a real problem. He is trying to help everyone here, not just himself.

He is not going back to court to force her to change insurance, but for her to be forced to reimburse him 15 months or so worth of premiums that she has kept. This adds up to a lot of money that could be applied toward child support, medical bills, etc.

This is where we all let our own bias get us into trouble.  By YOUR definition he is paying for the best his daughter can get.  By the Court's definition, he is paying for reasonable insurance.  There is a HUGE difference.

In my opinion, if he walks into court asking for reimbursement of what he percieves to be insurance premiums, the court will throw him out.  He views this money as inssurance premiums....the court will view it as simple Child Support....out of which reasonble insurance is to be provided. 

As I stated earlier, unless there is specific language in the Decree mandating she provide a specific type of insurance, as long as she the daughter has insurance that covers her basic needs the court is going to allow this.  I really don't think your hubby has a leg to stand on with regard to what he percieves as "insurance premiums"...

Not being negative...just telling you what I believe and I've been through this shit a time or two.

TC

[NoLongerLost]

The current insurance is FREE, child support was recalculated based on insurance premiums for a certain insurance, which increased support quite a bit. Removing the cost of insurance lowers child support by over $200/mth. That may not sound like much, but it adds up. She dropped the insurance as soon as possible AFTER she started receiving more money. This seems like outward fraud, theft, deception, whatever you want to call it. If the daughter had not gotten sick while visiting my husband would not have known until he had to start paying all these unnecessary medical bills that are now popping up because she CHOSE to keep the money for herself.

Am I the only one that sees that this isn't fair or right? And this has nothing to do with being the "current" wife or wanting to make her life miserable, but shouldn't the child's well being come first? And BC/BS HAS indicated (and I have the email) that the plan the child had through mother's job is the "best" coverage offered.

How would you like to pay for steak and lobster and get a hot dog instead? That's the only comparison I can think of. And you had to continue paying the surf and turf price, but your ex was eating it and you got the dog? Sound fair to you?

[TC]

I'm not saying your logic is flawed...but I am telling you it has limited or no "legal" foundation, imo.

The decree set the amount to be withheld and stated that mom was to provide insurance coverage....period.  It doesn't stipulate what kind, how much or that it has to be the best.  The Decree simply states that Dad will pay X and mom will ensure insurance coverage is provided.  At least that is my understanding...and assuming I have understood correctly, the Decree is being satisfied and I seriously doubt the court is going to make changes...and I can definately assure you they will not try to recoup any monies already allocated....NOT going to happen.

TC