Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
IceMountain

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #1 

I am required to have health insurance coverage for my son through my child support order. My job does not offer health insurance until I have been employed full time for a year, which is not until September. My wife carries the health insurance for both of us and my son. The coverage for all three of us costs about $350 a month for health and dental, which is deducted from my wife's paycheck.

My son is in Iowa. The insurance through my wife's employer will only cover him for emergency or urgent care while he is at his mom's house, however, it will cover prescriptions at major chains in his area. The dental insurance is usable, but my ex does not use it.

Will I be able to deduct my son's portion of the health insurance coverage paid through my wife's employer?   (on the child support worksheet)

Family coverage is the same price for a spouse as it is for spouse and children, will this matter? (in other words we pay the same for coverage for all three of us as we would if it was just her and I)

Can csru force me to take out insurance from my employer when I am eligible in September?

Thank You


__________________
~~Every child has the right to be treated as a person and not as a pawn, possession or a negotiating chip~~
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #2 

Insurance is a gray area in the law. I've seen CRSU stick it to non-custodial parents and I've seen judges rule the complete opposite. The reason Iowa Statute 598.21B(3) is a "gray area" is because of the terminology "if available to either parent at a reasonable cost."

 

You probably should seek the advice from an attorney, but my best guess is that as long as insurance is provided for your children, the state does not care where the insurance is coming from.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Rick

Avatar / Picture

Member
Registered:
Posts: 16
Reply with quote  #3 

When this came up the last time I went to court, I was advised by my attorney that any insurance provided by me or my spouse counted.  Her insurance was similar to wife's in that it was the same amount to cover ALL of us as it would have been for to cover herself and a child.  Only the difference was creditable however (Family minus single).  In your case, I think you may want to consider trying to modify the insurance such that the mother has to cover them, since your insurance provides such poor coverage in their area.  It would seem that the BIC would be better served under her insurance, since well-visits are highly recommended.  You will likely have to reimburse her or it will count for the "first $250" in Iowa. 

IceMountain

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #4 

My son is also covered under title 19 for insurance, so she does have the coverage there.  

 

Thanks for the information!


__________________
~~Every child has the right to be treated as a person and not as a pawn, possession or a negotiating chip~~
LJA1003

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #5 
I am curious...what happens when a father is suppose to cover insurance, which cost them an extra $100 a month for the child, and he makes less than $50K, which by the guidelines for Hawkeye he would qualify if he had primary care.  BUT since the child lives with the mother, he cant apply.  The mother is on disability, and therefore would get Hawkeye if she applied.

Isnt this wrong that the father can't apply for the child, sine the mother wont?  Seems there is a loop whole and completely wrong.  If the father is court ordered to supply it, then he should be able to get Hawkeye if he can't afford the premiums, and is within the income guidelines!
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #6 
There are a lot in the boat and we are working to change that.
__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #7 

Yes, this is "very" wrong. How can a family who lives down the road a mile have complete coverage of their children on HawkI -- while another, who makes the same (and even somewhat less) income, have to pay for high-cost insurance. AND not have the opportunity to apply for their child who would qualify for the HawkI, SIMPLY because the mother refuses to = says she will get less money. Go figure.

bigEpappa

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #8 
This is my situation.  I have a court order from two years ago that says I have to have insurance.  No problem have had it since he was born.  Filed a c.s. modification.  They are now requiring me to pay medical support of $131/month.  They do not care that I have an insurance policy on him.  Since it is not through my employer they are taking money out.  I have proven to them that I have insurance on him.  They told me I need to take it to court to get it changed.



__________________
bigEpappa
flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #9 
Just a quick post to this concern - I have been concurring, writing, typing most of the afternoon, so will come back in a day or so with details. But a letter was sent off today to the IA-CSRU in Decorah, IA. A request (after challenges and everything is correct now with all the rest of their findings) for a court hearing based strictly on the medical-portion of the case. It was brief and basically stated the reasoning that the medical-portion is very complex and felt that the only way for all factors to be considered and enforced would be through the court system. Also that - "if" (for now) - health-ins coverage is dropped and cash $ given to Mom, the CSRU has no way to enforce her use of this for it's intended purpose - that being insurance. Also the decree and the CSRU orders would be rather conflicting and which one would trumph (?) So, we are hoping to get in front of a judge, for an explanation of the situation and then the decree could be modified as well. Would then have a clear and binding order in regards to this grey area and to each parties responsibility.


LJA1003

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #10 

Can we get an update on what your found out from the courts on this?

flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #11 
We went to court with our case on July 6th. ProSe. Before the modification, the insurance was messy - it stated in the decree/stipulation that Dad was the the actual "responsible" party for health insurance coverage should the two parties not be able to agree on anything. However, it went on to say that whomever the parties felt had the best coverage / price, etc.. could be the carrier.
That order was from 2007. From 2007 thru current, the child has always been eligible for either the IaMa and/or HawkI program. Dad had insurance coverage available to him/child also but was (expensive / high deductible) and would have caused them both a financial hardship. So Mom intermittently applied for the IaMa or HawkI (whenever the child had a bill), but it was never consistent and she never shared any information in regards to it. Then Mom got a job that had better insurance than Dad's and they made a mutual agreement to place the child under that coverage and Dad paid the child's portion (even though the child still would have been eligible for the IaMa or HawkI) - So they kept on Mom's insurance for approximately a year.
* The following has all taken place in the last year. Mom quit her job, thus no insurance - still refusing to apply for IaMa or HawkI. Dad added the child to his policy, knowing the possible issues with this - he didn't even use it himself for he had to pay approx. the first $3.000 upfront. Dad is / has been / unable to apply "for" the child as Mom has primary physical custody.
Dad decides to file for a modification in child support, not totally due to the insurance issues with Mom but his pay had gone up as well. Getting close to the court date, Mom (who had gone back to work) again quit her full-time job, got a part-time job and entered school part-time. PART 1.
flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #12 
PART 2 - Dad receives a 2nd decision stating that his insurance is not cost-effective and asks him to pay cash medical of approx. $120.00. Dad file for hearing (to present his case) more later on that !
  Court Day, Dad takes stand - reports income, etc.. - and when asking the "big" question that IF he agrees to the cash medical, who will enforce that Mom will either use it for insurance or file for the IaMa or HawkI. Judge's answer was to the effect that "she can only do what the state let's her do and this is not one of those things". Dad is normally a confident and good speaker, however, this judge came off as if we were wasting her time. As he was talking, she was sighing and at one point, resting her head in her hands - leaving him feeling belittled (and later angry). He lost his concentration and forgot to mention that he felt Mom should have (at least) have her income input at 20/hrs weekly @ minimum wage - for she had and still could be working this. A second strike against him.
  Mom takes stand - reports working 10/hrs weekly @ $2.?/hrly (waitress) + shared tips. Presented no paystubs, etc.. Really has nothing further to say.
  CSRU presents a form (not the normal one) to both participants and asks them to agree to using it for their calculation. 1. The form was unreadable with small print. 2. It was lengthy and they would not have had enough time to read it thoroughly. 3. They both felt (mistreated) by the CSRU lady as well. 4. What choice did they really have - so they agreed.
** Dad has received the outcome a few days ago. For his income, they used his tax-return, for her income, they used her statement of 10/hrs weekly, etc.. thus Dad having %85 of child-care cost. He will be dropping the child from his unworthy policy, paying $233 more in support, along with the $120 cash medical. He has told Mom that she had better keep the child insured under the IaMa or HawkI until something better comes available to them as they get a bit further in their jobs, etc.. Will she ? Sure hope so.
He's paying well over $500 monthly, which might seem high for some and low for others but it's enough to where it is a very, very tight budget for him to allow him to maintain his own place.
  While Mom - assumedly lives with a guy (who was her former boss) and helps support them, we believe she works quite a bit more than 10/hrs a week, and also works a minor cash job. Mom is a very spiteful person, anything she can do to Dad - she will, being verbally abusive - they speak little, and there's still many years to go.
  What else is there to say. The current law is that the CSRU will not get involved in enforcing the other parent to use the cash-medical for the intended purpose. Neither will the courts. CHANGE NEEDED HERE.
LJA1003

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #13 
I agree...but it sounds like the $120 extra a month is better than the cost of the health care policy, and with a program like Hawki or Title 19, he is going to benefit by not having the high cost of deductibles which he is probably obligated to pay a portion of those.  So in the long run, this might be better.  Still not ideal, but somewhat better than paying the $233 additional a month for the policy. 

Either way, there is a problem with the Hawki..if mom's can apply and dad's are court ordered to carry the insurance, than the NCP should be able to apply for it as well!
flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #14 
Yes, I guess it turned out as best as it could. You have the $ mixed-up though. His original (support only) - not including any insurance went up by the $233.00 which comes to 500+ approx. And then you tack on the $120 for the cash medical. But yes, it's unfortunate that they need to use the state program of IaMa or Hawki, but for now - it covers both medical and dental quite well for the child. If they had that other insurance and something had gone wrong / she got ill, etc.. they could have been faced with a huge bill.
This last year, I finally made Mom take the child to the dentist, as she doesn't brush her teeth there, and she ended up with 8 crowns on her back teeth and a mouthful of future dental work. It's things like this that the child needs good coverage for. I also have her (under the wings) of a psychologist and family/childrens center - to keep both parents - on their toes.
* And to think the guy who went before us got off with 2 weeks in the county jail for not paying any support for several years - being "quite" able to work - just trying harder at "not working" - and then his support for 2 children was set at $80.00/monthly. Fair ?
flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #15 
Well, well - another disheartening addition to out case. Dad received another two letters from the CSRU. The first states and we believe is correct - the amount that I've stated above and that was agreed upon.
The second, however, seems to be ?, an error on the part of the CSRU - they are stating that they are sending a letter to his employer, not only taking the new amount from his wages - BUT also including the previous insurance that he had on the child and it almost sounds as if it's mandatory.
He is quite confused.
Worst part is - he's tryed calling them all afternoon. Well, I guess that they have no answering machines - for the message came on saying "we are either busy on other calls or not available" - with NO OPTION to leave a message. That is ridiculous!!
They mention either an (appeal)? but he doesn't qualify under the things that they have listed as reasons for one OR a motion to squash - which we think he does qualify for. We don't even know what that is - but darn tootin about to find out. He's thinking this is just "one more error" on their part - but boy, is he not happy.
ANY help here would be appreciated - we only have 5 more days.
flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #16 
HERE'S THE LATEST: NOT ONLY FEELING SCREWED (AS IF THAT'S NOT ENOUGH) - THEN LET'S BACKSTAB AFTER THAT AS WELL. What amazes me is that anyone can possibly feel that they are doing good to children. What am I missing. Or is it "not about the children"?
Long story short - what we "thought" was the turnout (persay) in court / is not - it's VERY worse. We received the court order a few days ago, which didn't match the CSRU order. So when Dad called his caseworker TODAY, he was told that (basically we just screwed you over) he is ordered to keep his highly expensive health insurance (which he is also %85 responsible for after cost also) AND also needs to pay cash-medical. His ONLY option he was told is to resend them all his health insurance info proof that it is not cost effective -  (which they should already have for they have already called it "not cost effective before!! - are they trying to buy time?) and the ONLY thing that they will do THEN is drop the cash medical and he is still court-ordered to pay the other (costly insurance). SO, I'm still a bit unstable here, but I'm thinking that - what they REALLY mean - is that (although both Mom and Dad are of qualifying income / Mom - none basically / Dad - approx $15/hr) for the child to get at least HawkI for now - is that "EITHER you help us pay for the THAT or go to hell. --- Sorry for the fowl language. I am in immediate need of advice - from what I can tell on the CSRU order is that he has two choices 1. appeal - but it doesn't appear he falls under any of the four criteria or 2. motion to squash - and i'm not sure what that really is. AND 3. looks like a couple thousand dollars, hope it falls from the sky, for a retainer and a new lawyer - this is so unfair. BUT we only have like 5 days in which to do this - can you or "anyone" advise if there is any other immediate action we should take - I don't know if we can get a lawyer on this in that short amount of time. I have a copy of the paperwork, if anyone wants to message with referral to a "GOOD" lawyer in proximity to Allamakee County - PLEASE CAN YOU HELP US ?
flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #17 
Another latest - as of late Friday, they've admitted "someone" made a mistake on the paperwork and have checked the wrong boxes - hmm..
Will see on Monday.
** On the Judges order, the cash-medical box was checked and the mandatory health coverage was not.  This should be correct.
** However, on the CSRU support order, BOTH boxes are checked.
Yep, "someone" made a mistake all right. Suppose they thought we might be stupid enough to not catch it maybe. I don't know.
lcklck16

Member
Registered:
Posts: 45
Reply with quote  #18 
20170311lck

longchamp outlet

polo outlet store

ray ban sunglasses

longchamp outlet

oakley sunglasses wholesale

louis vuitton outlet

polo ralph lauren

michael kors outlet clearance

herve leger outlet

ray ban wayfarer

oakley sunglasses wholesale

christian louboutin outlet

ferragamo outlet

louis vuitton

mcm outlet

beats by dr dre

christian louboutin

nike blazer pas cher

tory burch outlet stores

kobe shoes

louis vuitton outlet

michael kors handbags

michael kors outlet online

ugg uk

coach outlet online

cartier watches for women

coach outlet online

cheap jordans for sale

oakley sunglasses

ralph lauren polo

nike roshe

ray ban sunglasses

true religion jeans

coach outlet online coach factory outlet

michael kors handbags outlet

michael kors factory outlet

oakley sunglasses

puma outlet

ray ban sunglasses uk

michael kors outlet clearance

michael kors outlet clearance

michael kors outlet

louis vuitton

mulberry bags

cheap nhl jerseys

ralph lauren outlet

ralph lauren pas cher

cheap ray ban sunglasses

christian louboutin sale

ecco outlet

chrome hearts outlet

fitflops outlet

ralph lauren outlet

louis vuitton

michael kors outlet

michael kors outlet clearance

pandora outlet

fitflops shoes

coach outlet online

air jordan 4

los angeles lakers jerseys

louis vuitton outlet stores

ugg boots

oakley sunglasses

new balance shoes

cartier watches

yeezy boost

polo ralph lauren

michael kors outlet clearance

true religion uk

michael kors outlet clearance

cheap oakley sunglasses

true religion sale

louis vuitton outlet

coach outlet

supra shoes

cheap ray ban sunglasses

coach factory outlet

links of london

polo ralph lauren

michael kors outlet online

coach outlet online coach factory outlet

michael kors outlet

coach outlet

coach outlet online

coach outlet online coach factory outlet

burberry outlet

asics

michael kors

ferragamo outlet

cheap oakley sunglasses

beats by dr dre

louis vuitton outlet

louis vuitton

polo ralph lauren

michael kors canada

louis vuitton outlet clearance

cartier outlet

michael kors handbags sale

christian louboutin shoes

coach outlet

longchamp handbag

ferragamo shoes

true religion jeans

cheap oakley sunglasses

nba jerseys wholesale

gucci outlet online

oakley sunglasses

ray ban sunglasses

fitflops sale

ralph lauren polo

nike roshe run

swarovski jewelry

michael kors outlet online

polo ralph lauren

louis vuitton outlet stores

ray ban sunglasses

louis vuitton

cheap oakley sunglasses

coach handbags

ralph lauren polo

lebron james shoes

mizuno running shoes

true religion outlet

air max 90

michael kors outlet clearance

oakley sunglasses wholesale

juicy couture outlet

cleveland cavaliers jersey

hermes outlet

coach outlet online

cheap ray ban sunglasses

ralph lauren uk

ralph lauren

reebok outlet store

christian louboutin online

polo pas cher

basketball shoes

fitflops sale clearance

oakley sunglasses

swarovski outlet

polo outlet

thomas sabo charms

lacoste pas cher

cheap nba jerseys

mulberry handbags

hollister canada

replica watches

nike free run

fitflops sale clearance

michael kors outlet

adidas nmd runner

hollister clothing

cheap oakley sunglasses

nike roshe run

air max 90

ray-ban sunglasses

fitflops sale clearance

ralph lauren

coach outlet

louis vuitton outlet

louis vuitton outlet

ugg outlet

kobe 9

michael kors outlet store

polo ralph lauren

oakley sunglasses

oakley sunglasses wholesale

air max 90

chrome hearts

louis vuitton

coach outlet online

louis vuitton outlet store

reebok trainers

true religion jeans

coach outlet clearance

soccer jerseys

adidas wings

beats headphones

michael kors

kobe bryant shoes

oakley sunglasses wholesale

louis vuitton uk

oakley sunglasses

tory burch outlet

cheap jordans free shipping

gucci outlet online

yeezy boost

christian louboutin

longchamp handbags

ed hardy clothing

louis vuitton online

hermes bags

michael kors outlet

cheap oakley sunglasses

oakley sunglasses

louis vuitton pas cher

louis vuitton outlet

michael kors outlet online

oakley sunglasses

cheap mlb jerseys

nike blazer pas cher

fitflops

louis vuitton

cazal sunglasses

michael kors outlet

michael kors outlet

ray bans

hollister uk

tory burch outlet online store

fitflops

oakley sunglasses sale

polo outlet

hollister clothing

coach outlet

yeezy boost 350

true religion outlet

louis vuitton outlet

hollister uk

polo ralph lauren

cheap nfl jerseys

nike store uk

louis vuitton borse

christian louboutin outlet

nike huarache

cheap ray ban sunglasses

hermes belt

nike air max 2015

coach outlet store online

michael kors outlet

ray ban sunglasses

oakley sunglasses wholesale

coach outlet online

jordan shoes

ralph lauren polo

cheap nfl jerseys

ray ban sunglasses

polo ralph lauren

ray ban sunglasses

tory burch shoes

prada outlet

polo outlet

dior sunglasses

cartier watches

christian louboutin outlet

louis vuitton outlet online

louis vuitton outlet

coach factory outlet

michael kors handbags

rolex watches for sale

oakley sunglasses wholesale

ralph lauren

louis vuitton outlet

tory burch outlet

louis vuitton handbags

coach outlet

coach outlet

oakley sunglasses

sac louis vuitton pas cher

cheap ray ban sunglasses

louis vuitton

ray-ban sunglasses

ralph lauren polo shirts

prada handbags

ray ban sunglasses uk

true religion jeans

ray ban sunglasses

michael kors handbags clearance

pandora charms sale clearance

coach outlet

nike mercurial

christian louboutin outlet

coach outlet online

nike free running

cartier outlet

michael kors outlet online

gucci outlet

coach outlet online coach factory outlet

oakley sunglasses wholesale

kate spade outlet

christian louboutin sale

adidas nmd

hollister sale

michael kors factory outlet

coach outlet online coach factory outlet

swarovski jewelry

swarovski outlet

adidas nmd runner

cheap ray bans

ray-ban sunglasses

oakley sunglasses

nike roshe run

coach factory outlet

cheap oakley sunglasses

rolex watches,rolex watches,swiss watches,watches for men,watches for

20170311lck

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!