Child's father threatening to tak me to court for not letting him claim him on taxes

[fedupmominnj]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Jersey


My son's father, who gets him every other weekend, called and stated that he had a form that I needed to fill out regarding the insurance coverage for my son. Since he is required by the court in the original suport order to provide medical care, and I am assuming he does not work or does not get benefits, he gets them through his wife, and they have listed my son as a dependent on the health benefits, and they have done that ever since they have been married. Well, now he says that her company ( or the health insurance company) will not let them keep my son on her benefits, unless my son is listed as a dependent on their federal tax return. I have always claimed my son because he lives with me, and the child support over the years has not been consistent, being currently over $29,000 in arrears.

I explained that I already claimed my son for tax year 2010, and that sent him into a rage, saying that he told me last year that they were going to need to do this. Had I understood that the health benefits would be terminated if he had to claim him as a dependent, I would have looked into seeking legal advice further. SO he tells me that i need to file an ammended return, which I will not do because the refund that I got back helps to pay the bills in this house. So now he says he wants to claim him as a dependent from now on, and that he is going to take me to court and let a judge decide.

1. Is it illegal for the health insurance company to deny benefits because my son is not listed as a dependent on their tax return? I read somewhere about a law that says they cannot do that. There is a court order in place that he is required to get my son medical insurance.

2. Can he actually get a court to force me to sign a form giving up my right to claim him, even when my son lives with me 340 days out of the year?

3. If he decides to be spiteful and say (that since I claim my son because he lives with me) that he now wants custody, will a court see that he is only doing it to get the credit?

He is basically going to tell the court that I am blocking him from getting health insurance for my son. But that is not what I am doing or my intent. I simply claimed him on my taxes like I usually do. He paid $5300 last year total in support in sporatic payments, and is over $29000 in arrears.

Am I wrong in not agreeing to sign that form? If I sign it, than I have to amend my return, pay back the IRS over $2000 in a credit I received for claiming him as a deduction, all so he can get health insurance for my son?

I don't think what he is saying is right. Can the company require the exmption as a stipulation in geting health insurance?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Jersey


My son's father, who gets him every other weekend, called and stated that he had a form that I needed to fill out regarding the insurance coverage for my son. Since he is required by the court in the original suport order to provide medical care, and I am assuming he does not work or does not get benefits, he gets them through his wife, and they have listed my son as a dependent on the health benefits, and they have done that ever since they have been married. Well, now he says that her company ( or the health insurance company) will not let them keep my son on her benefits, unless my son is listed as a dependent on their federal tax return. I have always claimed my son because he lives with me, and the child support over the years has not been consistent, being currently over $29,000 in arrears.

I explained that I already claimed my son for tax year 2010, and that sent him into a rage, saying that he told me last year that they were going to need to do this. Had I understood that the health benefits would be terminated if he had to claim him as a dependent, I would have looked into seeking legal advice further. SO he tells me that i need to file an ammended return, which I will not do because the refund that I got back helps to pay the bills in this house. So now he says he wants to claim him as a dependent from now on, and that he is going to take me to court and let a judge decide.

1. Is it illegal for the health insurance company to deny benefits because my son is not listed as a dependent on their tax return? I read somewhere about a law that says they cannot do that. There is a court order in place that he is required to get my son medical insurance.

2. Can he actually get a court to force me to sign a form giving up my right to claim him, even when my son lives with me 340 days out of the year?

3. If he decides to be spiteful and say (that since I claim my son because he lives with me) that he now wants custody, will a court see that he is only doing it to get the credit?

He is basically going to tell the court that I am blocking him from getting health insurance for my son. But that is not what I am doing or my intent. I simply claimed him on my taxes like I usually do. He paid $5300 last year total in support in sporatic payments, and is over $29000 in arrears.

Am I wrong in not agreeing to sign that form? If I sign it, than I have to amend my return, pay back the IRS over $2000 in a credit I received for claiming him as a deduction, all so he can get health insurance for my son?

I don't think what he is saying is right. Can the company require the exmption as a stipulation in geting health insurance?

Yes, the insurance company can do that...or rather his wife's employer can require that in order to insure dependents who are not the actual children of the employee.

No, a judge is not going to give him the tax exemption just so he can provide heath insurance under his wife's employer, and particularly not if he is 29k in arrears for child support.

If he was current and promptly paying his child support its possible/probable that a judge would order that he get the exemption every other year, but not when he is 29k in arrears.

No, a judge is not going to change custody without a significant change in circumstance.

You may however, end up having to provide insurance for your child yourself.

 

[CJane]

If it were me, I would redo my taxes, not claim the child as a dependent, but claim the child for any other credits that apply (and for which the child must live with you, so Dad doesn't qualify for them).

See what the difference in numbers really is. It's possible that it's not as great a difference as you think it is.

THEN make a decision regarding the claiming of the child.

 

[majomom1]

If it were me, I would redo my taxes, not claim the child as a dependent, but claim the child for any other credits that apply (and for which the child must live with you, so Dad doesn't qualify for them).

See what the difference in numbers really is. It's possible that it's not as great a difference as you think it is.

THEN make a decision regarding the claiming of the child.

This is so true. Ldi helped me out a few years back during a similar situation. The difference may not be that big of a deal, especially if you are itemizing deductions.

At that time I thought all of the credits went to the parent that claimed them, but the significant credits stay with the custodial parent.

So, at least run the numbers and check it out.

 

[Artemis_ofthe_Hunt]

This is so true. Ldi helped me out a few years back during a similar situation. The difference may not be that big of a deal, especially if you are itemizing deductions.

At that time I thought all of the credits went to the parent that claimed them, but the significant credits stay with the custodial parent.

So, at least run the numbers and check it out.

Here's my question. If NCP only gets the child approx 2 weeks a year, why is he even entitled to claim? He's almost 30K in arrears, and HE isn't even the one providing medical insurance. Why are we even entertaining this idea? CP is the one who is providing everything for the child, its not a matter of CAN its a matter (at least for me) of WHY CP should bow to this?

 

[CJane]

Here's my question. If NCP only gets the child approx 2 weeks a year, why is he even entitled to claim? He's almost 30K in arrears, and HE isn't even the one providing medical insurance. Why are we even entertaining this idea? CP is the one who is providing everything for the child, its not a matter of CAN its a matter (at least for me) of WHY CP should bow to this?

If it's required by the covering insurance company, or the employer of the person providing insurance, then in order to maintain that coverage, Dad needs the deduction.

The alternative is for Mom to keep the deduction, but the child will be dropped from the current health plan. Because Dad does not have insurance available to HIM (at least, according to Mom), the child will then be uninsured. It's highly unlikely that the state would force Dad to purchase a private plan for the child.

So, Mom would then have to run the risks associated with having an uninsured child and paying for all medical care out of pocket, insuring the child herself and paying the premiums, or applying for medicaid for the child and possibly receiving coverage that way.

So, again. If it were me, I would run the numbers, do a cost/benefit analysis, and determine whether or not the difference in my refund was significant enough that it offset the possibility that I'd be paying health insurance premiums on my own.

Mom's reaction strikes me as a gut response - and I really dislike basing my financial decisions on my gut.

 

[majomom1]

Here's my question. If NCP only gets the child approx 2 weeks a year, why is he even entitled to claim? He's almost 30K in arrears, and HE isn't even the one providing medical insurance. Why are we even entertaining this idea? CP is the one who is providing everything for the child, its not a matter of CAN its a matter (at least for me) of WHY CP should bow to this?

Ditto what CJane said.

This is not about what Dad should, or should not get. Insurance is expensive... so if this gets the child covered then Mom doesn't have to foot that expense too. And it is unlikely she would get any of that money back either. So this is actually for HER and the child's benefit, not Dad's.

 

[Artemis_ofthe_Hunt]

Ditto what CJane said.

This is not about what Dad should, or should not get. Insurance is expensive... so if this gets the child covered then Mom doesn't have to foot that expense too. And it is unlikely she would get any of that money back either. So this is actually for HER and the child's benefit, not Dad's.

I realize that health insurance is expensive. I foot that bill, too. I get to cover that, daycare, food, etc. My ex doesn't pay for half of anything. Its not about whether or not its for the child's benefit. Its about the fact that he's covering their child with HIS WIFE's insurance. Whether or not the child is covered is the point, BUT since DAD isn't the one providing the insurance, why would DAD get the deduction? We always harp on new spouse's income not mattering at all. Dad was ordered to provide insurance. Not new wife.

 

[majomom1]

I realize that health insurance is expensive. I foot that bill, too. I get to cover that, daycare, food, etc. My ex doesn't pay for half of anything. Its not about whether or not its for the child's benefit. Its about the fact that he's covering their child with HIS WIFE's insurance. Whether or not the child is covered is the point, BUT since DAD isn't the one providing the insurance, why would DAD get the deduction? We always harp on new spouse's income not mattering at all. Dad was ordered to provide insurance. Not new wife.

Frankly I would not care as long as he got it. Since they file a joint return they will both benefit from the deduction. Maybe. It might not even matter at all depending on her income, which would be even more funny. My ex depends on his new wife for money too. I think it's funny! He has turned out just like his Dad, (depending on a woman) something he always said he hated.

If her insurance didn't require they be a dependent, I'd tell Dad to pound sand. But if the difference is small, then it is not worth the stress, or a potential court hearing and legal fees to fight it.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I would tell dads new wife to have the companies benefit rep discuss it with the insurance company. A court order for dad should suffice. Many times an insurance company will reject a member, then give in to the companies rep. We have 3 health insurance policies in effect on my step daughter.

 

[Ohiogal]

I would tell dads new wife to have the companies benefit rep discuss it with the insurance company. A court order for dad should suffice. Many times an insurance company will reject a member, then give in to the companies rep. We have 3 health insurance policies in effect on my step daughter.

A court order CAN NOT order step mom to carry insurance on stepdaughter. Therefore it would NOT suffice as step mom is NOT a party to the case. If dad does NOT have insurance available then he would NOT be in contempt.

 

[haiku]

On what planet is Dad NOT providing his children insurance because it happens to be his spouse, and not him who is carrying the family benefits?

That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

 

[LdiJ]

On what planet is Dad NOT providing his children insurance because it happens to be his spouse, and not him who is carrying the family benefits?

That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

That wouldn't be the point that I would make. The point that I would make is that stepmom's employer cannot be required to break the rules for her spouse's children who are not their dependents.

However, I still wouldn't give dad the exemption.

 

[Artemis_ofthe_Hunt]

On what planet is Dad NOT providing his children insurance because it happens to be his spouse, and not him who is carrying the family benefits?

That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

Think what you will. I obviously think it has merit, or I wouldn't have brought it up. I provide ALL for my child, if my ex said "I am going to claim him because XXX's insurance won't cover Darling Child without it"... I'd tell him to pound sand. His ridiculously low amount of child support isn't worth even a small deduction. If its not available through his work, then Mom should cover child. Its really that simple.

 

[CJane]

If its not available through his work, then Mom should cover child. Its really that simple.

And all I'm saying is that before Mom makes that decision, she should determine which option - covering the child herself, or giving Dad the deduction so that HE can cover the child via his wife's insurance, makes more sense financially.

As an example... if I were to cover my son on my insurance through work, it would cost me $350/month in premiums. Which is $4200/year.

Claiming my son as a dependent on my tax return would NOT net me that $4200/year.

It would not be in MY best interests to insist on the deduction for the child and therefore force myself to add my son to my insurance and spend $350/month to do so. It would not be in my son's best interests for me to take $350/month out of our budget so that I could have him on my insurance.

So, I would refigure my taxes, without claiming my son as a dependent. I'd still get to claim the child care credits, still get to claim the EITC, etc. Unless I could procure insurance for my child for less than the difference in the tax refund, I would be hard pressed not to give Dad the deduction.

Mom said that the refund money is needed to pay bills. I totally get that. But one would assume that the money she'd be spending on health premiums is ALSO currently needed to pay bills.

Risk. Benefit.