Division of Insurance Premiums for Children

[cdognight]

You commented...

Am I the only one who does not understand what "child adder" means?

I cordially explained, in pretty basic terms...

If the employee-only plan costs $100/mo. and the employee-plus-children plan costs $150/mo. then what I am calling the "child/children adder" is the difference between the two: $50/mo.

What I meant was still debated for some reason...

I know an adder is a snake...

I "think" addition might be what op means.

You mean the "differential"?

Sure. If that sounds smarter than "difference", we'll go with that. Are you done nitpicking semantics?

Wait, I guess not...

ETA: "child adder" would actually be the person adding a child to the policy.

Actually, since you want to be anal about it, in that context it would be "child-adder" with a hyphen.

An "adder" is a common term used to describe a flat or percentage-based fee added to a base price for extras. If you rent a car, the options available to you (insurance, GPS, etc.) are often referred to as adders. My employer's insurance documentation refers specifically to child/children or spouse adders. Search Amazon for "labor coverage adder" as an example for context if you need it.

I used the term "child adder" because it's more descriptive than simply "difference" (sorry, "differential"), and it is less wordy than saying "the difference between the employee-only plan and the employee-plus-children plan" over and over again when referring to it.

If you're done hammering me on semantics, even after you were given the simple explanation of what I meant, I'm going to go back to the discussion.

 

[cdognight]

I absolutely agree with LDiJ. And I just can't help but wonder how much the father of the stepchildren is putting in the pot.

Well I just can't help but tell you the amount is zero.

If you want the details, here they are...

Her oldest son is 22; she had him when she was 18. The "father", like a lot of potential 18-year-old dads, bailed on her and has never met his son. The son is about a month and a half into his first real full-time job and will be eligible to get his own insurance in another month and a half. We will likely continue to provide secondary insurance for him as long as we are allowed (age 26, I think), just because we can, and it costs no extra.

Her middle two daughters are 11 and 17. They came from a long-term marriage that ended about seven years ago. The father carries them on his insurance, and my wife's child support from him is factored down based on that. She has carried them on her "employee + children" policy at work since divorce because she can, and it costs no extra.

Her youngest son is 4 and came from a 4-year relationship post-divorce. They were never married. Their relationship ended when he decided not to bother finding work for nearly a year after losing his job, used that time to start drinking regularly, and many many other reasons. He is a POS who, when my wife and I first started dating, regularly texted and called harassing her saying that she needed to keep me away from "HIS SON" and that the boy's own blood older siblings (my wife's other kids) as well as my kids and myself were all "crap" that needed to be kept out of his life. He has said things like "You worry about YOUR kids I'll worry about mine" to her, as if her own son is somehow not hers as well. He threatened a couple of time early on to come out to the house while I was there, which prompted calls to the police to have them come to the house and me sitting on the porch with a 9mm on my lap. We dealt for a time with having the son come back from his limited time with his dad saying things to his mom like "my daddy says I don't love you" and basically tearing the house down wanting to go back to his father. We've has him to counselors and he is currently seeing a psychologist. They have all said visitation with the dad needs to be minimized if not cut off completely. Because he was born out-of-wedlock, my wife has full custody until such time as the dad wants to pursue putting some sort of custody plan into place through the courts, which he can because his name is on his birth certificate. However, this does not appear to be something we will have to worry about any time soon because he cannot keep a job and doesn't have the funds for a lawyer, and deep inside we suspect the only time he ever wants is son is to periodically reinforce with him that he is the daddy, not me. That and the fact that he knows she and I have reams of recorded texts and emails of all his harassment. She has not pursued formal child support from him mainly because we do not want to create any formal proceedings through which he could then lobby for formal custody of any kind. When he has a job, he pays us for every other week's daycare fees, but that is it, but again, that's only when he has a job. We have limited him to seeing him every other weekend, and we use that little bit of time to leverage the daycare fees from him. He used to see him a few more days in a two week period before all the harassment started when I showed up into their lives. Anyway, that is a story I could write a book about, but won't continue to here. So no, this man isn't paying anything towards his insurance. Other than his every-other-week payment of the daycare bill, we pay for everything else he needs.

Summary: My wife has carried her oldest son on her employer's insurance since divorce, and her youngest son since his birth, with no help from the respective fathers. The two middle children's father pays for insurance through his employer, and this is factored out of my wife's child support she receives. She has always added them to her insurance along with her two sons to provide a secondary insurance at no extra cost just because there was no reason not to.

 

[cdognight]

The TN child support calculator factors in health insurance. Since their mother was previously provided health insurance that means that their father's child support includes sharing in the cost of that insurance. I suspect that the OP did not think of that at all.

Hey, I'm right here. Feel free to ask me what I have and have not thought of and try to avoid passive speculation from now on. If you want a lesson in why you should avoid such things, especially if you fancy yourself as someone qualified to offer mass amounts of advice to people (and judging by your post count, you do), then refer to my previous post in reply to tuffbrk, where you will find that what "you suspect" is dead wrong. Accusing me of wanting to "argue till the cows come home" simply because I didn't accept what you had to say as fact from the get-go, casting negative passive assumptions without asking questions and without any basis... Are you my ex? Holy hell, I bet you are.

You know, it doesn't matter whether we agreed with you or not. What matters is whether or not a judge would agree with you, and a judge simply WILL NOT. You can argue with us until the cows come home, but a judge is still never going to agree with you. That is simply reality.

Here's the rule...

If coverage is applicable to other persons and the amount of the health insurance premium attributable to the child who is the subject of the current action for support is not available to be verified, the total cost to the parent paying the premium shall be pro rated by the number of persons covered so that only the cost attributable to the children who are the subject of the order under consideration is included.

I see some subjectivity in the rule (bolded) below, in that it seems resorting to pro rating by the number of persons covered is contingent upon not being able to verify what the costs are for the children in question (which I contend takes simple math). Subjectivity equals a judge making a ruling based on their opinion, and you are not the all-knower of how every judge would handle that. Even if I'm wrong there, fine, we'll do it your way...

BEFORE: I was splitting the difference between the "Employee Only" ($102/mo.) plan and the "Employee plus Children" ($156/mo.) plan with my ex.
156 - 102 = 54
54 / 2 = $27 (her share to pay to me a month)

NOW: Based on the fact that the premium I pay now for the "Family" plan ($264/mo.) does not allow for easy verification of what is being paid for each child (per the rule that you say a judge "simply WILL NOT" go against), I must divide that total by the "number of persons" it covers (my wife and I + my two kids + her four kids = 8 people) and prorate that.

264 / 8 = $33 (per covered person per month)
33 x 2 = $66 (cost per month of mine and my ex's two kids)
66 / 2 = $33 (her new share to pay me per month)

And the really cool thing about doing the way a judge "simply WILL NOT" go against, is that if we decide we don't really need to carry secondary insurance for her oldest son or her two daughters, we will only divide by 5, so...

264 / 5 = $52.80 (per cover person per month)
52.8 x 2 = $105.60 (cost per month of mine and my ex's two kids)
105.6 / 2 = $52.80 (her new share to pay me per month)

And here I was ready to cut her monthly payment to me in half from $27 to $13.50 based on my stupid "fairness idea". Now I realize, thanks to you guys, she needs to pay me $33, and later possibly $52.80 as we drop secondary coverage on a few of my wife's kids.

I'm curious... to the people who cried "WHY SHOULD SHE PAY FOR YOUR STEP CHILDREN!!!!"... How does your method look now?

Eagerly awaiting those same people who berated me for not adhering to the rule to start figuring out weird math of their own to justify a lower payment for my ex.

 

[Silverplum]

Have a nice weekend.

 

[stealth2]

You commented...



I cordially explained, in pretty basic terms...



What I meant was still debated for some reason...





Sure. If that sounds smarter than "difference", we'll go with that. Are you done nitpicking semantics?

Wait, I guess not...



Actually, since you want to be anal about it, in that context it would be "child-adder" with a hyphen.

An "adder" is a common term used to describe a flat or percentage-based fee added to a base price for extras. If you rent a car, the options available to you (insurance, GPS, etc.) are often referred to as adders. My employer's insurance documentation refers specifically to child/children or spouse adders. Search Amazon for "labor coverage adder" as an example for context if you need it.

I used the term "child adder" because it's more descriptive than simply "difference" (sorry, "differential"), and it is less wordy than saying "the difference between the employee-only plan and the employee-plus-children plan" over and over again when referring to it.

If you're done hammering me on semantics, even after you were given the simple explanation of what I meant, I'm going to go back to the discussion.

Is your name Richard?

 

[LdiJ]

Hey, I'm right here. Feel free to ask me what I have and have not thought of and try to avoid passive speculation from now on. If you want a lesson in why you should avoid such things, especially if you fancy yourself as someone qualified to offer mass amounts of advice to people (and judging by your post count, you do), then refer to my previous post in reply to tuffbrk, where you will find that what "you suspect" is dead wrong. Accusing me of wanting to "argue till the cows come home" simply because I didn't accept what you had to say as fact from the get-go, casting negative passive assumptions without asking questions and without any basis... Are you my ex? Holy hell, I bet you are.



Here's the rule...



I see some subjectivity in the rule (bolded) below, in that it seems resorting to pro rating by the number of persons covered is contingent upon not being able to verify what the costs are for the children in question (which I contend takes simple math). Subjectivity equals a judge making a ruling based on their opinion, and you are not the all-knower of how every judge would handle that. Even if I'm wrong there, fine, we'll do it your way...

BEFORE: I was splitting the difference between the "Employee Only" ($102/mo.) plan and the "Employee plus Children" ($156/mo.) plan with my ex.
156 - 102 = 54
54 / 2 = $27 (her share to pay to me a month)

NOW: Based on the fact that the premium I pay now for the "Family" plan ($264/mo.) does not allow for easy verification of what is being paid for each child (per the rule that you say a judge "simply WILL NOT" go against), I must divide that total by the "number of persons" it covers (my wife and I + my two kids + her four kids = 8 people) and prorate that.

264 / 8 = $33 (per covered person per month)
33 x 2 = $66 (cost per month of mine and my ex's two kids)
66 / 2 = $33 (her new share to pay me per month)

And the really cool thing about doing the way a judge "simply WILL NOT" go against, is that if we decide we don't really need to carry secondary insurance for her oldest son or her two daughters, we will only divide by 5, so...

264 / 5 = $52.80 (per cover person per month)
52.8 x 2 = $105.60 (cost per month of mine and my ex's two kids)
105.6 / 2 = $52.80 (her new share to pay me per month)

And here I was ready to cut her monthly payment to me in half from $27 to $13.50 based on my stupid "fairness idea". Now I realize, thanks to you guys, she needs to pay me $33, and later possibly $52.80 as we drop secondary coverage on a few of my wife's kids.

I'm curious... to the people who cried "WHY SHOULD SHE PAY FOR YOUR STEP CHILDREN!!!!"... How does your method look now?

Eagerly awaiting those same people who berated me for not adhering to the rule to start figuring out weird math of their own to justify a lower payment for my ex.

All of that is really silly because its easy to verify the children's portion of the premium...and if you try to say its not, the judge will slam you. Its the children's portion that is divided by the number of children covered. Sure, you can choose not to insure three of her children and then only divide it by three instead of six, but the children's portion is still going to be divided by the number of children covered. You cannot include the cost of your or your wife's insurance in the division. I am pretty sure that you know that and are only saying that because the whole thing ticks you off.

Also, the word(s) that you want is/are "add on" not "adder".

I also really do not understand why this whole thing makes you so angry. Yes, people did get a bit snarky with you but only because you got snarky first...and because it was honestly difficult to see how you came up with your logic that your ex should continue to pay the same amount even when it covered a whole bunch of other children.

 

[Silverplum]

You misunderstand the purpose of this board.

 

[stealth2]

OP? Go pay a lawyer. You are done here.

ETA: LDi? Don't waste your time.

 

[Ohiogal]

Hey, I'm right here. Feel free to ask me what I have and have not thought of and try to avoid passive speculation from now on. If you want a lesson in why you should avoid such things, especially if you fancy yourself as someone qualified to offer mass amounts of advice to people (and judging by your post count, you do), then refer to my previous post in reply to tuffbrk, where you will find that what "you suspect" is dead wrong. Accusing me of wanting to "argue till the cows come home" simply because I didn't accept what you had to say as fact from the get-go, casting negative passive assumptions without asking questions and without any basis... Are you my ex? Holy hell, I bet you are.



Here's the rule...



I see some subjectivity in the rule (bolded) below, in that it seems resorting to pro rating by the number of persons covered is contingent upon not being able to verify what the costs are for the children in question (which I contend takes simple math). Subjectivity equals a judge making a ruling based on their opinion, and you are not the all-knower of how every judge would handle that. Even if I'm wrong there, fine, we'll do it your way...

BEFORE: I was splitting the difference between the "Employee Only" ($102/mo.) plan and the "Employee plus Children" ($156/mo.) plan with my ex.
156 - 102 = 54
54 / 2 = $27 (her share to pay to me a month)

NOW: Based on the fact that the premium I pay now for the "Family" plan ($264/mo.) does not allow for easy verification of what is being paid for each child (per the rule that you say a judge "simply WILL NOT" go against), I must divide that total by the "number of persons" it covers (my wife and I + my two kids + her four kids = 8 people) and prorate that.

264 / 8 = $33 (per covered person per month)
33 x 2 = $66 (cost per month of mine and my ex's two kids)
66 / 2 = $33 (her new share to pay me per month)

And the really cool thing about doing the way a judge "simply WILL NOT" go against, is that if we decide we don't really need to carry secondary insurance for her oldest son or her two daughters, we will only divide by 5, so...

264 / 5 = $52.80 (per cover person per month)
52.8 x 2 = $105.60 (cost per month of mine and my ex's two kids)
105.6 / 2 = $52.80 (her new share to pay me per month)

And here I was ready to cut her monthly payment to me in half from $27 to $13.50 based on my stupid "fairness idea". Now I realize, thanks to you guys, she needs to pay me $33, and later possibly $52.80 as we drop secondary coverage on a few of my wife's kids.

I'm curious... to the people who cried "WHY SHOULD SHE PAY FOR YOUR STEP CHILDREN!!!!"... How does your method look now?

Eagerly awaiting those same people who berated me for not adhering to the rule to start figuring out weird math of their own to justify a lower payment for my ex.

Let us do the actual math -- $264 -102 = 162. Divide that by 7 to get the per person family cost in addition to family and that = 23.14. You have two children -- she would pay half. She would pay $23.14 under the actual method and not your jackass way of doing math. This is regular math btw, not common core. You forgot to subtract the cost of covering YOURSELF before dividing by those left over. Sucks to be you. But yeah, you suck. She pays less. Too bad you don't understand logic ... let alone law. And if your current wife gets pregnant and you cover that child -- even less your ex pays.