• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Health insurance order sites Texas insurance code, please advise

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

TxPE2011

Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Tx

Hello

I am reviewing a 'rough' draft from opposing counsel.

The section I am needing help with concerns health insurance.

I have primary possession, child resides with me, father pays child support and has expanded possession. I offered to provide health insurance through my employer. Dad is reimbursing.

The order states these two sentences and I would like someone to explain 'what' it means. I've researched and it looks to me like opposing counsel copy and pasted the entire order from a divorce help website. It word for word the same.

This wording was not in our original decree which is dated 2007. Is this new? Is it mandatory? Neither of us are listed as 'custodial' or non custodial, I am managing conservator, he is possessory conservator.

Thanks

Further, For the sole purpose of section 1204.251 of the Texas Insurance Code, XXX is designated the managing conservator or the possessory conservator of the child. (the XXX is dad's name)
*
For the purpose of section 1169 of title 29 of the United States Code, the party not carrying the health insurance policy is designated the custodial parent and alternate recipient’s representative.
*What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 


mistoffolees

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Tx

Hello

I am reviewing a 'rough' draft from opposing counsel.

The section I am needing help with concerns health insurance.

I have primary possession, child resides with me, father pays child support and has expanded possession. I offered to provide health insurance through my employer. Dad is reimbursing.

The order states these two sentences and I would like someone to explain 'what' it means. I've researched and it looks to me like opposing counsel copy and pasted the entire order from a divorce help website. It word for word the same.

This wording was not in our original decree which is dated 2007. Is this new? Is it mandatory? Neither of us are listed as 'custodial' or non custodial, I am managing conservator, he is possessory conservator.

Thanks

Further, For the sole purpose of section 1204.251 of the Texas Insurance Code, XXX is designated the managing conservator or the possessory conservator of the child. (the XXX is dad's name)
*
For the purpose of section 1169 of title 29 of the United States Code, the party not carrying the health insurance policy is designated the custodial parent and alternate recipient’s representative.
*What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
The fact that it uses 'custodial parent' rather than 'possessory conservator' would indicate that it's not standard TX wording.

I don't think it adds anything, but it could create a conflict. For example, what happens if Dad starts carrying insurance instead of you (or what if you BOTH carry insurance - which is not that uncommon)? Do you really want the custodial parent to change because a different person carries insurance? Plus, it seems to create a conflict. You said that you are the primary possessory conservator. If you're providing insurance, this clause would make Dad the custodial parent - which seems contrary to what your agreement intends.

I would strike it out of the draft and tell the other attorney that you did so. Let them explain to you why the clause needs to be there (if there's a reason at all).
 

TxPE2011

Member
The fact that it uses 'custodial parent' rather than 'possessory conservator' would indicate that it's not standard TX wording.

I don't think it adds anything, but it could create a conflict. For example, what happens if Dad starts carrying insurance instead of you (or what if you BOTH carry insurance - which is not that uncommon)? Do you really want the custodial parent to change because a different person carries insurance? Plus, it seems to create a conflict. You said that you are the primary possessory conservator. If you're providing insurance, this clause would make Dad the custodial parent - which seems contrary to what your agreement intends.

I would strike it out of the draft and tell the other attorney that you did so. Let them explain to you why the clause needs to be there (if there's a reason at all).
I'm proofing 'for' my attorney. I read word for word and highlight what I do not agree with. This is the third draft.

Conflicting is the word I couldn't come up with.

Since neither of us are considered 'custodial' it does not make sense to use it for 'insurance purposes'

Most of the order seems to be 'fill in the blank' and she failed to 'fill in the blank' on most of it.

Thank you so much for helping me.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
I'm proofing 'for' my attorney. I read word for word and highlight what I do not agree with. This is the third draft.

Conflicting is the word I couldn't come up with.

Since neither of us are considered 'custodial' it does not make sense to use it for 'insurance purposes'
You could do that - but it is likely to be meaningless. The insurance companies will have their own rules and your court order can not override them.

Furthermore, 'custody' is not a major issue for most insurance policies. There is sometimes an issue with coordination of benefits, but that usually relies on birth dates of the parents rather than custody.

We're only speculating. I'd ask the attorney what the point is. Either it was a mistake or they had a good reason for putting it in.
 

Tex78704

Member
If he is a possessory conservator, you presumably have sole managing conservatorship.

Further, For the sole purpose of section 1204.251 of the Texas Insurance Code, XXX is designated the managing conservator or the possessory conservator of the child. (the XXX is dad's name)
If dad is already designated in the current order as a possessory conservator, the above statement is nonsense and completely unnecessary. This code applies to him whether he is a joint managing conservator or a possessory conservator.

Sec. 1204.251. PAYMENT TO CONSERVATOR OTHER THAN GROUP MEMBER.
(a) An insurer or group hospital service corporation operating under Chapter 842 that delivers, issues for delivery, or renews in this state a group accident and health insurance policy that provides coverage for a minor child who qualifies as a dependent of a group member may pay benefits on the child's behalf to a person who is not a group member if an order providing for the appointment of a possessory or managing conservator of the child has been issued by a court in this or another state.

(b) A person who is not a group member is entitled to be paid benefits under this section only if the person presents to the insurer or group hospital service corporation, with the claim application:
(1) written notice that the person is a possessory or managing conservator of the child on whose behalf the claim is made; and
(2) a certified copy of a court order designating the person as possessory or managing conservator of the child or other evidence designated by rule of the commissioner that the person is eligible for the benefits as this section provides.
Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1274, Sec. 3, eff. April 1, 2005.


...For the purpose of section 1169 of title 29 of the United States Code, the party not carrying the health insurance policy is designated the custodial parent and alternate recipient’s representative.
Dad's is currently the non-custodial parent.

While I do not have time to look further into this, from a cursory review of this Code it does not seem appropriate to ask the court to play games with the wording of an Order to try to circumvent the letter and intent of a U.S. Code. That code has requirements for both custodial and non-custodial parents.

You and your attorney should review this more carefully.
 

TxPE2011

Member
If he is a possessory conservator, you presumably have sole managing conservatorship.

If dad is already designated in the current order as a possessory conservator, the above statement is nonsense and completely unnecessary. This code applies to him whether he is a joint managing conservator or a possessory conservator.





Dad's is currently the non-custodial parent.

While I do not have time to look further into this, from a cursory review of this Code it does not seem appropriate to ask the court to play games with the wording of an Order to try to circumvent the letter and intent of a U.S. Code. That code has requirements for both custodial and non-custodial parents.

You and your attorney should review this more carefully.
Thank you so much!! This is what I did not understand. I read the entire section/blah blah, that's why I'm in accouting not a lawyer LOL completely lost me at Texas health insurance code. I've never googled so much in my LIFE!

What I'm reading from your response is that both sections should be removed as they do not apply to our situation.. Is that correct?

I know that usually the 'non custodial' or the child support obligor generally provides health insurance. But since I am the one that has employer provided health insurance, I am paying for it and dad is reimbursing me 1/4 of the premiums...

I am wondering if his attorney just made a mistake. This is her first case and we have found many mistakes in the order that have had to be fixed. I'm going over it with a fine tooth comb. I saw 'custodial parent' and it kind of concerned me. given our situation and the confusion that generally comes from dad and his misinterpretion of orders, he would see 'custodial parent' regardless of where it is listed and up and move our daughter to his home. I don't want to confuse the situation but it needs to be correct. (in my opinion)
 

Tex78704

Member
It is not standard wording, and unless there are any special circumstances in your case with regards to insurance, which does not appear to be so. I would just cross it out, and throw the ball back in the other attorneys court to explain why they feel it is necessary. Especially the US Code one.
 

TxPE2011

Member
It is not standard wording, and unless there are any special circumstances in your case with regards to insurance, which does not appear to be so. I would just cross it out, and throw the ball back in the other attorneys court to explain why they feel it is necessary. Especially the US Code one.
Thank you Tex. In a response I received today from my attorney's office, I was told 'good catch, I'll have it removed'

And THIS is why I love this Site.

Thanks
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top