Health Insurance Paid for by BOTH Parents?

[bounce847]

California
I was divorced in 2004. I have two children, both live with their mother. I pay child support every month, but today Child Support Services contacted my employer and demanded I add my children to my health insurance so they have coverage. The children have coverage through their mother; however, CSS says this doesn`t matter. They insist the father is still required to purchase health insurance for his children regardless. Please confirm this? It sounds outlandish to me!

 

[averad]

Dust off the divorce decree and see what it says. If you are required in the divorce to hold insurance on your children, well then you are required in the divorce to hold insurance on your children.

This is very common (at least on the accounts I manage).

Others may have more information.

 

[AmarieNorton]

Child Support Services contacted my employer and demanded I add my children to my health insurance so they have coverage.

They contacted your employer? Why wouldn't they contact you? This seems really weird....

 

[bounce847]

Health Insurance

I smell a scam. Why on earth would I have to buy insurance for my kids when they are already insured? Someone will make money off of this, but my kids won't benefit any more from it!
I have no clue why they contacted my employer and not me. Perhaps they wanted to see if my employer offers benefits?

 

[averad]

Did you choose not to read my post? You can take your tin foil hat off your head the Gov isn_t reading your brain waves and the insurance isn_t a conspiracy.

1)Why on earth would I have to buy insurance for my kids when they are already insured?
* I bet its because that Devorce you signed required it. Read my first post and check your Devorce decree and actually answer me instead of dribbling on about things you seem to not understand.

2) Someone will make money off of this
*So CSS is trying to get money for the Insurance carrier? Your insane CSS is there for the childrens interests not for Insurance kickbacks.

3)My kids won't benefit any more from it
*Actually they might if the primary policy pay less for something the secondary policy might pick up a portion of it. Its called coordination of benefits. You would have to call your insurance carrier or look at your benefit booklet to see how your plan would coordinate as a secondary coverage.

4) I have no clue why they contacted my employer and not me. Perhaps they wanted to see if my employer offers benefits?

Its common practice to contact an employer or Insurance carrier by mail or phone call. See some parents don_t really like to pay for their children and fail to answer the phone or letters. I bet CSS feels if you were going to add the children you would have already because your devorce is final. Since you have not enrolled your children CSS moves to who will listen and writes a letter quoting the laws and asks for the employer to enroll the children

The employer will usually forward the letter on to the insurance carrier and will enroll the children based on the information from CSS. CSS doesn_t just send out these requests willy nilly they do it because your divorce decree states it or your Ex got a order from the court.

To bad you will proibly fail to read this too.

 

[eme76]

read this and it might make more sence why csea is calling ...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=03001-04000&file=3750-3753

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=03001-04000&file=3760-3773

 

[bounce847]

Health

Averad, Why would I even bother to reply to your previous post? Based on the one you just posted, you're a complete idiot, as well as very arrogant. I prefer not to acknowledge people like you.
I came here for legal advice. If you are a lawyer, please know I wouldn't pay one red cent for yours simply because of your righteous attitude. You're probably trolling these sites because you have no business!
And if you're not a lawyer, don't quit your day job.

 

[bounce847]

Health

CA
For everyone else who responded, THANK YOU! Your time and ideas are greatly appreciated. I just received a call from a lawyer from this site and he was very helpful. FYI, I was right in that it's absolutely ridiculous for me to carry insurance when the kids are already covered.
As far as the insane CSS (as my good buddy Averad refers to them) they had no problem cleaning out my bank account because they thought I owed back child support. When they realized they made a mistake, I got no apology-- only the pleasure of waiting five weeks for them to give me back my money that they had no business taking in the first place.
So forgive me CSS for not instilling an everlasting faith and trust in your organization.

 

[averad]

CA
For everyone else who responded, THANK YOU! Your time and ideas are greatly appreciated. I just received a call from a lawyer from this site and he was very helpful. FYI, I was right in that it's absolutely ridiculous for me to carry insurance when the kids are already covered.
As far as the insane CSS (as my good buddy Averad refers to them) they had no problem cleaning out my bank account because they thought I owed back child support. When they realized they made a mistake, I got no apology-- only the pleasure of waiting five weeks for them to give me back my money that they had no business taking in the first place.
So forgive me CSS for not instilling an everlasting faith and trust in your organization.

My first post stated that your divorce papers most likely contain an agreement to hold insurance. You never reviewed the document and never posted back. Had you provided more information I could have possibly answered your question.

It is not ridiculous for you to carry insurance when the kids are already covered, many parents are required to in the divorce to carry insurance.

Let_s say Bob gets a divorce and Sue his now Ex covers the children on her works policy. Well in the divorce it was included that Bob would hold insurance until the child is 18. Now let_s say Bob loses his job and can_t provide insurance any longer well his divorce requires him to so he MUST take out an individual policy on the children until he can provide something else. I have seen this happen numerous times and enrolled many children onto policies whose fathers or mothers never failed to read what they signed.

Did the lawyer from this site ask you about your divorce and the paperwork you signed? If not how would anyone know what you agreed too or if you are required to hold insurance? You provided no information other then a personal opinion and a statement from CSS.

 

[ceara19]

I smell a scam. Why on earth would I have to buy insurance for my kids when they are already insured? Someone will make money off of this, but my kids won't benefit any more from it!
I have no clue why they contacted my employer and not me. Perhaps they wanted to see if my employer offers benefits?

It's not a scam. If you are ordered to provide insurance for the children, you have to provide insurance. It makes NO difference at all if the children are covered by another plan.

Providing insurance does NOT always mean that the children have to be put on your plan. Mom could put them on HER insurance and you can reimburse her for the cost.

 

[StewieGriffin]

(I didn't bother reading all of the responses, but...)

UMMM...OP, did you ever think that one will be primary insurance and the other will be secondary? Many parents have insurance coverage this way.

 

[tigger22472]

(I didn't bother reading all of the responses, but...)

UMMM...OP, did you ever think that one will be primary insurance and the other will be secondary? Many parents have insurance coverage this way.

I agree. My husband's decree stated that they both carried insurance.

If the decree states that the OP is to carry the insurance and the ex carries it, that is voluntary. As someone noted, he then has the choice of reimbursing his ex or carry his own. Although if the insurance is reasonable the kids and parents would benefit by having two companies.

 

[abstract99]

It makes NO difference at all if the children are covered by another plan.

Providing insurance does NOT always mean that the children have to be put on your plan. Mom could put them on HER insurance and you can reimburse her for the cost.

Not always true. What the first insurace company doesn't cover the second one can.

 

[ceara19]

Not always true. What the first insurace company doesn't cover the second one can.

What the insurance COVERS isn't the issue. The issue is, DAD thinks he shouldn't have to provide the child with ANY insurance because mom already has coverage. Legally, it doesn't matter if the child is already covered by another insurance company. If the court order says that DAD is to provide insurance, then he HAS to provide insurance. If mom is agreeable, he could reimburse her for the insurance the child already has. If she doesn't agree to it, he HAS to put the child on his insurance.

She's allowed to have additional insurance above what is ordered by the court at her own expense. The OP should be happy mom provides secondary insurance. It will do away with MOST out of pocket expenses.

 

[StewieGriffin]

What the insurance COVERS isn't the issue. The issue is, DAD thinks he shouldn't have to provide the child with ANY insurance because mom already has coverage. Legally, it doesn't matter if the child is already covered by another insurance company. If the court order says that DAD is to provide insurance, then he HAS to provide insurance. If mom is agreeable, he could reimburse her for the insurance the child already has. If she doesn't agree to it, he HAS to put the child on his insurance.

She's allowed to have additional insurance above what is ordered by the court at her own expense. The OP should be happy mom provides secondary insurance. It will do away with MOST out of pocket expenses.

In addition, the OP doesn't seem to realize a couple of other important (at least I would think most would consider them as such) factors:

- having secondary coverage means less out-of-pocket costs for everyone involved (usually)
- since insurance is considered child support, the amount it's costing him (the difference) should reflect in his monthly support obligation
- insurance coverage through his employer is PRE-tax.