Just a big mess

[Texas_P1]

What is the name of your state?TX

Middle of divorce, we have temp orders in place. Anyway, we married 11 years ago and at the time she had a 2 year old son. She moved out in May/05, leaving her son and our three girls with me. In Aug/05 she took her son back to live with her parents about 400 miles away. I have had no contact with him since then (as I am the big bad daddy now). Anyway our open enrollment was in Nov/05 and I had to make the decision whether to continue him on my health insurance. I was told by stbx that her parents were going to be adding him, and we discussed it no more. Anyway, yesterday she asked for his new ID card. I told her he didn't have one, I dropped him as he no longer lived with me, he is not a dependent of mine and that she said her parents were going to insure him. She FREAKED OUT! She went off on me like a noon whislte. How I was such a horrible father, that I could claim him on our taxes, but I couldn't cover him on my insurance, etc... She didn't seem to understand that he no longer lived with us (me), he was not legaly my dependent. etc.. She was furious and said that we are still married (of course she lives with her new fiance) and in the divorce paperwork that I couldn't drop, cancel insurance, etc... He is not involved in the divorce as he is not a child between us, only the 3 kids are listed. Am I in the wrong here? And, this is just the kind of little crap I deal with. We had a vaccum that I had bought, ended up taking it back as it didn't work that well. I asked my parents to buy me another type for Christamas. when she found out about this she wanted to know what I did with the money. How once again I wasn't allowed to sell anything, buy anything, return anything, etc... Even though I have a list from her of all the things she wanted from the house, that she took while I was out of town.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state?TX

Middle of divorce, we have temp orders in place. Anyway, we married 11 years ago and at the time she had a 2 year old son. She moved out in May/05, leaving her son and our three girls with me. In Aug/05 she took her son back to live with her parents about 400 miles away. I have had no contact with him since then (as I am the big bad daddy now). Anyway our open enrollment was in Nov/05 and I had to make the decision whether to continue him on my health insurance. I was told by stbx that her parents were going to be adding him, and we discussed it no more. Anyway, yesterday she asked for his new ID card. I told her he didn't have one, I dropped him as he no longer lived with me, he is not a dependent of mine and that she said her parents were going to insure him. She FREAKED OUT! She went off on me like a noon whislte. How I was such a horrible father, that I could claim him on our taxes, but I couldn't cover him on my insurance, etc... She didn't seem to understand that he no longer lived with us (me), he was not legaly my dependent. etc.. She was furious and said that we are still married (of course she lives with her new fiance) and in the divorce paperwork that I couldn't drop, cancel insurance, etc... He is not involved in the divorce as he is not a child between us, only the 3 kids are listed. Am I in the wrong here? And, this is just the kind of little crap I deal with. We had a vaccum that I had bought, ended up taking it back as it didn't work that well. I asked my parents to buy me another type for Christamas. when she found out about this she wanted to know what I did with the money. How once again I wasn't allowed to sell anything, buy anything, return anything, etc... Even though I have a list from her of all the things she wanted from the house, that she took while I was out of town.

Morally, I think you were in the wrong to do it prior to the divorce being final.....and certainly wrong to do it without specifically telling her that you were doing it and when.

Legally however, you may not be in the wrong....it all depends on the exact wording of your paperwork.

 

[Gadfly]

And your attorney told you. . . ?

 

[Texas_P1]

Morally, I think you were in the wrong to do it prior to the divorce being final.....and certainly wrong to do it without specifically telling her that you were doing it and when.

Legally however, you may not be in the wrong....it all depends on the exact wording of your paperwork.

What moral law did I break? And, he was taken away from me and his sisters. If she wants her parents to be responsibile for him, the do it! She can'thave it both ways. They wanted to get it so that hey would be responsible to me for nothing. I just helped them along a bit. And legally, there is nothing written in anywhere concerning him, he is legally not part of this equatation. And legally on my end I could lose my job since I work for said insurer and when they say that all his claims were from a city 400 miles away they would question. So, back to the moral law, I decided no to lie, plus, not to commit insurance fraud.

 

[ceara19]

Why wasn't HIS FATHER required to carry insurance on him. That is the standard set-up. I have to disagree, LDiJ, I don't think he has any sort of moral obligation towards this child. His obligation is to HIS children. In cases of divorce when there are children and step-children involved, sometimes what is best for YOUR child is contridictory to the step-child's best interests. No matter how much you love a step child, even when it is as much as your own children, sometimes you HAVE to take the hard road.

 

[LdiJ]

Why wasn't HIS FATHER required to carry insurance on him. That is the standard set-up. I have to disagree, LDiJ, I don't think he has any sort of moral obligation towards this child. His obligation is to HIS children. In cases of divorce when there are children and step-children involved, sometimes what is best for YOUR child is contridictory to the step-child's best interests. No matter how much you love a step child, even when it is as much as your own children, sometimes you HAVE to take the hard road.

He took on the responsibility of insuring the child. Anyone who takes on the responsibility of insuring a child has a moral obligation, in my opinion, to at least attempt to make sure that the child is covered by another source before discontinuing that coverage....and at least warning the other party that he/she is discontinuing the coverage. That is simply my opinion on a moral level.

Plus, he was ordered not to cancel the insurance coverage on his wife and the kids, but took advantage of a loophole that I doubt the judge intended for there to be available to him. So I am not at all sure that he is off the hook legally.

 

[Texas_P1]

He took on the responsibility of insuring the child. Anyone who takes on the responsibility of insuring a child has a moral obligation, in my opinion, to at least attempt to make sure that the child is covered by another source before discontinuing that coverage....and at least warning the other party that he/she is discontinuing the coverage. That is simply my opinion on a moral level.

Plus, he was ordered not to cancel the insurance coverage on his wife and the kids, but took advantage of a loophole that I doubt the judge intended for there to be available to him. So I am not at all sure that he is off the hook legally.

Yes, I took on "all" responsibilty as I was and am the only father he has ever know as he was only 2 when his mother and I meet. The bio-dad was never inthe picture and wanted nothing todo with him. He is now 14. And, I had not heard or seen him since August 12th. Her aprents make at least 200k betwen them, they have always fought to have him back as they were the ones who raised him thos frist 2 yeas. This is the greatest thing for them, they were adding him to his military insurance so that he could travel the world with them. And there is no "loophole" I believe, as I said he is not a part of the divorce, he is not listed. The mother sent him away as she always wanted to do and I always wanted to hold the family together.

 

[ceara19]

He took on the responsibility of insuring the child. Anyone who takes on the responsibility of insuring a child has a moral obligation, in my opinion, to at least attempt to make sure that the child is covered by another source before discontinuing that coverage....and at least warning the other party that he/she is discontinuing the coverage. That is simply my opinion on a moral level.

Plus, he was ordered not to cancel the insurance coverage on his wife and the kids, but took advantage of a loophole that I doubt the judge intended for there to be available to him. So I am not at all sure that he is off the hook legally.

I don't think he saw it a a loophole. It sounds as if he was worried about getting into trouble with the insurance company. The child no longer lived with him. If the child no longer met the insuance company's the requirements of a qualified dependent, then dad did what was right, legally AND morally. Had the insurance company found out he could have been subject to EVERYONE'S insurance being canceled. Then mom really would have pitched a fit!!

 

[stealth2]

At the very lease, the "right" thing to do would have been inform Mom of your actions at the time that you took the kid off the insurance. Legal or not, it does make you look like a "donkey".

 

[bononos]

Morally...your taking spite out on the kid for your issues with mom.
What if the child had an accident or got very ill. Her not knowing there was no insurance would have meant that a pre-existing condition would not be covered when she found out and tried to get her own insurance.
THANK GOD THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
That's a moral side of it.

 

[Kane]

Morally, the child is her child, and she's responsible to make sure he's insured.

Legally, the OP stated the only the children of the marriage were included in the divorce paperwork, which indicates that he had to legal obligation to insure him.

Given that she took the child out of his home and to another state, and that he couldn't continue to insure the child through his job even if he wanted to, the child's mother (and/or the child's father) should have made sure the child had insurance.

Just because he's the closest male around who happens to have a steady paycheck, doesn't mean she can take the child out of his house so she can move in with her new boyfriend, and continue to expect him to pay the bills.

 

[bononos]

Morally, the child is her child, and she's responsible to make sure he's insured.
Very True...I didn't say she was in the right.
Legally, the OP stated the only the children of the marriage were included in the divorce paperwork, which indicates that he had to legal obligation to insure him.
Legally. NO, he didn't. But again, morally, he just up and takes him off without telling mom even though he had the child on the policy for 6 months since she left. Morally, he should have informed her when he removed the child. Again, screw the kid out of spite!

Given that she took the child out of his home and to another state, and that he couldn't continue to insure the child through his job even if he wanted to, the child's mother (and/or the child's father) should have made sure the child had insurance.
So, take the problems and issues with the adults out on the children. Screw the kids to get back! That's morally wrong on both parties.

Just because he's the closest male around who happens to have a steady paycheck, doesn't mean she can take the child out of his house so she can move in with her new boyfriend, and continue to expect him to pay the bills.

Let me ask this question, is the insurance any less now that the child is removed? Most policies are the same amount no matter how many dependants there are.
But not to mention, the child continued to be covered and then you suddenly took him off WITHOUT telling her.

Either way, this is no longer a legal issue. You don't have to cover the kid, that's it, but I can see why she's upset in not knowing ahead of time, then she could have applied for new insurance and hopefully avoid a lapse from end of your coverage to beginning of new.

No one was responsible here.