What would the court say?

[therickman]

I'm in Dakota County in Minnesota.The Judgment and Decree states 'Respondent shall maintain in full force and effect all medical, hospitalization and dental insurance for the benefit of the minor children which she currently maintains through her employment or is available to her through any future employment. Petitioner and the Respondent shall each maintain dependent insurance for the benefit of the children as it is available to them.' What is your legal opinion of this meaning? The ex has not covered the children with medical insurance since she quit her job last May and moved out of state. She may or may not be working part time currently. She maintains she dose not have to cover the kids unless she is fully employed. I have asked her to split my insurance costs under my work's family plan. She states that's what she pays child support for. I say she is required to cover the kids and I'm offering to share my cost for her to meet that obligation. I'd like your legal opinion and personal opinion. Am I barking up the wrong tree here?

J&D also states that 'The parties have agreed to the direct payment of child support in lieu of automatic withholding. There are no arrears in support and the parties have arranged an acceptable alternative for payment.' Would there be any reason for me to not pursue utilizing Dakota County Community Services Child Support Enforcement and Collection Services? Thanks-Rick

 

[jyoung]

not sure what "dependent insurance" means but she is on
the hook for the medical, employed or not. The judge is not likely going to buy her argument and that she is not
living up to her end of the agreement. Go ahead and file a contempt motion against her which would force her to return
for a court hearing, she may get wise and pay up before having to explain herself to the judge.