Insurance Debate

[mrobison14]

I am divorced in Illinois, and am currently in a debate with my ex about health insurance for our two kids. The original court order states that she has enrolled them in a state funded plan called All Kids, and if that is no longer available then she is to enroll through her employer.

Last year I enrolled in a family plan with my new wife and baby, and since there was no additional charge I enrolled the kids from the first wife. There had been no issues with this as additional/secondary insurance until recently.

Now my ex is claiming that I must immediately cancel my plan because there are issues with the All Kids plan. She hasn't given me any real details other than her word that they are dropping the plan because of my insurance. She is threatening contempt charges based on the court order I referenced above. There is nothing in that order that prohibits additional insurance or me having the children covered under any other plan.

I am wondering if I should petition to modify the order to include my insurance going forward? Do I even have a chance of getting that through? Or, should I be worried about a contempt charge?

Due to my plan being a family plan, this would save both myself and my ex up to $300 a month; however she has refused to discuss this as an option.

Any advice on this is appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[Ohiogal]

I am divorced in Illinois, and am currently in a debate with my ex about health insurance for our two kids. The original court order states that she has enrolled them in a state funded plan called All Kids, and if that is no longer available then she is to enroll through her employer.

Last year I enrolled in a family plan with my new wife and baby, and since there was no additional charge I enrolled the kids from the first wife. There had been no issues with this as additional/secondary insurance until recently.

Now my ex is claiming that I must immediately cancel my plan because there are issues with the All Kids plan. She hasn't given me any real details other than her word that they are dropping the plan because of my insurance. She is threatening contempt charges based on the court order I referenced above. There is nothing in that order that prohibits additional insurance or me having the children covered under any other plan.

I am wondering if I should petition to modify the order to include my insurance going forward? Do I even have a chance of getting that through? Or, should I be worried about a contempt charge?

Due to my plan being a family plan, this would save both myself and my ex up to $300 a month; however she has refused to discuss this as an option.

Any advice on this is appreciated.

Thanks!

Tell her no. Your plan should actually be the PRIMARY plan if AllKids is the state funded/provided medicaid plan. Petition to modify the order. The children should NOT be on state funded insurance if other is available through a parent.

 

[stealth2]

It would make sense to have this change documented through the court - Mom is trying to follow the order, and I would bet that she would be considered in contempt if she's not providing coverage. Wether she's right or not.

 

[Ohiogal]

It would make sense to have this change documented through the court - Mom is trying to follow the order, and I would bet that she would be considered in contempt if she's not providing coverage. Wether she's right or not.

But mom can't force dad to drop coverage nor have dad found in contempt for providing it. I still believe that the issue is mom wants allkids listed as primary and the insurance can't be accepted as primary.

 

[Zigner]

Actually, this IS covered by the order. Allkids is no longer available since the kids are enrolled through an employer-sponsored plan by one of the parents.

 

[stealth2]

Actually, this IS covered by the order. Allkids is no longer available since the kids are enrolled through an employer-sponsored plan by one of the parents.

Which then requires Mom to pay for other insurance. Can she afford it? I bet not. So it would be best if the order is modified allowing Dad to provide coverage while not forcing Mom to get other insurance as well.

While double coverage is great, it's not always feasible. I can tell you that there was a period of time when my kids were covered exclusively by Dad, and I remained uncovered - because I simply could not afford coverage for myself, let alone the kids. I could see being panicked if the order required me to provide insurance for them, if state care wasn't available.

 

[Zigner]

Which then requires Mom to pay for other insurance. Can she afford it? I bet not. So it would be best if the order is modified allowing Dad to provide coverage while not forcing Mom to get other insurance as well.

I can agree with that. But, realistically, mom is not going to get "dinged" for this...

 

[stealth2]

I can agree with that. But, realistically, mom is not going to get "dinged" for this...

You know that, I know that. But does Mom? Does she trust Dad to not throw her under the bus? I don't know. I suspect not.

 

[Zigner]

You know that, I know that. But does Mom? Does she trust Dad to not throw her under the bus? I don't know. I suspect not.

If dad takes her to court for contempt, and mom walks in showing that the only reason that Allkids isn't available to her is because dad enrolled the kids in employer-sponsored insurance, then mom is NOT going to get dinged for contempt.

 

[stealth2]

Again. MOM may not understand that. And if Dad does take her to court, she may end up losing a day of work. The solution to all the angst would be simple enough - Dad files for a modification that he provides insurance, since he is now able to. Don't know why this is so complicated.

 

[Zigner]

Again. MOM may not understand that. And if Dad does take her to court, she may end up losing a day of work. The solution to all the angst would be simple enough - Dad files for a modification that he provides insurance, since he is now able to. Don't know why this is so complicated.

I'm not disagreeing with you Stealth - we're both saying the same thing.

 

[mrobison14]

It is still not clear if All Kids is actually cancelled or if they are now secondary to my plan through work. So if it is secondary, she would not have to get her own insurance. It's a technicallity, but is not what I am concerned with.

She is stating that I am in contempt for causing All Kids to be dropped. I am worried about court action on that.

She could afford her own insurance, and makes good money as a teacher. Somehow she got approved for this state plan and will not take my insurnace into consideration, even under these circumstances.

If a petition to modify from me is needed, I would not push for her to be held in contempt. She is just being difficult on this issue, and so far is not causing anything to be disrupted.

The court order does state that if All Kids is no longer available, that she is to get insurance through her employer. She can afford it, and that is an option if All Kids is indeed being dropped completely.

 

[tuffbrk]

I'm not understanding the problem. file with the court that you are now providing insurance, that there is no additional "cost" to you and, as such, the amount should not be calculated as part of CS (if it is currently) and that the responsibility for maintaining insurance is to be switched from Mom to you.

 

[mrobison14]

I'm not understanding the problem. file with the court that you are now providing insurance, that there is no additional "cost" to you and, as such, the amount should not be calculated as part of CS (if it is currently) and that the responsibility for maintaining insurance is to be switched from Mom to you.

The problem is that mom is being very difficult with this. I would be going in to court prose, and if I were to lose she is going to ask for lawyer fees from her end. This seems like it would be simple, but my ex is not being very reasonable. She would rather pay more to enroll them in her own insurance, than take advantage of the plan I am already in.

 

[cbg]

Unless the OP is currently in an open enrollment period, the whole thing is a moot point. He MAY NOT cancel coverage for either himself or any dependents unless (a) it is open enrollment or (b) he can provide written verification that the dependent(s) in question have JUST been enrolled in another plan. Showing that they have other coverage in effect is NOT enough - the coverage must be newly enrolled, generally within the last 30 days.

Unless Mom is able to get a court order REQUIRING that his employer-sponsored group plan remove the children as of x date, he's got to wait until either Open Enrollment or the children have an IRS-recognized qualifying event before he can take them off the plan.