Child Support when potential NCP is disabled

[LdiJ]

While I agree with what everyone else is saying, you did slap your son and you admit that. Slapping a teenager (or child) these days is absolutely not appropriate parenting. Yes, I agree with everyone else that mom is not doing a good job of parenting, but you cannot overlook the fact that you DID slap your son.

You are going to have to own up to that in court. Otherwise, all of the rest of it will get overlooked because the focus will be on you physically abusing your son. You need to be saying something along the lines that you have never hit your son before, but in your extreme worry about him abusing drugs you lost it. You need to convince the courts that it was a one off that will never happen again, so that the focus can be on what is happening now and why its in your son's best interest to be in your primary custody rather than mom's.

 

[gryndor]

Once Respondent, always Respondent? Or...?

I’m filling out my Statement if Issues and Contentions form and I’m wondering if I’m the Petitioner or the Respondent. If I was listed as the Repondent before in previous actions (anything to do with the divorce, from the original divorce to the hearing that was on May 23rd of this year in regards to custody, has been under the same case number) am I always the Respondent?

Or if I file this statement of issues in advance of the scheduled trial, and file this before the other party, is my position changed? Tomorrow is the last day to file and my ex hasn’t filed her statement of issues yet. I don’t want the date to pass and this get delayed or thrown out without a conclusion.

 

[LdiJ]

Once Respondent, always Respondent? Or...?

I’m filling out my Statement if Issues and Contentions form and I’m wondering if I’m the Petitioner or the Respondent. If I was listed as the Repondent before in previous actions (anything to do with the divorce, from the original divorce to the hearing that was on May 23rd of this year in regards to custody, has been under the same case number) am I always the Respondent?

Or if I file this statement of issues in advance of the scheduled trial, and file this before the other party, is my position changed? Tomorrow is the last day to file and my ex hasn’t filed her statement of issues yet. I don’t want the date to pass and this get delayed or thrown out without a conclusion.

Yes, while under that case number you are always the respondent.

 

[gryndor]

Yes, while under that case number you are always the respondent.

Thank you

 

[gryndor]

So after all that, I filed as the Respondent. The Petitioner, my ex wife, filed as the Respondent as well. Is this going to screw anything up?

 

[gryndor]

Dad here again with an update. The hearing was on the 10th. It shook out with the following orders - Legal custody to remain 50/50, with our son living with mom until ordered reunification therapy (to happen not less than once a month) determines otherwise... with step-mom included (because it was apparent to the judge that this was a strong family unit including step-mom to mom relationships prior to all this). Son's individual therapy (to happen not less than once a month) to happen as well. Mom was reamed for providing our son with all the court documents, and allowing him to act based on their contents, and told that she was no longer to include our child in the mom-dad-court relationship. We were also ordered to Co-Parenting Classes again (in person, no online courses). There were other minor things, but that's the bulk of it. Oh, and we have a follow-up court date in six months to see what, if any, progress has happened.

As an aside, our family (through my wife's work) has Kaiser (which includes both my sons) but Kaiser won't touch reunification therapy with a ten foot pole. Mom has medicare, but she doesn't seem inclined to find someone in-network. Is there a magic word to make Kaiser cover this, either in- or out-of-network?

 

[LdiJ]

As an aside, our family (through my wife's work) has Kaiser (which includes both my sons) but Kaiser won't touch reunification therapy with a ten foot pole. Mom has medicare, but she doesn't seem inclined to find someone in-network. Is there a magic word to make Kaiser cover this, either in- or out-of-network?

I don't think that Medicaid, (impossible that mom has Medicare insurance that covers the children) would cover reuinification therapy either.

 

[gryndor]

I don't think that Medicaid, (impossible that mom has Medicare insurance that covers the children) would cover reuinification therapy either.

I’m sorry, I get those mixed up all the time. I imagine that if our son has Kaiser he shouldn’t even be on Medicaid, but that seems like a thing to leave alone at this point.

And I wonder if there’s a liability issue that no one wants to cover this... maybe just too much of a PITA.

 

[stealth2]

I’m sorry, I get those mixed up all the time.

Here's how I remember the difference:

We (Medi)CARE for the elderly, but we (Medic)AID the poor.

 

[cbg]

Kaiser won't touch reunification therapy with a ten foot pole. Mom has medicare, but she doesn't seem inclined to find someone in-network. Is there a magic word to make Kaiser cover this, either in- or out-of-network?

No. If it's excluded, it's excluded. Barring a state law that expressly states that reunification therapy must be covered (and in 40 years of working with health insurance I have yet to hear of such a law), Kaiser has no obligation to pay anything that it is not stated in the policy that they will pay. There are no magic words, no legal actions, and no set of actions you can use that will force them to pay for something that is not included in the policy.

 

[LdiJ]

Here's how I remember the difference:

We (Medi)CARE for the elderly, but we (Medic)AID the poor.

I am going to adjust that slightly. We, (Medi)Care are for the elderly and singaly disabled, but we (Medic)AID are for the poor and their children.

 

[Pinkie39]

I’m sorry, I get those mixed up all the time. I imagine that if our son has Kaiser he shouldn’t even be on Medicaid, but that seems like a thing to leave alone at this point.

And I wonder if there’s a liability issue that no one wants to cover this... maybe just too much of a PITA.

It's not uncommon or non allowable for someone to have both private health insurance and Medicaid. Medicaid is always considered secondary insurance. So the private health insurance will pay out first on any claims, and then Medicaid will cover any remaining balance.

 

[stealth2]

I am going to adjust that slightly. We, (Medi)Care are for the elderly and singaly disabled, but we (Medic)AID are for the poor and their children.

Yeah, but that's not as easy to remember.