23.06.2014 Views

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

§ 4-215. <strong>Child</strong>(ren)‟s health insurance, nonreimbursed health care expenses, and cash<br />

medical support in Title IV-D cases.<br />

. . .<br />

(C) Cash Medical <strong>Support</strong> and Health Care Costs for Title IV-D Cases Only.<br />

(i) All child support orders in the Title IV-D program must address how the parties will<br />

provide for the child(ren)’s health care needs through health care coverage and/or through<br />

cash medical support. Cash medical support or the cost of private health insurance is<br />

considered reasonable in cost if the cost to the party responsible for providing medical<br />

support for the child(ren) does not exceed 3 percent of his or her gross income. In applying<br />

the 3-percent standard, the cost is the cost of adding the child(ren) to existing health care<br />

coverage or the difference between self-only and family health care coverage. Cash medical<br />

support payment shall not be ordered if, at the time that the order is issued or modified, the<br />

responsible party’s income is, or such expense would reduce the responsible party’s net<br />

income, below the basic subsistence limitation provided in § 4-218. If a court orders a parent<br />

to pay cash medical support, it shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, requiring the parent<br />

to also pay reimbursement for reasonable and necessary children's health care costs as set<br />

forth in subsection (B), above.<br />

(ii) The amount of cash medical support ordered in the case shall be prorated between the<br />

parents. When worksheet 1 is used, it shall be added to the monthly support from line 7, then<br />

prorated between the parents to arrive at each party’s share of monthly support on line 10 of<br />

worksheet 1. The parent paying the cash medical support receives a credit against his or her<br />

share of the monthly support.<br />

See also federal rules and regulations for Qualified Medical <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Orders<br />

(QMCSO) at 29 U.S.C. 1169(a). Every employer group health plan must honor a properly<br />

prepared QMCSO that requires a plan participant to provide coverage for a dependent child.<br />

(See 29 U.S.C. 1169(a)) A child may no longer be denied insurance coverage due to the child<br />

residing in another state from the insuring parent, or the child not being listed on the parent’s<br />

federal income tax return, for example.<br />

Note: § 44-3,146 (2) i provides that funds deducted from an employee’s paycheck for the<br />

cost of dependent health insurance coverage must stand in line behind monies withheld pursuant<br />

to a standard withholding order for child support. If there is not enough income to go around,<br />

the health insurance stops. You can take steps to prevent this from happening in instances<br />

where having dependent health insurance coverage is more important to the custodial parent than<br />

receiving child support.<br />

CHERAMIE V. HAFEMAN, Neb. Court of Appeals. Filed June 9, 2009. No. A-08-882.<br />

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT<br />

BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E). While this case<br />

may not be cited as authority, it is the only case I have found that addresses whether<br />

“medical expenses” includes “dental expenses”. It may provide a cautionary tale to<br />

order drafters….if you are going to spell out what any dependent medical coverage includes,<br />

you better spell out everything it includes.<br />

We determine that the term ―medical expenses‖ as used in the agreement is clear and<br />

unambiguous. Where the language used in the agreement is unambiguous, we are<br />

bound to consider such language from the four corners of the agreement itself, and what<br />

the parties thought the agreement meant is irrelevant. Strunk v. Chromy-Strunk, 270<br />

Neb. 917, 708 N.W.2d 821 (2006), citing Klinginsmith v. Wichmann, 252 Neb. 889,<br />

567 N.W.2d 172 (1997)<br />

- 84 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!