Subpoena Social Security Statement????

[SingleMom67]

That's interesting. I have never heard that before. I was hoping that since the law was written that the burden of insurance is placed on the non-custodial parent, that alone might start a case. Plus, he is responsible for paying the majority of the cost of all medical expenses in excess of $250, shouldn't he have more control? Plus, ever since she switched to her insurance, she has been a nightmare submitting costs for reimbursement to the court. My husband has been unable to work it out with providers directly because his name is not on any of the records. (even though the custody agreement requires her to do this) Her reputation is so bad with the court about the insurance that they have in the record to investigate any claims she makes about medical bills before they act. Will that help at all?

Both plans are national Blue Cross plans so the difference in state would not change anything. My company plan is acutally through Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas!!!

There is no law that says the burden of insurance is placed on the non-custodial parent. Here's the PA Statute:

§4326. Mandatory inclusion of child medical support.
(a) General rule.--In every proceeding to establish or modify an order which requires the payment of child support, the court shall ascertain the ability of each parent to provide health care coverage for the children of the parties, and the order shall provide health care coverage for each child as appropriate.

(b) Noncustodial parent requirement.--If health care coverage is available at a reasonable cost to a noncustodial parent on an employment-related or other group basis, the court shall require that the noncustodial parent provide such coverage to the children of the parties. In cases where there are two noncustodial parents having such coverage available, the court shall require one or both parents to provide coverage.

(c) Custodial parent requirement.--If health care coverage is available at a reasonable cost to a custodial parent on an employment-related or other group basis, the court shall require that the custodial parent provide such coverage to the children of the parties, unless adequate health care coverage has already been provided through the noncustodial parent. In cases where the parents have shared custody of the child and coverage is available to both, the court shall require one or both parents to provide coverage, taking into account the financial ability of the parties and the extent of coverage available to each parent.

So, what that means is that your husband should have fought the coverage being moved to her insurance provider. Now that it's switched to the ex-wife, he is "presumed" (and I say that lightly) to have the financial ability to pay it.

 

[SingleMom67]

I disagree with Singlemom. Either parent or both can be ordered to provide medical coverage for their children. If they both can, that's even better. But usually, the parent who has access to AFFORDABLE insurance is the one that's ordered to provide it -- unless both parents agree otherwise.

He can always request a health insurance modification -- but he should also look to see how much the cost is that is factored into her monthly child support obligation. He should also use her history as well, since it is documented in the courts.

I agree, but his time to fight the switch was the last hearing. Now that it is switched, he's going to have a hard time getting it switched back.

 

[CJane]

Support is through PA. Custody through MO.

Why? Did mom move to MO and have the custody case transferred? Did Dad move to PA? Are you SURE that support is based on PA guidelines and not just administered through PA?

 

[GrowUp!]

I agree, but his time to fight the switch was the last hearing. Now that it is switched, he's going to have a hard time getting it switched back.

You are wrong. Period. I suggest you go back and re-read very, very carefully the language in the statute you posted. If it is even applicable. Even if it's not, you're still wrong on the principle of your response.

 

[SingleMom67]

You are wrong. Period. I suggest you go back and re-read very, very carefully the language in the statute you posted. If it is even applicable. Even if it's not, you're still wrong on the principle of your response.

On what legal bases? Or are you just spouting again.

 

[GrowUp!]

On what legal bases? Or are you just spouting again.

So did you re-read the g-damned statute you quoted? Or is that too freaking difficult for you because you can not read and comprehend? If I have to skool you further, I am charging you.

 

[SingleMom67]

So did you re-read the goddamned statute you quoted? Or is that too freaking difficult for you? If I have to skool you further, I am charging you.

Aww, what's the matter sunshine, off your meds again today?

 

[GrowUp!]

Aww, what's the matter sunshine, off your meds again today?

So answering "yes" or "no" is too difficult for you, too huh? Cleaning the clocks of dumb broads like you is too damn easy.

So, re-read the statute you quoted and educate yourself. Then come back and tell us what you learned. And if you are wrong, you'll be corrected, BITTERSInglemom.

 

[GrowUp!]

Hey Bittersinglemom...when you return, here is the key language in the statute (and most statutes) that applies to BOTH parents:

If health care coverage is available at a reasonable cost

Key words are bolded and "reasonable cost" is usually determined either by a specified percentage of income or by calculation.

So when you stated "Now that it is switched, he's going to have a hard time getting it switched back", you were wrong. Again.

 

[SingleMom67]

So answering "yes" or "no" is too difficult for you, too huh? Cleaning the clocks of dumb broads like you is too damn easy.

So, re-read the statute you quoted and educate yourself. Then come back and tell us what you learned. And if you are wrong, you'll be corrected, BITTERSInglemom.

You're making me laugh! Go read Maher v. Maher, 575 Pa. 181, 835 A.2d 1281 (2003) and 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4321. Come back and tell me what it says. We'll see who educates whom.

Oh, BTW, how are the twins?

 

[SingleMom67]

And to further nip this in the bud....

To answer OP's initial question, "Can the Social Security Statement be subpoenaed?" The answer is:

From the PA Code:
Rule 1930.5. Discovery in Domestic Relations Matters.
(a) There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection from Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of court.